WHAT THE EU TREATY OF LISBON DOES(legally accurate).

[Sub-X]

Nigel Farage - Request of Motion of censure

Jens-Peter Bonde - Strategic guidelines/Legislative and work programme for 2005

Nigel Farage - Impressions on the new European Commission (1)

Nigel Farage - Impressions on the new European Commission (2)

[Sub-X]

CONFERENCE OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES Brussels, 3 December 2007

[Sub-X]

Militarism and the EU
http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/7

The Lisbon Treaty would further militarise the EU. It calls for increased military spending by all member states and requires them to make facilities available for EU military activity. It reinforces EU-NATO links. It allows a sub-group of states to form a military alliance within the EU and in cooperation with US-dominated NATO; non-participating states would not share in its discussions and not vote on its decisions.

This alliance could be set up without a referendum here. The Treaty widens the range of reasons to justify EU military interventions abroad. It would integrate Irish forces into EU military structures and planning, which are dominated by states with colonial histories and use military force for political-economic ends. All member states must pay towards the costs of militarisation.

Neutrality in the gutter

Irish neutrality – meaning we don’t participate in military alliances or allow our territory to be used by belligerents involved in war – has been thrown into the gutter. Our political elite have allowed over one million US troops use Shannon going to and from the US colony in Iraq. This contravenes international law on neutrality (Hague Convention, 1907). Likewise they refuse to search US planes en route to illegal secret prisons, for example in Poland, Romania and Egypt –carrying prisoners to these torture centres.

Irish troops are to take part in a French-dominated EU intervention into the conflict in Chad, ostensibly to provide security for refugees. For us the well being of ordinary people is paramount. While this is a UN-authorised mission, France – as the former colonial power - has been giving military support to the dictatorial regime in Chad that has rigged elections and used child soldiers. Beneath humanitarian concerns lies a French desire to maintain western influence over the oil and uranium of the region. In the eyes of local people, Irish troops are likely to be indistinguishable from French forces, hated in much of Africa for their brutal colonial history.

The Lisbon Treaty would facilitate more controversial EU military activity of this kind, since the militarily dominant states are former colonial powers. If we are to reclaim the tradition of Irish neutrality and keep Irish troops out of wars that have a neo-colonial motivation, we must reject this treaty.

What would the treaty do?

The public debate surrounding the Lisbon Treaty has included calls by German chancellor Angela Merkel for the creation of a European army. The president of France also advocates stronger EU military links, and last year his foreign minister said on French TV: “We must prepare for war with Iran.” (September 17th, 2007)

The new treaty would extend the existing Petersberg Tasks, a list of military and security tasks to be carried out by the EU’s civilian and military forces. It says the common security and defence policy shall include “joint disarmament operations, military advice and assistance tasks and post-conflict stabilisation. All these tasks may contribute to the fight against terrorism, including by supporting third countries in combating terrorism in their territories” (Art 28B).

So who is to be disarmed and what kind of governments would be put into power through post-conflict stabilisation? How would this be decided?

The new foreign minister, who is also a vice-president of the commission, would chair the meetings of the foreign ministers of the member states and lead EU foreign policy. The European Council (heads of state) would decide the overall approach, on a proposal from the foreign minister. S/he would then make a proposal on what exactly should be done, who to disarm or to support, to the Council of (Defence) Ministers. They would give the foreign minister the go-ahead by unanimous agreement. So the foreign minister would have a very powerful and central role compared to the intergovernmental process at present.

The EU’s military policy is made in accordance with its foreign policy (Art 10a), which includes the policies on international trade. The EU’s trade policy is to remove barriers to international trade, foreign direct investment, customs and other barriers (Art 188c – see section on trade justice). Given that this is the way the EU promotes European interests overseas, wouldn’t EU forces intervening abroad inevitably take the side of those who accept the EU’s approach to trade and allow European companies easy access to their countries’ resources? Such “free trade” doesn’t usually benefit the poor.

The fight against terrorism (Art 28B) is not politically neutral either. It can be used to justify political-military action against people, movements or governments. It is a very questionable reason to use military force in another country.

No UN mandate

The EU, like the US, does not see itself as being bound by the necessity of securing a UN mandate before dispatching its military forces abroad. Nowhere in the new treaty is it mentioned that a UN mandate is needed to authorise an EU military intervention. Under this treaty, an Irish government could participate in planning, training and oversight of EU military activities, even when no UN mandate was in place. But the Government might maintain the illusion of support for the UN by not actually sending Irish troops to the field of battle.


Structured co-operation

The new treaty would institutionalise the idea of permanent structured cooperation (Art 28). This allows military alliances of those member states that want to set up a joint force, in the situation where some states do not agree to an EU army. The sub-group can go ahead anyway, operating within the EU framework, provided they have the military capability for more demanding missions (polite words for war). This EU force will act in accordance with the principle of a single set of forces. In effect this would be an EU army.

The protocol on structured co-operation declares: “The common security and defence policy of the union respects the obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty ... and is compatible with ... that framework: ... a more assertive union role ... will contribute to the vitality of a renewed Atlantic Alliance, in accordance with the Berlin Plus arrangements (the sharing of EU and NATO military assets) ...”. According to the government's Forum on Europe, “the Treaty will...allow for those Member States with bigger military capabilities to commit to taking part together in the most demanding missions within the external tasks listed …. Only the Member States taking part in this arrangement would be allowed to debate and vote in the Council on any action proposed under this pact”.

We agree with this assessment of Art 28. The treaty would allow this subgroup to form its own military alliance within the EU framework, working in consultation with the EU foreign minister and aligned to NATO. The states outside this alliance would have no say in what it did but would be affected by the consequences of the sub-group’s military actions. And all states would help pay for it through their contribution to EU military funds.

The treaty would reinforce the EU commitment to work within NATO planning, the core of which is the commitment to first use of nuclear weapons.


Military spending – all states pay

Whatever our level of participation, the Irish taxpayer will have to pay toward the cost of militarisation (Art 28). The treaty also stipulates that “all member states shall undertake to progressively improve their military capabilities”. Increased military spending is a requirement of the treaty, unlike health or education. And we are required “to make civilian and military capabilities available for the implementation of EU … defence policy” (Art 28).

The new treaty would set up an EU foreign affairs department employing thousands of personnel. Thus there would be a large and powerful group of people committed to institutionalising an EU foreign, security and defence policy rather than an independent Irish foreign, security and defence policy. An EU military committee has already been established to co-ordinate EU military activity, as has an EU defence agency (EDA).

Establishing an EU army would be helped by the new treaty, which says that a common EU defence policy “will lead” to common defence, instead of Nice’s previous “might lead” to common defence – if all heads of state agree (Art 28A). Such a move should require a referendum here. An EU armed force, however, would be established through “permanent structured cooperation”.

The EU already agreed in 2003 to establish a military force of 60,000 to go anywhere in the world within 60 days. Establishing this de facto EU army did not progress as rapidly as planned and the smaller battle groups were devised.The 13 battle groups consist of 1,500-2,500 well-armed soldiers capable of high intensity operations (war), and able to go anywhere in the world within 15 days of agreement by the EU Council of Ministers.

The Irish Army has been integrated into the Nordic battle group, which includes Sweden, Norway, Finland and Estonia. Since Norway and Estonia are already in NATO, the Finnish foreign minister is advocating that Finland join NATO and the Swedish army is training with NATO, the battle groups are effectively an extension of the EU-US military. The Nordic battle group will be operational in 2008.

The tasks given to the EU battle groups include “joint disarmament operations, the support for third countries in combating terrorism and security sector reform. The EU must be able to act before a crisis occurs and undertake preventive engagements”.
 

Mutual defence

Also new in the treaty, the mutual defence and assistance clause in Art 28 says: “If a member state is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other member states shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all means in their power, in accordance with Article 52 of the UN Charter.” Elsewhere in the treaty, Art 188R, the solidarity clause, says the same.

This could be used to demand support for another EU state invading a country said to harbour terrorists, just as the US demanded and got support in the case of Afghanistan. These clauses make clear the EU’s commitment to collective defence and military action on a very broad basis. They may be seen by supporters of an EU army as a commitment to drawing up a common defence clause
for the EU.
 

Current strategy

The current EU security strategy (EUSS) is the same as president Bush’s doctrine of preventive war. It says: “Our traditional concept of self-defence … was based on the threat of invasion. With the new threats, the first line of defence will often be abroad … We should be ready to act before a crisis occurs.”

The EUSS says these threats cannot be countered by purely military means. This has raised the possibility of humanitarian aid being used by the EU as a tool in war, a concern raised by Concord, a pan-European federation of over 1,200 development NGOs. It is still not clear if the new foreign minister will control the budget for development aid. If humanitarian aid was linked to military interventions, it would increasingly put at risk the lives of aid workers from Concern, Trocaire, Oxfam and other NGOs, since the victims of US or EU imperialist military operations would see no real difference between their soldiers and civilians.
 

Consequences for Ireland

This treaty has serious military consequences for all EU states, especially once-neutral Ireland. It is another significant step toward the creation of a European superstate with imperial politics. It gives increased military powers to an EU political elite who refuse to hold referendums to consult the people of the states from whom they claim to derive their power. Meanwhile, some EU states actively support, and the others accept, president Bush’s invasion, conquest and occupation of Iraq in order to gain US control of Iraqi oil, and to consolidate US-Zionist military domination of the Middle East.

It is the same EU political elite that cut off all aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA) because they did not like they way they voted in a democratic election, and that refused to call for a ceasefire when Israel invaded Lebanon. This EU elite will drag the peoples of the EU deeper and deeper into wars that they cannot win.

The Irish people fought a war of independence against British rule. As a consequence we were able to adopt our own Constitution. Article 6 declares that all power derives from the Irish people. The Irish political elite have been willing to abandon the powers enshrined in our Constitution without consulting the people. They bitterly opposed Raymond Crotty, who brought a case to the Supreme Court in 1986 to ensure a referendum every time power is transferred from the Irish state to the EU.

That’s the only reason we have a say in what they want to do now: transfer even more powers to the EU. If we fought so hard for independence from the British empire, why should we now partake in a military alliance of wealthy and powerful neo-colonial states? What is the difference between the role Irish soldiers would play in EU battle groups, in the eyes of people with whom they come into conflict, and the role they played in the army that ruled the British empire?

What the EU elite have on offer is an increasingly imperialist Europe. We know this from the words of the president of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso:

“Sometimes I like to compare the EU as a creation to the organisation of an empire.”

[Sub-X]

Big Business Before People
http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/8

The Lisbon Treaty would make privatisation of our health service easier. For users of the public system, equal access would become even more remote than it is today.

Reinforcing competition, via the treaty, would do little for the unemployed and poor, especially in eastern Europe. The EU is forcing people in
wealthier regions to compete with the poor and jobless in a race to the bottom. The EU, and the EEC before it, has sought to create conditions that help big business to operate in an unrestricted Europe-wide market.

This is the aim of the oft-repeated EU policy: “an open market economy with free competition” in Art 105 TFEU. Protocol six of the new treaty states: “The internal market as set out in Article [1-3] ... includes a system ensuring that competition is not distorted.” Article 1-3 is about the objectives of the EU. Competition is one of the EU’s organising principles and is the framework for all other policies.

Since the 1980s the EU has also moved to restructure essential public services such as water and sanitation, public transport, energy, post and telecoms as private businesses. And now, health, education and social care systems are in focus. Neo-liberalism is EU policy, and it is pushed further by this renamed constitution.
 

Profiting from health services

The policy of EU treaties, the European Commission, and many European governments is to commercialise public services. Flowing from competition policy, the commission forces state providers to compete with private companies in the supply of public services. The services industry lobby, European Services Forum, works for this in Brussels. Why? Because there are huge profits to be made. “The private sector supply of [UK] public services [is] now ... at least £44bn worth of public services, ranging from prison places to NHS treatment, government buildings, IT projects, and social care and education...” (Financial Times, December 4th, 2007)

The pattern is similar in Ireland. Shareholder profit is paid for by service charges to users, or from taxes paid to the Government.. It is, in effect, money taken from service budgets and the knock-on effect is that some people don’t get what they need, have to wait, or get a lower-quality service.

Take our health service, for example. The public system is underfunded and in crisis, while private healthcare is subsidised. The Blackrock Clinic increased its profit to €11.9 million in 2006. Property developer John Flynn and beef baron Larry Goodman each own 26 per cent of the shares and got their slice of the €3.6 million payout. Goodman and millionaire developer Sean Mulryan also have shares in the private Hermitage Clinic, which will charge for patients sent from public hospitals.

Hermitage Clinic boss Noel O’Carroll set out the problems of the public-private mix: “Under the Government’s incentives and tax allowances, there are about seven [private] hospitals built, or in the pipeline ... A further eight co-located [private] hospitals will make it 15, chasing a very limited pool of expert consultants and physicians and, if they are limited, the quantity ... of experienced nursing specialists is much less again.”

At the moment, private hospitals can either recruit lower qualified staff, poach from overseas, or head-hunt from public hospitals by offering higher pay. Who will pay for the higher salaries? The people with health insurance; and the ordinary tax-payer, through state subsidies for private medicine. What will happen to public hospital staffing is an open question. Private care requires private insurance which, as doctors argued after Susie Long’s death, creates big waiting lists in public hospitals.

We argue that Lisbon makes it easier to further “liberalise trade” in health, education, social and cultural and audiovisual services. It puts new measures into treaty law – which is impossible to change – rather than domestic law, which can be changed by a change of government.


How would Lisbon put health and education at risk?

The commission leads negotiations on trade in services, including health and education, at the World Trade Organisation. The Council of Ministers gives the go-ahead and appoints the negotiator, usually the trade commissioner (currently Peter Mandelson), and a planning committee (the Art 133 Committee, which has representatives from each member state). This committee compiles the list of services the EU is willing to offer to private corporations and the requests to other countries for European access to their services.

The list is secret until the entire deal is finalised, when the trade commissioner sends it to the Council of Ministers for approval. A request by 22 TDs and MEPs (Labour, Green, Sinn Fein and Independents.) to see the Irish government’s offers to the Art 133 committee in February 2004 was refused by our department of trade and industry on grounds of “commercial confidentiality”.

At the moment, the council approves by QMV trade deals negotiated by the Commission. The exceptions are in health, education, and cultural and audiovisual services which require unanimous agreement. The Lisbon Treaty removes this unanimity requirement and in so doing removes the right to veto a trade offer in these areas, other than in exceptional circumstances.

Art 188c.4 declares: “For the negotiation and conclusion of the [international trade] agreements ... the council shall act by a qualified majority.
[The exceptions to this would be] a) in the field of trade in cultural and audiovisual services, where these risk prejudicing the
union’s cultural and linguistic diversity; b) in the field of social, educational and health services, where these agreements risk seriously
disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of member states to deliver them.”

So a government could not veto a deal unless it could show in advance that it would “risk seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services”. There is no definition of what this means, or of how risks would be evaluated. Those who use or work in the services have no say. “Responsibility to deliver” is similarly vague. It could, for example, involve minimal rules and a regulator to oversee private providers – as in outsourcing contracts.

As for cultural and audiovisual services, what might “risk prejudicing the union’s cultural and linguistic diversity” is not specified. How could such risks be judged ahead of a deal in which a multinational took over parts of a country’s TV, library or museum services? When a deal is done, it’s closed. There is no provision for dealing with problems that emerge afterwards.


Creeping privatisation

The commission’s opinion is clear: most services can be considered “economic activities” – suitable for trade (privatisation).

If a government and the commission disagree on what can be included in a trade offer, the European Court of Justice is called in. Using ECJ case-law, the recent White Paper on services of general economic interest (SGEIs) – or public services – states: “For a given service to qualify as an economic activity under the internal market rules ... the essential characteristic ... is that it must be provided for remuneration. The service does not… have to be paid for by those benefiting from it ... In practice ... the vast majority of services can be considered as ‘economic activities’.” (Europen Commission, November 2007)

In practice, ECJ rulings favour private business because this is treaty policy. Removing the veto on trade in health, education and social services would enable the commission to open them to transnational corporations. The European Parliament would get the power of consent to a deal (take it or leave it as a whole). But a majority in the council is usually matched by a majority in the parliament. For example, in 1999 the European Parliament passed the water directive, which is responsible for our schools being charged for drinking water this year. This is liberalisation in practice.

EU surveys show that Irish consumers already pay 42 per cent more than the EU average for housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels,
25 per cent more for education and 24 per cent more for health. (Irish Times, January 5th, 2008) More privatisation will hardly ease this situation. Governments that wanted to keep private interests out of health, education and social services would want the power to veto trade in these areas.
 

Liberalisation policy

These voting changes, which make it easier for the commission to push privatisation, are part of a policy to achieve “uniformity in measures of liberalisation” (Art 188c) – which means removing regulations on who can provide goods and services. EU trade policy aims to “encourage the integration of all countries into the world economy, including through the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade” (new Article 10A TEU). This aim is reinforced and expanded in Article 188b. The new treaty also aims to “ensure the functioning of the energy market” (Art 176a) – which means privatising electricity enterprises. In Ireland this has meant price rises to tempt private operators.
 

Competition leads to unemployment and poverty

Competition law prohibits state aids (subsidies) to industries or services “which distort or threaten to distort competition” (Art 87 TFEU). Some exceptions are allowed in poorer areas but this restriction, along with the freedom to move capital (Art 56 TFEU), has meant that regional inequality, poverty and emigration persist in the EU: for example the Border, midlands and west regions of Ireland. Art 87 also restricts state spending on public services.

Side by side with competition is the European Central Bank policy that has price stability as its only objective – reinforced in the new Art 245a TFEU. This is pure Thatcherite monetarism. To this end, the ECB monitors public spending – arguing that public sector wage increases cause inflation. Employment is sidelined.

In the euro zone, the new treaty would allow the commission “to strengthen the co-ordination and surveillance of [governments’] budgetary
discipline”, and “to set out economic policy guidelines for them...” (Art 115A TFEU). And just to make sure they toe the line, Art 104.9 and 104.11 TFEU provide the means to make them reduce budget deficits – which means cutting public spending.
 

Restrictions on governments

The EU now has about 150 million people living in regions where unemployment and poverty are much worse than the EU average. Competition policy caused the de-industrialisation of eastern European states when they joined up where wages are a fraction of the rates in the west. EU Cohesion Reports say this will take generations to change – which in itself is guesswork. Under EU law, no government can set up state-owned enterprises, subsidise private ones or protect native industries against imports – measures all western European states have used in the past.

Last October, for example, the ECJ struck down the Volkswagen law in Germany – in place since 1961. This law gave effective control of company policy to the state of Lower Saxony, the VW works council and the union IG Metall, but the ECJ ruled that it restricted the rights of investors. Porsche will now be able to complete a hostile takeover and begin to shed labour and/or relocate production. The ECJ prioritises freedom to buy companies, move capital and maximise profit. Employment, control of production and the environment take second place.

 

A race to the bottom

Unemployment in eastern Europe has created a huge pool of cheap labour. Some of these workers are used as cheap labour in the west and others work for foreign investors at home. In the recent Vaxholm case, the Latvian company Laval wanted to use Latvian workers in Sweden but would not agree to Swedish pay and conditions. So the Swedish unions blockaded Laval sites. The ECJ ruled last December that the union could only act to ensure the Swedish minimum wage was paid and no more; and that other Swedish employment
agreements could not be imposed.

In the Viking ferry case the court ruled that the Finnish seafarers union could strike against a Finnish ferry company using Estonian sailors at Estonian wage rates on its ferries, but not if that would deter the company from setting up a branch of its business in Estonia (so as to use Estonian sailors). What happened with Irish Ferries shows what the future may bring.

The legal door is now open for cheap labour to undermine existing pay and conditions. This imposed competition between workers, which is antisocial, also takes place between states competing for inward investment. Already there are closures and relocations of factories from Ireland to cheap labour regions within the EU and beyond – it’s almost a weekly event. The current loss of construction jobs is made worse by loss of industrial jobs. Competing to give bigger subsidies, tax breaks or cheap labour simply lets multinational companies play off one state against another.

The EU’s competition and liberalisation policy paves the way for a race to the bottom. When we vote on this treaty we vote not just for ourselves, but also for others in Europe who are denied a vote and for future generations whose lives will be affected. The first step to an alternative is to reject the Lisbon Treaty.

[Sub-X]

Democracy Undermined
http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/9

“There is no longer a question of saying there are certain things that the union can’t touch. Actually the union can touch everything.”  Gisela Stuart, the British Labour MP who helped draft the EU Constitution, commenting on the Lisbon Treaty, January 18th, 2008.


The Lisbon Treaty would put more law-making into the hands of EU institutions in more policy areas. The European Commission is the only EU body with the power to draft laws. It is not elected by the people and there is no direct link between us and them. The renamed constitution would do nothing to change this.

The voting balance in the EU would change to favour countries with larger populations. It would greatly reduce the areas where governments could veto policy proposals. In future the heads of state would be allowed to agree to change EU policies and remove vetoes without referendum.

The EU would have a “legal personality”, a president and a foreign minister. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) would be the new Supreme Court for all, whose rulings give priority to business interests over social rights.
 

How it all works

In most parliamentary democracies, a constitution provides the framework for parliament to decide policy. The Dáil decides policies that the Departments of Finance, Health, the Central Bank and so on must carry out. In the EU, however, the treaties lay down fundamental policies. The unaccountable Commission is the only institution that proposes laws – on the basis of treaty policy. The Council of Ministers (from each state), and in some cases the European Parliament, then approves or returns them for amendment. If approved, EU laws are then put into the domestic law of member states.

When the power to make laws in a particular area – competence – is given to the EU, it is almost impossible to get it back. Likewise, when policies are put into treaties, it is almost impossible to change them. If an Irish government does things we don’t agree with we can vote it out and elect another with a mandate to change laws we don’t want. We can’t do this with the EU. So we need to be very careful what powers we transfer and what policies go into EU treaties – we won’t be able to change them later.

About 80 per cent of our domestic laws come from the EU. The EU scrutiny committee of the Dáil – which has four TDs, a senator, and two full-time staff –examines EU proposals to check that they do not breach subsidiarity (which means that something should not be done at EU level if it can be more appropriately done at member state level). In 2005 the scrutiny committee looked at 440 items – what it called a landslide of EU material. The new treaty would give it eight weeks to complete the task instead of six – big deal!
 

New powers to EU

The Lisbon Treaty would give the EU new competence (law-making power), or significantly extend existing competence, in at least 32 new areas. And it would broaden current law-making power in 40 other areas.

For example, the EU could decide the way public services are financed (Art 14 TFEU). The new treaty specifies that there should be an energy market, which entails continued privatisation of energy systems (Art 176a TFEU). This treaty would give the EU trade commissioner much more leverage to make international trade agreements leading to privatisation of health, education, social and cultural and audiovisual services (Art 188c TFEU).

The treaty would also give the EU the power to set economic guidelines for member states that use the euro (Art 114 TFEU), and to decide a common position at international discussions with the International Monetary Fund or the World Trade Organisation (Art 115 TFEU). Member states would have to increase military spending and allow the EU to use military and civilian facilities for military purposes (Art 27.3 and 27.7 TFEU).
 

End of veto

This treaty would increase the areas where majority voting rather than unanimous agreement in the Council of Ministers would decide policy. The system would change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in at least 18 existing areas of lawmaking, and from unanimity to qualified majority in 49 new or extended legal bases.

This means that it would be much more difficult for member state governments to block proposals. Removing the power of veto would therefore reduce the incentive to find consensus. The treaty would allow the European Parliament to reject proposals from the commission in 19 of the policy areas currently decided by majority voting, and in many of the new areas of EU law-making. While this gives it more scrutiny over the commission, it is no compensation for the loss of a national veto in 67 other areas of voting in the council.

Small countries like Ireland have little influence in the parliament, with 12 out of 750 MEPs. So the European Parliament could easily overrule a government acting in line with its electoral mandate. The parliament, for example, approved the EU water directive which is the reason for water charges in Irish schools. It also approved the postal directive, due to come fully into force in 2011, which may fragment the national postal service. The electricity directive, which has increased prices in Ireland, also got the parliament’s approval.

These directives say there has to be a market in these services. It means the EU can offer access to Europe-wide public services to transnational corporations via the General Agreement on Trade in Services in the WTO. This would all but remove democratic control of essential services.
 

Changes to qualified majority voting – QMV

As proposed in the rejected EU Constitution, the voting system would be altered and thus make it harder for smaller states to influence laws
proposed by the commission. Under the current QMV system, for a law to pass in the Council of Ministers it has to get 74 per cent of the
weighted votes. That must include over 50 per cent of member states and represent at least 62 per cent of the EU’s population.

Under the new system, a proposal would need votes corresponding to 65 per cent of the population and 55 per cent of the member states.
The new system would tilt the balance of voting power in favour of the bigger states. The present QMV system gives Germany 8.4 per cent of
the votes in the council, France 8.4 per cent, Italy 8.4 per cent and Britain 8.4 cent (the “big four”), while Ireland has 2 per cent.

The Lisbon Treaty would give Germany 16.7 per cent, France 12.8 per cent, Italy 12 per cent and Britain 12.3 per cent while Ireland would have 0.8 per cent. This gives the “big four” dominant countries much more influence on decision-making. Likewise the big countries have more MEPs in the European Parliament, (Germany 99, France 78, Ireland 12), which also marginalises smaller countries. This is what supporters of the treaty call “greater efficiency”!
 

Amending the treaty without referendum

The main provisions for changing the treaty are in Art 48. To give new competences to the EU requires unanimous agreement by the European Council (the heads of state), an Inter-Governmental Conference and national ratification. This would probably involve a referendum in Ireland.

But if all the heads of state, meeting in the European Council, agree to change policies within the EU’s competences, or to changes from unanimity to QMV, the national parliaments need only be notified. There is no requirement to ratify – so no referendum. The Taoiseach could agree changes at the European Council and the government could simply approve the changes in cabinet. We could vote out a government that did this, but we could not get back the powers they gave away.

Given that the EU now has competence in almost all policy areas – as Gisela Stuart says – the big issue is pushing policies through. Future removal of more national vetoes would make this much easier. But we, the voters, would have no say.
 

Primacy of EU law

The Declaration Concerning Primacy states that in accordance with “well settled case law of the EU Court of Justice” the treaties and the laws adopted by the union have primacy over the laws of member states. This is the first time an EU treaty has claimed primacy for EU law. The ECJ is the final ruling body in disputes between member states and the EU: it is the new Supreme Court. The national courts would have to comply with its rulings.
 

EU president and foreign minister

The treaty would create the position of president of the EU, elected by qualified majority vote of the European Council to represent the EU internationally. The president would receive ambassadors and sign treaties and agreements in the name of the EU. S/he would be head of state of the European Union, representing the heads of state of the member states. The rotating presidency decided by the Nice Treaty would be abolished.

The new treaty would also create an EU foreign minister – the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The European Council, acting by a qualified majority, would appoint the foreign minister to carry out the union’s common foreign, security and defence policy. As s/he would be appointed by majority vote of an EU summit, it is possible that Ireland could be represented internationally by an EU foreign minster whose politics we did not agree with. The foreign minister’s position is strengthened by the requirement that “member states shall co-ordinate their action in international organisations and … uphold the union’s positions in such fora”. This would include the UN.

On top of this, the Lisbon Treaty would give the EU a “legal personality”, enabling the president and foreign minister to speak and act for the EU, rather than the member states doing it themselves. The EU would also make international agreements in its own right, rather than the member states making them. The Common Foreign and Security Policy is decided by qualified majority vote in the European Council (Art 17), except where a state can demonstrate that vital national interests are at stake. So we could have someone whose politics we disagreed with speaking in our name, arguing a foreign policy we did not agree with.


Loss of commissioner

The treaty would deprive Ireland of the right to be represented in the European Commission – the body which has the monopoly on proposing all EU laws – for one third of the time. This means five out of every 15 years, which will have a major impact on our power to influence EU law. Nor can the member states decide on who should be their commissioner – the European Parliament can veto their choice.
 

New powers for national parliaments?

National parliaments could challenge legislation within eight weeks. But the only grounds for objecting are subsidiarity, in other words, national or regional action would make more sense than action at EU level. They can’t object to policy, such as restrictions on public spending. If a third of them object to a proposal, the commission has to decide whether to maintain, amend or withdraw it.

If it decides to maintain it, the parliaments have no comeback. If a majority of national parliaments object and the commission still wants to press ahead, the European Parliament and the council consider the objection and a vote of at least 55 per cent in the council can block the proposal. The chance of half of the parliaments agreeing to object, within eight weeks, is very low. We regard this provision as a toothless gesture to the parliaments.
 

Citizens’ initiative?

The treaty says that if over a million citizens from a representative number of member states (15) petition the commission, then it should consider the request. But it does not have to act. And the petition can only relate to the proper implementation of the EU treaties, not something people might object to in the treaties. In practice this will have little impact on the workings of the EU.


Democracy denied

The anti-democratic parts of this treaty that allow it to be altered after it has been ratified, giving the governments power to decide without consultation or mandate, are reflected in the way the treaty is being pushed through across Europe. Two years ago 55 per cent of French citizens voted No, whereas 90 per cent of French politicians recommended a Yes vote. Sixty-two per cent of Dutch voters said No, while 80 per cent of Dutch politicians recommended Yes. In Germany, France, Denmark and Sweden, opinion polls indicate rejection of this treaty.

The elite and the big business interests that back Lisbon are supporting the European politicians who refuse referendums, because
they know the majority of ordinary people are likely to reject the treaty. An anti-democratic constitutional treaty is being foisted upon the peoples of Europe by anti-democratic methods.

[Sub-X]

Charter of Conditional Rights
http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/10

Supporters of the Lisbon Treaty claim the inclusion of the Charter of Fundamental Rights ensures that the values of a “social” Europe are protected.

Our campaign supports genuine and effective political or legal measures to achieve equality. We believe that nobody should be discriminated against or oppressed because of laws or social practices that are sexist or oppressive to women, that are racist or homophobic, based on age, disability, or on cultural or national chauvinism, or that come from the history of colonialism.

However, we also regard as “fundamental” the right to live free from poverty, to work and to act in solidarity with others, and to have access to
high-quality healthcare, education, water and other essential public services – irrespective of income or ability to pay.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights contained in the renamed constitution- Lisbon Treaty does not guarantee these essential rights. And rulings by the European Court of Justice, which would decide what rights are granted by this charter, may conflict with or undermine the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). It would be better to strengthen the European Convention on Human Rights and make the rulings of the ECHR legally binding than to give decision-making on human rights to the ECJ. While positive social measures have come from the EU, it is unlikely that the charter would add to this.

The charter proclaims social rights such as rights to health care and education. Yet it also states that it “does not establish any new power or task for the union”. Thus the status quo in Ireland – such as our two-tiered health care – would not be affected by this charter.
 

Weak and flawed

The charter is defective on five grounds:

1. Many of its provisions only apply “in accordance with EU and national laws and practices”. This means it is only to be used in relation to EU law, and discriminatory national laws could remain. On top of this the European Court of Justice can place limits on how it is applied in order to meet “objectives of general interest recognised by the union”... in which an open market and free competition are central.

2. It is weak and flawed in its own provisions, being a step back from parts of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (particularly Art 23 protecting a person’s right to work) and, for example, the French constitution. It dilutes the fundamental right to work, and in so doing, undermines the case for social security payments when the state fails to provide employment.

3. It is possible that the ECJ through its rulings on the charter may undermine the ECHR. The ECHR makes its rulings based on the European Convention on Human Rights – which deals with human rights alone – unlike the EU treaties on which the ECJ makes rulings.

4. It provides no redress or counterbalance to the primacy of competition and the market in the EU treaties. It could even be used against a government that wanted to take a major enterprise back into public ownership – for example Eircom.

5. It includes no means for ensuring its own implementation or for monitoring the progress of implementation nor procedures
to punish breaches of its provisions.
 

Rights accorded are not clear

The rights accorded by this charter are very weak or vague. The right to a workplace and to employment is not set down: the only right mentioned is the “right to engage in work ... the freedom to seek employment, to work...” The right to social security is replaced by a simple “entitlement to social security benefits and social services”. But this is limited “in accordance with ... national laws and practices” (Art 34).

This is a step backwards when compared with the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Art 23) and the French constitution, which says that “everybody has the right to employment” and that “[the state] guarantees everybody the protection of their health and material security”.

The charter says that the EU “recognises and respects access to services of general economic interest (public services) as provided for in national laws and practices ” (Art 36). There is no mention of equal access irrespective of income, or of raising standards to the level of the best in the EU. Nor as previously stated, is there a definition of what constitutes a “service of general economic interest” available to all.

Art 35 says everyone should have access to health services under the “conditions established by national laws and practices”. There is no mention of equal access or standards.

The charter says that workers, or their organisations, have the right to make collective agreements and the right to strike – once again limited “in accordance with national laws and practices” (Art 28). But there is no requirement for trade unions to be recognised as in Art 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that “everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.” Employers can make agreements with company staff associations, which are isolated from the broader labour movement. Solidarity action is not mentioned, and strike action across national boundaries is restricted “according to national laws and practices”.

The right to strike could also be restricted by the ECJ, which is given the power to limit any rights, provided such limitations “meet objectives of general interest recognised by the union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others” (Art 52). “Objectives of general interest” could include free movement of goods or capital; “others” could mean employers, or scabs brought in to undermine a strike as Argos did on December 1st, 2007. The Vaxholm case (above) shows how the right to strike would be interpreted, in competition with or ruling on “freedom to conduct a business” (Art 16).
 

Limitations on the charter

While many rights are mentioned in the charter, they would be interpreted by the ECJ and this makes the results unpredictable. Previously the ECJ dealt primarily with economic issues. But under Lisbon it would also rule on our human rights, greatly expanding its remit.
In the legal interpretation of the charter by the ECJ, not only Art 96 TFEU and Art 52 of the charter (as mentioned above), but also the case
law of the ECJ would give primacy to the market. The ECJ has stated: “The fundamental rights recognised by the court are not absolute ... but
must be considered in relation to their social function. Consequently, restrictions may be imposed on the exercise of those rights, in particular in the context of a common organisation of the market, provided that those restrictions in fact correspond to objectives of general interest pursued by the community …”

Art 3 TEU sets out the “objectives” of the EU. These are laudable in themselves, although they are now to include price stability. But Art 96
TFEU stipulates that an open internal market and free competition is the economic policy within which all other objectives are framed. As to public services, the commission, using ECJ case law, recently declared: “In practice ... the vast majority of services can be considered as ‘economic activities’ ” – meaning privatisation is possible, including charges and problems for people on low incomes.

The ECJ has ruled that limits can be put on fundamental rights in order to uphold other freedoms in the treaties, as long as those limits are
“proportional”, to balance competing rights. In the recent Vaxholm and Viking cases, the ECJ favoured the right to establish a profitable crossborder business over the right to protect workers’ interests. This shows the conditional way rights in the charter would be interpreted by the ECJ.
 

ECJ might undermine European Court of Human Rights

The ECJ decides what rights are upheld. In reality, rights that are supposedly fundamental are actually conditional on what the ECJ says is proportional in relation to other rights in the EU treaties – including the rights of the EU, the member states, corporations, and individual citizens. The European Court of Human Rights, however, makes its rulings based on the European Convention on Human Rights alone. It does not have to take account of other rights and freedoms in EU treaties in the way the ECJ does, as Vaxholm shows. The ECHR, therefore, is likely to be stronger in its defence of human rights as it has no need to compromise in the way the ECJ must.

It is not clear which court would take precedence in deciding on human rights in the future. The ECJ has legal power, whereas the ECHR does not. For the defence of human rights, however, it would be better to strengthen the convention and make the rulings of the court of human rights legally binding on the member states of the EU rather than give decision-making on human rights to the ECJ – which is committed to defend inequality by virtue of being based on neo-liberal treaties.

An example of EU selectivity on human rights is the EU-Israel Association agreements. These trade agreements benefit Israel in its €20 billion a year trade with the EU. In February 2007 Israel and the European Commission agreed on Israel’s participation in the seventh framework programme for research and development, making it the only non-European country to be part of the European Research Area.

Despite rulings by the International Court of Justice saying that the huge wall being built by Israel on Palestinian land is in breach of international law, and despite Israel being in breach of the EU Association agreements’ own human rights clause, no restrictions have been placed on Israel. Nor have restrictions been put on arms sales to Israel from EU countries.The EU’s willingness to overlook its own human rights law for the sake of trade agreements does not bode well for a charter that lacks any provision to ensure it is enforced.

The socio-economic policy of the EU, in which the charter would be included, is set down in Art 96 TFEU and Protocol Six. The right to run a profitable business is an EU objective that all other rights must fit in with,including those in the charter. It would not save the life of somebody on a hospital waiting list created by inadequate funding.

Competition has been and will continue to be enforced between those in work and the unemployed, local businesses or farmers and multinational companies, eastern and western Europe, developed Europe and the impoverished millions of Africa and Asia. And an objective of the EU is to further extend economic competition into all areas of life – including services such as health and education – through the liberalisation of trade in services.

The commission, using ECJ case law, recently declared: “In practice ... the vast majority of services can be considered as ‘economic activities’ within the meaning of EC treaty rules on the internal market” (Arts 43 and 49).

In effect this means that any element of a service that is paid for, by the user or by the state, can be contracted out to a private provider – whose interest in making a profit comes before the needs of the ordinary people who use the service. Because whatever the outcome, putting everything in the hands of the market is regarded by the EU as the best way to run society.
 

Monitoring the charter’s implementation

The charter is subject to limitations within its own provisions. While it would have legal force (amended Art 6 TEU), the treaty makes no provision to monitor the application of the rights of the charter, or measures to impose sanctions where these rights are breached.

The EU set up its own Fundamental Rights Agency in February 2007, which can only monitor rights in relation to EU law – abuses under national law are outside its remit. Nor can it look at abuses in the courts or the security forces, where most human rights abuses take place. It cannot look at CIA renditions, or at the secret CIA prisons. And it has no powers of sanction – not even the power to seek the suspension of voting rights of a member state. It is a toothless watchdog that demonstrates the real status of human rights in EU thinking.

This is in sharp contrast to EU powers to punish breaches of competition law or to impose tight limits on public borrowing, for example based on Art 99 and 104 TFEU. In conclusion, there is nothing in this charter to bring about a levellingup of rights across the EU. Art 52.6 says “full account shall be taken of national laws and practices”, yet states that borrow more than EU guidelines can have spending limits imposed or face big fines, for spending too much on public and social services. This means the charter will do little to protect a social Europe.

The Campaign Against the EU Constitution believes that this charter is defective both in its content and application and is so vague and wideranging in some articles that their real meaning will only be established over time through rulings of the ECJ.

The court’s reliance on “national laws and practices” means that existing, socially regressive legislation will remain in force unless specifically changed by the implementation of EU law, while social measures enacted by the government will be struck down by the court if they are deemed to interfere with the smooth operation of the market.

This charter provides no new rights and could even undermine the ECHR. It is fatally undermined as an attempt to level-up rights across Europe by its deference to national laws and practices, and by its acceptance of the primacy of competition and the market – with all the inequality they create. It is, in effect, a fig leaf for a constitutional treaty that does not address the needs of the peoples of Europe.

[Sub-X]

Trade Justice
http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/11

The Lisbon Treaty would put further pressure on developing countries by increasing the trade sectors that the EU wants to liberalise. Liberalisation would expand from “the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade and the lowering of customs barriers”, to include “foreign direct investment ...and other barriers” (Art188).
 
This small change is very significant. Restrictions on foreign direct investment include regulations to stop foreign companies taking total control of finance systems. It also includes requirements on foreign investors to share control of enterprises with locals, to provide technical training, and not to buy up common land. “Other” refers to trade restrictions like environmental standards or consumer protection regulations that the WTO wants removed.
 
The treaty would commit the EU to seeking the removal of such restrictions, whatever the outcome for poor countries. At present the EU is seeking to sign economic partnership agreements with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries and to remove trade barriers between them and Europe. The commission insists that, in return for access to EU markets, the poorer countries must give access to European exporters. This would bankrupt many local industries. So far most of the ACP countries have rejected the EU’s attempts to force such agreements on them.
 
The EU is already trying to get developing countries to let European service companies compete to run vital services such as water and energy supplies through the General Agreement on Trade in Services. This would mean transforming them from not-for-profit into commercial enterprises. So much for the development-friendly approach of the EU. This is what the commission is doing within existing policy, which not only seeks the removal of restrictions on trade (Art 188, as above) but also states that: “All restrictions on the movement of capital between member states ... and third countries shall be prohibited” (Art 56). The right to move capital takes precedence over development needs.
 
The new treaty would add impetus to the EU’s current approach.

Environmental Protection
http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/12

The Lisbon Treaty’s contribution to the environment is to add six words (as underlined): “promoting measures ... to deal with ... environmental problems, and in particular combating climate change (Art 174.1 TFEU). This is purely symbolic. Measures to combat climate change would only be “promoted”. The EU could not do anything more than under the existing treaties.
 
The recent announcement by the commission that EU states will have to make a 20 per cent cut in greenhouse gases by 2020 makes huge concessions to cement, steel and aluminium companies. They are to get more time before they have to buy permits to emit CO2. EU priorities were summed up by EU enterprise commissioner Guenter Verheugen: “I am all for setting an example for the rest of the world. But I am against committing economic suicide.”
 
EU core policy – competition in a free market – is the crux of the problem. EU industries cannot take on higher costs and compete with low-cost countries. If they are not given get-outs, they will simply relocate to China or India. Control of location of production and planned integrated public transport, ruled out by the treaty, are vital to environmental protection. How can we reduce transport pollution without the ability to control where factories and jobs are located?
 
Efficient energy production is also key. But Article 176a (TFEU) aims to “ensure the functioning of the energy market”, which means giving control to people whose main concern is making a profit. This is incompatible with environmental protection because short-term profits are the priority.
 
The treaty would also rule out state subsidies to small energy producers, which they would need to survive. So they will only ever be marginal because EU competition law precludes state aids “which distort or threaten to distort competition” (Art 87 TFEU). Some exceptions are allowed in poor regions and for social projects, but they are not allowed to affect the profits of big private companies.
 
The EU favours big business over sustainable development. Market-led policy gives rise to logging of the rainforests, plantations for biofuel and ranches for cheap beef. Despite a genuflection to climate change, the Lisbon Treaty would further undermine sustainable development.
 
Protocol Two of the Lisbon Treaty establishes the European Atomic Energy Commission (Euratom). This prioritises nuclear energy over renewables. The Irish people have consistently rejected nuclear energy, but this treaty, like its predecessors, commits the EU to promote nuclear power.

[Sub-X]

20 Reason's to say NO to the Lisbon Treaty

[Sub-X]

No To Europe as an Empire
 The Militarization of The EU Must Be Stopped
http://www.pana.ie/idn/070408.html
by Helga Zepp-LaRouche
Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche, the chairwoman of the Civil Rights Solidarity Movement (BüSo) in Germany.
April 2008

How dangerous the militarization of the EU, through the Lisbon Treaty, is, and its planned integration with NATO, should be totally clear, if you look back at the changes that are under discussion in NATO itself.

Among these are the proposed changes of the NATO statutes, which impose majority-rule, exactly the same thing as the right of veto by individual states which is being eliminated under the EU Treaty. The Treaty provides that the defense policy of the member states must be compatible with NATO, that the Solidarity clauses of the EU mean simply the same as NATO's, that the two institutions are melded into one imperial power, and that no member state could resist any military interventions.

Even though this is not yet the official policy of NATO, one must still take seriously the direction in which certain neoconservative circles want to alter the alliance.

Under the title, "Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World," five retired generals have published a new strategic concept for NATO, in which a new defense structure of the United States, the EU, and NATO would meet six fundamental challenges: population growth; climate change; energy security; the increase of irrationality, and the decline of reason (!); the weakening of national-states and world institutions such as the UN, the EU, and NATO; and "the dark side of globalization," which includes international terrorism, organized crime, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the misuse of financial resources or energy control, migration, HIV/AIDS, and SARS.

The paper, which is signed by the five former chiefs of staff, Dr. Klaus Naumann (Germany), Field Marshall Lord Inge (U.K.), Gen. John Shalikashvili (U.S.A.), Adm. Jacques Lanxade (France), and Gen. Henk van den Bremen (the Netherlands), is an extremely alarming document.

The above two paragraphs are from
www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/03/18/helga-zepp-larouche-no-europe-empire.html



Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World - Executive summary.

In every country, and at all times, we like to rely on certainty. But in a world of asymmetric threats and global challenges, our governments and peoples are uncertain about what the threats are and how they should face the complicated world before them. After explaining the complexity of the threats, the authors assess current capabilities and analyse the deficiencies in existing institutions, concluding that no nation and no institution is capable of dealing with current and future problems on its own. The only way to deal with these threats and challenges is through an integrated and allied strategic approach, which includes both non-military and military capabilities.

Based on this, the authors propose a new grand strategy, which could be adopted by both organisations and nations, and then look for the options of how to implement such a strategy. They then conclude, given the challenges the world faces, that this is not the time to start from scratch. Thus, existing institutions, rather than new ones, are our best hope for dealing with current threats. The authors further conclude that, of the present institutions, NATO is the most appropriate to serve as a core element of a future security architecture, providing it fully transforms and adapts to meet the present challenges. NATO needs more non-military capabilities, and this underpins the need for better cooperation with the European Union.

Following that approach, the authors propose a short-, a medium- and a long-term agenda for change. For the short term, they focus on the critical situation for NATO in Afghanistan, where NATO is at a juncture and runs the risk of failure. For this reason, they propose a series of steps that should be taken in order to achieve success. These include improved cost-sharing and transfer of operational command. Most importantly, the authors stress that, for NATO nations to succeed, they must resource operations properly, share the risks and possess the political will to sustain operations.

As a medium-term agenda the authors propose the development of a new strategic concept for NATO. They offer ideas on how to solve the problem of the rivalry with the EU, and how to give NATO access to other than military instruments. They further propose bringing future enlargement and partnership into line with NATO’s strategic objectives and purpose.

In their long-term agenda the authors propose abandonment of the two-pillar concept of America and Europe cooperating, and they suggest aiming for the long-term vision of an alliance of democracies ranging from Finland to Alaska. To begin the process, they propose the establishment of a directorate consisting of the USA, the EU and NATO. Such a directorate should coordinate all cooperation in the common transatlantic sphere of interest.

The authors believe that the proposed agenda could be a first step towards a renewal of the transatlantic partnership, eventually leading to an alliance of democratic nations and an increase in certainty.

Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World,Renewing Transatlantic Partnership

[Sub-X]

The EU BATTLE GROUPS: Regiments of the Empire
http://www.pana.ie/idn/160106.html
by Roger Cole

"We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies to be sovereign and indefeasible."- 1916 Proclamation

"Are we all clear that we want to build something that can aspire to be a world power?" - EU Commission President, Romano Prodi, 13/2/01

In 1916 the Irish people were given a choice: support the Irish Volunteers of the Irish Republic or the Regiments of the British Union and Empire, a choice between Irish Independence or Imperialism. In 2006, as the Irish Defence Forces are about to be integrated into the EU Battle Groups, the Regiments of the European Union and Empire, the Irish people are again being offered a choice between Imperialism and Irish Independence. The decision of the Government to have 200 Irish soldiers join the EU Battle Groups is just another step in the process in the destruction of Irish Independence, Irish Democracy and Irish Neutrality. The integration of Ireland into an Imperial, militarized neo-liberal European superstate allied to the US will ensure the full and active participation of all of Ireland in the resource wars of the 21st century. The defeat of the EU/US axis is the only inevitable outcome of these wars.

The Peace & Neutrality Alliance advocates another choice - a United Independent Irish Republic - as part of a democratic Europe, a partnership of Independent, democratic states, legal equals without a military dimension. We believe a reformed United Nations is the institution through which Ireland should pursue its foreign policy and security concerns. The choice for the Irish people is clear, and it is the same as it has been for generation after generation. The choice is either the Republic or Imperialism.

The Resource Wars of the 21 st Century and the EU Battlegroups

The collapse of the European Empires, British, Belgian, Dutch, French, Germany, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish made the ruling elite of each of the states realise that they could not re-establish their Imperial traditions except by combining and creating a new "European" identity.

They sought to create a "European" elite that was committed to the steady and gradual destruction of the national democracy and
Independence of the states within the EU via a series of treaties (of which the proposed EU Constitution was to be a capstone), and their transformation into a centralised, neo-liberal, militarised, Imperial Superstate, allied to the US. It was their joint intention to engage in Imperial wars of conquest. The US invasion and conquest of Iraq in order to gain control of Iraqi oil and to consolidate US/ Israeli military domination of the Middle East was actively supported by 14 EU states - Belgium, Britain, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Holland, Ireland, Italy,
Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, and Spain (initially) - most of which also sent troops to participate in its invasion and/or occupation.

It was only the massive opposition in 2003 by millions of ordinary people within the states of Europe to this restoration of the European Imperial tradition that prevented the EU states from more actively supporting the war. As a consequence of these massive demonstrations and the rejection of the EU Constitution by the French and Dutch people the whole project is under threat and the emerging "European" elite is now more divided than ever as to how to respond.

The reasons given for the war, for example that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, were lies. The real intention was to replace Saddam as ruler with Chalabi, a committed ally of the US and the EU who would privatize the Iraqi oil industry. Unfortunately for the US, the plan has gone badly wrong and Iraq
now has an Islamic Shia dominated Government friendly with the Iranian Government.

Since the US described Shia dominated Iran as part of the "axis of evil" this has been a bad result that now needs to be rectified.

A substantial element of the EU/US elite is therefore preparing to attack Iran in order to ensure "regime change" and to regain the momentum lost as a consequence of the Iraq war and the referendum results. With the election of the pro-war Chancellor Merkel in Germany the chances of such a war proceeding have increased dramatically. She would be well aware that Bismarck used war to create the German Empire and that war against "Muslim fundamentalists" could be used to create a European Empire. The EU/US is steadily putting more and more pressure on Iran not to proceed with its development of nuclear power, alleging that such a development would allow it to develop nuclear weapons. At the same time they are putting no pressure on Israel to abolish its existing nuclear arsenal or to withdraw from the occupied territory of Palestine. Instead they have withdrawn aid to the Palestinian Authority because they did not like the result of a democratic election. If Iran does not accept the current diplomatic efforts to force it to stop its nuclear
developments, then the EU will say it has no alternative but to support a US military strike on Iran.

As in 2003 there will be massive protests, but since the British, Danish and American people re-elected their Imperialist leaders, and Merkel was elected in Germany, the elite clearly feel it can easily handle any opposition. It’s our function as part of the Irish and global anti-war movement to make sure that the mobilisation against another Imperial war is so strong that they quickly come to realise that they got it very wrong again.

We need to take advantage of the fact that the war option does not have the support of the entire US/EU elite. The massive drop in support for Bush among the American people including retired generals, the victory of the centre left in Italy, the defeat of the French Government’s neo-liberal measures via massive demonstrations, and the recent electoral defeat of the Imperialist New Labour Party are all indications that it will not be easy for the EU/US elite to go to war with Iran.

But if the war party wins out it will mean that the EU Battle Groups will be called into action.

These resource wars of the 21st century, or the "war on terrorism" as our establishment media call it, provide justification for the growth in military expenditure. The EU Battle Groups are just a small but crucial part of the EU/US military partnership in what the Pentagon Defence Review described as being a "long war".

This war will transfer financial resources away from health, education and social housing. The "war on terrorism" also allows the elite to create a climate of fear in which it will be easier to push through a sustained attack on the working and living
standards of the ordinary people of Europe via the services directive and other neo-liberal driven measures.

The "war on terrorism" is also leading to a sustained attack on civil liberties creating moves towards a super EU police state.

The EU Battle Groups

An EU Defence policy was not an issue for a long time and it was not until the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 that common foreign and defence policy provisions were made part of EU law. The Amsterdam Treaty in 1997 massively expanded the EU’s CFSP. In June 1999 the EU established the Political and Security Committee consisting of the member states’ ambassadors to the EU and the European Union, and the Military Committee consisting of the member states’ chiefs of defence staff to advise the PSC on military issues. The EU Military staff also provides military advice.

In December 1999 the EU agreed to set a military capability target known as the Helsinki Headline Goal. It included the establishment of an EU Rapid Reaction Force of 50-60,000 soldiers with a self-sustaining military capacity including intelligence, air, naval and combat support capable of deployment within 60 days up to 6,000 km from the borders of the EU, sustainable for at least a year. The EU states in practice lacked the capability to do so. They did not have enough soldiers trained for such an independent EU military activity, as most were allocated to NATO. The EU RRF also lacked the necessary strategic lift, attack helicopters, IRS-capabilities, air-to-air refueling tankers, airborne electronic warfare capacity and anti-missile defence. Nevertheless in December 2001 the EU declared itself to be "militarily operational".

However since the RRF was not actually functioning they agreed to start with a smaller military force. The idea of EU Battle Groups was first suggested at the Franco-British Summit in Le Touquet in February 2003 and made explicit in the London meeting in November 2003.

The EU Defence Ministers in their meeting in Brussels in 2004 adopted the decision. They will act as the "shock troops", regiments of the emerging Empire. Thirteen Battle Groups are being created with 1,500 combat soldiers each, which means, allowing for rotation, etc, at an average ratio of seven to nine for each combat soldier, a total force of approximately 156,000 combat soldiers. It is planned that they could operate as separate units or in joint expeditions.

The objective was to ensure that the first few would be ready by 2005 and between 6-7 by 2007 with the remainder established by 2010. General Wolfgang Schneiderhan is Chair of the EU Military Committee with direct military responsibility for the EUBG’s.

Initially each Battle Group would have to be able to go to a theatre of operations up to at least 6,000 km (which includes the Middle East) from the borders of the EU within 5 days of being instructed to do so by the EU Council, and be able to stay there for at least 120 days, allowing for rotation. More recently they have been given the authority to operate in any part of the globe. They have to be able to operate in hostile environments including deserts, mountains and jungles, and have a high degree of training, equipment, command structures and planning units.

An EU Battle Group is to be "the minimum military effective, credible, rapidly deployable, coherent force package capable of acting alone, or for the initial phase of larger operations."

A Battle Group consists of the following:

Force Headquarters
Force Commander with staff
Mechanised Infantry Battalion
Commander with staff
3 x Mechanised Infantry Company
Logistics Company
Fire Support Company (Mortars/Light Artillery
Combat Engineering Platoon
Air Defence Platoon
Reconnaissance
Intelligence Platoon
Helicopter Support Unit
Medical Service Platoon
Military Police Platoon

Each of the three or four mechanized infantry companies is expected to field 10-12 combat vehicles armed with 30- 90mm cannons, supported with 6-9 light howitzers or 120 mm heavy mortar systems, anti-tank missiles, air defence systems, and helicopter gunships.

Airlifting a Battle Group is a major problem as it requires a huge expenditure on the military transport aircraft required, such as the C-17 Globemaster which can load 78 metric tonnes and has a 5,000 km range, therefore only requiring 30 flights to deploy an EU Battle Group. The lack of strategic airlift has meant several EU states have ordered the A- 400M. Several EU states which are in NATO have also agreed to buy AN-124 Condor aircraft from the Ukraine which are massive planes capable of carrying 120-150 tonnes of cargo up to 5,000 km. These are very expensive planes.

The purpose of the EU Battle Groups is to go into battle, to go to war, as Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Secretary General of NATO has said:
"Battle Groups could be used to go to war. Why did the EU create the Battle Group?
It is not just to help rebuild a country. The Battle Groups are not for building schools.
We shouldn’t think the EU is for soft power and NATO for tough power." Irish Times 11/3/05

The states of the EU, either individually or in groups, are to provide the necessary combat trained troops and required equipment and they are:

France
Italy
Spain
UK and possibly Ireland
France, Germany, Belgium, Luxemburg, and Spain
France and Belgium
Germany, the Netherlands and Finland
Germany, the Czech Republic and Austria
Italy, Hungary and Slovenia
Poland, Germany, Slovakia, Latvia, and Lithuania
Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal
Sweden, Finland, Norway, Estonia and Ireland
UK and the Netherlands

In the case of Battle Groups in which a number of states participated, one state would be regarded as a "lead nation" which would take operational command and provide the Headquarters of the Battle Group. Membership of the Battle Groups would be open to non-EU NATO countries such as Turkey that are applying for EU membership or NATO states.

The Danish Protocol

Denmark is not taking part in the Battlegroups because the movement for Danish Democracy won a major victory which ensured that a number of legally binding protocols were added to the Amsterdam Treaty including one that excluded Denmark from the process of the militarisation of the EU.

The Peace and Neutrality Alliance has campaigned for years for a similar protocol to be added to the various EU Treaties that would also exclude Ireland along the following lines:

"With regard to measures adopted by the Council in the fields of Article J3 (1) and J7 of the Treaty of the European Union, Ireland does not participate in the elaboration and the implementation of decisions and actions which have defence implications, but will not prevent the development of closer cooperation between member states in this area. Therefore Ireland shall not participate in their adoption. Ireland shall not contribute to the financing of the operational expenditure arising from such measures."

The Irish political Elite and the EU Battlegroups

The Irish political elite, however is totally committed to the creation of a European Empire and, like their Redmondite predecessors, has rejected Irish Democracy, Irish Independence and Irish Neutrality and refused to accept such a protocol for Ireland. As far as they are concerned the Irish Army is to play the same role in the European Union as the Irish Regiments of the British Union used do.

The Irish political elite have already made their commitment to the integration of Ireland into the EU/US military industrial structures absolutely clear; by their decision to join Nato’s PfP without a promised referendum, by voting against a Bill to amend the Constitution to enshrine neutrality into it in February 2003 and, in particular, by destroying the longstanding policy of Irish neutrality by allowing thousands upon thousands of US troops to use Shannon airport. Between January 2003 and October 2005, 549,457 US troops landed in Shannon airport on their way to or from the war in Iraq.

In the first three months of 2006 the number of troops landing in Shannon airport increased by more than 20,000 compared with the same period in 2005, a total of 116,450.

Since International law under the Hague Convention of 1907 states that a neutral country cannot allow its territory to be used by belligerents in a war, the Government has now destroyed Irish neutrality by supporting the illegal invasion, conquest and occupation of Iraq, and by allowing thousands upon thousands of US troops to use Shannon airport on their way to Iraq. They also refuse to search US planes that might be carrying prisoners to torture centres.

They therefore are strong supporters of the EU Battle Groups and have made it absolutely clear they intend to ensure that Irish troops will be allocated to them.

They have a slight problem. Existing Irish legislation does not allow any armed force to operate on Irish soil except those directly under the control of Dáil Eireann and as a consequence of their defeat in the first Nice Referendum they were forced to pass legislation that would prevent Irish troops participating in EU military engagements via the Battle Groups unless they are mandated by the UN, the Irish Government and Dáil Eireann. However the FF/PD Government has made it clear that it will introduce legislation that would remove these legal impediments to the Irish Army being integrated into the EU Battle Groups.

While they claim they intend to keep the so-called "triple lock", the rest of the EU states have no such legislation and an Irish Government that is actively supporting an Imperialist war already will have no problem supporting another Imperialist war.

There are other problems. The states that have formed groups to jointly establish an EU Battle Group are geographically beside each other in order to facilitate military co-ordination, so Ireland’s obvious partner is Britain. Even the Irish elite however realise that it would be difficult to sell the idea of Irish Rangers fighting shoulder to shoulder with members of the British Paratroop Regiment. They are, therefore, trying to create an atmosphere to facilitate such a Battle Group. In that context, a successful full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement is crucial. Such a full implementation would be promoted by the elite as final resolution of the longstanding conflict between the advocates of Irish Independence and British Imperialism which would not only allow the creation of a British/Irish EU Battle Group but would be promoted as a real and concrete act of peace and reconciliation between the two nations which, acting together, can bring "peace" to other parts of the world, especially the Middle East.

While the Irish elite supports the Good Friday Agreement as a stepping-stone towards a European Empire, Irish Democrats and Republicans see it as a stepping-stone towards a United Independent Democratic Irish Republic. The issue of EU Battle Groups, therefore, has as much relevance to Irish people living in Northern Ireland as it has to those living in the Republic of Ireland. The GFA is only a small part of a bigger jigsaw.

Unfortunately for the Irish elite, the conquest of Iraq has already divided all the political parties into pro and anti imperialist groups and PANA is confident that similar divisions will develop in regard to their attitude to the EU Battle Groups.

What is absolutely clear is that what Fianna Fáil and the other imperialist parties offer is Ireland being dragged deeper and deeper into Imperialist wars rather than a fight for Irish Independence and democracy.

What they offer is inevitable defeat. There is no chance whatsoever of crushing the Muslim people in the Middle East. The 21st century Crusader armies, of which the Battle Groups are to be part, will be defeated, as were the Crusader Armies of the Middle Ages. It is only their racist arrogance which prevents them from seeing this reality.

The Irish elite however know that Good Friday Agreement or not participation in the Trafalgar celebrations or not, commemorating the death of an Irishman who won a VC defending the British Empire in India or not, selling the concept of an Irish Rangers/ British Paratrooper EU Battle Group would be difficult. So they have tried other alternatives.

They seek to be part of the Nordic Swedish/Finnish/Norwegian/Estonian, EU Battle Group. It will be difficult. Since the Battlegroups have to go to war within five days an extremely high degree of military interoperability needs to be achieved. The distance between Finland and Sweden and Ireland makes this option very hard to implement in practice.

The FF/PD Government has virtually no opposition from the Irish political/media elite.

The Fine Gael Party, Ireland’s major opposition Party, have made it clear that if they go into Government they will not only ensure that the Irish Army is integrated into the EU Battle Groups but that they will also abolish the "triple lock" legislation. Fine Gael has already totally rejected Irish neutrality.

The Irish Labour Party has been a long-standing supporter of the emerging EU Empire, although they originally opposed it. At their recent party conference their delegates massively supported the EU Constitution although Labour Youth voted against. Soon after, the French and Dutch people voted to reject it and the left led the campaign in both countries. More recently the British Congress of Trade Unions voted overwhelmingly to oppose the EU Constitution.

This growing opposition to the EU Empire by the left throughout Europe is bound to weaken the Empire Loyalists within the Irish Labour party, especially its trade union section. It is possible that it might be convinced to end its support for the Irish Army being integrated into the Battle Groups. It did after all oppose the Iraq war and, unlike FG, it is committed to maintaining the "triple lock" legislation.

While the Labour Party is also committed to a pre-election pact with Fine Gael, the issues of the EU Batttle Groups and the service directive might mean that if it has to choose between the Irish Trade Union Movement and Fine Gael, the current leadership, despite what they are saying at the moment, will be forced to pick the trade union movement.

Therefore while the outcome is not clear, the possibility of the Irish Labour Party and the Irish Trade Union Movement ending their alliance with the Irish Empire Loyalists remains a real option.

Sinn Fein and the Irish Green Party are opposed to Irish participation in the Battle Groups and support the "triple lock" legislation as do a number of independent Dáil Deputies.

Virtually the entire media in Ireland has supported the war on Iraq, EU Battle Groups and the use of Shannon by the American Empire up to the hilt until now, although some elements are beginning to change their minds. However the growth of the Internet has already facilitated alternative methods of spreading information. The power of corporate media to set the agenda is coming to an end.

The Nordic Battle Group

Since the Nordic Battle Group is the preferred group of the Government, the pamphlet by Jan Joel Andersson of the Swedish Institute for European Policy studies, "Armed and Ready?" about the Nordic Battle Group is worth reading. Published in March 2006 it states that on 22 November 2004, Sweden, Finland and Norway declared they would establish a Nordic Battle Group and that Estonia joined shortly afterwards. The NBG was to be ready by January 2008. It will have two light companies equipped with splinter-protected light wheeled vehicles, one heavy company equipped with Hagglunds CV9040 tracked infantry, combat vehicles armed with 40-mm automatic cannon and a logistics company. Combat Support Units drawn from a "menu" of capabilities will complement the core battalion. These capabilities include fire-support (mortars, armour), engineers, air defence, helicopters, ISTAR, CIS-support, CBRN and force protection. It will also have pre-identified strategic air and sealift resources, tactical air transport and close air support, logistics and Special Forces units.

Sweden has assumed overall responsibility and 1,100 personnel. Finland will contribute combat support, such as a heavy mortar platoon, a Chemical Biological Radiological and nuclear detection detachment, a unit in the joint Swedish-Finnish intelligence ISTAR Company and military police, making a total of 200 soldiers. Norway will contribute another 200 troops in medical services, logistics and strategic lift. Estonia will provide 40-50 troops for force protection.

There is no mention of Ireland, but the Minister of Defence has said 200 Irish troops will join the Nordic Battle Group. While he declares he does not like the term Battle Group, any objective analysis of the military equipment outlined above clearly shows that the Nordic Battle Group is not about making tea, it is about being able to go to war, to do battle. That the Irish media parrot the words of the Minister for Defence simply reflects the fact that it is openly complicit in deceiving the Irish people about the real purpose of the EU Battle Groups.

The Battle Group has to train as a single unit so that while each participating state has the right to withdraw its own national contingent it is extremely unlikely that any state would do so, as the Battle Group would then not be able to function properly. In the case of the Irish State, since it already is a strong supporter of an illegal Imperialist war for oil, it would be the last to pull out of another Imperialist military adventure.

The Headquarters of the Nordic Battle Group will be in Northwood, outside London.

Operational planning will be co-ordinate between Sweden, Finland, Norway, Estonia, Britain and now Ireland and the EU Military staff in Brussels. The EU will appoint operational control, probably a Swedish Commander.

Since the EU Battle Group has to be able to go to war anywhere in the world within 10 days, airlift capacity is of crucial importance. It could use British C-17 Globemaster planes or the AN-124-100 Condor Planes from the Ukraine. To be independent it would have to buy its own planes. The C-17 Globemaster costs $202 million each. Ireland would be expected to help pay their share. So much for giving priority to the A&E services. Given such expenditure the Nordic Battle Group is planning to use lighter equipment.

The EU Security Strategy Military Intervention without a UN mandate

The EU Security Strategy, "A Secure Europe in a Better World", was written by the EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javiar Solana, and endorsed by the EU in December 2003.

The EU strategy totally endorses President Bush’s doctrine of preemptive war:

"Our traditional concept of self-defence…. was based on the threat of invasion. With the new threats, the first line of defence will often be abroad… we should be ready to act before a crisis occurs".

The strategy goes on to state that not all these threats can be countered by military means and a mixture of instruments must be used. This however leaves the way open for humanitarian aid being used as a tool in the fight against "terrorism".

Concord, a pan-European federation of over 1200 development NGO’s, has repeatedly cautioned against the EU Security policy misusing humanitarian assistance in such a way.

The fact is the EU does not see itself as being bound by the necessity of securing a UN mandate before it sends the EU Battle Groups to a war. While references are made to observance of the UN Charter (similar references are made in the NATO Treaty) nowhere does it state in the EU Treaties that the EU Battle Groups need a UN mandate. While International Law clearly states a UN mandate would be required before a state was invaded, the EU, like the US, is prepared to ignore such law.

Warmaking and Peacemaking

While the democratic forces in France and the Netherlands defeated the EU Constitution, which would have further consolidated the militarisation of the EU, the existing treaties remain in force including:

Article J7.2 that states:

"Questions referred to in this article shall include humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks, and combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking."

John Bruton, ex-leader of Fine Gael, and the EU representative in the US said after the Amsterdam Treaty was passed:

"Peacemaking means imposing, by the use of force, peaceful conditions under the terms laid down by the peacemaker. It is very difficult to distinguish that fromwarmaking."Dáil Eireann 22/10/99

The EU elite does not need a EU Constitution to establish Battle Groups and we can be sure that Mr. Bruton is reflecting their attitude when he says there is no difference between warmaking and peacemaking.

Command Structure

The decision to deploy Battle Groups would be taken by the EU Council in response to "a crisis" or a "request from the UN".

The deployment of the EU Battle Groups therefore do not need a UN mandate.

The EU Civilian and Military Planning Cell is now well underway in Brussels.

The Cell is directly responsible to the EU High representative Javier Solana. It will have the responsibility of coordinating and generating the capacity to plan and run autonomous EU military operations.

Several of the states participating in the EU Battle Groups are also developing specialist skills. For example, Finland is providing troops trained in combating chemical and biological weapons, Lithuania is providing experts in water purification and Greece is providing troops with maritime transport skills.

Britain is ensuring members of the Paratroop Regiments are being allocated to the EU Battle Groups and clearly their specialty is shooting unarmed Civil Rights marchers.

The need for a rapid response has major implications for the law in many of the national states. The Luxembourg Defence Minister stated:

"Some countries will have to change their laws to be able to take their political decisions quickly and then their military must follow immediately" www.iwar.org.uk

This clearly means that if a quick decision has to be made to deploy the Battle Groups the "triple lock " legislation will have to be abolished, leaving the decision up to the Government, or maybe even the Taoiseach alone to make the decision to deploy the EU Battle Groups. The Fine Gael Party in the Dáil (9/5/06) has already suggested that such a decision be left solely to the Minister of Defence.

NATO and the EU Battle Groups

The EU is very clear that the Battle Groups are to be developed as a military machine in a mutually reinforcing way with NATO initiatives such as the NATO Response Force. This is especially true given the overlap of EU/NATO/Partnership for Peace military that is well established. There is a very strong requirement for interoperability between the EU military forces and NATO military forces. NATO, like the EU Battle Groups has given itself the right to send in troops anywhere in the world.

In fact as far as Britain is concerned, to quote Geoff Hoon, UK Minister for Defence:
"NATO would always have the first choice to launch a military operation"

The reality of the link between the Battle Groups of the EU and NATO was underlined by the report published by 2 ex-NATO chiefs in October 2005. To quote the report:

"Failure to meaningfully improve Europe’s collective defence capabilities in the coming years would have profoundly negative impacts on the ability of European countries to protect their interests, the viability of NATO as an alliance, and the ability of Europe to partner in any meaningful way with the US."

In February 2005 in a letter written to the House of Commons Select Committee on the European Union Hoon describes the EU Battle Groups as being:

"mutually reinforcing with the larger NATO Response Force …… and having the potential to act as a steppingstone for countries that want to contribute to the NATO
Response Force, by developing their high readiness forces to the required standard and integrating small countries contribution to multinational units.

Wherever possible and applicable, standards, practical methods and procedures for Battlegroups are analogous to those defined in the NATO RF.

Correctly managed there is considerable potential for synergy between the two initiatives."

So there it is for all to see. The reality is the EU Battle Groups are not the basis for an alternative European power to the US, but an extension of the power of the US, which dominates NATO. The EU Battle Groups are an extension of the military power of the US/EU Partnership.

Hoon went on to say that the EU states should spend at least 25% of their defence budgets on research and new weapons.

The NATO Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, was even more explicit when in Rome in December 2004 he said:

"NATO and the EU need a partnership that covers all aspects of modern security policy; combating terrorism, preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction, preventing the emergence of failed states, and dealing with them where and when they occur."

The Finnish Minister for Defence regards NATO as a "Partner" and calls for greater interoperability. He says:

"standards and criteria for EU Battle Groups should be the same as those required for similar formations assigned to Nato’s RRF in accordance with NATO standards and criteria."

An official Finnish Ministry document states;

"In practice, many EU countries will double-hat various troops to EU and NATO rapid deployment forces. It is up to those countries to ensure that their resources and personnel are not in simultaneous readiness to two different groups.

In practice, the Battle Groups will mostly be trained in NATO exercises."

Since December 2003 as a consequence of NATO/EU consultations the EU has established a permanent military cell in SHAPE (NATO Headquarters) and NATO has established a permanent liaison arrangement with the EU Military Staff.

NATO has had an established NRF since October 2004. This is a 21,000 combat troop military force capable of being deployed within 5-30 days and is well equipped with high tech weapons.

Since most EU states are also in NATO and many states cannot provide the necessary troops and equipment to both the EU Battle Groups as well as the NRF, arrangements are being made to ensure the EUBG’s and the NRF are mutually coherent and complementary.

The EU Battle Groups lack the necessary independent strategic airlift planes, mid air refueling and communication capability and independent intelligence resources.

Military Equipment.
Thus, to operate independently of NATO, the EU Battle Groups need a commitment by EU States to spend a great deal more money on new military equipment, especially in air lift capability.

On the 7th of March 2006 the EU Defence Ministers agreed to establish a Common Defence and Technology Fund. Javier Solana said at the meeting:

"We must spend more, spend more together and spend more efficiently."

The longer-term concept of the EU Battle Groups by the Franco- German faction of the EU elite remains the idea that they could operate as separate military units directly under the control of the EU Council if required. The concept is reinforced by the need for the EU to have its own satellite system, under EU rather than US control. The EU therefore has spent €3.5 billion on its Galileo system which would be used to facilitate the operations of the EU Battle Groups. These 30 satellites would mean the EU would not be dependent on the US GPS or the Russian GLONASS systems, which are also being financed for military purposes. Since, for example, the US GPS system signal could be blocked or jammed at a moment’s notice, the EU would be completely dependent on the US in its military expeditions unless it had its own satellite system. Germany held up funds for the development of Galileo until an agreement was reached on where the expenditure was to happen and agreed only after more was allocated to Germany.

The Battle Groups would have to take into consideration the role of the Future Rapid Effects System (FRES) centred on a "family" of 900 highly sophisticated combat vehicles costing £6.7 million each, with a lifetime cost of £55.5 million over 30 years.

Other equipment includes the new communication equipment Bowman & Falcon, Watchkeeper unarmed aerial equipment, the Soothsayer electronic warfare capability and the Panther armoured reconnaissance vehicle.

The combined defence budget of the EU states is €175 billion (compared with $ 550 billion for the US) and they have a combined military force of 1.6 million troops, although at the moment only 5-10% (60,000) are deployable as a rapid reaction force thousands of miles from Europe. The EU elite is seeking to raise that number to at least 200,000.

The US political elite is constantly calling for the EU to spend more on militarisation even though it would have a long way to go to reach US expenditure (the US Army has 1.4 million troops, 400,000 of whom can be deployed globally).

Many others however see the EU militarisation only as an extension of the NATO military structures.

Jamie O’Shea of NATO has called for a EU Constitution with provisions that would be, "compatible with NATO".

Many other EU leaders are open about seeing no difference between the EU, NATO and the US. At a recent NATO Conference in Sweden the Lithuanian Ambassador called NATO:

"the greatest military alliance in history – combating global terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and failed states threats which are facing the Euro-Atlantic community"

The EU commitment to spend €25 billion through OCCAR for the A400 M military transport aircraft is a demonstration of what the emerging EU superstate can achieve. Sixty are for Germany, 50 for France and others for Spain, the UK, Belgium and Turkey.

There are investment plans for acquiring an aircraft carrier and airwing by 2008.

The European Defence Agency

In July 2004 the EU foreign Ministers (except Denmark) authorised the creation of The European Defence Agency. This has already been established with a start-up staff of 25 (now 80) and headed up by Nick Whitney. All the EU Defence Ministers
including those of Ireland have control of it and meet at the Agency Headquarters at least twice a year. It has taken over the Western European Armaments Agency and its research cell and has a budget of €2 billion. Its importance is clearly shown by the decision to include it in the EU Constitution, which envisaged it as being central to the development of an EU Defence capability.

Its function is to promote coherence in European defence procurement, enhance collaboration on the development of equipment, promoting the European defence sector’s technological and industrial base. It is also to foster European defence-relevant Research and Technology. It will probably take over previous EU armaments co-operations initatives such as OCCAR and WEAG.

It also seeks to create an internationally competitive European Defence Equipment market, in particular by pursuing an EU-wide development and harmonisation of relevant rules and regulations particularly (by an EU-wide applications of relevant rules) of the LoI Framework Agreement.

Such a development would seriously threaten Europe’s current arms export policy and be a threat to the national democracy of the individual states, as no further national ratifications would be necessary.

The Ceo’s of Europe’s top EADS, BAE Systems and Thales welcomed the establishment of the EDA and called for an increase in military expenditure.

These military corporations are continually seeking to influence the EU elite via direct lobbying groups such as ASD, the New Defence Agenda and the Kangaroo Group. The arms industry by now is very deeply integrated into the elite and the EU security
research budgets are among the best examples of its success.

[Sub-X]

The Privatisation of war and the EU Battle Groups

Mercenaries have played a significant role in war. 30,000 German mercenaries were employed by the British Empire in its efforts to defeat the National struggle for Independence by the USA. However so strong have the neo-liberal values become in the USA today that between 1994-2002 the Pentagon awarded 3,000 contracts to the modern mercenaries now know as Private Military Companies, or PMC’s.

There are now 90 such companies operating in 110 countries and the war in Iraq has been a great boost for them. They constitute the second largest military grouping in Iraq after the US Army.

The revenue of British PMC’s has increased from £32 million to £160 million since the war in Iraq. One of the larger PMC’s, Blackwater, which is very active in Iraq, has stated it could put together a Rapid Reaction Force or Battle Group. As the neoliberal values spread in the EU from the US it is reasonable to assume that the use of mercenaries as Battle Groups or as auxiliaries to the Battle Groups will be strongly advocated by the EU elite in the not too distant future.

Conclusion

When the Peace & Neutrality Alliance was founded 10 years ago to oppose the process by which the elite sought to destroy Irish Independence, Irish Democracy and Irish Neutrality and integrate this state into a neo-liberal, centralised, militarised superstate, few people believed us. Now with Irish neutrality totally destroyed, with Ireland having been transformed into a US aircraft carrier and the Irish Army about to be integrated into the Battle Groups of the EU, there are few who do not believe us.

In 1996, the same year PANA was established, an MRBI poll showed only 32% of people in the Republic of Ireland wanted the state to do all it could to preserve Ireland’s independence from the EU. By 2005 that figure, in a similar survey, had increased to 45%. So the evidence backs up the fact that our 10 years’ long campaign is having a real impact and more importantly, that we are winning.

The objective of PANA is to help translate the clear evidence of the growing opposition to the emerging EU Empire into votes for political parties and independents that are affiliated to PANA.

If the Irish political elite, led by the Fianna Fail/PD Government are to be defeated in their efforts to restore the Redmondite Imperialist tradition then an alternative political formation has to be created.

The large votes against the EU Treaties and the latest MRBI/TSN poll, which showed the majority of the Irish people would reject the EU Constitution also shows a growing opposition to a European Empire.

The massive anti-war demonstrations in 2003 and the enormous marches in 2005 in support of the Irish Ferry workers show, like the poll results quoted, that there is very real and strong opposition to the transformation of the EU into a centralised,
militarised, neo-liberal superstate among a very large number of people.

The parties that have played a key role in these demonstrations have been the Green Party, the Labour Party, Sinn Fein and the smaller socialist parties, as well as a number of radical independents. PANA has always acted as a catalyst in the efforts to build these political forces into an alternative alliance and an alternative Government, and we will continue to do so.

Victory

There is no doubt that, on one hand building such an alliance to the imperialist formation that now dominates our political/media elite is not easy. On the other hand, since all the Fianna Fáil, PD, Fine Gael and unionist parties offer is a sustained attack on the living and working conditions of the people and a deepening Irish involvement in an ongoing war in which the defeat of the EU/US military is the only possible option, it might not be as difficult as all that. We should know from previous major political shifts such as 1912-1918, or 1927- 32 that many of the political activists operating within the elite change sides, and it will not be any different this time around either.

We should therefore accept that the defeat of the neo- Redmondites is absolutely inevitable; it’s only a question of time. Our real task, therefore is to ensure that the alternative that develops is rooted in the anti-imperialist philosophy of Tone and Connolly. The creation of an alternative, based on an alliance of the political formations that have already shown their leadership in the 2003 and 2005 demonstrations against the war and in support of the workers in Irish Ferries, is and will remain the central objective of PANA. The linking of the militarisation of the EU with its neo-liberal economic goals in the minds of the people is of crucial importance if we are to win.

After all, the living standards of the ordinary trade unionist is going to be eroded very quickly by the service directive, and since we are being dragged deeper and deeper into war, it is more than possible that faced with the choice of dying for a neo-liberal elite led by a George W. Bush or a Hilary Clinton, as advocated by FF/FG/PD/DUP/UUP parties, or a Red/Green Alliance that is opposed to war, they will choose the Red/Green Alliance.

PANA has never been about protest. PANA has always been about winning. It is about defeating imperialism by gaining the support of the people for a real alternative: a United Independent Democratic Irish Republic with its own Independent Foreign Policy pursued through a reformed United Nations, with neutrality enshrined in our Constitution, and an Irish Protocol attached to an EU Treaty which would exclude our involvement with the militarisation of the EU.

PANA has steadily built up links with other peace movements throughout Europe and believe that our vision for the future of Europe is part of wider vision shared by growing numbers of people throughout the European states.

Throughout the whole of South America a wave of antiimperialist political forces is winning the support of the people and consolidating the political terrain. In the Middle East the total defeat of EU/US Imperialism is only a few years away. The willingness of some Shia leaders to ally themselves with US Imperialism will undermine their ability to provide a coherent alternative, leaving the option for a democratic alternative, based on the unity of Iraq, to emerge as the only effective answer to Imperialism.

Not just in Ireland therefore, but also throughout South America, the Middle East as well as throughout Europe and in the US itself, through organizations such as United for Peace & Justice, a global anti-imperialist movement is being created. PANA is only one small part of that global movement. Defeating the efforts of the Irish political elite to integrate the Irish Army into the EU Battle Groups is also only a small part of a very much wider struggle. But win we will, and win we must. For all the Imperialists offer is war, poverty and defeat; all they offer is a return to the Dark Ages.

Roger Cole, Chair,
Peace & Neutrality Alliance
www.pana.ie


For further information:

ISSP 1996,
Lansdowne 1998,
Irish Times/MRBI 2001,
ECR Survey 2001,
Irish Times/MRBI 2002,
Irish Times/TSNmrbi 2003, 2004, 2005
www.russfound.org
www.tni.org
www.forum-europe.com
www.isis-europe.org
www.nato.int
www.ecln.org
www.defence-aerospace.com
www.sweden.gn.se
www.eurotopiamag.org
www.sieps.se
www.stimson.org
ue.eu.int
www.sipri.org
www.acus.org
www.corporateeurope.org
www.cer.org
www.norway-nato.org
www.statewatch.org
www.forumoneurope.ie
www.observer.com
www.europolitic.com
www.kas.de
www.axisglobe.com
www.newdefenceagenda.org
www.spectrezine.org
www.social-europe.org.uk

[Sub-X]

European Referendum Campaign
http://www.erc2.org/6.0.html

ERC Video Journal
Introduction:What is the Video Journal about?

ERC Video Journal No 1
Denial of democracy in France.Quote of Angela Merkel.Interview with Susan George.

ERC Video Journal No 2
Political apathy in Germany.People don't believe in politics.
 
ERC Video Journal No 3
Broken promises in the UK

ERC Video Journal No 4
Faces of the Irish No Campaign

[Sub-X]

Lisbon treaty gets YouTube treatment
http://www.techcentral.ie/article.aspx?id=11948
07 Apr 2008

Web video steps up to political debate

The National Forum On Europe today launched a Channel on YouTube, the video sharing site which gets hundreds of millions of views per day.  The new Channel (www.youtube.com/forumoneurope) will provide a window into the public meetings which the Forum is currently holding around the country on the Treaty of Lisbon. It features short video clips from people attending the meetings, as well as from the prominent speakers who have been outlining the case for and against the Treaty at each event.

The National Forum On Europe is the first Irish public body to host a topical debate on a YouTube Channel.
The Chairman of the National Forum On Europe, Maurice Hayes, says that the move is in line with the mandate of the National Forum On Europe to provide a neutral space for discussion on the European Union and Ireland's role in it. "You will find many shades of opinion on the Treaty reflected on the Forum's YouTube Channel. What we are also doing is tapping into a growing trend among  public bodies and political campaigns in other countries to avail of this popular accessible form of  democratic engagement".

YouTube was acquired by Google in 2006. Speaking on the launch of the Forum's Channel John Herlihy, Vice President of Google, commented: "we are delighted to see today's launch of a YouTube channel on the Lisbon Treaty. We hope that this channel will encourage public debate amongst all age groups on this vital issue." Google's European Headquarters is located in Dublin, where the company employs over 1,500 people.

[Sub-X]

What exactly are we reforming in this treaty?
http://www.thepost.ie/post/text/story.asp?document_id=30287&category_name=&version=print
10 February 2008
By Vincent Browne

Last Wednesday afternoon, I visited the offices of the European Commission in Molesworth Street, Dublin. I wanted a copy of the Lisbon Reform Treaty, on which we will vote in a few months. One of the three gentlemen at reception gave me a photocopy of the document, the only form in which this treaty is available.

I noted that on page 10 (I think it was on page 10, for even the page numbers are confusing) Article 1 stated: ‘‘The Treaty on the European Union shall be amended in accordance with the provisions of this article.” Then, at the bottom of this page, it says Article 1 shall be amended as follows: ‘‘The third paragraph shall be replaced by the following: The Union shall be founded on the present Treaty and on the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Treaties’).”

I asked the jovial gentlemen at reception if I could have a copy of the ‘‘Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union’’ because, I explained, it obviously was not possible to understand the Reform Treaty, on which we were to vote, without having a copy of the ‘‘Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union’’.

They said they didn’t have it. I asked how then could I understand the Reform Treaty. They were sympathetic to my dilemma.

At this stage, we were joined by a woman who worked upstairs in the Commission office. She asked if she could help. I explained my predicament.

She, too, was sympathetic and explained that actually there was no such thing as the ‘‘Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union’’. She understood that the Council of the European Union had decided to publish a version some time in April, but that was not certain.

We were then joined by another person from upstairs, whom I had met previously. This person explained that the ‘‘Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union’’ was actually a compilation of all the previous treaties since the Treaty of Rome in 1957. This person said she could give me a summary of the Reform Treaty which should be enough, as it explained what the Reform Treaty was about and I would not have to bother my little head (actually, she did not use that phrase, but that was the tenor of the remark) trying to understand all this on my own by going through the previous treaties.

I said, no, I would like to do my own evaluation of the Reform Treaty, and would like to understand it - but how could I do so if there was not a copy of the treaty which it purported to amend?

She repeated the information about the possibility that, some time in April, the Council of Ministers might publish a copy of the ‘‘Functioning’’ treaty, but this was not certain.

I asked how could anyone vote for this Reform Treaty if they were not in a position to find out what it meant? I was told that our democratically-elected politicians could tell us citizens what the Reform Treaty was about, and on the basis of what they told us, we could vote.

I said I didn’t find that satisfactory, since I was being asked to make up my own mind and then vote on the Reform Treaty.

At this stage, someone said the Institute of European Affairs (the outfit in North Great George’s Street, near where David Norris lives) had published an annotated version of the Reform Treaty which would explain everything. I said I still would like to make up my own mind, as I believed the Institute of European Affairs was the cheerleader for the EU and would be unlikely to offer an objective analysis of the treaty.

The gentlemen at reception were amused at the exchanges and one of them asked why did I not go across the road to the Government Stationery Office and maybe they would have the ‘‘Functioning Treaty of the European Union’’.

I went across the road as advised, and met an official whom I knew vaguely from previous visits. I asked for the ‘‘Functioning Treaty of the European Union’’. He said he had never heard of it. I said neither had I. He went to his catalogue to see if he could find any reference to the ‘‘Functioning Treaty of the European Union’’. Nothing. He checked this on a computer. Nothing.

I have been looking through this photocopy of the Reform Treaty, which the helpful and good-humoured gentlemen at the reception desk of the European Commission office had given me. The whole thing is unintelligible unless you have it side-by-side with this ‘‘Functioning Treaty of the European Union’’ - and since this ‘‘Functioning Treaty of the European Union’’ is not about, it is impossible to understand what the Reform Treaty is about.

Just think of the sheer outrageous arrogance of our betters who want us to go into the ballot boxes sheepishly and vote Yes to a treaty that we cannot possibly understand from the documentation they have made available.

If you were asked by a bank manager or estate agent or solicitor to sign a form, wouldn’t you insist on knowing in advance what it was before doing so?

Why, then, are we expected to approve a treaty that affects our Constitution (for if it didn’t affect our Constitution, we would not have to vote at all) without being able to understand what it is about, other than by trusting the word of these arrogant trick artists?

I would bet my bottom dollar that not one of the following gang have a bull’s notion of what this treaty means article by article, for the good reason that it is literally incomprehensible: Bertie Ahern, Dermot Ahern, Brian Cowen, Dick Roche, Mary Harney, John Gormley, Enda Kenny, Eamon Gilmore and the rest. Even Alan Dukes - and even more Brendan Halligan (the guy who is chairman of the European Institute of European Affairs in North Great George’s Street, near where David Norris lives).

The only responsible, sensible, reasonable, intelligent course of action to adopt is to vote No to this treaty on the grounds that we don’t know - and can’t know - what it means.

[Sub-X]

A European Battle fought on Irish soil.
http://www.pana.ie/idn/120208.html
February 2008
By Carol Fox

Read Document here:Irish Independence

For generation after generation some Irish people have fought for Irish Independence while others fought for Imperialism. While some gave their allegiance - like the United Irishmen, the Young Irelanders and the Fenians – to the Republic, others supported Home Rule within an Empire and advocated Irish participation in its Battle Groups. This involved taking part in wars throughout the world in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and the Sudan.

That Irish Imperialist tradition has now been restored as the dominant ideology of the Irish political elite.

Since 1996 the Peace & Neutrality Alliance has opposed its restoration. We were the only alliance that campaigned against the Amsterdam Treaty when 38% of the people voted in favour of Irish Independence.

We played a key role in winning the 1st Nice referendum, which had the effect of ensuring the “triple lock” legislation. We also secured a Declaration in favour of Irish neutrality being added to the treaty, plus the establishment of the National Forum on Europe, all of which helped the government win the 2nd Nice referendum.

Now, the “triple lock” legislation has been emasculated and our neutrality destroyed. Ireland has become an integral part of Bush’s war machine, and the National Forum on Europe little more than an EU elite fan club.

Now, the government seeks the support of the Irish people in the referendum on the renamed EU Constitution (the Lisbon Treaty), which is essentially the same treaty that was rejected by the French and Dutch people. The elite changed its name to ensure there would be no more referendums in any of the other states of the EU because they know that they would be defeated. The only reason Ireland is having a referendum is as a consequence of our struggle for National Independence which ensures we have an Irish Constitution, that includes article 6 that states that all power derives from the people and cannot be transferred from them to the institutions of the emerging European Superstate without their consent. Our Supreme Court made that judgment in favour of the case brought by Raymond Crotty.

In an Irish context, this referendum is just another battle between those of us whobelieve in Irish Independence and those that support a Superstate. But because none of the other peoples of the EU are being allowed to have a referendum it is also a European battle that will be fought on Irish soil. It is a battle between those of us who advocate a Partnership Europe, a Partnership of Independent Democratic States, legal equals, without a military dimension, and those that advocate a European centralised, militarised, neo-liberal superstate, allied to the US and actively engaged in the resource wars of the 21st century. The defeat of the EU/US/NATO axis is the only inevitable outcome.

We seek a NO vote, so a new treaty can be agreed that would include a Protocol along the following line that would exclude us from involvement with or paying for the militarisation of the EU:

“With regard to measures adopted by the Council in the relevant articles, Ireland does not participate in the elaboration an implementation of decisions and actions which have defence implications, but will not prevent the development of closer cooperation between member states in this area. Therefore Ireland shall not participate in their adoption. Ireland shall not contribute to the financing of the operational expenditure arising from such measures.”

In this pamphlet PANA outlines the military dimension of the renamed EU Constitution and would hope you will vote no and join us in advocating Irish Independence, Irish Democracy and Irish Neutrality. It will be held in the year that marks the 90th anniversary of the historic vote in 1918 when the Irish people voted for the Republic. PANA calls upon the people to once again confirm their commitment to that Republic by voting no to this Imperial Charter.

[Sub-X]

A Policy document by the Peace and Neutrality Alliance.
http://www.pana.ie/idn/041104.html
Written by Carol Fox

A Policy document by the Peace and Neutrality Alliance

Introduction:
Before the end of 2006, the Irish people will be asked to go to the polls to approve the new EU Constitution. This will be a momentous vote. The importance of creating a Constitution for the European Union has been acknowledged by the fact that nearly half the EU countries, representing over half the EU's population, will also be having referendums. This is not the normal stuff of EU Treaties where very few countries allow their people to vote on ratification: it is normally left up to Parliaments for approval. Ireland is one of the few exceptions where, thanks to the Supreme Court Case of Raymond Crotty in the late 1980s, the Irish Government was forced to submit the Single European Act and all subsequent treaties to the people for approval: a nod and wink through the Dail was not enough. The Peace and Neutrality Alliance is pleased that more countries will be having referendums in this instance but we feel that all the EU Member States should be giving – or withholding – approval of the EU Constitution via a vote of all the people. Referendums should be held throughout Europe on the same day.

However, some EU Member States will be attempting -- like our own Government – to downplay the real significance of the EU Constitution. This is not merely a pulling together of previous EU treaties into one tidy, more readable document, as our Government will argue. It contains a number of new elements, particularly in the areas that the Peace and Neutrality Alliance (PANA) is most concerned with: common foreign, security and defence policy. It is also far more than a Treaty and the term ‘Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe' is designed to obscure what is being proposed: this is a Constitution for a developing EU State, with its own Central Bank, citizenship, currency, laws, judiciary, executive and parliament, President, Foreign Minister, Diplomatic Corps, Charter of Fundamental Rights, military headquarters and evolving army and police force. There is a national anthem, a flag, and a motto. The new EU Constitution will have primacy over the Irish Constitution and all the other constitutions of the EU Member States.

The new departures in the foreign policy and defence areas include:

1) institutional measures to give the EU a stronger voice and role in international affairs: these include a permanent EU President (the rotating six month EU Presidencies between the member states will end) and an EU Foreign Minister and EU Department of Foreign Affairs (European External Action Service);

2) an expansion of the ‘Petersberg Tasks' to be carried out by the EU's civilian and military forces, to include combating terrorism, and possible pre-emptive military action against perceived ‘threats';

3) a new innovation, Structured Cooperation, which allows mini-military alliances to be established within the structures of the EU to carry out the EU's more ‘demanding' missions;

4) Mutual Solidarity and Mutual Defence Clauses which oblige all member states to come to the assistance of any member state subject to armed aggression, terrorist threat or attack, or manmade/natural disaster.

All of these innovations have been developed within a post 9/11 international environment, and the controversies of the Iraq War. They are backed up by a new EU Security Strategy, "A Secure Europe in a Better World", written by the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javiar Solana, and endorsed by the EU in December 2003.

[Sub-X]

VOTE NO TO REJECT COMMON CORPORATE TAX – LIBERTAS 
http://www.libertas.org/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/
Tuesday, 08 April 2008

The announcement by the French Finance Minister that her country intends to pursue the adoption of a common consolidated corporate tax base (CCCTB) during the French EU Presidency should strike fear into the heart of every Irish voter, Libertas has said this morning.

Responding to reports this morning, Libertas Chairman Declan J. Ganley said that the statement by a French Government Minister revealed the true agenda of the Brussels governing class.

The French Finance Minister, Christine Lagarde, was quoted this morning as saying about CCCTB that "it's an issue we're determined to push". The report also said that a full proposal would be published in the autumn and that commission officials had "indicated privately that the controversial tax plan would not be presented prior to the Irish referendum…. for fear of provoking a negative reaction".

Responding to the news, Libertas Chairman Declan J. Ganley said:

"No doubt there will be consternation in Government buildings this morning at Ms. Lagarde's remarks. She's gone and given the game away!

On a more serious note, the fact of the matter is that a common corporate taxation base is the number one item on the agenda for the European Union after the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.

A Common corporate tax base would destroy the Irish economy. In a challenging economic environment, the stakes could not be higher.

Why would we vote for a treaty that weakens Ireland's voice at the table at a time when there is a huge army of special interests lining up to try and deprive us of the one economic tool that we still have? We need to fight this proposal, and we need to send Europe a very clear message in relation to it.

On June 12th, Irish people will go the polls, and all of Europe will be watching. It will be the last chance we have to express our views as a nation on this proposal. We can vote to retain our economic independence.

If ever there was a clearer, more obvious reason for voting no to this Treaty, I have not heard it".


 

Lack of accountability in Europe a "disease" – Ganley  
http://www.libertas.org/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/
Saturday, 05 April 2008

The lack of democratic accountability in Brussels is a disease eating at the heart of Europe, Libertas Chairman Declan Ganley will say tomorrow.

In a major speech in Copenhagen, where Mr. Ganley is scheduled to accept the highest honour of the JuneMovement political group, the Frode Jacobsen Prize, Mr. Ganley will outline in detail his primary objection to the Lisbon treaty.

Pledging to leave "no stone unturned" in Libertas quest to secure a "no" vote, Mr. Ganley will say that the Treaty is "the child of political amnesia", and accuse the leaders of Europe of failing to learn the lessons of history.

He will also attack the "Yes" campaign in Ireland for equating the people of Europe with it's political leadership, saying that the accusation that Ireland would be "turning it's back on Europe" by voting no means that Ireland would be turning its back on the failed policies of Europe's politicians, - not the ordinary people of Europe, who are being gagged, according to Mr. Ganley.

Referring to the unaccountable nature of Brussels, Mr. Ganley will point to a number of issues surrounding corruption and incompetence that would not be tolerated in any democratic state. He will say that supporting the Lisbon Treaty would be like "handing a drunk man the keys to the brewery".


 

[Sub-X]

Official Journal of the European Union
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2004:310:SOM:EN:HTML

TREATY ESTABLISHING A CONSTITUTION FOR EUROPE

PREAMBLE

PART I

PART II

PART III

PART IV

PROTOCOL ON THE ROLE OF NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

PROTOCOL ON THE APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY

PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE EUROPEAN SYSTEM OF CENTRAL BANKS AND OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK

PROTOCOL ON THE LOCATION OF THE SEATS OF THE INSTITUTIONS AND OF CERTAIN BODIES, OFFICES, AGENCIES AND DEPARTMENTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PROTOCOL ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PROTOCOL ON THE TREATIES AND ACTS OF ACCESSION OF THE KINGDOM OF DENMARK, IRELAND AND THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, OF THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC, OF THE KINGDOM OF SPAIN AND THE PORTUGUESE REPUBLIC, AND OF THE REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA, THE REPUBLIC OF FINLAND AND THE KINGDOM OF SWEDEN

PROTOCOL ON THE TREATY AND THE ACT OF ACCESSION OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC,THE REPUBLIC OF ESTONIA, THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THE REPUBLIC OF LATVIA,THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA, THE REPUBLIC OF HUNGARY, THE REPUBLIC OF MALTA,THE REPUBLIC OF POLAND, THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA AND THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

PROTOCOL ON THE EXCESSIVE DEFICIT PROCEDURE

PROTOCOL ON THE CONVERGENCE CRITERIA

PROTOCOL ON THE EURO GROUP

PROTOCOL ON CERTAIN PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AS REGARDS ECONOMIC AND MONETARY UNION

PROTOCOL ON CERTAIN PROVISIONS RELATING TO DENMARK AS REGARDS ECONOMIC AND MONETARY UNION

PROTOCOL ON CERTAIN TASKS OF THE NATIONAL BANK OF DENMARK

PROTOCOL ON THE PACIFIC FINANCIAL COMMUNITY FRANC SYSTEM

PROTOCOL ON THE SCHENGEN ACQUIS INTEGRATED INTO THE FRAMEWORK OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PROTOCOL ON THE APPLICATION OF CERTAIN ASPECTS OF ARTICLE III-130 OF THE CONSTITUTION TO THE UNITED KINGDOM AND TO IRELAND

PROTOCOL ON THE POSITION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND IRELAND ON POLICIES IN RESPECT OF BORDER CONTROLS, ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION, JUDICIAL COOPERATION
IN CIVIL MATTERS AND ON POLICE COOPERATION

PROTOCOL ON THE POSITION OF DENMARK

PROTOCOL ON EXTERNAL RELATIONS OF THE MEMBER STATES WITH REGARD TO THE CROSSING OF EXTERNAL BORDERS

PROTOCOL ON ASYLUM FOR NATIONALS OF MEMBER STATES

PROTOCOL ON PERMANENT STRUCTURED COOPERATION ESTABLISHED BY ARTICLE I-41(6) AND ARTICLE III-312 OF THE CONSTITUTION

PROTOCOL ON ARTICLE I-41(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION

PROTOCOL CONCERNING IMPORTS INTO THE EUROPEAN UNION OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS REFINED IN THE NETHERLANDS ANTILLES

PROTOCOL ON THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY IN DENMARK

PROTOCOL ON THE SYSTEM OF PUBLIC BROADCASTING IN THE MEMBER STATES

PROTOCOL CONCERNING ARTICLE III-214 OF THE CONSTITUTION

PROTOCOL ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL COHESION

PROTOCOL ON SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR GREENLAND

PROTOCOL ON ARTICLE 40.3.3 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND

PROTOCOL RELATING TO ARTICLE I–9(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION ON THE ACCESSION OF THE UNION TO THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS

PROTOCOL ON THE ACTS AND TREATIES WHICH HAVE SUPPLEMENTED OR AMENDED THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY AND THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION

PROTOCOL ON THE TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES OF THE UNION

PROTOCOL ON THE FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE EXPIRY OF THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY AND ON THE RESEARCH
FUND FOR COAL AND STEEL

PROTOCOL AMENDING THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY

ANNEX I-LIST REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE III‑226 OF THE CONSTITUTION

ANNEX II-OVERSEAS COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES TO WHICH TITLE IV OF PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES

FINAL ACT

DECLARATIONS CONCERNING PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION

DECLARATIONS CONCERNING PROTOCOLS ANNEXED TO THE CONSTITUTION

[Sub-X]

An Introduction to EU Council Decision Making
http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=259

Watch here

A summary of the EU Council of Ministers meeting of 18 May 2004 where the (now rejected) software patents directive was discussed.

The European Parliament heavily amended the original Commission proposal in its first reading of 23 September 2003, so as to prevent the codification of software patents in Europe rather than enforcing them. The European Commission, the Council presidency and a number of other Council members did not like this and wanted to throw out or water down all significant amendments by the European Parliament.

Here you can see how they did that, and got away with it until the European Parliament finally rejected the directive in July 2005.

I hope this video can give some insight in how politics at on of the highest levels of the EU works, and that it demonstrates that more democratic control is necessary over the behaviour of the national ministers at the Council sessions.

More information on the software patents directive and related issues can be found on the FFII’s website at http://www.ffii.org

The full video footage of the Council meeting summarised here can be downloaded from http://media.ffii.org/Council18may/council18may04.avi, but note that it’s 1371MB (i.e., almost 1.4GB)

[Sub-X]

The EU Lisbon Treaty: Springing the Trap
http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=260

Springing the Trap

The EU Lisbon Treaty is due to come into effect in Jan 2009. It will be the final stage of a plan the European bankers and elites have been working on for decades. A scientific control grid, monitoring and controlling your every move. From 2009 onwards you will gradually lose more and more of your freedom, privacy and control of your life. The Lisbon Treaty proposes the following, for the first time:

The EU will be a state
You will be a real citizen of the state
EU will decide your rights
EU criminal law will overrule Irish criminal law.
EU policing will overrule Irish policing
Many other area of legislation will be handed over to the unelected eurocrats in Brussels…

[Sub-X]

Lisbon - Greater Efficiency or Democracy - Which is it Dick?
http://www.libertas.org/content/view/259/1/
Friday, 11 April 2008

Those campaigning for a "Yes" vote in the Lisbon treaty referendum should state whether they agree with European Commission Vice President Margot Wallstrom when she said that the Lisbon Treaty would make the EU less democratic, Libertas is saying today.

Wallstrom, who visited Ireland several weeks ago to support the Treaty, said on Wednesday about the Treaty:

"Whatever we win in efficiency we might lose in democratic legitimacy because we need someone who can speak their own language and be acceptable to their people and stand up for them.

We have only started to reflect on how it can work in practice with losing a Commissioner and we have to find a system – and this is the downside and definitely a problematic thing".


Commenting on Ms. Wallstrom's remarks, Libertas Campaign Director David Cochrane said:

"Here we have the Vice President of the EU Commission effectively saying that the Lisbon treaty will damage Ireland. She is saying that the EU Commission is sacrificing democratic accountability and legitimacy for the sake of being able to make decisions more efficiently and quickly.

This is an enormous admission for a commission official to make.

Our own Government has 15 ministers and 20 ministers of state – an executive of 35 in total  - for a population of 4 million people. Yet they tell us we can't have an executive of 27 for 400 million people. It just doesn't add up. During the Nice campaign, the Government promised that Ireland would keep its Commissioner for at least "130 years".

It is absolute nonsense to suggest that our loss of a Commissioner for five out of every 15 years, together with a halving of our vote in the Council is somehow counterbalanced by the suggestion that: "Ah sure, everyone loves the Irish and we punch above our weight" - that's rubbish, and should be treated as such.

A small country with a localized political system is affected to a far greater extent by the loss of a Commissioner than a large state with a large number of MEPs and a higher voting weight.

At any rate, can anyone on the Yes side tell us how many Commission staff will be laid off as a result of this sudden rush to make the Commission more efficient? The answer is none, - because this is not about real reform.

The Vice President of the EU Commission has now flatly contradicted what our own Government have been telling us.

The fact is that this Treaty is bad for Ireland, and bad for democracy in Europe. I applaud Ms. Wallstrom for at least having the honesty to admit it. Libertas is urging the Irish public to Vote No to Lisbon to keep our permanent Commissioner in Brussels - we believe many of the other member states will thank Ireland for it."

A vote against Lisbon is not a vote against Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael – Ganley
http://www.libertas.org/content/view/258/1/

Voting No to the Lisbon Treaty does not mean that you are voting against the best interests of your Party, Libertas Chairman Declan Ganley said this evening.

Addressing a group of Irish Citizens in the United States, Ganley said that attempts by Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil to polarise attitudes towards the Treaty along Party Political lines were irresponsible and dishonest.

"I was a proud supporter of Fianna Fáil for many years, - and that support has been well-documented. I am proud of that fact, and I am proud that one of the reasons for that is that Fianna Fáil has always been the party that stood up and fought for Ireland's interests internationally.

There are many members of Fine Gael who have joined us in this campaign, because they believe, in the best traditions of that great party that country comes before sectional political interest.

Sadly, both the great parties of this state have gotten it wrong on Lisbon. Both are filled with good, decent, hard-working and patriotic people, but the leadership of both has fallen in love with the glamour of Europe, and lost sight of its problems.


I am appealing to people who believe in the best traditions of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, people who share the values of the people who founded our state, to stand up and say No to Lisbon.

To do so is to put Ireland first".

[Sub-X]

Poland's President signs Ratification Bill authorisiation
http://www.polskieradio.pl/thenews/politics/?id=80023
11.04.2008

President Lech Kaczynski has signed an authorization bill, the first stage of him ratifying the Lisbon Treaty.

The Speaker of the Sejm Bronislaw Komorowski said that the signature has opened the way to ratification of the document.
 
Komorowski of ruling Civic Platform added that he hopes the President won't delay the Lisbon Treaty Ratification since he signed the authorisation bill only seven days after the date of passing the document by the Sejm the Polish lower house.
 
ccording to the Speaker, President Kaczynski doesn't want Poland to be a straggler in the process of Lisbon Treaty ratification.

Opposition Law and Justice MP Zbigniew Girzyński, however, said that putting a signature under the authorisation bill was a strictly technical act.

The MP, who voted against ratification, added that it is more important when Lech Kaczynski actually ratifies the Treaty itself.

Girzyński explained that the president is waiting for the government and parliament to pass the law on the co-operation between the government and both houses of the parliament on issues concerning Poland's membership in the EU.

The Polish constitution does not specify how much time the President has to ratify an international agreement such as the Lisbon Treaty.

Both Houses of the Polish parliament approved the Lisbon Treaty in the first week of April, with certain opt-outs from the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights. Once President Kaczynski puts his signiture to the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty bill it will become law in Poland.

The Lisbon Treaty is to come in force across the Union on January 1, 2009

Slovak Parliament Approves Lisbon Treaty
http://www.sktoday.com/content/1432_slovak-parliament-approves-lisbon-treaty
11.04.2008

Slovak Parliament on Thursday ratified the Lisbon Treaty. The Treaty of Lisbon was supported by 103 out of 109 MPs present at the session, while 90 votes of the 150-member chamber were required. Opposition SDKU-DS and KDH MPs didn't take part in the vote.

Thus Slovakia has become the ninth EU-member country to approve the Treaty. The document will be signed soon by the Slovak president.

According to Prime Minister Robert Fico, those who didn't support the Treaty in the parliamentary voting are anti-national and anti-European politicians who in the past didn't support the Declaration on the Sovereignty of Slovakia or the Constitution.

It's Opposition SDKU-DS and Christian democrats/KDH who should be blamed for interrupting the tradition of political consensus in Slovakia, Prime Minister said following the EU Treaty ratification.

Fico said that he was prepared to resign if today's voting had been unsuccessful. "How could I cooperate on EU grounds with my European partners if that had been the case?" he asked, adding that he was surprised and appreciates Opposition ethnic-Hungarian SMK decision to vote for the Treaty eventually. However, he said he still considers the party to be in Opposition, and denied any suggestion of a cooperation agreement between SMK and the Coalition.

Slovak President Ivan Gasparovic said that he is glad that Slovak Parliament approved the Treaty of Lisbon on Thursday. Slovakia's head of state said he supports this move and, at the same time, he appreciates the stance of MPs who voted in favour of the Treaty.

[Sub-X]

Court ruling and Lisbon Treaty mean 'race to the bottom
http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/130
April 10th, 2008

On April 3rd the European Court of Justice made yet another ruling that asserts the right of business to use labour, human beings, from wherever they are cheapest – to gain competitive advantage where labour is dearer. In its judgement on the Niedersachsen case, the Court ruled that a requirement to pay more than the minimum wage in Germany would be a restriction on the right of a Polish company to provide (cross-border) services using Polish workers – as guaranteed by Art 49 of the Treaty of Rome. The same principle applied in the Laval ruling last December. Thus the minimum wage can become the benchmark, driving down wages across the board, in order to guarantee a profit.

These rulings should be a wake-up call to anybody concerned about the Lisbon Treaty. Lisbon re-asserts competition as central to EU policy. It was EU competition rules which caused the de-industrialisation of eastern Europe and the new situation we face: at least 100 million people living in regions of poverty and high unemployment out of a population of 500 million – all bound by the EU's free-market rules. Workers are being forced to compete against each other in a race to the bottom, where conflict is inevitable. Lisbon would make this worse.

Lisbon puts 'price stability' center stage: Art. 2 puts 'price stability' as the foundation of all EU economic policy and Art. 245 says it is the 'primary objective' of the European Central Bank - not employment or sustainable development. Art. 104 and 115 give the EU more powers to force governments to reduce state debt – in situations where borrowing can be essential to reduce unemployment or provide public services. And Art. 188 would make it easier for the EU to make international agreements that would contract-out more of our health, education and social services to multinational corporations.

The increased use of cheaper labour, so far mostly in construction, would be made easier by the trade agreements and outsourcing that Lisbon would facilitate. And the recent rulings of the European Court make it clear which rights are actually 'fundamental' in the EU: profit comes first and social protection second. It is this, the likelihood of future EU decisions being unpopular in some member states, that lies behind the many changes in Lisbon to use majority voting rather than seek unanimity: objections to unpopular decisions can be outvoted.

We in Ireland are at the end of a boom. Along with the peoples of Europe, we face a difficult situation. Lisbon would put more decisions in the hands of an elite and entrench their fundamental policy, which is to make us compete against one another, while they ensure their own protection. We, and the peoples of Europe who are being denied a vote, need an alternative. Its time to say NO.

[Sub-X]

The Lisbon Treaty - Centralization and Neoliberalism
http://www.pana.ie/idn/280208.html
by Jonas Sjöstedt (February 2008)

Röda EU-tema number 10 is published by the Swedish Delegation of the GUE/NGL

The Lisbon Treaty-Centralization and Neoliberalism

Respect the Will of the People!
Preface by Jens Holm and Eva-Britt Svensson

In the summer of 2005, the voters of France and the Netherlands said no to the proposed EU Constitution. In both countries debate had been intensiv and voter turnout was high. After the vote in the two countries, most other countries discontinued their efforts for ratification of the proposed constitution. Public opinion surveys indicated that voters in several other members
of the EU, including those of Sweden, would have rejected the proposal had they been given the chance.

The referendums on an EU constitution provided the EU with the opportunity for debate and self-criticism. We were hopeful that consideration would be given to criticism of the proposal, which, to a large extent, had come from the left. It was a criticism focused on the EU’s democratic weakness, its altogether too centralized power structure and its neoliberal character. The referendumsgave those in power within the EU the chance to show sensitivity and create a better Union. Unfortunately this has not happened. The proposed Lisbon Treaty that this document describes has, for all practical purposes, the same content as the rejected constitution. Few changes have been made, and where they have, they are most often symbolic. For example, the paragraph concerning EU laws’ precedence over national laws has been transformed into a binding protocol. The title for the Union’s foreign minister has been changed, but the position remains. The name for the text itself has been changed from constitution to treaty. But the content is the same. These changes have been made in order to be able to claim that the content has been changed and to make it easier to ride roughshod over public opinion in the member countries. The powers that be within the EU do not want to hear whether or not their voters want the new treaty this time either. They are doing everything in their power to avoid referendums and, thereby, serious debate on the issue.

In different countries the new treaty is described in different ways. In most quarters, not the least of which is in EU institutions, it is admitted that the new treaty is to a large degree identical to the rebuffed constitution. In France and the Netherlands, on the other hand, the governments maintain that significant changes have been made in the new text. For the ordinary voter it is not that easy to judge the content of the text that is to be the EU’s new constitution. The text is very nearly indecipherable, detailing changes in previous treaties, protocols and waivers and with references to other texts. It is a democracy problem in itself when a text that is to take precedence over our national constitutions is a virtual textual morass. Therefore, documents like this one are needed to clarify what the text actually means. We hope that this document will be a guide for citizens who want to understand what the new treaty really means.

Just as was the case with the previous proposal for a constitution, the Lisbon Treaty is a text that magnifies the EU’s failings. The text’s proposals add to the EU’s problem of deficient democracy. Still more power is concentrated in the hands of the Union’s institutions and more populous Member States. The EU is militarized in a manner that is contrary to Swedish policy of being free of military alliances. The treaty makes the market economy pre-eminent over other political concerns such as the environment or workers’ rights. It eliminates Sweden’s waiver of participation in the EU’s single currency, the euro.

The list of the disadvantages of the new treaty is long. By comparison the few positive aspects are easily outweighed. All in all, the changes proposed in the reform treaty are the most far-reaching to have been put forward since Sweden became a member of the Union. They break many of the promises concerning the right of veto, freedom from military alliances, intergovernmental agreements that those in favour of membership gave prior to the vote on joining the EU.

We want a referendum to allow the voters to be able to decide whether or not they want this new EU treaty. The arguments for a referendum now are even stronger than they were during the debate on the EU Constitution. It is also a question of respecting the outcome of the previous French and Dutch votes. It is about respect for democracy – respect for the will of the people.

[Sub-X]

Irish Government plans deception on EU treaty
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/6428
Monday April 14th.

According to an article in today's Irish Daily Mail (not yet available online, unfortunately), the Irish Government have planned to lie to the voters in order to push through the almost universally mistrusted Lisbon Treaty.

The Treaty Con
Irish Daily Mail, Monday April 14th.

The Government has hatched an elaborate plan to deceive voters over the forthcoming EU treaty referendum, the Irish Daily Mail can today reveal. A leaked email shows that ministers are planning a deliberate campaign of misinformation to ensure the treaty vote is passed when it is put to the public as required by the Constitution. The document also shows that the Government is considering a last-minute change in the date of the referendum - slated for June 12 - to catch out 'No' campaigners.

Foreign Minister Dermot Ahern has even been personally assured that the European Commission will 'tone down or delay' any announcements from Brussels 'that might be unhelpful'. Alarmingly, the email says that Ministers ruled out an October referendum, which would have been better procedurally, because they feared 'unhelpful developments during the French Presidency - particularly related to EU defence'.

This suggestion will raise grave fears that the State's constitutional commitment to military neutrality could be undermined by the Lisbon treaty - a rehashed version of the failed EU Constitution. The memo was sent to the British Government by Elizabeth Green, a senior UK diplomat in Dublin, following a briefing from Dan Mulhall, a top official in the Department of Foreign affairs. Its aim was to relay to her political masters in London the lengths to which the Irish government was going to ensure a "yes' vote in the referndum. Ireland is the only EU state which is allowing voters a say on the treaty, and European heads of state are terrified that they will reject the treaty.

Campaigners say that the new treaty could remove Ireland's powers to decide its own tax rates and social policies. However the most controversial aspect from an Irish point of view is the likelihood that the treaty will be used to advance the concept of a 'European army', which would violate the principle of neutrality which has been a foundation-stone of the State since its inception. France is particularly keen to advance the notion of an EU force, which critics fear could be ordered into action over Irish objections by a majority vote of EU heads of state.

Already concerns have been raised that the Irish peacekeeping force being sent to Chad could be compromised by French political and military objectives in the area. The leaked email admits that this is one of the issues which needs to be kept from Irish voters, saying that the possibility of the French speaking out on this issue meant the referndum could not be delayed until the autumn.
'Mulhall said a date in October would have been easier from a procedural point of view. But the risk of unhelpful developments during the French Presidency - particularly related to EU defence - were just too great. Sarkozy was completely unpredictable.' The Irish official also worried that the latest World Trade Organisation talks, which have already aroused the fury of Irish farmers, could turn the voters against the new treaty. Farmers are suppliers are planning a one-day shutdown this week to protest at the tack taken by EU trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson. The email said that Mulhall was concerned about 'a WTO deal based on agricultural concessions that could lead the powerful farming association to withdraw its support.'

However Irish ministers appear to be basing their hopes on the fact that the treaty cannot be read or understood by most voters - and that launching a snap referendum would stop them from doing so. 'Most people would not have time to study the text and would go with the politicians they tusted,' it says. And it points out that the Government plans to keep people from analysing the detail, saying the 'aim is to focus the campaign on overall benefits of the EU rather than the treaty itself.' It then explains the details of the referendum Bill, which it says was 'agreed following lengthy consultation with government lawyers and with the political parties' but which it admits is 'largely incomprehensible to the lay reader.'

The memo details plans to fool campaigners over the date, which has been widely touted as falling on June 12. The memo states: 'Irish have picked 29 May for voting but will delay an announcement to keep the no camp guessing... the Taoiseach and Ahern saw a slight advantage in keeping the no camp guessing.' And it adds that the EC was doing its best to keep any bad news from the Irish public. 'Mulhall said other partners - including the Commission - were playing a helpful, low-profile role. It said that during a trip to Dublin, Vice-President Margot Wallstrom 'had told Dermot Ahern that the Commission was willing to tone down or delay messages that might be unhelpful.' The leaked email also points out that most Irish media have been supine on the issue, saying: 'Mulhall remarked that the media had been relatively quiet on the ratification process so far. We would need to remain in close touch given the media crossover.'

[Sub-X]

[Sub-X]

Government should clarify contents of leaked Lisbon email – Libertas
http://www.libertas.org/content/view/261/1/
Monday, 14 April 2008

Official who authored memo should resign

Libertas is demanding an immediate statement from the Government clarifying the contents of a leaked department of foreign affairs email, the contents of which are detailed in a morning newspaper today.

According to a detailed report in the Irish Daily Mail (scan available here), an email from a very senior Irish official to his British counterpart reveals that the Government is systematically hiding key information about the Lisbon Treaty from voters.

The email also states that the Government has sought and received assurances from EU officials that they will "stay quiet" on the contents of the Treaty for the duration of the campaign, and that the Government has deliberately brought forward the date of the referendum because of the likelihood of embarrassing details about the Treaty being revealed during the French Presidency of the EU.
Libertas Chairman Declan Ganley said that the single most damning thing about the email, however, was the admission that the Government hoped that very few people would actually read the text of the Treaty, and would simply "vote with the politicians they trust".

"The contents of the Story in this morning's Daily Mail require immediate clarification from the Government. If the story is accurate, it means that senior officials in the Irish Government are actively conspiring to release as little information as possible about the Lisbon Treaty in order to preserve the chances of a "yes" vote.

Secondly, it means that the Government is in cahoots with Brussels to keep the most unpopular aspects of the Treaty under wraps until after we've voted on it, - after which time the Irish people will be told that they have to accept whatever the EU is imposing on us because "we voted yes to Lisbon and there's nothing we can do".

Perhaps the most damaging aspect of this story is that Dermot Mulhall, the official who allegedly authored this email, is a civil servant. His responsibility is to the people of Ireland, not to his political masters.

If this story is true, he is conspiring to keep information that is in the public interest away from the people, and he should resign immediately.

Again, I call for an immediate statement on this matter from the Government".

[Sub-X]

POBLACHT NA H EIREANN
___________________________
THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT
OF THE
IRISH REPUBLIC
TO THE PEOPLE OF IRELAND

IRISHMEN AND IRISHWOMEN: In the name of God and of the dead generations from which she receives her old tradition of nationhood, Ireland, through us, summons her children to her flag and strikes for her freedom.

Having organised and trained her manhood through her secret revolutionary organisation, the Irish Republican Brotherhood, and through her open military organisations, the Irish Volunteers and the Irish Citizen Army, having patiently perfected her discipline, having resolutely waited for the right moment to reveal itself, she now seizes that moment, and, supported by her exiled children in America and by gallant allies in Europe, but relying in the first on her own strength, she strikes in full confidence of victory.

We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible. The long usurpation of that right by a foreign people and government has not extinguished the right, nor can it ever be extinguished except by the destruction of the Irish people. In every generation the Irish people have asserted their right to national freedom and sovereignty; six times during the last three hundred years they have asserted it to arms. Standing on that fundamental right and again asserting it in arms in the face of the world, we hereby proclaim the Irish Republic as a Sovereign Independent State, and we pledge our lives and the lives of our comrades-in-arms to the cause of its freedom, of its welfare, and of its exaltation among the nations.

The Irish Republic is entitled to, and hereby claims, the allegiance of every Irishman and Irishwoman. The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and all of its parts, cherishing all of the children of the nation equally and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past.

Until our arms have brought the opportune moment for the establishment of a permanent National, representative of the whole people of Ireland and elected by the suffrages of all her men and women, the Provisional Government, hereby constituted, will administer the civil and military affairs of the Republic in trust for the people.

We place the cause of the Irish Republic under the protection of the Most High God. Whose blessing we invoke upon our arms, and we pray that no one who serves that cause will dishonour it by cowardice, in humanity, or rapine. In this supreme hour the Irish nation must, by its valour and discipline and by the readiness of its children to sacrifice themselves for the common good, prove itself worthy of the august destiny to which it is called.

Signed on Behalf of the Provisional Government:

Thomas J. Clarke,
Sean Mac Diarmada, Thomas MacDonagh,
P. H. Pearse, Eamonn Ceannt,
James Connolly, Joseph Plunkett

The seven signatories of the Irish Proclamation (from left):

Padraig Pearse, James Connolly, Thomas Clarke, Thomas MacDonagh, Sean MacDermott, Joseph Plunkett & Eamonn Ceannt
All of the above men were executed by the British Government for their efforts in trying to secure a free Ireland!

[Sub-X]

Irish government embarrassed by leaked EU treaty email
http://euobserver.com/9/25979/?rk=1
15.04.2008

German chancellor Angela Merkel has called on Irish voters to back the EU treaty on the same day that the Irish government was embarrassed by a leaked email outlining what a UK diplomat says is Dublin's strategy for holding and winning a referendum.

In a state visit to Ireland, the only country to hold a public poll on the treaty, Ms Merkel on Monday (14 April), said "To my mind, the Lisbon treaty offers the best preparation for Europe's future."

"To the sceptics, I can only say that if everything remains as it is now, your concerns will definitely not be better addressed," she told the National Forum on Europe.

Ms Merkel also reassured Ireland, as a small country, that it will have an equal seat at the EU table noting that the new majority voting system in the treaty "is actually more of a problem for the bigger states."

During her visit the Irish government was forced to contend with a story in the Irish Daily Mail which gives details of an email sent by a British official based in Dublin after a briefing by a civil servant in the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs.

According to the article, the email says that the Irish government had ruled out having a referendum in October although it would have been better procedurally because they were concerned about "unhelpful developments during the French presidency – particularly related to EU defence."

The email noted that French president Sarkozy was considered "completely unpredictable."

The defence issue is extremely sensitive in neutral Ireland. Irish voters rejected the EU's Nice Treaty in 2000 largely on the back of a heated debate about neutrality and European defence issues.

The email also alluded to what has been quietly admitted in Brussels since the beginning of the year – that much of EU politics has been put on hold until after the Irish referendum, scheduled to take place on 12 June.

It said that EU communications commissioner Margot Wallstrom had reassured foreign minister Dermot Ahern during a visit to Dublin earlier this Spring that the "commission was willing to tone down or delay messages that might be unhelpful."

Reacting to the article, prime minister Bertie Ahern denied there had been any strategy on Brussels' part.

"On the article today, of course officials from Foreign Affairs, and my department as well, meet our European colleagues on a very regular basis, but the suggestion that Europe will somehow deliberately change announcements ahead of the referendum is without any foundation," he said, according to the Irish Times.

The leaked email – which was not reproduced in full in the newspaper article – has been seized upon by 'no' campaigners.

Declan Ganley, chair of anti-treaty organisation Libertas, said that the most damning part of the email "was the admission that the Government hoped that very few people would actually read the text of the Treaty, and would simply vote with the politicians they trust."

The revelation also came on the same day that a new poll showed that the treaty remains an enigma to most Irish voters.

Some 65 percent of the 1001 people surveyed by the Irish Sun said they had very little or no understanding of the treaty, 28 percent claimed to have some understanding while 6 percent said they fully understood it.

Meanwhile, 60 percent do not know how they will vote on the treaty while 28 percent said they were planning to vote in favour and 12 percent against.

But the same poll also confirmed what has regularly been shown by EU-wide surveys – that Irish voters are the most positive about effects of the European Union. Some 89 percent surveyed said membership of the bloc had been good for the country.

[Sub-X]

The Yes camp are dodging details
http://www.voteno.ie/html/press.htm#dodgingdetails

Kieran Allen, one of the editors of the Voteno.ie appeared before a Dail Committee of Yes supporting TDs and Senators and accused them of evading discussion on the details of the Lisbon Treaty and of trying to "frighten and bore" people into voting yes.

Speaking to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on European Affairs earlier, Kieran Allen of Voteno.ie and the People before Profit Alliance said: "The establishment parties are conducting the debate on Lisbon in an underhand way.

"Instead of engaging with the detail of the treaty, they have tried to frighten and bore people in the hope of carrying the vote.

"The people of Ireland deserve nothing less than a frank and serious debate. We should be provided with a copy of the consolidated text of the Lisbon Treaty for free.

"During the referendum on the EU constitution in France, copies were freely available in the post offices. As a result, turnout was over 70% and an informed citizenry decided to vote no. The Irish political elite want to avoid this type of informed debate.

"Instead they are using three main sorts of arguments which are either erroneous, irrelevant or marginal.

"The Yes camp claim that a no vote would damage Ireland's reputation and scare away foreign investment, yet there is absolutely no evidence for this. US foreign companies do not base their investment strategies on how the people vote in EU referenda.

"The case of France clearly illustrates the fallacy of this argument. The inflow of foreign direct investment to France shot up from $32.6bn (€20.8bn) in 2004 to $81 (€51.6bn) in 2005 when the French voted no and also to $81bn (€51.6bn) in 2006. Opponents of the treaty do not claim that the no vote was good for investment, merely that it had absolutely no detrimental effect.

"They claim that the Lisbon Treaty is necessary to "streamline" the workings of an expanded Europe. But this ignores how the EU Commission itself has acknowledged that enlargement has not hindered decision-making in the EU. The EU Commission has publicly said that the accession of 10 new members in 2004 and of Bulgaria and Romania in 2007 has not slowed down decision making.

"The EU institutions continue to function; new members of the European Parliament play an active role in its political groups; the Barroso Commission works effectively with 27 Commissioners; and the Council takes decisions as well as before.

"The Yes camp ignore the content of the Lisbon Treaty and focus on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, claiming that it adds to the rights of Irish citizens.

"However, this is to concentrate attention on the packaging rather than substance. We challenge the Yes camp to name one single extra right that Irish people gain from this charter.

"We believe there are none because Article 6 of the Lisbon states that "the provisions of the Charter do not extend in any way the competencies of the Union as defined by the Treaties". As if to make doubly sure, the same article states that the "rights, freedoms and principles in the Charter will be interpreted in accordance with the general provision of Title V11 of the Charter".

"But this title says explicitly that: 'The Charter does not extend the field of application of Union law beyond the powers of the Union or establish any new power or task for the Union, or modify the powers and tasks defined in the Treaties.'

"Yes campaigners also state that the Lisbon Treaty will make no real difference to Ireland or the EU. This new claim which has been promoted by Peter Sutherland hardly explains why 271 pages of amendments are needed if it makes for little change. In reality, the Lisbon Treaty brings major changes in the promotion of a neo-liberal economic agenda; in the militarisation of Europe, and in transferring more competencies to the EU rather than individual states."

Kieran Allen also called on the Oireachtas Joint Committee to tell the Irish public how much money is coming from the EU parliamentary groups to help fund the Yes campaign in Ireland.

He also called on the Oireachtas Joint Committee to state what is their projected budget for organising meetings on the Lisbon Treaty and to give an assurance that speakers from both the Yes and No sides will be evenly represented at these meetings.

[Sub-X]

Ireland and Lisbon: giving people the facts
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/08/180&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
Brussels, 7 april 2008
Speech by Commissioner Margot WALLSTRÖM
(Vice-President, Institutional Relations & Communication Strategy, European Commission)

Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen,

Dia Dhaoibh! Hello!

A few weeks ago I was in your lovely country, taking part in a lively debate at the National Forum on Europe. Today, I'm delighted to be once again among Irish people.

Although, I must say that when I was in Ireland I was slightly surprised to find that in terms of news related to Europe, the Lisbon Treaty was sharing the headlines with Dustin the Turkey! I gave a very serious interview to one newspaper about the Lisbon Treaty and the next day the headlines were 'Top Eurocrat says our turkey can go all the way!"

Anyway, thank you for inviting me here to join you in discussing key European issues. The issue uppermost in our minds is, of course, not Dustin but the Lisbon Treaty – and let me start by congratulating you on your excellent "consolidated" edition of the text. Ever since the Treaty was signed, people have been crying out for a version they can read for themselves – so your edition is most welcome. It's a solid basis for an informed debate.

And I see that the Council has now been persuaded to publish an official consolidated text so perhaps the various appeals to have one did not fall on deaf ears. I would like to point out that this will be the first time that an official consolidated text has been produced before a new treaty enters into force.

I want to take a look today at some of the arguments of those campaigning against the Treaty.

But first, can I recall quickly why we need a new Treaty at all:

First, you can't run a Union of 27 countries with machinery designed for a Community of six.

Second, Europe needs to meet the challenges of the 21st century. EU countries need to get their collective act together in areas such as climate change and energy security.

Third, the EU needs to become more efficient, more transparent, more united on the world stage, more secure and – above all – more democratic.

And I want to emphasise the democracy aspect today, because the NO campaigners spend a good deal of time defining themselves as the democrats.

The Treaty gives more power to the national parliaments, to the European Parliament and also directly to citizens.

Members of national parliaments will have greater powers to challenge Commission proposals.

The European Parliament will have greater law-making powers, because "co-decision" will be extended into new policy areas.

For the first time, every EU citizen will have the official right to petition the Commission to bring forward new policy proposals. This citizen's initiative will only require one million signatures from a number of EU countries.

So in this context, let me turn to the objections raised by the "NO" campaigners.

Some of these are simply myths. In Ireland, it doesn't matter how many times it is said, the idea that the Treaty will open the door to tax harmonisation still circulates. Let's be clear, unanimity will remain for tax in the new Treaty, at the insistence of a number of Member States, including Ireland.

A second myth raised by NO campaigners is that the Treaty compromises Ireland's neutrality. Again this is untrue.

Under the Lisbon Treaty, as under previous treaties, defence remains a matter of national sovereignty.

What about a common European defence policy?

Given the dangerous world we live in, EU governments see the need for a collective response to some security situations beyond our borders. For example, sending EU peacekeeping forces to places like Chad and Darfur.

But each Government is free to decide what forces, if any, it will commit to any particular operation. In any case, Ireland's Constitution states that it cannot join a common European defence arrangement unless it is approved by a separate referendum of the Irish people. In Ireland, the triple lock protecting neutrality will not be affected.

So the bogeyman of a "militaristic EU" sweeping young Irish men and women off to war is a complete myth.

A third myth is that the Lisbon Treaty will undermine workers' rights. This is a particularly strange idea. In fact, the Treaty will give added protection to the rights of EU citizens.

How? By making the EU a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. And by giving legal force to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The Charter is a document setting out the rights EU citizens already enjoy. These include the right to life, to education, to freedom of thought, to equality before the law... and workers' rights such as the right of collective bargaining and collective action.

It is important to distinguish what the Lisbon treaty will do for the rights of workers from the impact of recent Court judgements, like Laval, Viking and Ruffert, based on existing EU legislation which in turn was adopted on the basis of the existing Treaties.

The fourth and perhaps the most absurd myth is that the Lisbon Treaty is "self-amending".

In other words, that it enables the EU to by-pass democratic processes when it comes to future Treaty revisions. After all the work in generating the political compromises among 27 Member States to agree on a text, perhaps it would be a relief if this new beast could just do all this by itself!

But it is nonsense. The relevant piece of the Treaty is Article 48, which lays down that EU powers can neither be increased nor decreased unless decided by an Inter-Governmental Conference.

The changes also have to be ratified by all the member states in accordance with their constitutional requirements. For Ireland this means, of course, a referendum. No change there.

Article 48 also says that the member states have to approve any change in EU policies, and that there has to be unanimous agreement before any EU policy area can be moved from unanimity to majority voting.

Clearly, therefore, the Reform Treaty is NOT self-amending.

Other objections are a little more sophisticated. I have some sympathy with those who point out that the Treaty is hard to read though I don't accept the idea that this was done as a conspiracy to prevent people understanding it. Someone called it "a Treaty of footnotes". That's why I'm so glad we are starting to see good consolidated editions such as the Institute's.

Having said that, no-one expects an international Treaty to be either great literature or a thrilling page-turner you can read in bed. It's more like a cookery recipe – a list of ingredients and a set of instructions that enable the cook to produce a satisfying meal.

Or at any rate, in the case of the Lisbon Treaty, a meal acceptable to 27 dinner guests with varying tastes and a number of allergies!

"The proof of the pudding is in the eating" – as the proverb says.

A sixth objection is that the Lisbon Treaty was drafted behind closed doors, without public debate.

I also have some sympathy with this one, but we have to look at the end result, and in the end people should make their judgement on that. I'm very much in favour of open government and I actively encourage public debate about the future of Europe.

Moreover, many of the changes it introduces were discussed to a large extent in a very open manner by the European Convention some years ago.

That's what the European Commission's "Plan D" was all about. That's what its successor, "Debate Europe", is also all about: getting Europe's citizens actively involved in shaping policies and setting the agenda.

However, the Lisbon Treaty is not about setting agendas or shaping policies. It is about the technical "nuts and bolts" of the EU – and, quite frankly, not many people are very interested in nuts and bolts.

Number seven is the accusation that the Lisbon Treaty is the same as the Constitution. Well, the Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty were designed to do essentially the same job. So, inevitably, they are very similar.
You might even say they are 90% identical. But, as one member of the European Parliament pointed out, so is the DNA of mice and of humans! It's the ten percent difference that matters.

So, what are the differences? Aside from the jettisoning of the Constitutional structure itself, and the symbols (which should not be minimised), the Treaty contains innovations that were not in the Constitution. For example:

EU solidarity in the event of an energy supply problem
an additional check on subsidiarity of EU proposals by national parliaments
and a reference to criteria that candidate countries must meet before joining the Union.
So the Lisbon Treaty is very similar to the Constitution, but it is also significantly different – because the work of preparing it was mainly about how best to take account of the concerns that motivated French and Dutch "No" voters in 2005. They were mostly concerns about specific issues such as globalisation and job security. Only a small minority were opposed to the whole idea of a European Union.
Number 8: the NO campaigners say that the Lisbon Treaty transfers power from national governments to the EU in a vast range of new policy areas. Is this true?

As I said earlier, the Treaty does give the EU powers and responsibilities in the field of climate change and energy security. Most people welcome this. Indeed, most EU citizens have been clamouring for EU action in these areas.

The extension of majority voting also means that individual governments will no longer be able to veto EU decisions on cross-border crime, asylum policy and immigration. But national ministers will still be taking those decisions – along with the democratically elected European Parliament, and national parliaments will be given new powers to make sure that EU policies are proportionate and respect subsidiarity.

Finally, outside Ireland, No campaigners say there should be referenda on this Treaty in other countries. The method that each Member State chooses is, frankly, none of my business. Some Member States use referendums, others prefer votes in Parliament. Both are equally valid, equally democratic. It's up to each government to decide its own approach.

But whichever ratification method a country chooses, its citizens have a right to information about this Treaty and a right to hear the arguments both for and against it. So I would like to see a lively debate on the Lisbon Treaty taking place right across the EU.
In Ireland, the Government and the National Forum are already doing a great deal to promote that debate: holding town hall meetings, issuing user-friendly guides to the Treaty, and producing helpful factual summaries of its contents.

The Commission is also playing its part. The Reform Treaty is one of the hottest topics on our new "Debate Europe" online forum. In the eight weeks since it was launched this forum has received almost fifteen thousand comments. In fact, of the top 5 topics of the hundreds in the whole discussion forum, one is entitled 'Ireland vote NO to the Lisbon Treaty! No to dictatorship!' while another is entitled 'Ireland vote YES to the Lisbon Treaty!' So, the whole of Europe is watching what happens in Ireland.

Ladies and gentlemen,
Let me conclude by saying how I want the Irish people to vote in June. I want them to vote... on the basis of facts and knowledge – not on the basis of fear and ignorance.

As the saying goes, a lie will go half way round the world while the truth is still getting its boots on.

I urge you, members of the Irish Institute of European Affairs, to help ensure that the truth gets its boots on.

I invite you to go to the "Debate Europe" online forum and discuss the Treaty there with people from all over Europe.
In practice, it's a choice between two treaties:

the Lisbon Treaty, with the reforms it will bring,
and the present Treaty of Nice, with its well-known shortcomings.
And I honestly believe that the new Treaty will be an important step in that direction.

Thank you very much.

[Sub-X]

Ireland's Referendum Text

[Sub-X]

How the Other Half Campaigns
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87190
Tuesday April 15, 2008
Report from Dublin Castle- Merkel on Monday.

A through the looking glass encounter into how campaigns are run by people with money, political machinery, suits and plush red carpeting. There were very few members of the public but It's well worth going along. The food is great. Posh sandwiches and raspberry chocolates.

It's possible to reserve a seat on www.forumoneurope.ie Manuel Barosso Eu Commissioner is speaking this thurs. At 11am i think.

I found the whole thing very interesting though many of our representatives ambled off before Angela answered their questions. Maybe they knew the answers already.

When Angela Merkel addressed the National Forum on Europe on Mon April 14th every party except Fianna Fail, expressed reservations about the Lisbon Treaty. Interestingly none of the coverage on RTE that I saw showed a single question that she was asked. It looks like the parties who are pushing for a yes vote very semi-publicly aired their doubts to cover themselves if the treaty is passed knowing that people would be unhapppy with the consequences. All of them appeared fairly well informed on the downsides of the treaty considering their assurances to the public that this is an 'enabling' treaty that does nothing but make the running of the EU smoother.

Bottom line is the questions were generally confrontational exploring issues of workers rights, neutrality, loss of sovereignty, climate change, neo-liberal policies, erosion of democracy and privatization of services. To all of this there is one answer that to the heads of the EU trumps everythng else : China. Merkel made it explicit that a strong EU entity with 500 million people is needed to stand up to China. People have asked why would all of the heads of state of Europe enter into a treaty that is a nightmare in terms of job security, the environment, and public services and will cause a massive backlash? The answer is an unwavering commitment to growth at all costs and a commercial race with China, kind of like the Cold War. Angela says Europe needs to be a world power. But what kind of world power do the Eu leaders have in mind? So far it looks very much like a US model and that is not a route that most people in the EU who have had basic services, free healthcare and free education, were likely to vote for, economically, socially or politically. Therefore it needed to be legislated for them. For their own good.

Bertie told Angela she's wonderful and had no questions for her. He did say 'the public hungers for clarity' on the treaty but didn't claim they'd get that from him. He also said 'Everyone recognises the need for climate change.' Potential EU President in-waiting if he can only get a yes vote...

This is a paraphrase but is as close as I can get to what she said. Angela gave a short speech about the wonderful shared values of tolerance and democracy that the Eu has and how much better that is than the DDR, former East Germany, where she was from and how good it is that the Berlin Wall fell and doesn't that mean the EU and democracy are inextricably linked and isn't the fall of the wall a powerful symbol. Most importantly she twice compared 'European political unification' with the re-unification of Germany. Only Germany is a federal state and a post Lisbon Treaty EU would be .. a federal state.

The PDs bizarrely said that people in Ireland 'don'w want to be part of a federal Europe' despite voting for a federal Europe.
Angela clarified this point by saying 'Irish people don't need to worry about a superstate because all of the underpinnings of a supertstate were removed from the EU Constitution!' Interesting admission that they were ever there .She also said 'The people of Europe want strong institutions including in times of conflict.' This is from the leader who has publicly called for a European army. Interestingly none of these statements nor any of the comments made by treaty opponents seem to have made it into commercial news coverage.

A speaker from the 'special observation pillar' of organizations that can speak but not decide anything, I don't know the name of his organization) pointed out that setting land aside for biofuels is causing spiralling food prices, especially grain. ( there are currently food riots in Haiti and elsewhere. Grain prices have recently increased about fourfold). Angela said that this is partly due to investor interest in commodities, read soeculation and even better blamed the rising food prices on the fact that people in developing countries like India who only used to be able to afford 1 meal a day are now eating 2 thereby doubling demand! The selfishness of it!

Fine Gael and the PDs asked about tax harmonization. 1 level of corporation tax across Europe would lose Ireland jobs, as a 12% tax rate is one of our chief attractions. Angela said tax harmonization would have to be unanimous though there's a lot of dispute about this. This is the main economic argument aginst the treaty. Fine Gael asked about the effects on Ireland of losing our EU Commissioner for 2 out of every 3 years. She said something about smaller countries getting into groups to block larger countries decisions, so I guess this would make us the equivalent of the developing countries at the WTO, except they all technically have voting rights.Alan Dukes has clearly been reading Indymedia as he claimed that the Treaty would bring 'more bottom-up democracy, with no obvious sense of irony.

Labour's Joe Costello and PANA's Roger Cole asked about Irish neutrality in the context of enhanced EU security co-operation and how the Lisbon Agenda ( neo-liberal economic growth) might conflict with lowering carbon emissions and how did Angela see the Euro contributing to financial stability. (globally, I think). The answers were don't worry about it it would have to be unanimous, yes it conflicts but hey these things are hard to balance and yes, respectively.

Mary-Lou McDonald of Sinn Fein pointed out that the treaty has no democratic value after a period of reflection we got a re-packaged EU Constitution which ignores the previous French and Dutch No votes on the EU Constitution. Merkel admits the 2 documents are substantially the same. She talked about the undemining of public services and weakening of workers' rights. She said Ireland needs to keep an independent foreign policy for neutrality, not an EU common foreign policy and pointed out the EUs failure to act on Palestine as a sign of what an EU common foreign policy would look like. Angela didn't answer any of these points as far as my notes say.

The Greens pointed out that the treaty allows for competencies to be either centralized or devolved downwards. they didn't suggest that downward devolution was likely. they said a simple document with public input would be nice. Angela made no reply.

Joe Higgins talked abut the race to the bottom that the treaty facilitates pointing out the recent European Court of Justice judgements disallowing collective bargaining and allowing the undercutting of national minimum wages. Angela is opposed to a national minimum wage in Germany and can't hold a referendum there despite 70% of Germans wanting one because Germany is not familiar with referendums and the federal system with weighted voting makes referenda difficult cos no mechanism for deciding if the 2 chambers cast different votes.. No direct voice for the people then. As for minimum wage the federal states decide for themselves and when they decide 2.80 an hour that's up to them. He more or less called Angela 'a headbanger.'

The ICTU speaker ( I didn't catch his name) gave Angela an easier ride than the PDs. He said he has some questions around recent European Court judgements but that he'd leave them to Barroso this Thurs. He then asked nothing and talked about how wonderful the values of the EU are. Trade unions are looking at virtual annihilation of influence as it is, made easier if this treaty goes though. Can someone from ICTU explain this one? I don't know much about ICTU but if this is what social partnership does you guys need to get out fast.

Patricia McKenna, Green rebel, said there is nothing new in the treaty to combat climate change The treaty undermines German and national sovereignty and it is subject to a constitutional challenge in Germany including by a member of Angela's part. No response to these.

So there you have it. A fine afternoon of debate in a bubble, entirely uncovered by the attendant press, that will have to struggle to get to the public in time for a referendum on a treaty almost nobody understands. In the meantime there's good debate on the treaty on local stations like Dublin City Fm and Near FM. The info will get out regardless.

[Sub-X]

EU Reform Treaty: Unacceptable on account of its method and its content! by KHALFA PIERRE

From “constitution” to “reform” or from bad to worse.by Susan George

The Rise of a  Neo-Liberal Europe.by Kieran Allen

The ‘Lock-In’ of Corporate Rule.by Kieran Allen

[Sub-X]

Vote No! For all of us
http://www.voteno.ie/html/harry-van-bommel-speach.htm

Harry van Bommel Dutch MP (Socialist Party) delivered this speech at meetings organised by People before Profit in Dublin, Cork and Tralee, March 4-6 2008

In 2005 I had the privilege to play a leading role in the Dutch 'no' campaign against the EU-constitution. We were against that constitution because it would lead to an undemocratic, neoliberal European superstate with military capabilities and ambitions. Our campaign was very successful. More than 60% of the voters turned out and 62% said 'no'. It came as a shock to the ruling elite, since 85% of Parliament, from both left and right, had said 'yes' to the Constitution. Obviously, they did not represent the people.

Is this Treaty of Lisbon really different from the EU constitution? I don't think so but don't believe me, listen to the EU-leaders: "The substance of the Constitution is preserved. That is a fact." Said Angela Merkel the German Chancellor. "We have not let a single substantial point of the Constitutional Treaty go. It is, without a doubt, much more than a treaty. This is a project of foundational character, a treaty for a new Europe." Said Jose Zapatero, Spanish Prime Minister. "90 per cent of it is still there. These changes haven't made any dramatic change to the substance of what was agreed back in 2004" said Teflon Taoiseach, your former prime minister Bertie Ahern.

It is not just leaders of government who think the treaty is the same as the constitution. European Parliament adopted a resolution saying that it "welcomes the fact that the mandate safeguards the substance of the Constitutional Treaty." Obviously European Parliament does not represent many people in Europe. The British think-tank Open Europe compared the Treaty of Lisbon to the Constitution and its conclusion was very clear: "The Lisbon treaty essentially reintroduces virtually all the changes proposed in the original Constitutional Treaty, by transferring them into the two existing treaties, the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community. The latter will be renamed the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union."

Open Europe's analysis finds that only l0 out of 250 proposals in the "new" treaty are different from the proposals in the original EU Constitution. In other words, 96% of the text is the same as the rejected Constitution. One of the few changes that there are, few are of any significance, for example the new version of the Constitutional Treaty no longer mentions the symbols of the union, like its flag and anthem. However, of course these symbols already exist. In fact on almost every article the draft treaty amends the existing EU-treaties using exactly the same text as that of the Constitution, and even makes explicit reference to article numbers in the original version of the Constitution. Professor Steve Peers, an EU law specialist, summarises the situation: "The different structure of the Reform Treaty, i.e. amendments to the current EC and EU Treaties, as compared to the Constitutional Treaty means that the two treaties will look quite different. However, the content is largely the same."

Despite all this the Dutch government says that the new treaty is completely different nom the EU-constitution. The fact that the flag and the anthem have been taken out is seen as proof that it no longer is a constitution. Our government is thereby deceiving the people and denying us the right to have a referendum. That is a bloody shame and we will not accept it. Exactly for that reason I have drafted a law to make a second referendum possible in The Netherlands. This law will be discussed in Parliament before we will talk about the Lisbon treaty itself.
 
The Lisbon treaty is an important step towards a European superstate, an empire if you like. In the Netherlands you will not find many people who are longing to live in the united states of Europe. Still, some people do have dreams about a federal Europe where member states do not play a role anymore.

The well-known Russian dissident Vladimir Bukovsky tries to warn us in a recent interview as he speaks about EU-dictatorship. The interviewer is surprised and asks: "You were a very famous Soviet dissident and now you are drawing a parallel between the European Union and the Soviet Union. Can you explain this? Vladimir Bukovsky then says: "I am referring to structures, to certain ideologies being instilled, to the plans, the direction, the inevitable expansion, the obliteration of nations, which was the purpose of the Soviet Union. The ultimate purpose of the Soviet Union was to create a new historic entity, the Soviet people, all around the globe. The same is true in the EU today. They are trying to create a new people. They call this people "Europeans", whatever that means. About European institutions he says: "It is no accident that the European Parliament, for example, reminds me of the Supreme Soviet. It looks like the Supreme Soviet because it was designed like it. Similarly, when you look at the European Commission it looks like the Politburo. I mean it does so exactly, except for the fact that the Commission now has 27 members and the Politburo usually had 13 or 15 members. Apart from that they are exactly the same, unaccountable to anyone, not directly elected by anyone at all."

This brings me to the important issue of sovereignty. Sovereignty is not a toy in the hands of politicians. Whether they are members of European Parliament or member state MP's. Sovereignty belongs to the people and therefore politicians cannot give it away without the consent of the people. But that is exactly what politicians are trying to do with this treaty. To give away sovereignty. Without real democratic control at the level of Brussels decision-making process. There is no European democracy. If anything, there only is European bureaucracy. So maybe Bukovsky is not living in the past but in the future when he says we are heading for an EU-dictatorship. Just think of it.

The loss of sovereignty is best illustrated by the handing over of veto rights. Veto rights are very important in the hands of smaller countries such as Ireland or the Netherlands. Only recently we have been able to block a directive that would have had very negative influence on our pensions. Just by threatening to use our right to veto the directive was taken back and changed. The new treaty is all about the surrender of veto rights. important veto rights such as those in the areas of justice and home affairs, asylum and migration will be surrendered. New powers, also without veto, will be given to the Union on areas like energy, climate change, sports, space policy, and many more. Do not misunderstand what I'm trying to say; it's not we're against cooperation in the European Union on these issues, on the contrary, it's needed badly. But countries differ too much on these issues to be decided by a simple majority. Countries should therefore have the last say. If not, the whole European project will lose public support because politicians will go home saying: "we didn't want this but a majority in Brussels made us accept it." Already the number one problem is not that the EU cannot be governed, but the fact that it lacks public support. '

On top of this abolishing of veto's, the Union is given one legal personality so it will be able to sign international agreements like any other state. That clearly touches on the issue of national sovereignty. Therefore everyone saying that this treaty has no constitutional aspects is lying. This includes my own government. Jean Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxembourg was very clear on the issue of sovereignty.

He said: "Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?" Obviously not. But I thank him anyway for mentioning the fact. 

Another reason to reject the new treaty is its economic character. The treaty accepts and defines Europe as a neo-liberal project. Of course I know that the French president Sarkozy claims a big victory with his elimination from the goals of the Union that competition should be 'free and undistorted.' But it's being reintroduced in a protocol, which has the same legal status as the Treaty itself Our government also claims to have struck a big victory with the protocol on Services of General interests. But the text has been drafted in close contact with the commission and leaves the status quo intact, so on a case-by-case basis the line between market and government is drawn. The introduction of the term 'social market economy' in one of the goals of the Union is not supported by any other article in the treaty at all. 

So the Treaty of Lisbon kept the neoliberal policies of the Union, privatisation, liberalisation, undistorted competition, intact en in many ways strengthens it. In fact the EU has always been a tool for Big Business. This is a fact that's supported by research carried out by the pressure group ALTER-EU which revealed that a total of 1,192 committees advises the European Commission during the drafting and passage of legislation and that corporate business interests are overrepresented on every one of them. In 25% of cases such interests make up over half of the membership. Researchers encountered solid resistance from the European Commission to their enquiries and in some cases received no information on the make-up of certain committees.

In my opinion that says everything. The EU in this way gives industry a platform from which it can, in complete secrecy, determine the course of a particular piece of legislation, even over such controversial matters as biotechnology and carbon storage. That is unacceptable. The composition of these committees must be changed, and quickly, and in the worst cases they should be dispensed with. I have long been concerned about the excessive influence exercised by corporate interests in Brussels. An earlier call for compulsory registration of lobbyists, listing those for whom they were working, was rejected out of hand, despite the fact that this is the norm elsewhere, including in the US Congress. The lack of transparency surrounding these advisory committees is even more of a problem. These people are invited by the European Commission to participate in the drawing up of legislation. This is why it can't also be the case that there is no openness whatsoever when it comes to knowing who they are and whom they represent. In addition I'd like to know just what criteria a1�e applied to the composition of these committees. To take a few examples, do trade unions, environmental organisations and other interest groups have the same access to them as does industry and business? The work of the advisory committees forms an important starting point for new EU regulations and directives, so this represents a major democratic deficit.

I am also of the opinion that it is absurd to maintain almost 1,200 advisory committees. When I heard how many there were it seemed immediately obvious to me where this enormous quantity of legislation comes from. Tens of thousands of people sit on these bodies, all of them charged with thinking what the EU can do in a certain field. A major reduction in their number could save a great deal of bureaucracy. As well as these advisory committees there are something like 20,000 officials in Brussels. This is all the evidence you need that the EU is more bureaucracy than democracy. 

Talking about democracy: This treaty does not solve the democratic deficit. Supporters of the Treaty who argue that this treaty further diminishes the democratic deficit in the EU are telling us fairy tales.

First: The earlier mentioned loss of sovereignty explain why I do not see the increased powers for the European Parliament as an equal substitute for loss of power of the national parliaments. It still lacks the right of normal parliament like the right of initiative or normal discussions with the Commissioners. To add, there are no European public media, no European public space, nor are there any European political parties. People in hardly any country can name members of the European Parliament. The recent Eurobarometer shows that the majority of the Dutch people do not even know that euro parliamentarians are chosen directly. So this move contributes directly to making the EU decision making process more opaque. I dare anyone to support the claim that the measures in the treaty to increase transparency, like publishing the minutes of the Council of Ministers, will counterbalance this situation. Rubbish!

Second: Although national parliaments are for the first time granted powers to block European legislation, it still needs support from the European council or Parliament. That makes it weak.

Third: more power to the EU means more power to unelected EU technocrats. A permanent president and a minister of foreign affairs will be instituted, even if the latter will be known instead as the 'High Representative'. The option is left open for a tension between the post of President of the Council and the Commission so a powerful EU-president can be created. In anyway, an EU-president is likely to look for an important agenda setting role. No matter whether his name is Tony Blair or anyone else.

That brings me to a less-known part of Europe: its foreign policy. Some European countries lead the way in development aid, peace mediation and support for subordinated and oppressed groups. The EU is, in contrast, cumbersome, slow and concerned above all with obtaining advantages for important European corporations and the widening of its own influence as a world of power. Since the beginning of the war in Iraq in 2003 it has become evident that a number of EU states invariably follow America's lead. This means that in all probability the only common foreign policy which Europe is likely to agree on would be one which is virtually identically to that of the United States.

The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee tried to summarize the foreign policy aspects of the Lisbon Treaty in January this year. The result is shocking. Europe is not only trying to become a political power but also a military power. Its conclusion is that under the Lisbon Treaty the European security and defence policy would gain an expanded and more distinctive Treaty base. In the existing Treaty defence policy is dealt with in a single Article. Under the Lisbon Treaty, the European security and defence policy would have five Articles. 


These five changes are: 

l� expanded "aims and ambitions" for the policy, in particular as regards Member State military capabilities;

2� an expansion in the list of "Petersberg tasks", i.e. the humanitarian, crisis management and peace-building tasks which the EU may undertake;

3- the introduction into an EU Treaty for the first time of reference to the European Defence Agency, a body aimed at encouraging greater and more co-ordinated defence capabilities development among Member States, which Member States may join voluntarily and which was already established in 2004 by a decision of the Member States;

4� the introduction of the possibility of what is called "subcontracting" of security and defence tasks to "coalitions of the able and willing" among the Member States;

5 � the introduction of the possibility of "permanent structured co-operation' 

Next to this the treaty suggests an arrangement among a group of Member States possessing greater military capabilities which could be established by a qualified majority decision of the full Council. The Foreign Secretary told us in December that the creation of "permanent structured cooperation" is about "enhancing capability for European defence; EU-led operations in respect of security in the European neighbourhood".

Of great importance to Ireland's neutrality is the solidarity clause under article 188r. This article states that the union and it's member states shall act jointly in a spirit of solidarity if a member state is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of a natural or man-made disaster. The Union shall mobilise all the instruments at its disposal, including the military recourses made available by the member states.   

In sum: this treaty does not differ much from the EU�constitution. It is a treaty wanted by the elite, not the people. Ireland could play an important role since it does have the right to vote. So far as the only people in Europe. Take this chance and vote for all of us. Dare to say no because this will be the only chance for us to also get involved in the decision. You, all of you in this room have an important role to play. You can write history. Dare to say no! Do it for all of us.

[Sub-X]

THE EU AND MILITARISATION
http://www.voteno.ie/html/militarisation.htm

One of the more disturbing aspects of the Lisbon Treaty is the way it creates new openings for involvement in military adventures. The Treaty would increase the militarisation of the EU, as all states would have to increase their military spending. The Treaty commits the EU to working with US dominated NATO and therefore closely ties Europe to US foreign policy.
What remains of Irish neutrality would be even further undermined.

Since the Irish population last voted on the Nice Treaty, the EU has been developing a new military strategy based on ‘battle groups’. Few people, apart, possibly, from the Irish Defence Secretary Willie O’Dea, were under any illusion about what the battle groups were for.
Each battle group is capable of operating at least 6,000 kilometres from the borders of the EU – an area that includes much of Africa and the Middle East. There is to be one lead nation, which takes operational command, and the battle groups are to be capable of engaging in pre-emptive strikes.

There has been little real debate among the people of Europe about these ‘battle groups’ and now the Lisbon Treaty is seeking to give constitutional support to these developments.
The Irish government claims that Irish neutrality is still safe in their hands. But this government has already turned Ireland into one of the major US hubs for the conduct of its war on Iraq.

Great play is also made of the need to deploy European troops in ‘rescue operations’ in places like Darfur where it is implied that a pan-African force would not be sufficiently professional to deal with the situation. Yet few talk of the need for ‘humanitarian intervention’ in Somalia where the US backed Ethiopian regime has massacred thousands. Talk of ‘humanitarian intervention’ is, unfortunately, often a ploy to bolster the legitimacy of the big powers in new efforts to create spheres of influence.
The EU battle groups will be used to assert the ‘right’ of the big powers on the Western Europe to reclaim spheres of influence from Russia in central Europe and from China in many African countries.

An Alliance with NATO

The Lisbon treaty will also allow for an intensification of EU- NATO links by legitimising the background links that have been forged between military planners in the EU and NATO and grant NATO a near permanent role in EU defence for the future.
For example the EU is allowed to request the use of NATO assets and capabilities and agreed procedures for ways to pay for them.

Increased Arms Spending

The Lisbon Treaty commits governments to increase their spending on the military.
In 2004 the European Defence Agency (EDA) was formed.  It is the first EU initiated armaments agency and was a big victory for the arms manufacturers. Its express aim is to increase defence budgets across the EU; promote ‘interoperability’ between the different national armies so they are using similar weaponry; and help develop a vision of Europe’s long term military needs.
The Lisbon Treaty requires countries to engage in higher levels of military spending to fulfil the dreams of the military planners who wrote this EDA blueprint for imperialist adventures.

The Lisbon Treaty gives the EU the power ‘to fight terrorism, including supporting third countries in combating terrorism’. Who are these countries which the EU will support in combating terrorism and who will dictate which enemy is to be fought? It is by no means clear.
It could include the US if it faced another terrorist attack and wanted to lash out at Iran or Syria, which it deemed responsible for ‘supporting terrorism’. Or it could be a host of pro-Western governments in Africa, which the EU Commission itself decided were in need of support against ‘terrorist’ insurgents. The clause is entirely open ended.
A further ‘solidarity clause’ goes even further and obliges different governments to come to each others assistance in the event of a terrorist attack.

Most people in Europe still believe that they have a right to decent public services that protect them from the full ravages of capitalism. The EU, however, has been used to undermine these services and the present Lisbon Treaty carries that further.
There is no provision in the treaty that gives a legal basis to public services. The EU has developed its own special jargon for public services, which are known as either ‘services of general interest’ or ‘services of general economic interest’. Both terms cover services such as water, electricity supply, waste disposal, health care, social housing provision or education.
The distinction between the two categories is crucial but is hard to pin down. The only examples that the EU Commission has given of ‘non-economic services’ are the army, the police and air traffic control. If services are defined as ‘services of general economic interest’, they are subject to competition rules and so their funding cannot ‘distort’ the market.

[Sub-X]

The EU BATTLE GROUPS: Regiments of the Empire
http://www.voteno.ie/html/the-eu-battle-groups.htm
by Roger Cole:Part 1

"We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies to be sovereign and indefeasible." - 1916 Proclamation

"Are we all clear that we want to build something that can aspire to be a world power?" - EU Commission President, Romano Prodi, 13/2/01

In 1916 the Irish people were given a choice: support the Irish Volunteers of the Irish Republic or the Regiments of the British Union and Empire, a choice between Irish Independence or Imperialism. In 2006, as the Irish Defence Forces are about to be integrated into the EU Battle Groups, the Regiments of the European Union and Empire, the Irish people are again being offered a choice between Imperialism and Irish Independence. The decision of the Government to have 200 Irish soldiers join the EU Battle Groups is just another step in the process in the destruction of Irish Independence, Irish Democracy and Irish Neutrality. The integration of Ireland into an Imperial, militarized neo-liberal European superstate allied to the US will ensure the full and active participation of all of Ireland in the resource wars of the 21st century. The defeat of the EU/US axis is the only inevitable outcome of these wars.

The Peace & Neutrality Alliance advocates another choice - a United Independent Irish Republic - as part of a democratic Europe, a partnership of Independent, democratic states, legal equals without a military dimension. We believe a reformed United Nations is the institution through which Ireland should pursue its foreign policy and security concerns. The choice for the Irish people is clear, and it is the same as it has been for generation after generation. The choice is either the Republic or Imperialism.


The Resource Wars of the 21 st Century and the EU Battlegroups

The collapse of the European Empires, British, Belgian, Dutch, French, Germany, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish made the ruling elite of each of the states realise that they could not re-establish their Imperial traditions except by combining and creating a new "European" identity.

They sought to create a "European" elite that was committed to the steady and gradual destruction of the national democracy and
Independence of the states within the EU via a series of treaties (of which the proposed EU Constitution was to be a capstone), and their transformation into a centralised, neo-liberal, militarised, Imperial Superstate, allied to the US. It was their joint intention to engage in Imperial wars of conquest. The US invasion and conquest of Iraq in order to gain control of Iraqi oil and to consolidate US/ Israeli military domination of the Middle East was actively supported by 14 EU states - Belgium, Britain, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Holland, Ireland, Italy,
Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, and Spain (initially) - most of which also sent troops to participate in its invasion and/or occupation.

It was only the massive opposition in 2003 by millions of ordinary people within the states of Europe to this restoration of the European Imperial tradition that prevented the EU states from more actively supporting the war. As a consequence of these massive demonstrations and the rejection of the EU Constitution by the French and Dutch people the whole project is under threat and the emerging "European" elite is now more divided than ever as to how to respond.

The reasons given for the war, for example that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, were lies. The real intention was to replace Saddam as ruler with Chalabi, a committed ally of the US and the EU who would privatize the Iraqi oil industry. Unfortunately for the US, the plan has gone badly wrong and Iraq
now has an Islamic Shia dominated Government friendly with the Iranian Government.

Since the US described Shia dominated Iran as part of the "axis of evil" this has been a bad result that now needs to be rectified.

A substantial element of the EU/US elite is therefore preparing to attack Iran in order to ensure "regime change" and to regain the momentum lost as a consequence of the Iraq war and the referendum results. With the election of the pro-war Chancellor Merkel in Germany the chances of such a war proceeding have increased dramatically. She would be well aware that Bismarck used war to create the German Empire and that war against "Muslim fundamentalists" could be used to create a European Empire. The EU/US is steadily putting more and more pressure on
Iran not to proceed with its development of nuclear power, alleging that such a development would allow it to develop nuclear weapons. At the same time they are putting no pressure on Israel to abolish its existing nuclear arsenal or to withdraw from the occupied territory of Palestine. Instead they have withdrawn aid to the Palestinian Authority because they did not like the result of a democratic election. If Iran does not accept the current diplomatic efforts to force it to stop its nuclear developments, then the EU will say it has no alternative but to support a US military strike on Iran.

As in 2003 there will be massive protests, but since the British, Danish and American people re-elected their Imperialist leaders, and Merkel was elected in Germany, the elite clearly feel it can easily handle any opposition. It's our function as part of the Irish and global anti-war movement to make sure that the mobilisation against another Imperial war is so strong that they quickly come to realise that they got it very wrong again.

We need to take advantage of the fact that the war option does not have the support of the entire US/EU elite. The massive drop in support for Bush among the American people including retired generals, the victory of the centre left in Italy, the defeat of the French Government's neo-liberal measures via massive demonstrations, and the recent electoral defeat of the Imperialist New Labour Party are all indications that it will not be easy for the EU/US elite to go to war with Iran.

But if the war party wins out it will mean that the EU Battle Groups will be called into action.

These resource wars of the 21st century, or the "war on terrorism" as our establishment media call it, provide justification for the growth in military expenditure. The EU Battle Groups are just a small but crucial part of the EU/US military partnership in what the Pentagon Defence Review described as being a "long war".

This war will transfer financial resources away from health, education and social housing. The "war on terrorism" also allows the elite to create a climate of fear in which it will be easier to push through a sustained attack on the working and living standards of the ordinary people of Europe via the services directive and other neo-liberal driven measures.

The "war on terrorism" is also leading to a sustained attack on civil liberties creating moves towards a super EU police state.

The EU Battle Groups

An EU Defence policy was not an issue for a long time and it was not until the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 that common foreign and defence policy provisions were made part of EU law. The Amsterdam Treaty in 1997 massively expanded the EU's CFSP. In June 1999 the EU established the Political and Security Committee consisting of the member states' ambassadors to the EU and the European Union, and the Military Committee consisting of the member states' chiefs of defence staff to advise the PSC on military issues. The EU Military staff also provides military advice.

In December 1999 the EU agreed to set a military capability target known as the Helsinki Headline Goal. It included the establishment of an EU Rapid Reaction Force of 50-60,000 soldiers with a self-sustaining military capacity including intelligence, air, naval and combat support capable of deployment within 60 days up to 6,000 km from the borders of the EU, sustainable for at least a year. The EU states in practice lacked the capability to do so. They did not have enough soldiers trained for such an independent EU military activity, as most were allocated to NATO. The EU RRF also lacked the necessary strategic lift, attack helicopters, IRS-capabilities, air-to-air refueling tankers, airborne electronic warfare capacity and anti-missile defence. Nevertheless in December 2001 the EU declared itself to be "militarily operational".

However since the RRF was not actually functioning they agreed to start with a smaller military force. The idea of EU Battle Groups was first suggested at the Franco-British Summit in Le Touquet in February 2003 and made explicit in the
London meeting in November 2003.

The EU Defence Ministers in their meeting in Brussels in 2004 adopted the decision. They will act as the "shock troops", regiments of the emerging Empire. Thirteen Battle Groups are being created with 1,500 combat soldiers each, which means, allowing for rotation, etc, at an average ratio of seven to nine for each combat soldier, a total force of approximately 156,000 combat soldiers. It is planned that they could operate as separate units or in joint expeditions.

The objective was to ensure that the first few would be ready by 2005 and between 6-7 by 2007 with the remainder established by 2010. General Wolfgang Schneiderhan is Chair of the EU Military Committee with direct military responsibility
for the EUBG's.

Initially each Battle Group would have to be able to go to a theatre of operations up to at least 6,000 km (which includes the Middle East) from the borders of the EU within 5 days of being instructed to do so by the EU Council, and be able to
stay there for at least 120 days, allowing for rotation. More recently they have been given the authority to operate in any part of the globe. They have to be able to operate in hostile environments including deserts, mountains and jungles, and
have a high degree of training, equipment, command structures and planning units.

An EU Battle Group is to be "the minimum military effective, credible, rapidly deployable, coherent force package capable of acting alone, or for the
initial phase of larger operations."

A Battle Group consists of the following:

• Force Headquarters
  Force Commander with staff
  Mechanised Infantry Battalion
  Commander with staff
  3 x Mechanised Infantry Company
  Logistics Company
  Fire Support Company (Mortars/Light Artillery
  Combat Engineering Platoon
  Air Defence Platoon
  Reconnaissance
  Intelligence Platoon
  Helicopter Support Unit
  Medical Service Platoon
  Military Police Platoon

Each of the three or four mechanized infantry companies is expected to field 10-12 combat vehicles armed with 30- 90mm cannons, supported with 6-9 light howitzers or 120 mm heavy mortar systems, anti-tank missiles, air defence systems, and helicopter gunships.

Airlifting a Battle Group is a major problem as it requires a huge expenditure on the military transport aircraft required, such as the C-17 Globemaster which can load 78 metric tonnes and has a 5,000 km range, therefore only requiring 30 flights to deploy an EU Battle Group. The lack of strategic airlift has meant several EU states have ordered the A- 400M. Several EU states which are in NATO have also agreed to buy AN-124 Condor aircraft from the Ukraine which are massive planes capable of carrying 120-150 tonnes of cargo up to 5,000 km. These are very expensive planes.

The purpose of the EU Battle Groups is to go into battle, to go to war, as Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Secretary General of NATO has said:
"Battle Groups could be used to go to war. Why did the EU create the Battle Group?
It is not just to help rebuild a country. The Battle Groups are not for building schools.
We shouldn't think the EU is for soft power and NATO for tough power."
Irish Times 11/3/05

The states of the EU, either individually or in groups, are to provide the necessary combat trained troops and required equipment and they are:

• France
  Italy
  Spain
  UK and possibly Ireland
  France, Germany, Belgium, Luxemburg, and Spain
  France and Belgium
  Germany, the Netherlands and Finland
  Germany, the Czech Republic and Austria
  Italy, Hungary and Slovenia
  Poland, Germany, Slovakia, Latvia, and Lithuania
  Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal
  Sweden, Finland, Norway, Estonia and Ireland
  UK and the Netherlands

In the case of Battle Groups in which a number of states participated, one state would be regarded as a "lead nation" which would take operational command and provide the Headquarters of the Battle Group. Membership of the Battle Groups would be open to non-EU NATO countries such as Turkey that are applying for EU membership or NATO states.

The Danish Protocol

Denmark is not taking part in the Battlegroups because the movement for Danish Democracy won a major victory which ensured that a number of legally binding protocols were added to the Amsterdam Treaty including one that excluded Denmark from the process of the militarisation of the EU.

The Peace and Neutrality Alliance has campaigned for years for a similar protocol to be added to the various EU Treaties that would also exclude Ireland along the following lines:

"With regard to measures adopted by the Council in the fields of Article J3 (1) and J7 of the Treaty of the European Union, Ireland does not participate in the elaboration and the implementation of decisions and actions which have defence implications, but will not prevent the development of closer cooperation between member states in this area. Therefore Ireland shall not participate in their adoption. Ireland shall not contribute to the financing of the operational expenditure arising from such measures."

The Irish political Elite and the EU Battlegroups

The Irish political elite, however is totally committed to the creation of a European Empire and, like their Redmondite predecessors, has rejected Irish Democracy, Irish Independence and Irish Neutrality and refused to accept such a protocol for Ireland. As far as they are concerned the Irish Army is to play the same role in the European Union as the Irish Regiments of the British Union used do.

The Irish political elite have already made their commitment to the integration of Ireland into the EU/US military industrial structures absolutely clear; by their decision to join Nato's PfP without a promised referendum, by voting against a Bill to amend
the Constitution to enshrine neutrality into it in February 2003 and, in particular, by destroying the longstanding policy of Irish neutrality by allowing thousands upon thousands of US troops to use Shannon airport. Between January 2003 and October 2005, 549,457 US troops landed in Shannon airport on their way to or from the war in Iraq.

In the first three months of 2006 the number of troops landing in Shannon airport increased by more than 20,000 compared with the same period in 2005, a total of 116,450.

Since International law under the Hague Convention of 1907 states that a neutral country cannot allow its territory to be used by belligerents in a war, the Government has now destroyed Irish neutrality by supporting the illegal invasion, conquest and occupation of Iraq, and by allowing thousands upon thousands of US troops to use Shannon airport on their way to Iraq. They also refuse to search US planes that might be carrying prisoners to torture centres.

They therefore are strong supporters of the EU Battle Groups and have made it absolutely clear they intend to ensure that Irish troops will be allocated to them.

They have a slight problem. Existing Irish legislation does not allow any armed force to operate on Irish soil except those directly under the control of D�il Eireann and as a consequence of their defeat in the first Nice Referendum they were forced to pass
legislation that would prevent Irish troops participating in EU military engagements via the Battle Groups unless they are mandated by the UN, the Irish Government and Dail Eireann. However the FF/PD Government has made it clear that it will
introduce legislation that would remove these legal impediments to the Irish Army being integrated into the EU Battle Groups.

While they claim they intend to keep the so-called "triple lock", the rest of the EU states have no such legislation and an Irish Government that is actively supporting an Imperialist war already will have no problem supporting another Imperialist war.

There are other problems. The states that have formed groups to jointly establish an EU Battle Group are geographically beside each other in order to facilitate military co-ordination, so Ireland's obvious partner is Britain. Even the Irish elite however realise that it would be difficult to sell the idea of Irish Rangers fighting shoulder to shoulder with members of the British Paratroop Regiment. They are, therefore, trying to create an atmosphere to facilitate such a Battle Group. In that context, a successful full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement is crucial. Such a full implementation would be promoted by the elite as final resolution of the longstanding conflict between the advocates of Irish Independence and British Imperialism which would not only allow the creation of a British/Irish EU Battle Group but would be promoted as a real and concrete act of peace and reconciliation between the two nations which, acting together, can bring "peace" to other parts of the world, especially the Middle East.

While the Irish elite supports the Good Friday Agreement as a stepping-stone towards a European Empire, Irish Democrats and Republicans see it as a stepping-stone towards a United Independent Democratic Irish Republic. The issue of EU Battle Groups, therefore, has as much relevance to Irish people living in Northern Ireland as it has to those living in the Republic of Ireland. The GFA is only a small part of a bigger jigsaw.

Unfortunately for the Irish elite, the conquest of Iraq has already divided all the political parties into pro and anti imperialist groups and PANA is confident that similar divisions will develop in regard to their attitude to the EU Battle Groups.

What is absolutely clear is that what Fianna F�il and the other imperialist parties offer is Ireland being dragged deeper and deeper into Imperialist wars rather than a fight for Irish Independence and democracy.

What they offer is inevitable defeat. There is no chance whatsoever of crushing the Muslim people in the Middle East. The 21st century Crusader armies, of which the Battle Groups are to be part, will be defeated, as were the Crusader Armies of the
Middle Ages. It is only their racist arrogance which prevents them from seeing this reality.

The Irish elite however know that Good Friday Agreement or not participation in the Trafalgar celebrations or not, commemorating the death of an Irishman who won a VC defending the British Empire in India or not, selling the concept of an Irish Rangers/ British Paratrooper EU Battle Group would be difficult. So they
have tried other alternatives.

They seek to be part of the Nordic Swedish/Finnish/Norwegian/Estonian, EU Battle Group. It will be difficult. Since the Battlegroups have to go to war within five days an extremely high degree of military interoperability needs to be achieved. The distance between Finland and Sweden and Ireland makes this option very hard to implement in practice.

The FF/PD Government has virtually no opposition from the Irish political/media elite.

The Fine Gael Party, Ireland's major opposition Party, have made it clear that if they go into Government they will not only ensure that the Irish Army is integrated into the EU Battle Groups but that they will also abolish the "triple lock" legislation. Fine Gael has already totally rejected Irish neutrality.

The Irish Labour Party has been a long-standing supporter of the emerging EU Empire, although they originally opposed it. At their recent party conference their delegates massively supported the EU Constitution although Labour Youth voted against. Soon after, the French and Dutch people voted to reject it and the left led the campaign in both countries. More recently the British Congress of Trade Unions voted overwhelmingly to oppose the EU Constitution.

This growing opposition to the EU Empire by the left throughout Europe is bound to weaken the Empire Loyalists within the Irish Labour party, especially its trade union section. It is possible that it might be convinced to end its support for the Irish Army being integrated into the Battle Groups. It did after all oppose the Iraq war and, unlike FG, it is committed to maintaining the "triple lock" legislation.

While the Labour Party is also committed to a pre-election pact with Fine Gael, the issues of the EU Batttle Groups and the service directive might mean that if it has to choose between the Irish Trade Union Movement and Fine Gael, the current leadership, despite what they are saying at the moment, will be forced to pick the trade union movement.

Therefore while the outcome is not clear, the possibility of the Irish Labour Party and the Irish Trade Union Movement ending their alliance with the Irish Empire Loyalists remains a real option.

Sinn Fein and the Irish Green Party are opposed to Irish participation in the Battle Groups and support the "triple lock" legislation as do a number of independent Dail Deputies.

Virtually the entire media in Ireland has supported the war on Iraq, EU Battle Groups and the use of Shannon by the American Empire up to the hilt until now, although some elements are beginning to change their minds. However the growth of the
Internet has already facilitated alternative methods of spreading information. The power of corporate media to set the agenda is coming to an end.

The Nordic Battle Group

Since the Nordic Battle Group is the preferred group of the Government, the pamphlet by Jan Joel Andersson of the Swedish Institute for European Policy studies, "Armed and Ready?" about the Nordic Battle Group is worth reading. Published in March 2006 it states that on 22 November 2004, Sweden, Finland and Norway declared they would establish a Nordic Battle Group and that Estonia joined shortly afterwards. The NBG was to be ready by January 2008. It will have two light companies equipped with splinter-protected light wheeled vehicles, one heavy company equipped with Hagglunds CV9040 tracked infantry, combat vehicles armed with 40-mm automatic cannon and a logistics company. Combat Support Units drawn from a "menu" of capabilities will complement the core battalion. These capabilities include fire-support (mortars, armour), engineers, air defence, helicopters, ISTAR, CIS-support, CBRN and force protection. It will also have pre-identified strategic air and sealift resources, tactical air transport and close air support, logistics and Special Forces units.

Sweden has assumed overall responsibility and 1,100 personnel. Finland will contribute combat support, such as a heavy mortar platoon, a Chemical Biological Radiological and nuclear detection detachment, a unit in the joint Swedish-Finnish intelligence ISTAR Company and military police, making a total of 200 soldiers. Norway will contribute another 200 troops in medical services, logistics and strategic lift. Estonia will provide 40-50 troops for force protection.

There is no mention of Ireland, but the Minister of Defence has said 200 Irish troops will join the Nordic Battle Group. While he declares he does not like the term Battle Group, any objective analysis of the military equipment outlined above clearly shows
that the Nordic Battle Group is not about making tea, it is about being able to go to war, to do battle. That the Irish media parrot the words of the Minister for Defence simply reflects the fact that it is openly complicit in deceiving the Irish people about the real purpose of the EU Battle Groups.

The Battle Group has to train as a single unit so that while each participating state has the right to withdraw its own national contingent it is extremely unlikely that any state would do so, as the Battle Group would then not be able to function properly. In the case of the Irish State, since it already is a strong supporter of an illegal Imperialist war for oil, it would be the last to pull out of another Imperialist military adventure.

The Headquarters of the Nordic Battle Group will be in Northwood, outside London.

Operational planning will be co-ordinate between Sweden, Finland, Norway, Estonia, Britain and now Ireland and the EU Military staff in Brussels. The EU will appoint operational control, probably a Swedish Commander.

Since the EU Battle Group has to be able to go to war anywhere in the world within 10 days, airlift capacity is of crucial importance. It could use British C-17 Globemaster planes or the AN-124-100 Condor Planes from the Ukraine. To be independent it
would have to buy its own planes. The C-17 Globemaster costs $202 million each. Ireland would be expected to help pay their share. So much for giving priority to the A&E services. Given such expenditure the Nordic Battle Group is planning to use lighter equipment.

The EU Security Strategy Military Intervention without a UN mandate

The EU Security Strategy, "A Secure Europe in a Better World", was written by the EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javiar Solana, and endorsed by the EU in December 2003.

The EU strategy totally endorses President Bush's doctrine of preemptive war:

"Our traditional concept of self-defence�. was based on the threat of invasion. With the new threats, the first line of defence will often be abroad� we should be ready to act before a crisis occurs".

The strategy goes on to state that not all these threats can be countered by military means and a mixture of instruments must be used. This however leaves the way open for humanitarian aid being used as a tool in the fight against "terrorism".

Concord, a pan-European federation of over 1200 development NGO's, has repeatedly cautioned against the EU Security policy misusing humanitarian assistance in such a way.

The fact is the EU does not see itself as being bound by the necessity of securing a UN mandate before it sends the EU Battle Groups to a war. While references are made to observance of the UN Charter (similar references are made in the NATO Treaty) nowhere does it state in the EU Treaties that the EU Battle Groups need a UN mandate. While International Law clearly states a UN mandate would be required before a state was invaded, the EU, like the US, is prepared to ignore such law.

Warmaking and Peacemaking

While the democratic forces in France and the Netherlands defeated the EU Constitution, which would have further consolidated the militarisation of the EU, the existing treaties remain in force including:

Article J7.2 that states:
"Questions referred to in this article shall include humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks, and combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking."

John Bruton, ex-leader of Fine Gael, and the EU representative in the US said after the Amsterdam Treaty was passed:

"Peacemaking means imposing, by the use of force, peaceful conditions under the terms laid down by the peacemaker. It is very difficult to distinguish that from
warmaking."
Dail Eireann 22/10/99

The EU elite does not need a EU Constitution to establish Battle Groups and we can be sure that Mr. Bruton is reflecting their attitude when he says there is no difference between warmaking and peacemaking.

Command Structure

The decision to deploy Battle Groups would be taken by the EU Council in response to "a crisis" or a "request from the UN".

The deployment of the EU Battle Groups therefore do not need a UN mandate.

The EU Civilian and Military Planning Cell is now well underway in Brussels.

The Cell is directly responsible to the EU High representative Javier Solana. It will have the responsibility of coordinating and generating the capacity to plan and run autonomous EU military operations.

Several of the states participating in the EU Battle Groups are also developing specialist skills. For example, Finland is providing troops trained in combating chemical and biological weapons, Lithuania is providing experts in water purification and Greece is providing troops with maritime transport skills.

Britain is ensuring members of the Paratroop Regiments are being allocated to the EU Battle Groups and clearly their specialty is shooting unarmed Civil Rights marchers.

The need for a rapid response has major implications for the law in many of the national states. The Luxembourg Defence Minister stated:

"Some countries will have to change their laws to be able to take their political decisions quickly and then their military must follow immediately" www.iwar.org.uk

This clearly means that if a quick decision has to be made to deploy the Battle Groups the "triple lock " legislation will have to be abolished, leaving the decision up to the Government, or maybe even the Taoiseach alone to make the decision to deploy the EU Battle Groups. The Fine Gael Party in the D�il (9/5/06) has already suggested that such a decision be left solely to the Minister of Defence.

NATO and the EU Battle Groups

The EU is very clear that the Battle Groups are to be developed as a military machine in a mutually reinforcing way with NATO initiatives such as the NATO Response Force. This is especially true given the overlap of EU/NATO/Partnership for Peace military that is well established. There is a very strong requirement for interoperability between the EU military forces and NATO military forces. NATO, like the EU Battle Groups has given itself the right to send in troops anywhere in the world.

In fact as far as Britain is concerned, to quote Geoff Hoon, UK Minister for Defence:
"NATO would always have the first choice to launch a military operation"

The reality of the link between the Battle Groups of the EU and NATO was underlined by the report published by 2 ex-NATO chiefs in October 2005. To quote the report:

"Failure to meaningfully improve Europe's collective defence capabilities in the coming years would have profoundly negative impacts on the ability of European
countries to protect their interests, the viability of NATO as an alliance, and the ability of Europe to partner in any meaningful way with the US."

In February 2005 in a letter written to the House of Commons Select Committee on the European Union Hoon describes the EU Battle Groups as being:

"mutually reinforcing with the larger NATO Response Force �� and having the potential to act as a steppingstone for countries that want to contribute to the NATO
Response Force, by developing their high readiness forces to the required standard and integrating small countries contribution to multinational units.

Wherever possible and applicable, standards, practical methods and procedures for Battlegroups are analogous to those defined in the NATO RF.

Correctly managed there is considerable potential for synergy between the two initiatives."

So there it is for all to see. The reality is the EU Battle Groups are not the basis for an alternative European power to the US, but an extension of the power of the US, which dominates NATO. The EU Battle Groups are an extension of the military power of the US/EU Partnership.

Hoon went on to say that the EU states should spend at least 25% of their defence budgets on research and new weapons.

The NATO Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, was even more explicit when in Rome in December 2004 he said:

"NATO and the EU need a partnership that covers all aspects of modern security policy; combating terrorism, preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction, preventing the emergence of failed states, and dealing with them where and when they occur."

The Finnish Minister for Defence regards NATO as a "Partner" and calls for greater interoperability. He says:

"standards and criteria for EU Battle Groups should be the same as those required for similar formations assigned to Nato's RRF in accordance with NATO standards and criteria."

An official Finnish Ministry document states;

"In practice, many EU countries will double-hat various troops to EU and NATO rapid deployment forces. It is up to those countries to ensure that their resources and personnel are not in simultaneous readiness to two different groups.

In practice, the Battle Groups will mostly be trained in NATO exercises."

Since December 2003 as a consequence of NATO/EU consultations the EU has established a permanent military cell in SHAPE (NATO Headquarters) and NATO has established a permanent liaison arrangement with the EU Military Staff.

NATO has had an established NRF since October 2004. This is a 21,000 combat troop military force capable of being deployed within 5-30 days and is well equipped with high tech weapons.

Since most EU states are also in NATO and many states cannot provide the necessary troops and equipment to both the EU Battle Groups as well as the NRF, arrangements are being made to ensure the EUBG's and the NRF are mutually coherent and complementary.

The EU Battle Groups lack the necessary independent strategic airlift planes, mid air refueling and communication capability and independent intelligence resources.

Military Equipment.

Thus, to operate independently of NATO, the EU Battle Groups need a commitment by EU States to spend a great deal more money on new military equipment, especially in air lift capability.

On the 7th of March 2006 the EU Defence Ministers agreed to establish a Common Defence and Technology Fund. Javier Solana said at the meeting:

"We must spend more, spend more together and spend more efficiently."

The longer-term concept of the EU Battle Groups by the Franco- German faction of the EU elite remains the idea that they could operate as separate military units directly under the control of the EU Council if required. The concept is reinforced by the need for the EU to have its own satellite system, under EU rather than US control. The EU therefore has spent €3.5 billion on its Galileo system which would be used to facilitate the operations of the EU Battle Groups. These 30 satellites would mean the EU would not be dependent on the US GPS or the Russian GLONASS systems, which are also being financed for military purposes. Since, for example, the US GPS system signal could be blocked or jammed at a moment's notice, the EU would be completely dependent on the US in its military expeditions unless it had its own satellite system. Germany held up funds for the development of Galileo until an agreement was reached on where the expenditure was to happen and agreed only after more was allocated to Germany.

The Battle Groups would have to take into consideration the role of the Future Rapid Effects System (FRES) centred on a "family" of 900 highly sophisticated combat vehicles costing �6.7 million each, with a lifetime cost of �55.5 million over 30 years.

Other equipment includes the new communication equipment Bowman & Falcon, Watchkeeper unarmed aerial equipment, the Soothsayer electronic warfare capability and the Panther armoured reconnaissance vehicle.

The combined defence budget of the EU states is €175 billion (compared with $ 550 billion for the US) and they have a combined military force of 1.6 million troops, although at the moment only 5-10% (60,000) are deployable as a rapid reaction force thousands of miles from Europe. The EU elite is seeking to raise that number to at least 200,000.

The US political elite is constantly calling for the EU to spend more on militarisation even though it would have a long way to go to reach US expenditure (the US Army has 1.4 million troops, 400,000 of whom can be deployed globally).

Many others however see the EU militarisation only as an extension of the NATO military structures.

Jamie O'Shea of NATO has called for a EU Constitution with provisions that would be, "compatible with NATO".

Many other EU leaders are open about seeing no difference between the EU, NATO and the US. At a recent NATO Conference in Sweden the Lithuanian Ambassador called NATO:

"the greatest military alliance in history - combating global terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and failed states threats which are facing the Euro-Atlantic community"

The EU commitment to spend €25 billion through OCCAR for the A400 M military transport aircraft is a demonstration of what the emerging EU superstate can achieve. Sixty are for Germany, 50 for France and others for Spain, the UK, Belgium and Turkey.

There are investment plans for acquiring an aircraft carrier and airwing by 2008.

The European Defence Agency

In July 2004 the EU foreign Ministers (except Denmark) authorised the creation of The European Defence Agency. This has already been established with a start-up staff of 25 (now 80) and headed up by Nick Whitney. All the EU Defence Ministers
including those of Ireland have control of it and meet at the Agency Headquarters at least twice a year. It has taken over the Western European Armaments Agency and its research cell and has a budget of €2 billion. Its importance is clearly shown by the decision to include it in the EU Constitution, which envisaged it as being central to the development of an EU Defence capability.

Its function is to promote coherence in European defence procurement, enhance collaboration on the development of equipment, promoting the European defence sector's technological and industrial base. It is also to foster European defence-relevant Research and Technology. It will probably take over previous EU armaments co-operations initatives such as OCCAR and WEAG.

It also seeks to create an internationally competitive European Defence Equipment market, in particular by pursuing an EU-wide development and harmonisation of relevant rules and regulations particularly (by an EU-wide applications of relevant rules) of the LoI Framework Agreement.

Such a development would seriously threaten Europe's current arms export policy and be a threat to the national democracy of the individual states, as no further national ratifications would be necessary.

The Ceo's of Europe's top EADS, BAE Systems and Thales welcomed the establishment of the EDA and called for an increase in military expenditure.

These military corporations are continually seeking to influence the EU elite via direct lobbying groups such as ASD, the New Defence Agenda and the Kangaroo Group. The arms industry by now is very deeply integrated into the elite and the EU security
research budgets are among the best examples of its success.

[Sub-X]

The EU BATTLE GROUPS: Regiments of the Empire
http://www.voteno.ie/html/the-eu-battle-groups.htm
by Roger Cole:Part 2

The Privatisation of war and the EU Battle Groups

Mercenaries have played a significant role in war. 30,000 German mercenaries were employed by the British Empire in its efforts to defeat the National struggle for Independence by the USA. However so strong have the neo-liberal values become in the USA today that between 1994-2002 the Pentagon awarded 3,000 contracts to the modern mercenaries now know as Private Military Companies, or PMC's.

There are now 90 such companies operating in 110 countries and the war in Iraq has been a great boost for them. They constitute the second largest military grouping in Iraq after the US Army.

The revenue of British PMC's has increased from �32 million to �160 million since the war in Iraq. One of the larger PMC's, Blackwater, which is very active in Iraq, has stated it could put together a Rapid Reaction Force or Battle Group. As the neoliberal
values spread in the EU from the US it is reasonable to assume that the use of mercenaries as Battle Groups or as auxiliaries to the Battle Groups will be strongly advocated by the EU elite in the not too distant future.

Conclusion

When the Peace & Neutrality Alliance was founded 10 years ago to oppose the process by which the elite sought to destroy Irish Independence, Irish Democracy and Irish Neutrality and integrate this state into a neo-liberal, centralised, militarised superstate, few people believed us. Now with Irish neutrality totally destroyed, with Ireland having been transformed into a US aircraft carrier and the Irish Army about to be integrated into the Battle Groups of the EU, there are few who do not believe us.

In 1996, the same year PANA was established, an MRBI poll showed only 32% of people in the Republic of Ireland wanted the state to do all it could to preserve Ireland's independence from the EU. By 2005 that figure, in a similar survey, had increased to 45%. So the evidence backs up the fact that our 10 years' long campaign is having a real impact and more importantly, that we are winning.

The objective of PANA is to help translate the clear evidence of the growing opposition to the emerging EU Empire into votes for political parties and independents that are affiliated to PANA.

If the Irish political elite, led by the Fianna Fail/PD Government are to be defeated in their efforts to restore the Redmondite Imperialist tradition then an alternative political formation has to be created.

The large votes against the EU Treaties and the latest MRBI/TSN poll, which showed the majority of the Irish people would reject the EU Constitution also shows a growing opposition to a European Empire.

The massive anti-war demonstrations in 2003 and the enormous marches in 2005 in support of the Irish Ferry workers show, like the poll results quoted, that there is very real and strong opposition to the transformation of the EU into a centralised,
militarised, neo-liberal superstate among a very large number of people.

The parties that have played a key role in these demonstrations have been the Green Party, the Labour Party, Sinn Fein and the smaller socialist parties, as well as a number of radical independents. PANA has always acted as a catalyst in the efforts to build these political forces into an alternative alliance and an alternative Government, and we will continue to do so.

Victory

There is no doubt that, on one hand building such an alliance to the imperialist formation that now dominates our political/media elite is not easy. On the other hand, since all the Fianna F�il, PD, Fine Gael and unionist parties offer is a
sustained attack on the living and working conditions of the people and a deepening Irish involvement in an ongoing war in which the defeat of the EU/US military is the only possible option, it might not be as difficult as all that. We should know from previous major political shifts such as 1912-1918, or 1927- 32 that many of the political activists operating within the elite change sides, and it will not be any different this time around either.

We should therefore accept that the defeat of the neo- Redmondites is absolutely inevitable; it's only a question of time. Our real task, therefore is to ensure that the alternative that develops is rooted in the anti-imperialist philosophy of Tone and Connolly. The creation of an alternative, based on an alliance of the political formations that have already shown their leadership in the 2003 and 2005 demonstrations against the war and in support of the workers in Irish Ferries, is and
will remain the central objective of PANA. The linking of the militarisation of the EU with its neo-liberal economic goals in the minds of the people is of crucial importance if we are to win.

After all, the living standards of the ordinary trade unionist is going to be eroded very quickly by the service directive, and since we are being dragged deeper and deeper into war, it is more than possible that faced with the choice of dying for a
neo-liberal elite led by a George W. Bush or a Hilary Clinton, as advocated by FF/FG/PD/DUP/UUP parties, or a Red/Green Alliance that is opposed to war, they will choose the Red/Green Alliance.

PANA has never been about protest. PANA has always been about winning. It is about defeating imperialism by gaining the support of the people for a real alternative: a United Independent Democratic Irish Republic with its own
Independent Foreign Policy pursued through a reformed United Nations, with neutrality enshrined in our Constitution, and an Irish Protocol attached to an EU Treaty which would exclude our involvement with the militarisation of the EU.

PANA has steadily built up links with other peace movements throughout Europe and believe that our vision for the future of Europe is part of wider vision shared by growing numbers of people throughout the European states.

Throughout the whole of South America a wave of antiimperialist political forces is winning the support of the people and consolidating the political terrain. In the Middle East the total defeat of EU/US Imperialism is only a few years away. The
willingness of some Shia leaders to ally themselves with US Imperialism will undermine their ability to provide a coherent alternative, leaving the option for a democratic alternative, based on the unity of Iraq, to emerge as the only effective
answer to Imperialism.

Not just in Ireland therefore, but also throughout South America, the Middle East as well as throughout Europe and in the US itself, through organizations such as United for Peace & Justice, a global anti-imperialist movement is being created. PANA is only
one small part of that global movement. Defeating the efforts of the Irish political elite to integrate the Irish Army into the EU Battle Groups is also only a small part of a very much wider struggle. But win we will, and win we must. For all the Imperialists offer is war, poverty and defeat; all they offer is a return to the Dark Ages.

[Sub-X]

The EU and Militarism

An Initial Long-Term Vision for European Defence Capability and Capacity Needs

The emerging EU Military-Industrial Complex, Arms industry lobbying in Brussels

[Sub-X]

Poll clash: Irish MEP attacked after EU treaty meeting
http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1208269922.4
15 April 2008

(DUBLIN) - A former Irish minister and Euro-MP was knocked to the ground after a public meeting on the European Union's controversial new Lisbon treaty, police and his party said Tuesday.

Labour Party MEP Prionsias de Rossa, 67 -- whose party backs the Lisbon Reform Treaty --- suffered cuts in the incident in the centre of Dublin on Monday night and was "very shaken," said a party spokesman.

Passions are rising ahead of a crunch Irish referendum expected on June 12 on the EU treaty. Ireland is the only member of the 27-nation bloc to vote on it, and could in theory scupper the treaty altogether.

Police confirmed they were probing the alleged attack. "We are investigating what appears to be an assault on Eden Quay," a spokesman told AFP.

Labour leader Eamon Gilmore condemned the assault and "anti-democratic tactics," saying he was "greatly shocked."

In a statement he said that when De Rossa left the meeting, "he was confronted by a group of men, some of whom had been present at the meeting and had spoken aggressively against the Treaty.

"One of the group shouted abuse at him through a loud-hailer. The group pursued Proinsias on the street.

"When he objected to being filmed by one of the group with a camcorder he was knocked to the ground and some of those involved sat on his back pinning him to the ground." Police then arrived.

He said there were about 100 people at the meeting in Liberty Hall and it became clear that "a minority of those present were not interested in any rational discussion and were present only to disrupt."

De Rossa was a member of the Dail (lower house of parliament) from 1982 to 2002. He was minister for social welfare (1994-97) and an MEP from 1989-92 and from 1999 to the present.

The Lisbon treaty was agreed in December 2007 amid much fanfare in the Portuguese capital and aims to prevent decision-making gridlock in the expanding bloc.

In June 2001 Ireland sent shockwaves through the bloc when it rejected the EU's Nice Treaty on institutional reform and enlargement. That decision was reversed in another referendum in October 2002.