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

[Sub-X]

Bad News for Labour Party in EU opinion survey
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/88136
26 June 2008

Voters have minds of their own- De Rossa worried

The EU commissioned Gallup, a very highly regarded polling organisation to dom a flash survey of the Irish electorate just after the Lisbon Treaty referendum. The results were widely released, but what was kept under wraps until today was a question about party support among voters.

Respondents in the telephone survey were asked if they usually supported and/or voted for a particular political party. There was no surprise that Sinn Fein supporters backed the No side overwhelmingly, but senior figures in the Labour Party must be pondering what it means when a majority of their supporters vote against the way the party leadership wants them to.

The Labour Party has yet to decide who will run for the EU Parliament elections next year. This poll will certainly make them think twice about who their candidates are.

These figures were contained in a report marked confidential which was compiled from the results of a flash Eurobarometer opinion poll conducted by Gallup.

LISBON: party supporters' votes
PARTY YES NO

Fianna Fáil (41% of those surveyed said they support FF) 60% 40%
Fine Gael (20% of those surveyed said they support FG) 51% 49%
Labour (9% of those surveyed said they support Labour) 45% 55%
Green Party (6% of those surveyed said they support the Greens) 43% 57%
Sinn Féin (6% of those surveyed said they support Sinn Féin) 5% 95%

Progressive Democrats (2% of those surveyed said they support PDs) 69% 31%

All others 39% 61%

(17% of those surveyed said they didn't remember or didn't answer)

[Sub-X]

Left Party takes EU's Lisbon Treaty to German Constitutional Court 
http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/359
26 Jun 2008

Berlin - Germany's Left Party intends to apply to the Constitutional Court to have the European Union's reform treaty, the Treaty of Lisbon, declared unconstitutional, the minority socialist party announced Thursday. The announcement came a month after the upper house of parliament, the Bundesrat, passed the legislation ratifying the treaty. The lower house, the Bundestag, passed the necessary legislation in April.

The Left said in Berlin its twin applications, placed before the court on Wednesday, were based on the grounds that the treaty infringed the principle of democracy and the rights of members of the German parliament.

The first related to the division of powers between the main organs of state, the upper and lower houses of parliament, the Constitutional Court and the president.

Left parliamentary caucus head Gregor Gysi said parliamentary powers were at stake, along with those of the court itself, although he said he was a "firm supporter of European integration."

The Left sees the treaty as giving too much power to the European Council, the council of the heads of state and government, at the expense of national parliaments and the European Parliament.

In the second, Left member of parliament Diether Dehm applied to the court on the grounds that the rights of members of parliament were infringed.

"This false, soulless and militaristic treaty will endanger the EU," Dehm said.

A maverick member of parliament, Peter Gauweiler of the Bavarian Christian Social Union (CSU), has applied to the court to strike down the Treaty of Lisbon on similar grounds.

Although both houses of parliament have passed the treaty, President Horst Koehler has delayed signing it into law pending a decision by the Constitutional Court.

The treaty streamlines the workings of the EU, establishes the office of a president and enlarges the powers of the EU's foreign policy chief.

It also provides for a new double majority voting mechanism seen as essential if the 27-member bloc is to expand.

The Irish electorate rejected the treaty in a referendum earlier this month. The other 26 members aim to ratify through their parliaments, and 18 have done so, but the treaty faces a constitutional hurdle in the Czech Republic.

[Sub-X]

STUFF THE IRISH
http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/358
(sent to the RESPECT newspaper in the UK)
by Patrick Reynolds
27 June 2008

The anti-democratic decision by the European elite to stuff the Irish and introduce the Lisbon Treaty regardless of the “No” vote in the Irish referendum on 12 June hands an invaluable campaigning tool to  bodies like Respect which will be fighting on an EU-critical platform in elections to the European Parliament on 4 June 2009.

Brussels fury at this Irish lese-majesty has aptly been summed up thus: “The people have spoken, the bastards”.

Although alternative manoeuvres by the Brussels elite are possible – including simply ignoring the Irish vote and adopting the treaty changes piecemeal anyway by using existing EU procedures or tacking the changes on to next year’s accession treaty with Croatia - it  is now a racing certainty that the Irish will be asked to vote again, on the same text that they rejected, in exchange for a few mealy-mouthed declarations or protocols that will not be incorporated in the body of the treaty and hence will have minimal legal weight.

At the EU Summit on 19 and 20 June, which focused on find a ways to undermine the Irish vote, Luxembourg Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn admitted that Ireland would indeed need to have a second vote. “The question is, how can we prepare it so that it can be won?” he added.

This second vote is now traditional in the EU if electorates fail to vote correctly. The Irish and Danes have both been required to vote twice on earlier treaties because they failed to obey the Brussels elite first time round. Indeed, there is no theoretical reason why countries should not be required to vote a third or even a fourth time until they finally come up with the right answer.

Under EU rules, the treaty must be ratified by all 27 Member States. These rules were part of the deal given to Member States when they joined the union: no significant changes leading to greater integration would be introduced without the explicit agreement of all Member States so that individual countries would be able to retain as much as they wished of their constitutional independence.  It was on this understanding, codified in law, that Member States joined the union. Hence, if even a single state fails to ratify the treaty, legally it is dead in the water.

Ireland has not ratified the Lisbon Treaty.  So what is the reaction of Josė Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, which is specifically responsible for ensuring that the union’s laws are upheld. At a press conference on 14 June, he announced:“The Treaty is not dead. The Treaty is alive.”

Other European leaders followed suit. German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble: “A few million Irish cannot decide on behalf of 495 million Europeans”. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk: “Irrespective of the results of the referendum in Ireland, Europe will find a way of implementing this treaty”. The Euro-elite intend to respect the Irish vote by overturning it.

What none of these demophobes mentioned was the fact that only in Ireland were people given the right to vote on the treaty at all. In all other 26 Member States ratification is by national parliaments, where the unilateral decision of the Prime Minister is rubber-stamped by majority party MPs hopeful of preferment or fearing deselection. EU leaders cannot buy off the electorate so easily. Both France and Holland rejected a very similar text in referenda in 2005: this time their governments did not allow a popular vote.

The Irish rejection of the treaty is clearly a problem for the EU. Yet the crisis is being brazenly spun not as an EU but as an Irish problem – and the Irish Government is conniving with Brussels in accepting this line. The Irish are in the doghouse and have been graciously granted “time for reflection” provided that they come up with the correct solution by the autumn. However, this so-called “time for reflection” is just for public consumption. Even in the EU, it is considered indelicate to call for a second referendum immediately after the first one.  In reality,  however, the deal is already done. Come autumn, the Irish Government will accept a series of legally worthless declarations or protocols as satisfying the concerns of the Irish people. “It’s going to be a cosmetic exercise,” said Michael Youlton, national coordinator of the Irish Campaign Against the EU Constitution (alias the treaty). The Irish Government will then be required to re-run its referendum so that European Parliament elections next June are held under the new dispensation.

By the time of the 12 June referendum, 18 Member States had ratified the treaty.  How did Gordon Brown, having reneged a promise to hold a referendum in the UK, show his respect for the rule of law and the democratic vote of the Irish people? By railroading through the UK ratification bill, which received the royal assent on 19 June. The other laggards bid fair to follow suit – allowing for possible upsets in Poland and the Czech Republic, where euroscepticism is growing healthily. The calculation is that Ireland can be bullied into repealing its “No” vote. “The idea is to isolate Ireland completely”,  according to the Belgian newspaper Le Soir. The idea is that once the other 26 countries have ratified, the pressure on Ireland will become unbearable.

Clearly, the EU will now stop at nothing in its attempt to strong-arm the Irish to fall into line. EU money will flow like buttermilk in an attempt to prevent another “No” vote. Refusing to admit that the Irish rejected the treaty because of its content, Eurocrats are peddling the old chestnut that the EU message was not presented cogently enough. The “No” vote was won by a motley coalition of leftwing militants, rightwing free traders, opponents of common EU taxation rates for companies, Catholic anti-abortionists, nationalists, Sinn Fėin supporters, workers, farmers and fishermen.  Eurocrats will now try to split the coalition by offering concessions to some of these heterogeneous groups provided that they encourage their supporters to vote “Yes” next time.

However, the naysayers have a powerful new weapon up their sleeve, according to Michael Youlton. This involves a series of recent rulings by European Court of Justice to the effect that foreign firms from low-wage Member States which set up in high-wage Member States and import labour from their own countries can continue to pay these workers the same low wages that they would have received in their countries of origin. The Irish trade unions, which held a variety of positions in respect of the first referendum, are now up in arms about this carte blanche for “wage dumping” and will hopefully encourage trade unionists to vent their spleen on the EU in the second referendum.  It is by no means certain, therefore, that a second Irish referendum will result in a “Yes” vote.

If adopted, the Lisbon Treaty will create a European President, a European Foreign Minister and a European diplomatic corps and pave the way for the establishment of a European Army, the ultimate aim being to replace individual Member States in these areas; end the veto of Member States in between 40 and 60 areas, including climate change and energy; slash the number of European Commissioners so that one third of EU Member States (9 out of 27) have no Commissioner to represent them at any one time; prune the number of Members of the European Parliament; and, by changing the voting system in the Council, make it more difficult for Member States to block proposed legislation that they see as being against their vital interests.

This would be yet another step along the road to an “ever closer union” intended to culminate in a United States of Europe. Rejection of the treaty by the Irish – as of its predecessor by the French and Dutch – suggests that even where sentiment has been pro-EU in the past, today’s electorates believe that the process of political integration into a free-market EU has gone far enough and should now be rolled back.

[Emerald]

EU Constitution author says referendums can be ignored

Future referendums will be ignored whether they are held in Ireland or elsewhere, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the architect of the European Union Constitution said.

The former President of France drafted the old Constitution that was rejected by French and Dutch voters three years ago before being resurrected as the Lisbon EU Treaty, itself shunned by the Irish two weeks ago.

Mr Giscard d'Estaing told the Irish Times that Ireland's referendum rejection would not kill the Treaty, despite a legal requirement of unanimity from all the EU's 27 member states.

"We are evolving towards majority voting because if we stay with unanimity, we will do nothing," he said

"It is impossible to function by unanimity with 27 members. This time it's Ireland; the next time it will be somebody else."

"Ireland is one per cent of the EU".

Mr Giscard d'Estaing also admitted that, unlike his original Constitutional Treaty, the Lisbon EU Treaty had been carefully crafted to confuse the public.

"What was done in the [lisbon] Treaty, and deliberately, was to mix everything up. If you look for the passages on institutions, they're in different places, on different pages," he said.

"Someone who wanted to understand how the thing worked could with the Constitutional Treaty, but not with this one."

France and Germany are putting pressure on Ireland to hold a second referendum which would allow the Lisbon Treaty to come into force before European elections on June 4 2009.

Mr Giscard d'Estaing believes "there is no alternative" to a second Irish vote, a view shared by Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President.

Mr Sarkozy, who takes over the EU's rotating presidency next week, will use a Brussels summit on October 15 to force Ireland to find a way out of Europe's Treaty difficulties.

"Everyone agrees it has to be sorted out by the time of European elections," he said at the weekend.

Václav Klaus, the Czech President has continued to insist that the Lisbon Treaty "cannot come into force" after the Irish vote.

"The EU cannot ignore its own rules. The Lisbon Treaty has been roundly and democratically rejected by Ireland, and it therefore cannot come into force," he told El Pais newspaper.

"Any attempt to ignore this fact and make recourse to pressure and political manipulation to move the treaty forward would have disastrous consequences."

Mark François, Conservative spokesman on Europe, also insisted that it was time that European politicians started to respect the Irish No vote.

"The Irish people gave an emphatic No to the Treaty of Lisbon on a record turnout and it would be good for politicians of all countries to respect this democratic decision," he said.

"The point is particularly clear to us here in Britain as the Irish were fortunate to be given a referendum which we were denied by our Government."

An opinion poll for the newspaper Libération has shown 44 per cent of the French want Ireland to vote again and 26 per cent want the ratification process to continue without Ireland.

But a quarter of those polled want to abandon the Treaty and 52 per cent think the Irish No vote is going to dominate Mr Sarkozy's EU presidency.

[Sub-X]

Is another treaty possible?
http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/361
Sinn Féin Policy Director Lisbon Treaty Campaign
BY EOIN Ó BROIN

IS a better deal really possible? Seventy-six per cent of those who voted ‘No’ on 12 June clearly think so, according to the European Commission Gallup survey. Throughout the campaign, Sinn Féin argued that a ‘No’ vote would give the Irish Government a strong mandate to secure a better deal. The high turn-out (53 per cent) and wide margin (7 per cent) of the final result combined to give

Taoiseach Brian Cowen the strongest possible hand in advance of the European Council meeting last Thursday and Friday in Brussels.
Despite the negative noises from the French and German camps, it is clear that a number of member states are interested in reopening aspects of the treaty.

Finland is reported to be interested in keeping its permanent Commissioner too. Governments or senior political leaders in the Czech Republic and Poland are indicating that Lisbon is dead.

European public opinion is also warming to the possibility of a new deal. The French daily newspaper, Le Figaro, revealed that a majority of radical left, centre left and centre right voters were all happy with the Irish rejection of the treaty.

But what did Brian Cowen do when he met his EU counterparts in Brussels at Council on 19 and 20 June? Did he call for a renegotiation of fundamental aspects of the treaty? Did he raise Irish concerns over militarisation and neutrality, public services and workers’ rights, the democratic deficit or international trade? Did he explain that, like the French and Dutch in 2005, the voters have lost confidence in the Irish and EU political elite?
No, he did not.

According to reports from senior civil servants in last Saturday’s Irish Independent, he pleaded for time and while acquiescing to pressure from the Germans and French to re-run the referendum in 2009.

Despite the fact that almost one million Irish voters said ‘No’ to Lisbon and ‘Yes’ to a better deal, Brian Cowen appeared to be listening only to Germany’s Angela Merkel and France’s Nicolas Sarkozy. Their message was blunt: accept cosmetic changes to the treaty and re-run the referendum – only this time tell your voters that it’s not about Lisbon, it’s about membership of the EU.

In much the same way as they did during the referendum campaign, large sections of the media lined up to reinforce the undemocratic message that no renegotiation is possible.

First prize for Establishment cheerleader of the week went to Irish Times Political Correspondent Stephen Collins in his Saturday opinion piece. Having uncritically accepted that renegotiation is not an option and a Lisbon re-run is inevitable, he assured his readers:

“The next referendum will essentially be about whether or not we wish to remain in the union as it is currently constituted. The voters, as well as the politicians, need to face up to that reality.”

Writing in the Sunday Independent, Gene Kerrigan caustically satirised the prevailing political and media view.  For the Establishment, argued Kerrigan:

“The result must be scrubbed, the electorate must be made feel guilty, threatened and bullied. Eventually, they may understand that in our Brave New Europe, the box that says ‘No’ is merely for cosmetic purposes.”

So are we facing into a second referendum campaign? Is a renegotiation really off the table? Is there no chance of a better deal?
The short answer is: it depends. It depends on what happens in the Czech Republic, Poland, Germany and Britain. Each of these countries is experiencing ratification problems. If one or more is unable to ratify, the ability of France and Germany to force Lisbon through is diminished.

It also depends on what happens outside the formal political circles that make up the EU institutions. If a broad-based movement for a new treaty emerges before the European Council meeting this October, it could act as a counterbalance to or possibly even block the bullying of Merkel and Sarkozy.

To this end, a coalition of political parties, campaign groups, trade unions and others needs to be formed.
The engine for such a movement must come from Ireland, France, Germany and the Netherlands. Such a coalition should demand that the Irish referendum result be respected, stand firm that the Lisbon Treaty is dead, that there can be no re-run of the referendum in Ireland, and insist that a new treaty must be negotiated.

This coalition must build on the successful ‘No’ campaigns of France, Holland and Ireland while remaining open to those on the Left who supported Lisbon but could be convinced to support progressive demands on issues of democracy, workers’ rights, public services, international trade and militarisation.

Sinn Féin has already outlined its view of what a new treaty would look like.

We are not seeking cosmetic changes but a fundamental reorientation of the direction of the European Union. We are not looking simply for protocols or opt-outs but substantial changes to the treaty itself. At the heart of our position is the demand for a more democratic, social, egalitarian and anti-militarist Europe. Other groups will have their own views and space needs to be given to these.

Such a coalition also needs to reconnect with those voters who rejected the treaty, those social forces who called for a ‘No’ vote, and those potential social and political allies whose support will be crucial if the advocates of Lisbon are to be finally defeated.

Crucially, one of the objectives of any campaign must be to force Brian Cowen to accept the outcome of the referendum and adopt a more robust position at the October Council meeting in Brussels. He needs to understand the price of ignoring the 862,415 Irish voters who rejected Lisbon.

We have three months to gather our forces, to mobilise them effectively and to build an Irish and Europe-wide alliance for a better deal: one that respects democracy, promotes a positive and inclusive vision of the future of the EU, and sees that future based not in the moribund Lisbon Treaty but in the will of the people of Ireland, France, the Netherlands, and indeed the entire European Union.

[White Rose Sophie]

Future referendums will be ignored whether they are held in Ireland or elsewhere, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the architect of the European Union Constitution said.


Am I the only one here (besides you  Sub-X) who is absoluted flabbergasted by that statement?
Basically, what he just said was "$#@%^&* THE PEOPLE of EUROPE".

I don't know what is worse......fraudulent elections (the US) or genuine vote-counting but total disregard for the result?

YIKES!!!!  Surely there are more than just a handful of Europeans who are angry at this?   

[Sub-X]

Hey George Bush refers to the very foundations your country were built on as "that goddamn piece of paper".What surprised me the most is just how blatantly obvious they are about their disrespect for democracy,when are people going to wake up and see the obvious

[White Rose Sophie]

Hey George Bush refers to the very foundations your country were built on as "that goddamn piece of paper".What surprised me the most is just how blatantly obvious they are about their disrespect for democracy,when are people going to wake up and see the obvious

One of the biggest problems (I think) with my countrymen is that (due to the control of mainstream media) they don't know half of what has been said/done by their politicians.  One has to get OUT of US Media Matrix to find out what is really going on.  Of course, the flouridation and chemtrail poisoning probably has something to do with Americans complacency/lethargy as well.  The fact that Ron Paul has garnered so much support IN SPITE of the media's blackouts/distortions I think is some proof of this - that once people are better informed they become active.

My point wasn't to disparage Europeans in any way shape or form, not at all. I am just curious if there is a large percentage of them who know what is going on. Considering that we (americans) have to get a lot of the truth about our country from European media, I assumed that they are more aware of  their own country's machinations towards the globalism agenda than we are towards ours.

Of all the people who post on this PP forum from all over the world, you are one of the very few who actually informs everyone about what is going on in your own country, and I for one, am very grateful.   

[Sub-X]

Another Europe is Possible: French NGOs
http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/363
Paris – June 18th

The French Presidency of the European Union begins on July 1st, a few days after the resounding Irish NO to the Lisbon Treaty. A NO that buried the so-called new treaty that France and the Netherlands had previously rejected. We believe that we must now be more vigilant than ever, so as to put an end to all possible neo-liberal and anti-democratic dangers and to affirm, once and for all, the necessity and the possibility of another conception of Europe.

The undersigned organisations have organised a Press Conference and present you their point of view, informing you of initiatives they intend to take over the coming months.
 
ANOTHER EUROPE IS POSSIBLE !

The policies of the European Union today play a key role in shaping the daily life of our citizens. The EU’s treaties, directives, and legal rulings are all increasingly marked by a number of shared characteristics:

·        Competitive social and fiscal measures,
·        Deregulation of public services,
·        Monetary policies determined outside any democratic control,
·        Restrictive budgetary policies,
·        Agricultural policies that tend to sacrifice small farming producers,
·        Security policies attacking immigration,
·        Bilateral free-market treaties aggravating the exploitation of IIIrd World countries,
·        Foreign and military policies fully aligned with those of NATO
·        A democratic deficit.
·        And a free and undistorted competition that attacks employment, living standards, public services, the environment and natural resources.

Faced with this unprecedented attack, we must argue for the primacy of rights, and particularly social rights for all. We must oppose competition taking over by promoting and building social, ecological, feminist and democratic alternatives that break the link with the currently dominant neo-liberal policies.

We are calling for the building together of a framework of debate and mobilisations that will help the convergence between associations, Trade Unions, political organisations and networks which share our concerns and are prepared to work together within a context of respect for the independence of each participant.

The French Presidency during the second part of 2008 must become the background against which these needs and proposals are brought to the forefront of politics…We also see a link with the process of preparation by the various networks of the European Social Forum in Malmo – Sweden in September 2008.

This is a call to action made by the signatories below, [to mark the imminent] French Presidency of the European Union. More specific proposals will be put forward during the debate. We are open to all those who consider that, even in the long term, another Europe is possible.

SIGNATORIES:
Alter Ekolo, Attac, CGT-Finances, Confédération Paysanne, Coordination des collectifs unitaires, Fondation Copernic, Forces Militantes, La Gauche Cactus, LCR , Les Alternatifs, Les Marches européennes contre le chômage, MARS-Gauche Républicaine, Mémoire des  luttes, MRAP, PCOF, Pour la République Sociale, Réseau Féministe « Ruptures », UFAL, Union syndicale Solidaires.
 

Original French link:
http://www.lemonde.fr/l-europe-a-l-heure-de-la-presidence-francaise/article/2008/06/18/le-non-irlandais-doit-etre-l-occasion-de-remettre-a-plat-les-traites-europeens_1060019_1058958.html?xtor=RSS-3214

[Sub-X]

Czech government blesses EU treaty
http://euobserver.com/9/26415
30 June 2008

The Czech government has advised the country's Constitutional Court that the EU's Lisbon treaty does not violate the Czech Republic's own constitution, improving the climate for ratification in the most problematic EU state after the Irish No vote.

"Due to its [lisbon's] ratification, no substantial change in the arrangement of the democratic legal order will occur," the text of a legal opinion submitted by the government to the court late last week states, Czech daily Lidove noviny reported.
 
"The government says in its position that...on the basis of legal expert reports the Lisbon treaty complies with the Czech Republic's constitutional order," Europe minister Alexandr Vondra told the CTK news agency on Saturday (28 June).

The court is set to make its ruling on the question in September or October, allowing the Czech parliament to complete the ratification process before Prague takes over the rotating EU presidency on 1 January 2009.

Analysts expect the EU treaty to get through the 200-seat lower house. But the eurosceptic ODS party, many of whose members say Lisbon is dead after the Irish referendum, holds a 41-strong majority in the 81-seat upper house.

The Czech president, Vaclav Klaus - an outspoken enemy of Lisbon - must also sign the text to make it law. The largely honorary office of the Czech president would find it hard to block a parliamentary decision in practice, however.

With Ireland planning to present its first thoughts on how to deal with the No vote at the EU summit only in October, the new EU treaty is unlikely to enter into force before the June 2009 elections, even if it passes through the Czech system smoothly.

The situation is set to see Prague enjoy the full perks of its EU presidency, with prime minister Topolanek chairing EU and international summits instead of having to stand aside for the new permanent EU "president" as envisaged by the Lisbon text.

"Now we will get our presidencies," a senior Czech diplomat in Brussels wrote in an SMS to a Swedish counterpart the day the Irish referendum result came out on 13 June. Stockholm is to take over the EU chair after Prague in mid-2009.

Ratification map

France, Germany and the European Commission have called for ratification to continue despite the Irish No, pointing to a scenario in which Ireland stands isolated against 26 EU states and faces pressure for a re-vote, as occured with the 2001 Nice treaty referendum.

Sixteen EU countries have so far definitively ratified Lisbon. The Finnish, Polish and German parliaments have approved the text, but are awaiting their presidents' signatures. The Swedish, Dutch, Belgian, Italian, Spanish, and Cypriot legislatures will finish voting between July and the autumn.

The Czech Republic is not the only problem country left, with the Polish president's office questioning whether the treaty still legally exists and the German constitutional court considering a legal challenge.

Austrian leader Alfred Gusenbauer last week said he would also call a referendum if Lisbon is tweaked for a second Irish vote.

[Sub-X]

No Means No: Campaign Press Statement
http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/365
Press statement, June 29

NO vote is a call for democracy and policy changes in Europe
Sarkozy: respect the three referendum votes
No means No! Protest on July 11

On June 12th the Irish people rejected the Lisbon Treaty. The outcome of this democratic process should be respected by the Irish and European political establishment. Lisbon is dead. The ratification process should now stop. This Treaty has now been defeated three times. Its rejection demands that Europe takes a new political direction.

French President Sarkozy says that Lisbon must be implemented. We say No means No! Nor will we accept instructions from a man who admits that if Lisbon was put to the people of France it would be rejected – again. This anti-democratic militarist is calling for a huge increase in European military spending – rejected in the Lisbon vote – and supports an attack on Iran. We call upon supporters of democracy, peace and social justice to show their opposition to Sarkozy's politics by joining our protest on Friday July 11 at 12.30 at the Dame St. Plaza, opposite the Olympia.

We call for a full public debate on the future of Europe, in which the opinions and concerns of the ordinary people of Ireland, France and other European countries take centre stage. Our Campaign will hold a national meeting in Dublin on Sunday July 20, involving supporters from across Europe, where we will discuss how to take that debate to the people of Ireland and beyond.

Since the referendum, the cry from the supporters of Lisbon has been that voters were misled, confused, or lied to. The truth is that the voters simply didn't believe the arguments of establishment-Ireland.

The 'yes' arguments are now being replayed. And while European leaders say they 'respect' the Irish vote, they plan to carry on regardless. Their aim is to find a way to deny the validity of the popular vote. EU leaders now call for the Irish government to 'find a solution', meaning a way to get the existing treaty ratified in Ireland. So it should come as no surprise that people’s distrust of politicians – in Ireland and the EU – is so high, particularly amongst women and young people. Sarkozy's admission last year, that a gulf exists between the rulers and the people, is truer now than when he said it.

When the people of Ireland voted to reject the Lisbon Treaty, it was not out of fear of abortion being brought in by the back door – this was not an issue on the doorsteps. Likewise, immigration was never an issue during the campaign. These issues are now being paraded in an attempt to portray the 'no' vote as conservative and xenophobic. This was not the case, other than for a small minority who did not determine the result.

The majority voted no for a combination of reasons. They were unwilling to accept the assurances of politicians that Lisbon, in some undefined way, would be 'good for Ireland'. They voted no to retain some control over the decisions which affect our lives – be that taxation, neutrality, or international trade agreements. They voted NO because they were not convinced that workers rights would be protected.

And while pollsters have chosen to ignore it, concern about public services – in particular healthcare – was also an issue. The 'no' majorities from the left – for example in the predominantly working class constituencies with Labour TDs – were won by 'No' campaigners who highlighted the threats to public services to the same degree as the other issues which have been mentioned in the polls.

Renegotiation of Lisbon has been ruled out by almost all European leaders. The CAEUC and its affiliates also reject renegotiation. The government now says it is going to 'consult widely' before coming up with a 'solution': they want to find out what buy-offs and/or minimal concessions they need to make in order to drum up enough support for a 'yes' in another referendum. They are under pressure to do this before the European elections next May; and European leaders are already suggesting that the question should be 'for' or 'against' membership of the EU.

We reject these bully-boy tactics and say 'No means No'.The referendum vote was a rejection of the politics of the EU's leaders, in whom the people have little trust. The CAEUC will continue to campaign for :

• the demilitarisation of Europe;
• democratic accountability and transparency at all levels of politics;
• the exclusion of public services from market rules and privatisation;
• environmental sustainability;
• social justice in Europe and in the EU's relations with other countries and peoples;
• the prioritising of workers rights, human rights and democratic rights in Europe and in EU relations with other countries.

We oppose and will continue to oppose all measures to the contrary, be they in Lisbon or any other treaty. We will seek to take part in Europe-wide campaigns to achieve our aims, and will support democratic forums of the peoples of Europe through which alternatives to the policies of the EU elite (embodied in Lisbon) can be debated. More importantly we will support initiatives aimed at mobilizing people against these policies.

The CAEUC and its affiliates will campaign against any rerun of Lisbon. Today we reiterate our commitment to seeking the largest NO Vote if the government dares to resuscitate a Treaty which the people believe is dead.

[Sub-X]

Polish president declines to sign EU treaty
http://euobserver.com/9/26424
1 July 2008

The Polish president, Lech Kaczynski, has indicated he will not sign the Lisbon treaty until Ireland decides what to do about its No vote, dealing a strong blow to EU attempts to revive the pact. German ratification also went on hold Monday (30 June), pending a Constitutional Court decision expected early next year.

"For now, the treaty question is pointless. It's hard to say how it will end. But to claim there is no union because there is no treaty is not serious," Mr Kaczynski said in an interview with Polish daily Dziennik published on Tuesday, when asked if he would help pressure Ireland by signing the text.

"The principle of unanimity is binding here," he added, explaining that Poland must protect small EU countries' rights as it is not a major power itself. "If the principle of unanimity is broken once it will cease to exist forever. We are too weak to accept this kind of solution."

The remarks come after weeks of public speculation by presidential aides that Lisbon ceased to exist when Ireland voted No in June, despite calls by France, Germany and Polish prime minister Donald Tusk for the other 26 EU states to continue ratification to help force a re-vote in Ireland.

The Polish parliament passed the treaty in April, but Mr Kaczynski must now sign a Ratification Act to finalise the process.

The president told Dziennik his general approach to EU diplomacy is to give Poland more clout by protecting national interests at every turn. "My politics is a way to make sure the telephone number of the Polish president or prime minister is frequently used by Berlin, Paris, London or other capitals," he said.

German setback

The Lisbon treaty had already suffered a setback on Monday, when German president Horst Koehler refused to sign the document until the country's Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe rules on two legal challenges by right-wing MP Peter Gauweiler and leftist party Die Linke.

"The president is respecting the request of the Constitutional Court," Mr Koehler's office said in a statement, putting German chancellor Angela Merkel in an awkward position after she personally urged EU states to quickly ratify Lisbon as a response to the Irish debacle.

The German parliament wrapped up ratification in May but German daily Spiegel predicts the court will not give its verdict until early 2009. "The Bundespresident has given the wrong signal by not signing," Handelsblatt cited the Social Democratic Party spokesman, Axel Schafer, as saying.

Mr Gauweiler filed his challenge on 24 May with the help of law professor Karl-Albrecht Schachtschneider, in a repeat of his attack on the EU constitution in 2005. The pair says the Lisbon treaty's Article 48 weakens the German people's rights by allowing the EU to change its rules without permission from national parliaments.

Die Linke's challenge, announced on 27 June, also argues that Lisbon undermines German democracy and targets defence aspects of the pact. "This false, soulless and militaristic treaty will endanger the EU," the party's Diether Dehm said last week.

The Polish and German developments intensify the headache for the French EU presidency, which takes over the EU helm today (1 July) and which had wanted to focus its chairmanship on climate change, Mediterranean rim foreign policy and building an EU military capacity instead.

The Kouchner touch

French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner on Monday tried to put pressure on the Czech Republic to ratify Lisbon, with Prague also struggling with a constitutional court challenge and a eurosceptic majority in the parliament's upper house.

"What use is it to take, say, three more countries into the EU, if we're blocked and can't proceed with political integration?" Mr Kouchner asked in relation to the Czech Republic's pro-EU enlargement agenda, the FT reports. "They'll be persuaded in the end."

The comments are reminiscent of his threat that Ireland would suffer if it voted No, days before the failed Irish referendum.

[Sub-X]

Irish Times report on CAEUC press conference
http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/368
1 July 2008

OPPOSITION TO a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was expressed yesterday by a coalition of left-wing campaign groups, which also announced plans to protest during French president Nicolas Sarkozy’s Irish visit this month.
“The Government is going to come back to EU leaders in October with a ‘solution’ to this problem and we reject this approach,” Brendan Young of the Campaign Against the EU Constitution said at a press conference in Dublin.

“We will campaign against any re-run of the Lisbon Treaty. We will seek the largest No vote if the Government dares to re-run a treaty that people believe is dead,” he added.

“It is unacceptable to ask us to vote a second time on the treaty,” Patricia McKenna of the People’s Movement said. “There is a misleading message being sent out that if we reject a second Lisbon Treaty referendum with some additions, we will be isolated.”

The Government was also criticised for disrespecting the No vote. “The Government is mandated by the Irish people not to renegotiate but to be part of a new direction for Europe,” Daithí Doolan of Sinn Féin said.

Richard Boyd Barrett of the Irish Anti-War Movement said it was “clear Brian Cowen does not respect the No vote”.

“If Cowen respected the No vote he would have gone to the European Council and said the decision is final. He is not saying that. He is trying to soften the Irish people up,” he said.

An immediate halt to ratification by other EU states was called for by the coalition which wants the EU to take a new political direction. “The idea that the EU can go ahead without Ireland is false and everyone knows it,” Ms McKenna said.

“It is not a change of emphasis we want but a root-and-branch reform,” Mr Doolan said. “People are looking for a more social Europe.”

Members of the coalition were also confident that there would be a stronger No vote a second time around and that there would be little support from lower ranks of mainstream political parties.

“With local elections coming up, many councillors do not want to go near a referendum,” Mr Doolan said.

“They would have to convince people they didn’t convince the last time around – it is difficult to sell the idea that it is worth doing a second time,” said Mr Young.

France takes over the presidency of the EU today. The group plans to hold a protest against the visit of Mr Sarkozy to Ireland on July 11th.

It is calling on him to respect the French and Dutch votes on the EU constitution and the Irish vote on the Lisbon Treaty.

“Mr Sarkozy with his Gaullist delusions is intent on getting the foreign policy and militarisation proposals through,” said Joe Higgins of the Socialist Party, referring to the French president as “Mr Neoliberalist himself”.

“We hope Sarkozy realises it is a mistake to find a way to force the treaty through,” Ms McKenna added. The coalition will also hold a public debate on the future direction of Europe on July 20th.

[Sub-X]

Polish president softens tone on EU treaty
http://euobserver.com/9/26431
2 July 2008

Polish President Lech Kaczynski on Tuesday (1 July) toned down his rhetoric against the Lisbon treaty, with the French EU presidency also downplaying the mini-crisis and analysts saying Mr Kaczynski's stance is a bargaining tool for foreign policy concessions.

"If the Irish change their mind, not under pressure, but of their own free will, there will not be the slightest obstacle to ratification from the Polish side...I will also sign the treaty," he said on a visit to Georgia, PAP reports. "I had a big role in negotiating this treaty, and I support it."
 
The comments come after Mr Kaczynski in a newspaper interview earlier the same day said signing the treaty would be "pointless" after the Irish voted No in June. The Polish parliament approved Lisbon in April but the president must now ink a so-called Ratification Act.

"The Polish president is an honest, politically-engaged man and I don't doubt for a moment he will keep his word," French leader Nicolas Sarkozy said at a press conference in Paris on Tuesday. "I can't imagine that someone who negotiated the treaty and signed it would question their own signature."

"It's not a Polish refusal to sign," French foreign ministry spokesman, Eric Chevallier, added, Le Monde reports. "The president said that, for the moment, he has chosen to postpone his ratification signature. He didn't say 'I will never sign' he said 'for the moment'."

France plans to hold top-level talks with Poland to resolve the situation, using Mr Kaczynski's desire to give Ukraine an EU membership perspective as leverage, French diplomats explained. "We have to try and keep everyone together, keep the European family together," one diplomat said.

The Lisbon gambit

Polish neighbours and analysts speculate the president's stance is not really designed to protect Irish voters or the EU principle of unanimity, with Czech minister Alexandr Vondra and Swedish EU minister Cecilia Malmstrom both saying it is a "tactical" move in internal Polish games.

Mr Kaczynski is fighting to win oversight powers on Polish government behaviour in EU negotiations and to get government approval to host a US missile shield. The Lisbon row also generates momentum for his flagging conservative opposition party, as campaigning slowly begins for the 2009 European Parliament elections.

"If Lech Kaczynski signs the treaty it will be a victory for [Polish liberal Prime Minister Donald] Tusk. So the president wants his own victory by winning concessions from the liberals," Polish Institute of Political Sciences analyst Kazimierz Kik told AFP.

"Support for the treaty could also be traded [with France and Germany] for support for a Polish candidate for one of the most important EU positions [such as European Parliament president]," Polish daily Rzeczpospolita writes in an editorial comment.

Heating things up

Mr Kaczynski's remarks on the "pointlessness" of Lisbon caused political outrage inside Poland, with socialist MPs tabling a parliamentary resolution urging him to sign and Prime Minister Tusk saying it is "needless" for Poland to find itself "attached to Ireland as a country...in a difficult situation."

A European Commission statement on Tuesday reminding Mr Kaczynski that he is "obliged" to ratify the treaty after the signing ceremony in Lisbon last year also generated some heat.

"With all due respect, the European Commission is a European Union organ without the authority to evaluate the decisions of the leaders of individual member states," the Polish president said.

[Sub-X]

Three NOs – time to go back to the drawing board!
http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/370
ATTAC France

On June 12th the Irish people, the only people given the right to vote, rejected the Lisbon Treaty. This was a copy of the European Constitution which the French and Dutch had rejected in 2005 for the same reasons as the Irish: the increasingly neo-liberal, militarist and anti-democratic direction of Europe.  The reactions of European leaders, including Nicolas Sarkozy, suggests that they are once again preparing to turn their backs on the wishes on the people.

In 2005 we organised a major campaign for a ‘left no’ to the Constitution.  This year we mobilised and agitated for a referendum in France on the Lisbon Treaty, and for this treaty to be rejected. We have organised numerous other initiatives in response to the EU’s attacks on social rights.  In the months ahead, Ireland’s ‘No’ should become the occasion for re-launching our efforts for another type of Europe. In this context, and in the context of the French Presidency of the EU which starts July 1st,  we call on all ATTAC activists and local committees to mobilise.

During  the coming months of the French Presidency, we will seek to let other voices be heard,  most importantly those demanding that the sovereign decision of the Irish people be respected. The fact that the treaty has been rejected by all peoples who have had a chance to vote on it, should be the occasion for a major public debate on the European project.  We, in conjunction with the ATTACs of Europe, demand that a new treaty be elaborated by an assembly elected directly by the citizens, with the effective participation of national parliaments, and that such a treaty be adopted by referendum in every member state. This treaty would have to allow everything to be looked at anew and to lay the basis for a truly democratic, social and ecological Europe, in which the power of money and finance would be put in its proper, subordinate, place.

At the same time as demanding a completely fresh look at all the existing EU Treaties, we must also resist any attacks on social rights and strive to impose different polices, to create a Europe capable of responding to the current crises – financial, social, ecological, and food –  which today affect the globe.

To this end a number of popular educational tools are planned, or already in train:

➢    A sample letter to send to President Sarkozy, demanding that the Irish ‘no’ be respected  (http://france.attac.org/spip.php ?article8677) ;

➢    A four page document on the French presidency of the EU;

➢    A book on Europe by ATTAC France and a brochure by the ATTACs of Europe following on from the ‘10 Principles’ document;

➢    A watchdog  on the French presidency of the EU, on the initiative of AITEC and with the support of the other ATTACs.

A number of alter-globalisation initiatives will take place around the French government's priorities for this presidency :

➢    ‘Demonstration for a just Common Agricultural Policy and for a sustainable agriculture in a just world’ - September 20 and 21 in Annecy ;

➢    A Summit on migration “Bridges Not Walls” – October 17th and 8th in Paris;

➢    “Climate & Energy” summit - late November, in parallel with the Poznan summit in Poland where the next international climate summit is to be held;

➢    The Collective for Another Europe initiated by a group of civil society organisations will work for a convergence of the alter-globalisation movement for another Europe through holding a counter European summit in Paris on December 6th 2008. It is also preparing a document on Social Europe;

➢    At the European level, the European Social Forum in Malmo from 17th to 20th September 2008, will be an occasion to push campaigns to a trans-European level, with a view to a mass mobilisation for a ‘Social Europe’ in March 2009.

Hence the European parliamentary elections in June 2009.

With the intensification of the tensions between European integration and its citizens, and the global crisis of the neo-liberal system, the alter-globalisation movement intends to make its voice heard for another Europe in a world built on democracy, ecology and solidarity.
 
TRANSLATION by CAEUC

[Sub-X]

Poland will ratify treaty when we do
Irish Independent
3 July 2008

Polish President Lech Kaczynski said last night he would only sign the Lisbon Treaty if Ireland also ratified it.

Kaczynski, viewed as a Eurosceptic, shocked the European Union on Tuesday when he said in a newspaper interview he would not sign the Lisbon Treaty for now, following its rejection by Irish voters in a referendum last month.

"If Ireland ratifies the treaty, Poland will do so too," he told Polish public television in an interview.

"Poland will not act as a brake, because if Ireland ratifies the treaty Poland will ratify it too. But we will have to create a situation in which the Irish people will do this of their own free will, not under duress," Kaczynski said.

Asked when he might sign the treaty on Poland's behalf, Kaczynski said: "When it will no longer be a problem and it will no longer be a problem when we know that all (EU) countries ratify the treaty."

The Lisbon Treaty aims to streamline the EU's creaking institutions following the bloc's expansion. All 27 EU member states must approve the charter before it can take effect.

[White Rose Sophie]

Poland will ratify treaty when we do
Irish Independent
3 July 2008

Polish President Lech Kaczynski said last night he would only sign the Lisbon Treaty if Ireland also ratified it.

Kaczynski, viewed as a Eurosceptic, shocked the European Union on Tuesday when he said in a newspaper interview he would not sign the Lisbon Treaty for now, following its rejection by Irish voters in a referendum last month.

"If Ireland ratifies the treaty, Poland will do so too," he told Polish public television in an interview.

"Poland will not act as a brake, because if Ireland ratifies the treaty Poland will ratify it too. But we will have to create a situation in which the Irish people will do this of their own free will, not under duress," Kaczynski said.

Asked when he might sign the treaty on Poland's behalf, Kaczynski said: "When it will no longer be a problem and it will no longer be a problem when we know that all (EU) countries ratify the treaty."

The Lisbon Treaty aims to streamline the EU's creaking institutions following the bloc's expansion. All 27 EU member states must approve the charter before it can take effect.

Gotta love the Poles and the Irish.  Warms the cockles of me heart, it does.   

[Sub-X]

We didn't need full vote on Lisbon: FG
Irish Independent
4 July 2008

MEP Gay Mitchell has questioned whether the Irish people should ever again be asked to adjudicate on complex European issues.

The Fine Gael MEP asked whether a referendum was "the right vehicle" for issues such as the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.

"People will say that he would say that, because he was on the losing side," Mr Mitchell told a Dail committee yesterday.

But he argued that now was "the time to lift the rock" on all matters. "We have to ask ourselves about this form of instrument of public policy," Mr Mitchell said. "Is a referendum the right vehicle?"

The Government had accepted the good faith of the Attorney General that a plebiscite was necessary on Lisbon, but Mr Mitchell said he doubted it was necessary for the whole document to be put to the people.

Some of the treaty could have been cleared by legislation, he said, and the rest put to the popular vote. He called for the Attorney General's advice on the subject to be made available to the joint committee on European scrutiny.

He added: "The last thing we need now is (French) President (Nicolas) Sarkozy riding into town with instructions and advice. What we need now is reflection by the Irish people themselves."

He also claimed that RTE's coverage of the Lisbon Treaty referendum was unintentionally unfair and called for an independent review of the role of the state broadcaster in its coverage of important issues.

"I really do believe that RTE's performance as a public service provider needs to be independently analysed."

Foreign Affairs Minister Micheal Martin told the same committee, however, the Government does not tend to publish the Attorney General's view on matters before Cabinet. It was a long-standing precedent, he said.

Popular

Mr Martin said he believed in the referendum as a means of democratically determining the popular will.

"I think it is a Constitutional imperative anyway," he added.

"Just because you lose one doesn't mean you have to question the whole format."

He said he didn't think Mr Sarkozy intended to visit Ireland this month in the method suggested by MEP Mitchell. "I believe his commitment is genuine to resolve the difficulty."

Mr Mitchell called for an analysis of the effectiveness of the Referendum Commission, and that of the Forum on Europe, which was not communicating "beyond a certain elite".

Mr Martin said he personally thought the Referendum Commission had a reasonably good campaign.

[White Rose Sophie]

He added: "The last thing we need now is (French) President (Nicolas) Sarkozy riding into town with instructions and advice. What we need now is reflection by the Irish people themselves."

That gives me a visual beyond comprehension.....Will he wear a tricorn too?  Which "Horseman of the Apocalypse" do you think he is?   

[Sub-X]

He added: "The last thing we need now is (French) President (Nicolas) Sarkozy riding into town with instructions and advice. What we need now is reflection by the Irish people themselves."

That gives me a visual beyond comprehension.....Will he wear a tricorn too?  Which "Horseman of the Apocalypse" do you think he is?   

To his credit,I always considered Sarkozy more horse than horseman 

[Sub-X]

Cyprus parliament ratifies EU Treaty in 31-17 vote
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gijdsX6YloZJ11Rlz0smS4RWWzTgD91MJ8OG1
4 July 2008

NICOSIA, Cyprus (AP) — The Cypriot parliament approved the European Union treaty Thursday, making Cyprus the 20th EU member to ratify the document aimed at streamlining decision-making in the bloc.

All 27 EU members must approve the so-called Lisbon Treaty before it can take effect. Its future was thrown into doubt, however, after Ireland rejected the treaty in a July 12 referendum.

EU leaders agreed to continue with the ratification process and delay decisions on how to handle the Irish vote until October.

Cyprus' parliament approved the treaty in a 31-17 vote, with deputies from the communist-rooted AKEL party opposed. AKEL's governing coalition partners, the center-right DIKO and socialist EDEK, voted in favor of ratification.

[Sub-X]

Cowen on the rack
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/cowen-on-the-rack-1428578.html
6 July 2008

THE public's satisfaction with Taoiseach Brian Cowen has fallen dramatically, as the country slides into recession in the aftermath of the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, according to a new Sunday Independent/ Quantum Research opinion poll.

The nationwide telephone poll found Mr Cowen's satisfaction rating (52 per cent) is down a massive 18 points in a month -- and has dropped a staggering 27 points since his election as Taoiseach in May.

The hammering Mr Cowen has taken leaves no doubt that the public mood has turned against him, and his Government, at a time when his Minister for Finance is finalising a package of measures aimed at rescuing the economy.

But the poll has found that a large majority (54 per cent) does not trust the Government to lead the country out of recession. Just 46 per cent of those polled do.

Support for Fianna Fail (42 per cent) has also dropped three points -- a decline experienced by all the main parties post-Lisbon, with the exception of Sinn Fein (5 per cent). Gerry Adams' party campaigned for a No vote, and has since seen its support rise by two points.

As Mr Cowen this week stakes his political future on a series of initiatives aimed at staving off a full-blown economic catastrophe, the Opposition will be worried that it is failing to capitalise.

In particular, Fine Gael (19 per cent) will be alarmed to see its support still dropping another four points, a trend which seems to be directly linked to dissatisfaction with its leader -- satisfaction with Enda Kenny has fallen 11 points to 30 per cent.

The poll has found that, post-Lisbon, the public remains resolutely anti-establishment, with all the big parties suffering declines. The number of people who say they are 'undecided' in their political support has more than doubled to 15 per cent.

The Sunday Independent, meanwhile, can reveal that Finance Minister Brian Lenihan has has been warned that the cost of the tribunals of inquiry is expected to increase "very significantly".

As Mr Lenihan this week prepares to announce current public spending cuts in the order of €500m, the issue of tribunal costs is causing real concern within the Finance Department.

Our poll, conducted last Thursday among a representative sample of 500 people, has found a massive 82 per cent would ideally like to see the payment of such costs deferred until the country emerges from economic crisis.

The Department of Finance memorandum reveals that, to date, the tribunals have cost almost €350m, but that figure is set to rise "very significantly" when third-party costs come in.

It is anticipated that the final bill for the tribunals will rise to €1bn, or even higher, most of which will be paid over the next two or three years to a relatively small group of lawyers. During this period the Government will be imposing massive spending cuts to try and lift the country out of recession.

Mr Cowen has said that the Government was planning strict spending controls, extra borrowing, and "savings" in all Departments to cover extra unemployment payments.

On Friday, it was announced that the number of people signing on the Live Register rose by more than 19,000 last month, the highest monthly increase ever.

Latest figures from the CSO show the total number of people on the dole has hit a 10-year high of 220,811.

The Government is being urged by many commentators to ensure that the "vulnerable" are not effected by the cuts in spending. Some are urging higher taxes on the wealthy, such as property developers , who provided thousands of jobs with attendant taxes to the Exchequer during the boom years while also amassing their personal fortunes.

There is still a marked reluctance among such commentators to see the Government firmly tackle the issue of costs associated with tribunals. Mahon has sat for 11 years at a cost of €80m so far -- but it will eventually cost more than €300m.

The value of the Mahon tribunal remains a moot point: while it is generally regarded to have done adequate work, there is widespread unease about its duration and cost. A Supreme Court judge has described it as the "antithesis" of an urgent public inquiry. There is also a body of opinion that its functions actually undermined, rather than restored, confidence in the political system here.

While the Revenue Commissioners have and will continue to recover substantial sums as a result of the inquiries of some of the tribunals, nobody anticipated that a decade later the final bill would be around €1bn.

According to Quantum Research: "Respondents were sick and tired of the tribunals. They saw them as offering no value for money. The tribunals were regarded as simply money pits for the lawyers.

"Those who disagreed with the idea of deferral of costs felt that such an approach would be unworkable, with several questioning whether such action would be legal."

When he was appointed Finance Minister in May, Mr Lenihan was provided with a briefing document by his officials. In relation to the tribunals, it stated: "Completed and sitting tribunals and other public inquiries have to end of February 2008 cost €328.6m, of which €237m derives from legal costs, including €111m for third-party legal costs. Third-party costs are set to increase very significantly, as a large proportion of the costs already incurred have yet to be presented and taxed."

Under the heading 'Control of Future Costs', it stated: "The Constitutional entitlement to legal representation for those whose good name or personal and property rights are at issue, combined with the necessity for a tribunal to be independent in its operations, means that it is very difficult to control costs once an inquiry is established.

"The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has published proposals for a Tribunals of Inquiry Bill, 2005, intended to consolidate the existing cohort of legislation, reduce costs and facilitate the recording and estimation of costs by placing a clear responsibility on a tribunal to monitor costs. The second stage debate on the Bill commenced in the Dail in November 2007 and is awaiting completion."

The memorandum adds: "The legislation is strongly supported by this Department (which had advocated many of the measures in the Working Group which drafted the Bill) and we are keen to see its early enactment." The italicised section was underlined.

Department officials then said that in 2006 and 2007 several commissions on investigations were set up on the basis of a fixed fee to encourage completion on time.

However, in the case of two of these, the chairpersons had indicated that the inquiries would not be completed with the envisaged six months and three months respectively, and had sought an extension of both the time frames and period for payment of fees/costs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the government thought it was hard selling the treaty last time around,that molehill has now become a mountain 

[tehowe]

If the government thought it was hard selling the treaty last time around,that molehill has now become a mountain 

Sounds like the opposition parties should be getting their economic platforms ready and promoting them in short order...

[vladimir]

Paul Joseph Watson's article on Prison Planet at http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2008/061108_eu_dictatorship.htm
and "WHAT THE EU TREATY OF LISBON DOES" do a very good job of showing how all this is being staged from behind the scenes by powerful money interests and their bureaucrat lackeys. The question of where this all came from and who's pulling the strings is a little bit buried in his and Vladimir Bukovsky's analysis of the bureaucratic structure and the bureaucratic machinations by the European Commission and European heads of state. But I would not deny that's crucial to get this ahalysis out before the public eye.

Of course, the European Parliament looks like Stalin's Supreme Soviet, because the Supreme Soviet was a bourgeois re-definition of the revolutionary Soviets of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies of the revolutionary period. As in most counterrevolutions, the forms of the revolutionaries are taken over and gutted so that, as an empty shell of their former selves, they can be filled with sychophants of the dictatorship, who represent the liquidators of the revolution. Thus, a man such as Bukovsky, who is ignorant of the history of the revolutionary period and the traditions of revolutionary Marxism because they were equally gutted or completely disappeared by Stalin's junta and kept that way by his heirs, sees a perfect resemblance while missing the essential truth. Says Bukovsky:

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 25 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. When you look into all this bizarre activity of the European Union with its 80,000 pages of regulations it looks like Gosplan. We used to have an organisation which was planning everything in the economy, to the last nut and bolt, five years in advance. Exactly the same thing is happening in the EU. When you look at the type of EU corruption, it is exactly the Soviet type of corruption, going from top to bottom rather than going from bottom to top."

A similar thing happened in America under the counterrevolutionary leadership of the Federalists and in France with the scuttling of the Constitution of 1791 and the turning of the Committees of Public Safety into goon squads first for the Montagnards, and then for the Directorate. The Politburo of the U.S.S.R. was a conversion of the Political Committee of the Bolshevik Party into a national organ for the use of the national executive: something which was considered an abomination by the revolutionary Left because it was never meant to be that the party apparatus (designed as a combat organization for propaganda and agitation) would be converted into an instrument of rule. Yet, by the mid 1920s this was the case and by 1928 it was a fait accompli under Stalin. Admittedly, much of this happened under the leadership of a very ill Vladimir Ilyich Lenin: same as much of the turnover in America took place while George Washington held the office of President.

How much this sort of thing is organized by concerted and/or transnational forces is highly debatable, in my opinion. There are national class forces which are quite capable of consorting across national boundaries and yet remain nationalistic in their aspirations and goals. It is obvious to many that German Revanchism (revenge for defeat under the leadership of Hitler) that is behind a lot of this E.U. business. In the case of the Union Banking Corporation, who pulled the strings? Was it E.H. Harriman and Prescott Bush, or was it Fritz Thüyssen? It was German banks that funded Solidarnoszcz, the nazi skinheads of East Germany and Russia, and the Yeltsin takeover. This ongoing rivalry between Anglo-American capital and German capital led to two world wars and it will lead to another one if the working class and its allies in the middle class and peasantry do not take state power out of the hands of the barons of capital - financiers and industrialists alike. Wars between nations are the result of economic rivalries between the ruling capitalist classes of national states. That transnational corporations and banks profit from those wars is a natural behavior for them, just as monied interests profited from famines in late-medieval Europe. If they can control the politicians to protect their interests, so much the better for them.

Those whose livelihood comes from the sweat of their brow must take the reins of the state in hand in a concerted effort in every corner of the world. They must take the guns out of the hands of the agents of capital and put them into the hands of the workering people and small entrepreneurs, so it is they who will decide how property relations are defined and laws are made. It is they who must decide whether a war is necessary to defend their nations and whether they will fight it. Must decide who will be subsidized and who will be financially ruined: something decided now by bankers and industrialists and their lackeys in government bureaucracies. This is not a scenario for a permanent state of affairs but for an emancipation of all people from the curse of government and economic subservience. Government is not a necessary evil: it is an unnecessary evil and only held onto out of backwardness and want of imagination.

I call on all of the Right and the Left to fight an eternal infowar to ready the minds of women and men for the great task that is before them! Wars, economic ruin, and the perpetuation of ignorance are the natural results of class rule. Universal solidarity and enlightenment are the natural desire of the great masses of women and men. Only in common struggle will we win over minds and remove the obstacles that block our path, until the way is cleared to that future day when we will all nuture one another's abilities and satisfy one another's needs in a great world community where enterprise and trade are truly free and restrained neither by subterfuge nor greed. In the words of William Blake (and by "England" he meant each one's own native land, for he regarded all nations as of equal value) ...

I shall not cease my mental fight,
Nor shall this sword fall from my hand,
'Til we have brought Jerusalem
To England's green and pleasant land!

[vladimir]

I forgot to add the old Irish Republican admonition ...

Tiochaigh ar lá!
Seize the day!

[Sub-X]

Sarkozy urges Polish president not to block Lisbon treaty
http://euobserver.com/9/26453
7 July 2008

French President Nicolas Sarkozy on Saturday pressed his Polish counterpart, Lech Kaczynski, to sign the EU's Lisbon Treaty despite Ireland's rejection of the document, which Mr Kaczynski has indicated puts further ratification into question.

"President Kaczynski is an honest man and a head of state. He signed [the treaty] in Brussels, he must ratify it in Warsaw. It's a moral question," said the French president, speaking at a meeting of the centre-right UMP party near Paris.
 
Mr Kaczynski last week said that following the Irish No vote, "The treaty question is pointless," before softening his position and stating that Poland would not oppose the ratification process, provided that the Irish "change their mind, [but] not under pressure."

"I have confidence in the Polish president. We will go on, we will find solutions ... and get to a point where we convince the Czechs to ratify as well," Mr Sarkozy said at the UMP meeting, according to French news agency AFP.

Meanwhile, French daily Le Figaro reported that Mr Sarkozy spoke by phone with his Polish counterpart on Friday and, according to the French president's office, Mr Kaczynski said his country "would not be an obstacle to ratifying the treaty."

In Poland, both houses of parliament completed ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in April, but the president needs to sign off on the document for the process to be finalised.

The Czech Republic is another country that has shown reluctance to continue ratification of the Lisbon Treaty after the Irish No. It is also awaiting a decision by its Constitutional Court on whether the treaty contradicts the Czech constitution or not.

Additionally, German President Horst Koehler last week also refused to sign the document until the German Constitutional Court rules on two legal challenges by right-wing MP Peter Gauweiler and leftist party Die Linke, who argue the document undermines democracy and people's rights.

Meanwhile, two countries – the UK and Cyprus – have pushed ahead with ratification since Irish voters rejected the document on 12 June, bringing the total number of member states to have approved it to 20.

[Sub-X]

The effects of Lisbon No on EU plans
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/88295
9 July 2008

The EU vision for the 21st Century

Now in the aftermath of a No vote the real reasons for the treaty are increasingly being made public despite the difficulty in getting these topics on the agenda even now as the Irish government 'reflects'. The rejection of the treaty has caused a headache for those politicians who favour EU unification, a unified EU military and further free trade liberalization. The French presidency is attempting to push through as much as possible on militarisation without full ratification. Apparently it was true that french white papers on defence were held over until after our referendum. Little good it did them. One of Sarkozy's problems is that military action undertaken by sub-groups of EU states without the need of agreement from all states has been scuppered by the Irish No as 'Structured co-operation' in Article 48 would have allowed for this and an EU military budget but Nice does not.
Sarkozy also wants closer NATO links and has offered to re-integrate France into NATO structures after a 40 year absence. Massive budget increases for military spending EU wide and a loosening of controls on arms imports are also planned for the French presidency over the next 6 months. He'll be here on July 21st no dount explaining all of this to us.The reasons for such militarization in response to 'global challenges' including mass migration and climate change gives a useful insight into what kind of 21st century EU our 'representatives' are plannning.

According to recent EU documents and memos, there are links below, these are the most obvious way to protect EU interests. ( I'm paraphrasing of course. It's put much more diplomatically.)

1. seal the borders from to immigrants fleeing the effects of climate change, rising food and energy prices and conflict.
a large and autonomous EU wide military will be necessary for this task.

2. aggressively push for the opening up of developing countries' economies, including in health, education and financial services .(leaving them even more vulnerable to currency speculation and financial shocks, without allowing any level of protections. Arguably, the 'liberalization' of financial services caused the East Asian financial crisis in the 1990s as well as the collapse of Argentina's economy, as without strong regulations there was no protection against currency speculation and no barriers to money flowing into or out of the countries.)

3. In exchange for the opening up of developing economies the EU would finally honour promises from the WTO Doha 'development' round to cut agricultural tariffs. If necessary, as a bargaining chip, open up health and education in the EU to market competition. Forced 'free trade' in services would also continue the trend of dismantling welfare states in Europe by removing the expensive idea of health and education as rights, rather than services to be paid for.

4. Continue to lower wages and expensive workers' rights protections in the name of 'competitiveness' , using high oil prices and threats of imminent recession. (despite the fact the the only winners would be trans-national corporations which can move to wherever the labour is cheapest and most regulation-free).

5. Prioritise economic growth over combatting climate change and reducing oil dependency. Refuse to radically cut emissions unless emerging economies do the same.

Some of these plans are being slowed by the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, however. As well as slowing down military co-operation,
the EU has not yet become a 'legal personality' able to negotiate international treaties and trade deals with one voice and does not have an EU president or Foreign minister with a common foreign policy position. ( though the EU already takes a common position on trade deals that position has to be negotiated internally.)

The veto on trade in services has not been given away, Article 188, which means one country can veto, in its entirety, any trade deal that contains services.So if a trade deal negotiated by Mandelsn would destroy small farmers in Ireland and threaten food security, ( yes the tariffs and subsidies are unfair to developing countries and need to go but alternative specialties have to be found or thousands of jobs in farming and the food industry would go overnight) the deal can be vetoed currently not with an agricultural veto, given away in a prior treaty, but with a veto on trade in services.

These are just some parts of the neo-liberal vision that Ireland's No has slowed. There's an article below by a German MEP from Die Linke, the German Left coalition on what Ireland's No is doing along with some links. It's long but well wort a read. He's been in touch with CAEUC a lot hence the reference.

Militarism, Neoliberalism, Elitism: The Agenda of the French EU Council Presidency
by Tobias Pflüger, MEP

An E-Mail by a senior Irish official has been leaked to the press recently. According to this Mail, the government originally preferred to hold the referendum about the Treaty of Lisbon in the autumn of 2008: "But the risk of unhelpful developments during the French presidency - particularly related to EU defence - were just too great", the official is quoted.[1] The French population already noticed that their president Nicolas Sarkozy is good for many bad surprises, not the least because of his dismantling of the welfare state, his approval ratings are on a historical low. Nevertheless, the French President now intends to act on the European level, too. The chances for this are good as France took over the EU-Council Presidency on the 1st of July for the next six months. Especially in the realm of the "European Security and Defence Policy" (ESDP) Sarkozy has ambitious plans.

As is well known, the postponing of the Irish referendum was in vain. On the 12th of June, the Irish population rejected the Treaty of Lisbon. With this "No", the ambitions of the European governments to transform the EU into a military union, has been reined in. But as advancing the EU's military policy is a central project of the Union's elites, they want to proceed without a new treaty, too: "We want to advance the European defence, whatever the future of the Treaty of Lisbon is" Sarkozy said to the online magazine Europolitan on the 18th of June. The French Council Presidency, Sarkozy continued, will "be the first step for the rejuvenation of the European defence in the years to come." The plans of the French Council Presidency are encompassing a significant intensification of the relationship between the European Union and NATO as well as concrete armaments projects. Furthermore, under the term "Global Europe", it intends to start a major offensive in the military and economic realm. Last but not least, the French Presidency will also try to implement the Treaty of Lisbon.

France is besides Germany the major proponent of the "keep-it-up" approach. The ratification process shall go on, regardless of the Irish referendum. Respecting the sovereign – the population – has never been a matter near to the heart of the EU-elites. Originally, it was – and still is - planned that during the French Presidency, parts of the still not ratified treaty will be realized, especially in the area of military policy. In a document, published at the beginning of June, the French Presidency still intended to "bring forward the necessary preparations in order to implement the treaty timely and smoothly and to assure that the treaty can be fully used from the time it is entering into force."[2]

Due to the Irish population and the superb work of CAEUC (Campaign Against the EU Constitution) , the French government is now forced to cope with this situation in order to get the treaty into force by one way or the other. For this purpose, various proposals are currently in the discussion – they reach from building a core Europe until throwing the Irish out of the EU. But currently, the most probable option is to let the Irish population simply vote ones again, either with some cosmetic changes or in combination with the question of weather Ireland intends to stay in the European Union. A final decision about how to proceed will be prepared until the next EU summit in October.

Ones again, the EU elites' understanding of democracy is revealing. Instead of respecting the decision of the Irish population they want to let them vote until the results seem to fit the governors of the member states, the EU Commission, the EU Council and the majority in the European Parliament. This procedure has already been practiced at the end of 2002 after the Irish "No" to the Treaty of Nice.

The reason for this upholding of the Lisbon Treaty is the fact that several crucial aspects, especially in the military area, cannot be realized without the treaty. But also the intention to change the distribution of power in the EU's most relevant institution, the Council, dramatically in favour of the biggest member states depends on the treaty. Only after the treaty is ratified, the German voting count would skyrocket from currently 8,4 percent to 16,72 percent (but France would also heavily benefit).

Furthermore, currently it is forbidden to build "avant-garde- groups" in the area of military policy which can exclusively decide over policies in this area without having to consider the opinions of other states not taking part. The "Permanent Structured Cooperation" of the Lisbon Treaty will make this possible for the first time thereby annulling the consensus principle currently holding in the area of military policy. The goal of such Permanent Structured Cooperations was revealed when Sarkozy proposed to use this instrument to build a "directorate" in the area of military policy consisting of France , Great Britain , Germany , Italy , Spain and Poland .[3] Without a new treaty such proposals simply do not have the necessary legal ground to materialize.

Additionally, the Treaty of Nice explicitly prohibits the establishment of a European military budget (in addition to the budgets of the member states). Therefore ESDP missions have to be funded via other ways – for example by using funds from the European Development Funds or by the juridicially questionable ATHENA mechanism. Hereby, the EU member states are paying into an extra budget which is not part of the European Union. In order to improve this problematic financial situation, the Lisbon Treaty intends to establish an official European military budget, called "start-up fund". That's why the French Council Presidency originally intended to integrate the ATHENA funds into the European Union in order to be able to pursue its militarization projects in a formally correct manner. Finally, the deployment of military troops within the member states will also be prohibited without a new treaty, too.

Notwithstanding these serious difficulties, the French Council Presidency faces due to the Irish referendum, it nevertheless intends to pave the way for ground-breaking novelties in the area of military policy, especially regarding the relationship between the European Union and NATO.

The French return to NATO

Shortly after he took office, Sarkozy announced that France will fully re-integrate itself into NATO's military structures after being absent for more than 40 years. In 1966, then President Charles de Gaulles justified the French withdrawal with his discontent over America 's domination of the alliance. Since then, the French military policy aimed to strengthen autonomous European capacities and thereby implicitly and sometimes explicitly tried to weaken the United States and NATO.

In this context, a paradigm shift seems to be in the making: "France had long championed the EU over NATO but President Nicolas Sarkozy changed that. He has ordered his diplomats to stop obstructing NATO’s work and offered to return France to NATO’s military structures."[4] During its Council Presidency, France intends to fully return into NATO's Defence Committee (whether it will also return to the Nuclear Planning Group is unclear, yet). Sarkozy sees this as an important confidence-building measure vis-à-vis the United States which is necessary in order to bring the EU and NATO closer together. This goal is one of the main projects of the French Council Presidency: "Strengthening EU/NATO cooperation, including increasing transparency, will be a priority, both at the strategic and tactical levels. […] Generally, the transatlantic relations will be intensified regarding political, economic and military questions."[5] Whether France 's NATO rapprochement will cause an institutional reorganization of the alliance is not decided, yet. For this purpose a far-reaching proposal has been put forward recently which could change the relationship between the European Union and NATO dramatically.

Not surprisingly, these considerations are made in a time, when NATO is in one of its most difficult phases in its history. The missions in Kosovo and Afghanistan are underscoring that the alliance has transformed itself into a globally acting organization not only waging war around the globe but also engaging into quasi colonial occupations. In light of the bloody escalation in Afghanistan und NATO's huge difficulties to "pacify" this country, the alliance is working on concepts in order to improve their capacities for such occupations. As soldiers are not well suited for the administration of quasi colonies like Afghanistan , more civil capacities (jurists, engineers, humanitarian workers, etc.) are necessary which shall help the military in its mission. Thereby, civil capacities are de facto subordinated under the military. This Civil Military Cooperation (CIMIC), called by NATO the "comprehensive approach", shall be massively expanded in the years to come.

But concerning the civil capacities, neither the United States nor NATO have enough capacities. As France also wants to be rewarded for its full return into NATO's military structures with important posts, the "Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik" a German think tank with very close ties to the government, recently made the following proposal: "France [should] use its EU Presidency for a masterstroke: connecting NATO and the EU by creating an operational civil-military EU planning and conduct capability closely linked to NATO's capacities at SHAPE. […] This would lead to a situation where the EU and NATO were closely connected.Under the motto of 'Berlin Plus Reversed' NATO could be granted the opportunity to draw on the EU's civilian capacities."[6] While the Berlin Plus Agreement of March 2003 assures that NATO's military capacities can be used for EU missions, the new arrangement shall go the other way round by providing "civilian" EU occupiers for NATO missions.

Major neoliberal offensive

With the Lisbon strategy issued in 2000, the European Union formulated the ambitious goal to be the world's premium economic power in the year 2010. For this purpose, the neoliberal remodelling within the member states has been forced. In Germany , for example, this resulted in the "Agenda 2010" and the accompanying dismantling of the welfare state.

But it was soon realized that this high-flying goal also requires the aggressive opening of new markets all over the world. Therefore the EU-Commission began under the title "Global Europe" to work on an external dimension of the Lisbon strategy. The result has been published in October 2007 under the title "The European Interest: Succeeding in the age of globalisation". The paper intends to provide the backbone for a European approach to globalisation. " In fact, European economic interests have scarcely been expressed in a similar and more aggressive way: "Externally, the EU is prospering from its openness to the rest of the world – in economic terms, but also in terms of cultural and knowledge exchange, and in terms of the recognition given to European values worldwide. As the world's largest exporter of goods and services and its largest importer of goods, the largest importer of energy, the second largest source and the second largest destination of foreign direct investment, the EU is a major beneficiary of an open world economic system. […] It has an obvious stake in defining the rules of global governance in a way that reflects its interests and values. […] Whilst the EU needs to protect its citizens, its interests and its values, protectionism cannot be the solution. As the world's leading trader and investor, our openness allows lower cost inputs for industry, lower prices for consumers, a competitive stimulus for business, and new investment. At the same time, it is important for the EU to use its influence in international negotiations to seek openness from others: the political case for openness can only be sustained if others reciprocate in a positive manner. The EU needs to ensure that third countries offer proportionate levels of openness to EU exporters and investors and to have ground rules which do not impinge on our capacity to protect our interests."[7] The egalitarian terms like "openness" or "equal opportunities" are masquerading naked economic interests as free trade always benefits the stronger actor. So the Commission in fact argues like someone who would claim a car race between a bus and a Ferrari would be fair only because both are using the same road.

Nevertheless, the French Presidency regards the Global Europe approach as the blueprint for its foreign economic policy. It intends to "work on the implementation of the Commission Communication on Global Europe [and to] renew the EU's commitment to Global Europe by asking the Commission for an up-date as a formal and integral part of the Lisbon Strategy."[8] In April 2008, the French government already published a document called "Euroworld 2015". Its core element is also to complement the Lisbon strategy with an aggressive external dimension, a step it regards as ground-breaking: "In effect, the weight given to the external dimension is not insignificant: it signals the fact that European unification is entering a new phase in its history, centred no longer on Europe itself but on its relationship with the rest of the world. This new phase represents a genuine paradigm shift, the implications of which we have attempted to explore. It is now up to the French EU presidency to start carrying through this new strategic vision."[9]
With this strategy, the further impoverishment of the so called Third World is knowingly accepted and even forced. The results are catastrophic; no wonder that the military "pacification" of hunger revolts is growing in importance in military circles. French Defence Minister Hervé Morin hit the nail on the head when he said: "Our military tools have to adapt to globalisation and the new threats."[10]

Expanding the European Army

When the new French military White Book was published in June[11], Sarkozy announced at the same time his intention to heavily expand the European army. In the future, up to 60.000 soldiers should be deployable in the field. Although this army has already been decided in 1999 and declared operational four years later, it mainly existed on paper. The French government also wants to improve the maritime and air support for this army, capacities which had also demanded by the Kuhne-report of the European Parliament.[12]
French secretary of state for European affairs, Jean Pierre Jouyet even envisions "concrete goals" for the next ten years. "He named among others a common air and sea combat troop and a commonly used transport fleet consisting of Airbus A400M."[13] Furthermore, currently the maneuver MILX 09 is being prepared which will be held in the year 2009. In this exercise, the deployment of a maritime component will be trained for the first time without recourse to NATO assets. This also fits in neatly. Notwithstanding his rapprochement towards NATO, Sarkozy always emphasised that he also wants to strengthen the EU's autonomous military structures. Therefore he advocates expanding the existing planning cell for military operations into a full European headquarter. Furthermore, the French military White Book wants to double the funds for the country's military space assets up to 700 million euro per year. This is fully in line with the Wogau-report of the European Parliament on the "contribution of space assets to ESDP" who also pleads for a massive budget increase on the European level.[14]

A further priority of the French Council Presidency is the adoption of a directive prepared by the Commission formally aimed at the "harmonization" of the European armaments sector. In reality, the directive will de facto end export controls for armaments sales within the European Union. As the directive has virtually no control mechanisms whether those arms will be re-exported outside the European Union, this offers the possibility to undermine national export controls and to foster arms trade with problematic conflict ridden regions.[15]

A final but very important point that shall be tackled during the French Council Presidency will be the update of the European Security Strategy from December 2003 which is scheduled for the end of this year. Especially energy security and climate change shall be given a higher priority in the updated version. In April, Javier Solana already published a European climate change strategy which advocated increasing Europe 's crises management capacities in order to (militarily) cope with the consequences of climate change.[16]
Thanks to the Irish population, the militarization of the European Union is temporarily slowed down. Although the European elites are currently massively trying to get the Lisbon Treaty passed one way or the other, the Irish example shows that opposition against the undemocratic, neoliberal and militaristic policies of the European Union is not only necessary but that it can also be successful.

Tobias Pflüger ist member of European Parliament for DIE LINKE in the GUE/NGL-Group and member of the board of the Information Center Militarization (IMI).

[1] Irish Memo in Full, URL: http://openeuropebl og.blogspot. com/2008/ 04/irish- memo-in-full. html
[2] Entwurf des Achtzehnmonatsprogr amms des Rates, Brüssel, den 9. Juni 2008.
[3] Howorth, Jolyon: The Future of European Security, EXPO/B/SEDE/ 2008/16, March 2008.
[4] Valasek, Thomas: France , NATO and European Defence, CER Policy Brief, May 2008, p. 1.
[5] Entwurf des Achtzehnmonatsprogr amms des Rates, Brüssel, den 9. Juni 2008, S. 78, 85.
[6] Kempin, Ronja: Could France Bring NATO and the EU Closer Together? SWP Comments 2008/C11, Mai 2008.
[7] EU-Commission: The European Interest: Succeeding in the age of globalisation, COM(2007) 581 final, Brussels , 3.10.2007.
[8] Entwurf des Achtzehnmonatsprogr amms des Rates, S. 25.
[9] République Francaise: Euroworld 2015: A European Strategy for Globalisation, 15.4.08.
[10] Frankreich verkleinert Armee, Tagesspiegel, 16.6.08.
[11] An English version of the French White Book can be found at http://tinyurl. com/528j9y
[12] Kuhne, Helmut: Entwurf eines Berichts über die Umsetzung der Europäischen Sicherheitsstrategi e und der ESVP (2008/2003(INI)), 31.1.2008.
[13] Frankreich verkleinert Armee, Tagesspiegel, 16.6.08.
[14] DRAFT REPORT on the contribution of space-supported systems to ESDP (2008/2030(INI) ), Rapporteur: Karl von Wogau.
[15] Commission of the European Communities, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on simplifying terms and conditions of transfers of defence-related products within the Community, Brussels, COM(2007) 765 final.
[16] Climate Change and International Security, Paper from the High Representative and the European Commission to the European Council, S113/08, 14.03.2008, URL: http:tinyurl.com/6s3qe3

[Sub-X]

éirígí video on Lisbon
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/88309
10 July 2008

éirígí have produced a video on the campaign against the Lisbon Treaty and their contribution to it.

éirígí's No campaign contribution


Lisbon Treaty Rejected - No Means No!

Related Link: http://www.eirigi.org

[Sub-X]

France to deliver solution to Lisbon 'psycho-drama' by end of 2008
http://euobserver.com/9/26476
10 July 2008

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS – French President Nicolas Sarkozy has warned Europe against falling into institutional paralysis in the wake of Ireland's rejection of the Lisbon treaty and said he hopes to propose a solution to the situation before the end of this year.

In a passionate speech in the European Parliament in Strasbourg on Thursday (10 July), Mr Sarkozy said that nothing was worse for him than "immobility" and stressed the EU should not let itself be paralysed because of yet another "institutional psycho-drama."

"Europe has a duty to act now. We are not condemned to inaction," the French president said, adding that this would be the main message of his country's EU presidency.

He said that he would go to Ireland on 21 July "to listen and talk and try to find solutions."

"The French presidency is going to propose a method and I hope for a solution in the month of October or in December," he told MEPs.

Irish voters rejected the EU's Lisbon treaty on 12 June. While the document has been approved by parliaments in 20 other member states so far, it must be ratified by all 27 to enter into force.

Mr Sarkozy said he did not want to put pressure on "our Irish friends," but said that at the same time, it must be clear whether the European Parliament elections next June will be based on the current Nice Treaty or the Lisbon Treaty.

"We have [still] a little time, but not a lot," the president said, reiterating that negotiating a new treaty is not an option.

The French priorities remain

The ambitious agenda of the French EU presidency – which started on 1 July and will continue until the end of the year – will not be affected by this "institutional problem," Mr Sarkozy said.

Paris' "absolute priority" in the next six months will be tackling climate change, notably by pushing for the adoption of legislative proposals on how to reduce CO2 emissions by 20 percent by 2020 – a goal agreed by EU leaders last year.

Harmonising the 27 member states' immigration policies and strengthening the bloc's defence capacity are the other main policy areas outlined by the president.

"If Europe is not able to defend itself, how can you want it to be a political power?" asked Mr Sarkozy, underlining that his plans did not aim to undermine NATO, but to develop the EU's defence capacities parallel to those of the North Atlantic alliance.

France also plans to defend European agriculture in the name of "common sense."

"In 2050, there will be 9 billion people on this planet … This is not the time to scale down Europe's food production", the French leader said.

An 'outstanding' debate

Mr Sarkozy's presentation in the European parliament was followed by a lengthy debate with MEPs, which in the end resulted in the president staying three and a half hours in the plenary session.

"I have been in the European parliament for 29 years and this today was one of the most outstanding meetings … The president responded to all the contributions [by the MEPs], taking them all seriously," the visibly pleased parliament's president, Hans-Gert Poettering, told journalists following the debate.

Most political groups in the parliament backed the French presidency's priorities, and most MEPs gave the French president a standing ovation at the end of his speech.

German Liberal Werner Langen compared Mr Sarkozy's presentation to that of former UK premier Tony Blair three years ago, saying it had been just as "convincing" – a comparison that appeared to please the French president.

Olympics controversy

But Mr Sarkozy also drew some criticism for his decision to attend the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games in Beijing in August.

"Mr President, it is a shame, it is pathetic to go to the opening ceremony," Green leader Daniel Cohn-Bendit said.

The possibility of boycotting the Olympics' opening was first raised after China's crackdown in Tibet, following riots and protests there in March.

But Mr Sarkozy defended his position, arguing that "humiliating" Beijing would be the wrong approach.

"I want to go and I want to speak. I want to speak about human rights and defend them … I don't think you can boycott a quarter of humanity," he said.

For his part, Mr Poettering announced on Wednesday that he will not attend the event.

[Sub-X]

Sarkozy rules out Lisbon Treaty renegotiation
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0710/breaking30.htm
10 July 2008

French President Nicolas Sarkozy told the European Parliament today that there could be no renegotiation of the Lisbon Treaty and that he would propose a solution for the stalled reform treaty in October or December following consultation with the Irish Government.

The French president made his comments during an address to the European Parliament as he set out the goals of France's six-month presidency of the EU which it assumed on July 1st.

Irish voters rejected the Lisbon Treaty, intended to adapt the 27-nation bloc's institutions for further enlargement, in a referendum last month.

Mr Sarkozy said the choice was either to stick with the Lisbon Treaty or revert to the old Nice Treaty, which the Lisbon Treaty replaces.

The problem with the Nice Treaty, Mr Sarkozy said, was that it implied no further expansion of the EU without the streamlined EU decision-making arrangements which the Lisbon Treaty introduces.

"It is not for a Frenchman to judge the Irish 'No'. We must not offend our Irish colleagues but we need to know under what Treaty we are going to organise the Euro-elections in 2009 - either the Lisbon treaty or the Nice Treaty" said Mr Sarkozy.

"It is either Lisbon or Nice - there can be no more institutional conferences," he said referring to the IGCs which are the forum for treaty negotiations.

He also said he thought it was wrong to put such as issue to a referendum in the first place. To applause from MEPs, he commented: "Institutional things are for members of parliament, rather than referendums - it's a political choice and perfectly democratic."

He added that without reformed institutions, the EU could not enlarge beyond its current 27 members, even though it would continue negotiations with Croatia, the next candidate in line. He said he would propose a solution for the reform treaty this year in consultation with Ireland's leaders.

"The French presidency will propose a method and, I hope, a solution either in October or in December," Mr Sarkozy said.

Mr Sarkozy said he would visit Ireland on July 21st to sound out political leaders on a way forward for the treaty.

The French leader also increased pressure on Polish counterpart Lech Kaczynski to sign the European Union reform treaty.

Mr Kaczynski, widely viewed as Eurosceptic, said earlier this month it would be "pointless" to sign the Lisbon treaty after it was rejected in an Irish referendum and that Warsaw would not ratify it unless Ireland overcomes its voters' opposition to it.

He later said Poland would not block the treaty's ratification.

But Mr Sarkozy urged Mr Kaczynski to keep his word by signing the treaty. "He negotiated the treaty himself. He gave his word and the word has to be honoured. It is not a question of politics, it is a question of morality," Mr Sarkozy told the European Parliament.

Taoiseach Brian Cowen told the Dáil yesterday that the Government's analysis of the Lisbon Treaty referendum result is expected to be available in September.

He said: "The Department of Foreign Affairs is undertaking work on this matter and the information will probably be collated and available in September."

Mr Cowen added: "We need to apply our minds to what forum we can use to conduct dialogue on its implications and collectively assess the means by which we could articulate the issues."

The Taoiseach said the Government would work with the European Commission "to see, based on our preliminary analysis, to what extent we can move matters forward". It was "a difficult situation", which would "probably require further discussion", he added.

[Sub-X]

Women, young people, manual workers voted No - Lisbon survey
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breaking/ireland/mhgbsnkfeyoj/
10/07/2008

More than two-thirds of Irish voters found the No campaign in the Lisbon Treaty referendum more convincing, according to a poll conducted by the European Commission.

Some details of the poll were published by the EC shortly after the referendum last month, but a more in-depth analysis released today shows that just 15% said the Yes side was more convincing.

Sixty-seven per cent said they were more convinced by the No campaign.

Just over one-fifth of those who voted no said they did so because of a lack of knowledge.

The No vote was higher among women, younger voters, manual workers and people with lower levels of education.

[Sub-X]

Belgium completes approval of EU Lisbon treaty
http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKL1051159420080710
11 July 2008

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Belgium on Thursday completed its approval of the European Union's Lisbon reform treaty as the parliament of the country's Flemish region cleared the document, rejected by Irish voters last month.

The Belgian assembly's vote brings the number of countries that have completed the parliamentary process on the treaty to 22, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said in a statement.

"This is a strong signal of how important it is that all member states are heard during the ratification process," Barroso said.

Irish voters plunged the 27-nation EU into a new crisis of confidence when they rejected the treaty, intended to adapt the bloc's institutions for further enlargement, in a referendum.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, whose country this month assumed the EU presidency, said earlier on Thursday that he would propose a way forward by year's end to salvage the treaty after consulting Irish leaders on their country's "No" vote.

[Optimus]

Nicolas Sarkozy pledges to force through EU Treaty
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/2281292/Nicolas-Sarkozy-pledges-to-force-through-EU-Treaty.html
By Henry Samuel in Paris
Last Updated: 5:13PM BST 10/07/2008

President Nicolas Sarkozy pledged to push through the new European Union's Treaty by the end of the year, warning the EU must not get embroiled in an "institutional soap opera".

In a forceful speech to the European Parliament in which he presented France's priorities during its six-month rotating EU presidency, Mr Sarkozy said: "It is Europe's duty to act right now".

He said he would propose a way forward by the end of the year for the Lisbon Treaty after consulting the government of Ireland, where voters rejected it in a referendum last month.

"The French presidency will propose a method and, I hope, a solution either in October or in December," he said in a high-energy four-hour speech and debate with Euro-MPs.

Irish voters plunged the EU into crisis when they rejected the Treaty, designed to adapt the 27-nation bloc's institutions for further enlargement. The French are said to favour a second Irish referendum, although Mr Sarkozy made no mention of this.

He said that if EU nations failed to reach agreement on the Treaty, then they would have to revert to the current Nice Treaty.

"There will not be any new treaty. It's either Lisbon, or it's Nice," Mr Sarkozy said to strong applause from MEPs. Reverting to Nice would mean no more EU enlargement, he warned.

He also used his keynote speech to reiterate his differences with the European Central Bank's monetary policy, and with the EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson.

Mr Sarkozy believes Mr Mandelson's position ahead of World Trade Organisation talks in Geneva on July 21 is too generous, and suggested all EU countries backed his view that a deal was far off.

"We are unanimous in Europe, even if it is not for the same reasons, to say that in the current state of things the conditions are not right," he said.

"There's not a French exception to this point of view," he added. "I haven't heard anybody, including the British Government, say that we've got to sign in the current state of negotiations."

The trade talks aim to boost international commerce by removing trade barriers and subsidies, but countries are loath to open up their markets or reduce financial support to farmers.

On the European Central Bank, he defended his right to spark healthy debate on monetary policy. "We are not calling into question the independence of the ECB if we ask whether it is reasonable for interest rates to go up to 4.25 per cent when the Americans are at 2 per cent," Mr Sarkozy said.

France's priorities were, he said, to adopt strict measures to fight climate change and promote renewable energy sources, a pact on managed immigration, as well as beefing up European defence and modernising the Common Agricultural Policy.

But he made clear that any farm reform should not lead to a fall in EU output.

"Is it reasonable to ask the EU to reduce its agricultural production when the world has never needed food so much? I don't think it is reasonable. This is not about French agriculture, it is about common sense," he said.

After some MEPs attacked his decision to attend the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympic Games, he said he had the unanimous backing from EU governments.

"I happen to think that humiliating China is not the best way to respect human rights", he said. "I don't think you can boycott 1.3 billion people, a quarter of the world's population."

Mr Sarkozy also said he would back Jose Manuel Barroso for a second term as European Commission president when his mandate ends next year.

[Sub-X]

Post Lisbon Referendum – An analysis of the profile and reasons behind why people voted NO.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/88332
11 July 2008

Introduction

The purpose of this article is to evaluate the recent opinion poll carried out by the European commission on the Lisbon treaty result, paying specific attention to NO voters. The focus will not only be on the profile of those who voted NO, but more importantly the reasons behind why they voted No.

An opinion poll carried out by the European commission on the 13th – 14th June was released during the week. The Eurobarometer randomly surveyed 2,000 people to understand 5 main issues:

1. To understand the reasons for non – participation in the referendum
2. To evaluate the respondents views about the campaign
3. To identify the main reasons for ‘yes’ and ‘no’ votes.
4. To get an overall reaction to the result

The main overall findings make for interesting reading, but a lot of it is unsurprising for those who followed the pre and post analysis of the campaign. Whilst many felt there was a significant ‘class’ factor to the NO vote there was very little evidence to illustrate why and how the working and middle class voted.

The main findings are as follows:

1. Most people did not vote because they did not understand what the issues presented.
2. Most voters felt that campaigners used it as an opportunity to promote their own political agenda
3. There were multi dimensional reasons for why people voted NO (outlined below), but Yes voters were more one dimensional (focusing on the benefits Ireland gain from the EU)
4. Those who voted NO were predominantly young people, women, students, the unemployed and manual workers
5. Those who voted Yes were predominantly managers, professionals and retired people

Profile of No voters

The silent majority :
Before analysing why people voted No it is worth noting that 51% of workers (described as employees in the poll) did not vote in the referendum. That is, 6/10 manual workers did not vote. The poll does not clarify whether those surveyed were eligible to vote, i.e. migrant labourers etc. Only 39% of employers or self employed did not vote. Thus, the majority of working class people in Ireland did not vote in the Lisbon referendum and there is no information detailing how they may have voted.

The two main reasons for not voting by both working and professional class were a) lack of knowledge and b) referendum not important to them. 86% of those who did not vote stated that they still supported Ireland’s membership of the EU.

The voting minority:

It is clear that there was a pattern amongst those who voted NO to Lisbon.After analysing the socio demographic groups of who voted NO there is a clear pattern amongst 5 groups. There are listed below

1. 74% of manual workers
2. 72% of students (predominantly from professional backgrounds)
3. 65% of 18 – 24 year olds (Young people)
4. 58% of unemployed
5. 56% of women (mainly those working in the home)

The 5 main supporters of the YES vote where generally male and came from higher socio economic groups

1. 68% of the self employed
2. 66% of senior managers
3. 58% of professionals
4. 57% of those who had completed higher education
5. 51% of men

Reasons behind why they voted No.

However concentrating on the profile of those who voted will not provide us with any clear understanding as to why people voted NO. Common sense can often tell us what ‘social category’ voters fall into. This is not rocket science. It is far better to concentrate on the reasons people why people voted NO (and after analysing the profile we can ask why did the majority of the working class either disengage or vote NO in the referendum).

The two main reasons provided by NO voters are

a) A lack of information (22%)- Democracy
b) To protect Irish identity (12%) – Nationalism

Besides these two main rationales, NO voters (working class it would appear) listed the following in rank order

c) To safeguard Irish neutrality & defence matters (6%)
d) Lack of trust in politicians (6%)
e) Losing the right to an Irish commissioner (6%)
f) Protest against government policies (4%)
g) Protect influence of small states (3%)
h) To stop introduction of abortion (2%)
i) To avoid an influx of immigrants (1%)

An important figure is the 14% of people gave ‘other’ reasons. These are not detailed in the report. Also an important omission was not providing specific workers related issues on the list of options to people to choose from. There was also no mention of people voting NO against a particular type of Europe, i.e. a Neo Liberal Europe. However, it was mentioned that the 14% contained many different responses so it may be several clusters of smaller reasons with no clear observation such as workers rights.

Conclusions and interpretations

Was class a significant factor? Of course class was a significant factor. It is not rocket science to acknowledge different socio – cultural and socio- economic groups vote in particular patterns. However, what is more significant for those wanting to build upon the NO vote is to analyse the reasons why people voted no. Just because the working class voted NO it would be wrong to conclude that this was some a victory for the progressive left in Ireland.

What is positive is the glaringly obvious fact that most people voted NO because they had no part in creating the decision they were being asked to vote on. Thus, it is a victory for grassroots democracy. Also, the fact that the vast majority of people did not vote on the basis of lack of knowledge shows that people will not be herded in like cattle to vote on something they do not understand.

However, most NO voters also pledged support for one of the two main political parties in the country FG & FF. 49% of FG supporters voted No, 40% of FF supporters voted No, 55% of Labour voters voted No and almost 60% of the Greens voted No, 95% of Sinn Fein voters voted No. Hence it shows that not all those who support a political party will follow the ‘party line’. Arguably, this is a positive sign for progressive politics?

What is also obvious (and personally I find this negative) is the grip of ‘national identity’ upon the politics of the working class. If I was in Sinn Fein I would take a lot of positive from this poll. Nationalism was undoubtedly a massive factor for why people voted NO. So, it looks like the retention of a strong Irish identity amongst the working class is still a crucial political concern.

[White Rose Sophie]

What is also obvious (and personally I find this negative) is the grip of ‘national identity’ upon the politics of the working class. If I was in Sinn Fein I would take a lot of positive from this poll. Nationalism was undoubtedly a massive factor for why people voted NO. So, it looks like the retention of a strong Irish identity amongst the working class is still a crucial political concern.

And "national identity' is a  BAD THING?  That the PEOPLE of the country have fought over centuries to protect?

Boggles the mind, it does.   

[Biggs]

Saturday July 12, 2008

European Parliament goes to Fascism
bans Euro-skeptic groups

By Bruno Waterfield

http://www.thestrategy.org.au/?module=displaystory&story_id=689

Plans to eliminate Eurosceptics as an organised opposition within the European Parliament are expected to be agreed by a majority of MEPs this summer.

The European Union assembly's political establishment is pushing through changes that will silence dissidents by changing the rules allowing Euro-MPs to form political groupings.

Richard Corbett, a British Labour MEP, is leading the charge to cut the number of party political tendencies in the Parliament next year, a move that would dissolve UKIP's pan-European Eurosceptic "Independence and Democracy" grouping.

Under the rule change, the largest and msot pro-EU groups would tighten their grip on the Parliament's political agenda and keep control of lavish funding.

"It would prevent single issue politicians from being given undue support from the public purse," said Mr Corbett.

"We want to avoid the formation of a fragmented Parliament, deeply divided into many small groups and unable to work effectively."

Mr Corbett's proposals will also give the President of the Parliament sweeping powers to approve or reject parliamentary questions.

Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party, claimed that the move goes hand in hand with the denial of popular votes on the new EU Treaty.

"Welcome to your future. This shows an EU mindset that is arrogant, anti-democratic and frankly scary," he said.

"These people are so scared of public opinion they are willing to set in stone the right to ignore it. Freedom requires the governing elite to be held to account. They must be getting very worried if they are enacting such dictatorial powers for themselves."

Current rules allow 20 MEPs from a fifth of the EU's member states to form groupings, giving them a say in the Parliament's administration and power structure.

Under the changes, the threshold would become 30 MEPs from one quarter of the EU's member states.

The Liberal Democrats, Greens, the far Left, Eurosceptics and other groupings have vowed to oppose the plans during a vote scheduled for July 9. Andrew Duff, leader of Britain's Liberal Democrat Euro-MPs and a committed EU Federalist, has opposed the silencing of UKIP on the basis of democratic principle.

"Whatever one's views about their politics it cannot be argued that these small groups do not represent a strand of European public opinion," he said.

"If the European Parliament is to be the legitimate forum for post-national democracy, all sorts of minority opinions have to be given effective, if proportionate representation."

But the proposals are expected to be passed with the backing of the Parliament's centre-Left and Right groupings, which account for 64 per cent of MEPs, including British Conservative and Labour deputies.

The row over the new EU Treaty meanwhile took a new turn yesterday after José Manuel Barroso, the Commission President, warned Irish voters that they will "pay" if they reject the document in a referendum next month.

Speaking in Brussels on Monday night, Mr Barroso attempted to head off growing opposition to the Treaty by threatening outcast status for Ireland.

"If there was a ‘No' in Ireland or in another country, it would have a very negative effect for the EU. We will all pay a price for it, Ireland included, if this is not done in a proper way," he said.

Officials fear that advanced plans to create a new EU President, Foreign Minister and European diplomatic service will be sunk by an Irish referendum rejection on June 12.

The new Lisbon Treaty replaces the old EU Constitution that was rejected by French and Dutch voters three years ago. While the other EU member states, such as Britain, have successfully evaded popular votes, Ireland is constitutionally required to hold a referendum and Brussels dreads a repeat of the 2001 Irish rejection of the Nice Treaty.

Yesterday, Paddy Power Plc, Ireland's biggest bookmaker, rung alarm bells by following the opinion polls to cut the odds of a referendum rejection by half - from 4-1 to 2-1.

Superstitious EU officials are also keenly aware that the referendum result will be announced on an inauspicious date, Friday the 13th of June.

[Sub-X]

The European Defence Agency: Arms for War and Profit
http://www.pana.ie/idn/071108.html
by Carol Fox, Research Officer, PANA (July 2008)

One of the many surprises thrown up by the Lisbon Treaty debate was that the European arms industry had managed to set up shop within the EU. Not only were we being obliged to spend more on armaments ["Art. 28(3): Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities"], but an entire EU agency dedicated to bolstering the defence sector and the arms trade was being brought into an EU Treaty.

How had this happened? Where had this European Defence Agency (EDA) come from? And what was the attitude of the Irish Government to all of this?

There are a number of excellent reports by the human rights group, Statewatch, and the Transnational Institute outlining how the European arms merchants got into the EU shop: it was via the EU Commission 'kitchen’. There are over 15,000 lobbyists in Brussels, mostly representing business interests, and many of them are invited by the Commission to sit on special policy committees. One such group was the EU Advisory Group on Aerospace. Nearly half its members were aerospace industry chairmen, including those from Europe’s four largest arms companies. Their 'Strategic Aerospace Review for the 21st Century’, published in July 2002, called for the creation of a 'level playing field so Europe’s industry can compete fairly in world markets’. Ultimately, what was required was the establishment of a: "European armaments policy to provide structure for European defence and security equipment markets, and to allow a sustainable and competitive technological and industrial base".

The EU Commission embraced this proposal: good for business, good for EU military ambitions. By the spring of 2003, it had produced 'Towards an EU Defence Equipment Policy", incorporating the Aerospace Review concepts and calling for the creation of an Agency to oversee these developments. The very first draft of the EU Constitution in 2003 contained provisions for a European Armaments, Research and Military Capabilities Agency, (later renamed the European Defence Agency). It was not surprising that such an agency would be part of the new EU Constitution, which was on track to boost the EU’s military dimension. Indeed, during the preparatory work for the Constitution by the EU Convention, 13 'expert’ witnesses were called before the Working Group on Defence including a General, military reps from the EU and member-states, two reps from the arms industry, and President of the European Defence Industries Group. The working group never asked to hear from civil society representatives.

Measures to boost EU military capabilities pre-dated the EU Constitution. Member States in 2003 promised to develop their military capabilities to an agreed state of readiness by 2010 (the so-called Headline Goal), so the EU could 'respond with rapid and decisive action ….to the whole spectrum of crisis management operations’ included in earlier EU Treaties. Under the 2004 Irish Presidency, the European Council gave its final blessings to these Goals, adding that the EU must consider pre-emptive actions and have the 'ability to conduct concurrent operations … simultaneously at different levels of engagement’. This was all underpinned by the European Security Strategy authored by EU Foreign Affairs and Security chief, Javier Solana, in 2003.

The EU Constitution would have leant a helping hand to these military improvements. When it was defeated in 2005, its military provisions were fully incorporated into the Lisbon Treaty.

Lisbon spells out the EDA’s role in ensuring that the EU is fighting fit. Not only will the Agency be responsible for supporting the defence sector and defence R&D, but it will identify operational requirements for the EU’s developing military force, assist in defining a European capabilities and armaments policy, and monitor the improvement of EU military capabilities. It has a special responsibility for the new Permanent Structured Cooperation provision in Lisbon, a mechanism allowing certain member states to form mini-military alliances within the EU’s structures for the EU’s 'more demanding’ missions. The EDA is to ensure that these states are fully equipped to carry out these demanding missions.

The EDA has no misapprehensions about the importance of its role. It shouldn’t have. It already exists. So eager were the EU Powers That Be to have its services, that the EDA didn’t have to wait for the Constitution’s blessings. It was up and running from July 2004, when approved by the EU Foreign Ministers. In other words, with the Constitution defeated and Lisbon knocked down by Ireland, the EDA has still not been placed into the EU Treaties. The EU’s Foreign Affairs Supremo, Javier Solana, is head of the EDA. Its steering group consists of the EU defence ministers and the EU Commission.

The self-assured Agency even produced a Long Term Vision Statement in 2006, outlining some of the tasks it sees before it: "The Headline Goal and European Security Strategy envisage a broad and significantly challenging set of potential missions. These include separation of warring factions by force, on the sort of scale that would have been required had a ground invasion of Kosovo in 1999 turned out to be necessary. They may also encompass stabilising operations in a failed state .... So the demands of today’s European Security and Defence Policy are already potentially deep and comprehensive."..."Future joint forces will need agility at the operational and tactical levels as well as the strategic. Once deployed, EU Member States’ joint forces may need to be able to operate at will within all domains and across the depth and breadth of the operational area, possessing combinations of stealth, speed, information superiority, connectivity, protection, and lethality. They may need to operate in complex terrain and inside cities."

These EU joint forces are already under development, including a 60,000-strong Rapid Reaction Force capable of intervening far beyond the EU’s borders. The French Presidency next month hopes to speed up that process. Meanwhile, the EU is already in action with a number of rapidly deployable Battlegroups, consisting of up to 2500 troops, with capabilities for high intensity operations. NATO has described the Battlegroups as "providing the EU with 'ready to go’ military capability to respond to crises around the world". Ireland has been a member of the Nordic Battlegroup since 2006.

This Vision Statement was also written with the knowledge that the EU’s military tasks had been expanded by the EU Constitution (and now Lisbon). In addition to the humanitarian, peace-keeping/peace-enforcement tasks of previous treaties, there are new provisions for joint disarmament operations, post-conflict stabilization and combating terrorism in countries outside the EU. There are also mutual defence and solidarity clauses, with the latter dealing with joint actions against terrorism, including the need to counter perceived 'threats’ as well as attacks.

Ireland: eager members of the EDA

Ireland joined the EDA immediately, in July 2004. There was no Dail debate and no vote. The decision was taken by the Government. Defence Minister Willie O’Dea stated the EDA was an intergovernmental agency within the framework of the EU’s European Security and Defence Policy and that membership didn’t oblige or commit Ireland to do anything other than contribute to the EDA’s budget. The fact that the EDA would be in the business of promoting armaments and boosting the arms trade didn’t seem to bother the Minister or the Irish Government.

It is within the Lisbon Treaty provisions concerning the EDA that Member States are obliged to improve their military capabilities. EDA Head Javier Solana has made it clear that there is an 'absolute requirement for us to spend more, spend better and spend more together’.

In 2008, Ireland will be making a financial contribution of €327,000 to the EDA. In addition, Ireland has, since 2007, been participating in the Joint Investment Programme on Force Protection. This has a budget of €55 million over 3 years, to which Ireland is committing €700,000. (Research areas include: Stand off detection of Chemical, Biological, radiological, nuclear and high-yield explosives; Defence options for airborne threats; Scope spotting and sniper detection: Research on new materials for force protection).

There are basic questions which must be asked about Ireland’s involvement with the EDA. Historically, Irish Governments – in keeping with popular sentiment -- have not been proponents of the arms industry. Ministers have invariably denied the existence of any indigenous Irish arms sector (despite evidence from Amnesty International and Afri to the contrary). Indeed, for over thirty years, Irish state boards promoting research and enterprise, such as Enterprise Ireland, have been bound by legislation stating they: "shall not engage in or promote any activity of a primarily military relevance without the prior approval of the Government"

The Department of Defence’s Strategy Statement, 2008—2010, extols the EDA as providing "opportunities of interest to Irish-based enterprises and researchers" and states: "We will work closely with Enterprise Ireland to exploit potential research and commercial opportunities arising".

Ireland’s relations with the developing world have prompted concerns about arms spending and the global arms trade. But the EDA is focused on increasing global competitiveness for EU arms industries, particularly in relation to the United States, a direction reinforced by the EU Commission in its 2007 "A Strategy for a Stronger and More Competitive European Defence Industry". Already, EU companies are responsible for over €80 billion a year in arms sales.

The EDA and Lisbon

Since the EDA already exists, one might ask: how has defeating Lisbon affected that organization? There are at least four implications.

1.Without Lisbon, Member States are not legally obliged to progressively improve their military capabilities;

2.The EDA has still not been placed into the EU Treaties;

3.The new expanded military tasks have not been given Treaty status and the EDA should not be promoting capabilities, etc. in these areas;

4.The provision of Permanent Structured Cooperation -- in which the EDA was to have played a major role -- has not been approved.
 
How Ireland ever joined the EDA without parliamentary debate or approval is incomprehensible. Maybe now, post-Lisbon, questions will begin to be asked about Ireland’s involvement in this agency and about the entire EU military project.

[Sub-X]

European style: nobody loves it
http://mondediplo.com/2008/07/01european
By Serge Halimi
July 2008

Imagine a man on trial for his life. The jury brings in a verdict of not guilty, so the judge immediately invites counsel for the prosecution to complete his closing speech, and then the accused is found guilty and sentenced to death. The Irish rejected the Lisbon Treaty on 12 June by a large majority. The treaty cannot come into force unless it is adopted by all 27 member states of the European Union, but most European leaders immediately announced that the ratification process would continue, yet promised to “respect the will” of the Irish people (see “Ireland votes no”). Europe is used to attacks on the sovereign power of the people by their overlords. That is now its style, even if it likes to be seen as the kingdom of democracy on earth.

The Irish rejected a “simplified” treaty so big the prime minister, Brian Cowen, confessed he had not managed to read it cover to cover. A member of the European parliament said the Irish reminded him of a “people’s democracy”. Another remarked: “It’s no accident that dictators love a referendum” (1) and the president of the European parliament, Hans-Gert Pöttering, concluded: “The Irish no vote cannot be the last word” (2). So there will be a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and possibly a third. Voting in Dublin will continue until the result is a yes, because that is what the other states want, those states where the electorate has not been consulted at all.

Blame the Irish! Ungrateful, selfish, working-class militants, incapable of the generosity and unselfishness shown by their rulers. Except when they vote them in and give them a mandate to carry out “bold reforms”. No need for a second ballot then. The Irish are thoroughly European in that respect.

Something has gone wrong. The European style has been exported and sold on the strength of claims to peace, prosperity, justice and equality. It has produced charming posters with blue skies, loving mothers and happy babies; it has an army of journalists and artists campaigning for it; Europe is being created by symposiums and meetings. But nobody waves its flag. Its identity seems to be so insubstantial that all it can think of to put on its banknotes is the cost of living.

It talks about peace but prepares to join the US forces in dubious wars. It talks about progress but deregulates employment. It talks about culture but produces a television without frontiers directive that will result mainly in more advertising slots. It talks about ecology and safe food but lifts an 11-year ban on imports of US chickens washed in chlorine (3). It talks about freedom but adopts a shameful directive under which foreigners without the right papers may be held in detention centres for 18 months before being expelled, including minors and even unaccompanied minors.

Keeping Europe’s promise called for harmonisation at the highest level: freedom, employment law, progressive taxation, independence. Instead, the gains achieved by the most advanced states have been diminished in the name of unification and we are left with extended detention, free trade and Atlanticism. This has produced the beginnings of a social Europe, the Europe that says no. Noting that in Ireland a majority of women, people under 29, and workers firmly rejected the proposed text, a columnist in The Economist observed that: “A 19th-century-style electoral roll, restricted to older, male property-owners, would have produced a handsome yes for Lisbon” (4). But what kind of Europe can we hope to construct if we go back to the property qualification?

[White Rose Sophie]

The European Defence Agency: Arms for War and Profit
http://www.pana.ie/idn/071108.html
by Carol Fox, Research Officer, PANA (July 2008)

One of the many surprises thrown up by the Lisbon Treaty debate was that the European arms industry had managed to set up shop within the EU. Not only were we being obliged to spend more on armaments ["Art. 28(3): Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities"], but an entire EU agency dedicated to bolstering the defence sector and the arms trade was being brought into an EU Treaty.


Measures to boost EU military capabilities pre-dated the EU Constitution. Member States in 2003 promised to develop their military capabilities to an agreed state of readiness by 2010 (the so-called Headline Goal), so the EU could 'respond with rapid and decisive action ….to the whole spectrum of crisis management operations’ included in earlier EU Treaties. Under the 2004 Irish Presidency, the European Council gave its final blessings to these Goals, adding that the EU must consider pre-emptive actions and have the 'ability to conduct concurrent operations … simultaneously at different levels of engagement’. This was all underpinned by the European Security Strategy authored by EU Foreign Affairs and Security chief, Javier Solana, in 2003.

My goodness, I had no idea that Europe was imperiled by masses of barbarians at their borders, just waiting to attack the poor, defenseless people of Belgium, Germany and France.  (amongst others)  So much so that "Europe" needs to develop armies to protect itself.

Unless of course, those armies are to protect the politicians from the poor, defenseless people of Europe (who are not CEO's of defense contractors, weapons manufacturers) that are suddenly becoming aware of what's being done to them. Kind of like, here.   

[Sub-X]

Europe Needs a New Left
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/88357
15 July 2008

The People Before Profit Alliance is oranisng a public meeting on Thursday 17th at 8pm in Wynns Hotel, Dublin. Francois Duval founder of a new anti-capitalist party in France will be joined on a platform that will discuss the need for a New Left in Europe by Richard Boyd Barrett and Joan Collins, independent councillor from Crumlin.
There is also a No means No protest against Sarkozy on Monday July 21st. It assembles at 12.30 in Dame St Plaza.

On July 21st Nicholas Sarkozy is visiting Dublin to sort out the Irish ‘problem’.

The rulers of Europe cannot accept the fact that we voted against the Lisbon Treaty. So WE are supposed to be ‘the problem’ because we do not understand or are too stupid to accept their wise guidance. And Mr Sarkozy will deal with us.
The whole charade is outrageous. It shows that democracy under Western capitalism has become a fig-leaf to cover rule by a corporate elite.

Sarkozy’s big agenda is turning Europe into a neo-liberal superpower. Immediately after winning a general election in France, he launched attacks on the pension rights of railway workers and sought to make universities more beholden to big business. He wants to create a powerful EU army that can intervene in Africa and the Middle-East in alliance with the US. He has tried to win a popular base for his right wing policies by stirring up hatred against migrants.

Yet his strategy is not working. His poll ratings are dropping dramatically and France is experiencing a new wave of workers struggles.
Just before Sarkozy visits Dublin, the People Before Profit Alliance have invited another important French visitor to the town.
Francois Duval, is one of the founders of the French Anti-Capitalist Party – a new party that has emerged from a wave of struggles that have followed the French vote against EU Constitution.

The new party was recently formed at a conference of one thousand delegates. It drew on the support of 300 committees who emerged to promote the idea of a new left in France.

Alongside parties like Die Linke in Germany – which is currently winning the support of over 15 percent in opinion polls – the new French party is part of an emerging new left across Europe.

Such a new left formation is also needed in Ireland. The betrayal of the Greens and the way the Labour Party supported the Lisbon Treaty shows there is a huge opening for a strong left wing organisation that puts ‘people power’ at the heart of its strategy.

The People Before Profit Alliance public meeting takes place on Thursday 17th at 8pm in Wynns Hotel. Francois Duval will be joined on a platform that will discuss the need for a New Left in Europe by Richard Boyd Barrett and Joan Collins, independent councillor from Crumlin.

There is a No means No protest against Sarkozy on July 21st. It assembles at 12.30 in Dame St Plaza.