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

[Sub-X]

Partnership Europe of Imperial Europe
http://www.pana.ie/idn/240408.html
by Roger Cole - Chair Peace & Neutrality Alliance.
National Forum on Europe debate on the Renamed EU Constitution (The Lisbon Treaty), Plaza Hotel, Tallaght, Dublin - 24 April 2008.

In June 2008 the Irish people living in the Republic of Ireland will have the right to vote on whether they accept or reject the Renamed EU Constitution, now called the Lisbon Treaty. It certainly will not happen in October. According to a leaked memo, by then the French Government, whose Presidency of the EU commences in July will be substantially progressing its plan to accelerate the militarisation of the European Union. The last thing the Irish political elite wants is for the people to vote on the Lisbon Treaty in full knowledge of its facts and implications. The attitude of the Irish political elite towards the people is clear an unambiguous. It is one of keeping them in the dark, and feed them full of manure.

PANA therefore now make the clear demand that the referendum be postponed until October, so that when they vote, the people will be fully informed of the contents and reality of this Imperial Charter. In fact, the polls show that a massive number of people do not know enough about the treaty, so even on a democratic basis, to ensure the people make a decision in on informed basis, the referendum should be postponed until October.

Irish people living in the six counties have been denied their right to vote in this referendum, as have all the other peoples in all the other states of the EU, even though public opinion polls have shown that on average 75% of the people want to have one. The reason behind why they are not being allowed to vote is simple, the French, the Dutch, and many of the other peoples in the EU, would vote no.

Therefore if the Irish people in this state vote no, far from becoming the laughing stock of Europe, we will be welcome everywhere, especially in France and Holland be the ordinary people. They do not want this treaty. So, if you do go on your holidays to virtually any of the states of the EU your going to have a great holiday if you vote no.

The only group that want this treaty is the political elite of the EU because it transfers power away from the people and their national democratic institutions, to the elite and their institutions that is, the EU Council of Ministers, the EU Parliament, the EU Commission and the EU Court of Justice. They are creating a European Superstate, a European Empire ruled by an elite, not by the people. By refusing to hold referendums they are making it crystal clear that they wish to rule without the consent of the people.

To quote Jose Barroso, President of the EU Commission speaking on the treaty on the 10/7/07: "Sometimes I like to compare the EU as a creation to the organisation of Empire. We have the dimensions of Empire".

Indeed we recently had the bizarre sight of a German Chancellor and a Portuguese politician coming to Ireland telling us how to vote in a referendum. When there is no referendum in their own countries.

Of course Ireland was part of a militarised, centralised, neo-liberal Superstate before, it was called the British Union and Empire. Leaders like Isaac Butt and John Redmond actively encouraged Irish participation in the Battle Groups of the British Union as they took part in Imperialist wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, the Sudan and many other parts of the world.

The only difference now, is that their successors, the advocates of a of a yes vote in Ireland, now support the Battle Groups of the European Union. The Irish Remondite Imperialist tradition is being restored.

They have already destroyed Irish Neutrality by turning Ireland into a US aircraft carrier, as over 1 million US troops have landed in Shannon Airport on their way to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Planes that carry prisoners to torture chambers are not searched. All they now offer is more wars and, in particular, and maybe very soon, a war on Iran. The EU/US/NATO axis is building missile bases in Poland and the Czech Republic to defend Europe against Iran, a State that's GDP is substantially less than Holland's.

These Imperialist wars have cost the US over $3 trillion and it has account liabilities of $53,000 billion. The UK cost alone is at least Euro 6 billion, so the cost to all the EU states is much greater. These wars have led a major crisis in the global capitalist system. Its supporters are committed to totally supporting them and the so-called Washington Consensus neo-liberal economics that underpins them.

Now, with their hands covered in the blood of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people they have helped kill, the Irish elite now want to drag us even deeper into more wars by supporting a treaty that further transforms the EU into a militarised, centralised, neo-liberal superstate.

When groups like the Peace and Neutrality Alliance organised massive demonstrations against these wars and Ireland's involvement with them, we were right. The only step that will restore global economic stability is the withdrawal of the EU/US/NATO armies from Afghanistan and Iraq, and their Zionists allies go back to their 1967 borders.

A no vote to this Imperial Charter will be not be just a rejection of militarisation of the EU, it will be a rejection of the US/EU/NATO military agenda long advocated by the US neo-cons and their Irish supporters that has brought so much death, destruction and economic chaos to the world.

In 1948, the Western European Union, a nuclear-armed military alliance was established. In the last few EU treaties the assets and competences of the WEU have been transferred to the EU, leaving only that of collective self-defence. Andrew Duff, MEP and Rapporteur of the Foreign Affairs Committee on the Lisbon Treaty believe that the WEU should now be terminated completely because the Mutual Defence clause 28A (7) provides for mutual self-defence. It states:

"If a member state is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all means in their power, in accordance with Art. 51 of the UN Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain member states. Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those states that are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence."

The policy of Irish neutrality has already been destroyed. This clause in the treaty legalises its destruction.

Instead of funding the Irish health service the Irish Taxpayers will have to fund the militarisation of the EU which is the main function of the European Defence Agency. Article 28(3) provides for the establishment of a start-up fund for the EU military as outlined in the Petersburg Tasks. In Article 28(2) EU states are also charged in accordance with the GDP scale for expenditures arising from operations having military or defence implications. Ireland will also have to pay for administrative military expenditure, which is paid out of the EU budget. The EU Council can also decide unanimously to charge all military expenditure to the Union budget Article 28(2).

Ireland will also have an obligation to "progressively improve" its military capacity.

The Irish defence budget is already over Euro 1,079 million with an army of little over 10,000. There are already Irish troops in Afghanistan and Kosovo and many more are being sent to Chad. A highly sophisticated US guided missile system has been purchased for use in backing up France's military in its neo-colonial state run by Debray, its local dictator, and will cost the Irish taxpayer €60million at least, this year alone. The initial cost for the missile system is Euro 13million and each missile costs Euro 75,000. Each confrontation could cost Ireland up to a million euro.

Let there be no mistake or misunderstanding. The advocates of this treaty virtually all have private health insurance. They do not care about the sick.

They want to spend more money on weapons and take part in more wars and spend less money on the health system. They want the EU to be more like the US, which spends 46% of the global military expenditure and has 46 million of its citizens with no health care.

If the Irish people vote for this Imperial Charter then that is exactly what they will get.

As the EU Foreign policy Chief, Javier Solana talking about military expenditure so clearly said: "there is an absolute requirement for us to spend more, spend better, and spend more together". (EU Observer, Nov 20 th , 2007)

The Protocol on Permanent Structured Cooperation states: "Recalling that the common security and defence policy of the Union respects the obligations under the under the North Atlantic Treaty of those member States which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which remains the foundation of the collective defence of its members, and is compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework; Convinced that a more assertive Union role in security and defence matters will contribute to the vitality of a renewed Atlantic Alliance, in accordance with the Berlin Plus arrangements(the sharing of EU/NATO assets)."

Irish people should vote no to a EU Common Foreign Security and Defence policy that is compatible with the use of nuclear weapons as a first strike weapon and contributes to the "vitality" of an existing nuclear-armed military alliance.

Structured Cooperation allows a group of states within the EU to form permanent military groups to implement the "most demanding" military adventures. It is not clear if once established these groups can have their own defence policies. Their military operations shall be "in accordance with the principle of a single set of forces" which is just another way of saying an army, a European Army. France is already proposing that the six largest EU states establish a massive EU intervention Army using this Protocol.

The Secretary General of the nuclear-armed military alliance, NATO Jaap Hoop Scheffer recently called upon NATO and the EU to pool their military forces and make them equally available to both the EU and NATO.

Finally, PANA was established in 1996 to advocate Irish Independence because we believed it was the intention of the Irish/EU political elite to integrate Ireland into the EU/US/NATO military structures in order to ensure Ireland's full and active participation in the resource wars of the 21 st century, wars in which the defeat of the EU/US/NATO axis would be the only and absolutely inevitable result. The Irish people, on their own, cannot stop this process. The Americans, French, British, German and other peoples living in the axis states can only do this. We can however, vote NO to this process by voting No to the treaty and obtain a Protocol, similar to that which the Danes already have. This would exclude Ireland from paying for, or involvement with the militarisation of the EU. If we win, we would hope that other people in the remaining EU states would follow our example.

This year marks the 90th anniversary of the decision of the Irish people to establish the Republic in the 1918 election. It is a good year to stand by that Republic and to reject the born-again Redmondites that support this Imperial Charter.

The choice facing the Irish people on the 12 th of June is between a Partnership Europe and an Imperial Europe. PANA stands by the Irish Republic and a Partnership Europe and urges to people of Ireland to vote no.

This year also marks the 150 th anniversary of the foundation of the Fenian Movement, the Irish Republican Brotherhood.

The Irish people have a real decision to make in this referendum on the 12th of June. Either they vote no and stay on the stepping-stones to the Republic as advocated by Michael Collins, one of the greatest of the Fenians by voting no, or they re-establish the Irish Imperialist tradition by voting yes. It is a big choice and PANA is confident that given a fair and democratic opportunity to vote, with the full knowledge of the facts, the Irish people will vote NO.

[Sub-X]

Irish Neutrality and US Foreign Policy
http://www.pana.ie/idn/usa.html
Roger Cole
Chair
Peace & Neutrality Alliance. (23/01/2003)

George Washington was a terrorist. He led an armed struggle for national Independence against the legally established order, the British Empire. The long and bitter struggle resulted in the establishment of an Independent Republic, the United States of America. Like all struggles for National Independence, it brought together a wide range of social classes and a variety of ideologies. Some US army officers, for example, sought to convince Washington that he should become a King of the new state.

What emerged in the process of the constitutional formation of the new state, however, was a Democracy, which in the context of it time, was progressive. But the new state, which grew and expanded through land purchase, and war against the native Indians, Mexico and Spain, became, in the process, an Imperial state, occupying the Philippines and Cuba at start of the last century.

There were always those who opposed this imperial tradition and sought to develop their democracy. Lincoln opposed the war against Mexico, Connolly sought to help organise the American working class, Eleanor Roosevelt was an inspirational force in the establishment of the United Nations, and the US anti-Vietnam war movement helped to change history, defeating the Imperial tradition. The Democratic Party in the US Congress have elected as their leader a person who voted against Bush's war, a reflection of the rapidly growing number of Americans opposed to the oil war. It was these democratic values, which were, and remain, part of the nature of the United States, values that ensured that it never sunk to the levels of the opposing Empires, such as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. An indication of the growing anti war movement in the US can be seen on the www.unitedforpeace.org site.

Therefore, it is not an option to be anti-American, because very many Americans also seek a more democratic and just world. The division on this war is not between Americans and Irish. The division is between those who meet together in Seattle, Port Alegre or Florence and those that serve the interests of the rich and powerful, the major corporations, in the US, Ireland, or other parts of the globe, especially those in the arms industry, that seek and need enemies in order to boost their profits and their power. Bush is there to serve the interests of the Enron's of this world, the oil and arms industries that paid foe his election, not the interests of the American people. It is Bush and his corporate backers that want to own and control the $3 trillion worth of oil reserves in Iraq.

We recently had a referendum to endorse the Nice Treaty, a key aspect of which was to consolidate the militarisation of the EU by the establishment of a European Army, the European Rapid Reaction Force. The entire political elite, funded by the Irish corporate sector spent millions of euro to win. It was a taste of the emerging corporate power in Ireland that the American people are used to.

As President Chirac said at Nice on the 9/12/02 in reference to the ERRF;
"We have now set up the military means and the capabilities for the European Union to do what is necessary to defend its interests"

The European Rapid Reaction Force is a European Army to be used to impose the military will of the EU political elite. That this army is to be used in war is clear and obvious from the military equipment being allocated to it by the states of the EU. It has established strong institutional links with the US dominated nuclear-armed military alliance NATO. This link will become even stronger with the entry of the eastern European states into the EU as most of them are already in, or intend to join, NATO. The ERRF is an extension of NATO, it cannot function without NATO, and NATO is an extension of US Imperial power.The values as expounded by corporate America have strong and powerful support in this state and the other states of the EU. The political elite in Ireland is one of the most pro US corporate elites throughout the EU. In the last five budgets the richest 10% of the population received 25% of the budget giveaways and the poorest 20% received fewer than 5%. It will be the poor who will suffer most from the cutbacks. It will be the poor suffer most from this war.

The rich corporate sector organised in IBEC, and the mainstream media will continue to give massive support to the right wing FF/PD government that was just re-elected. A clear and obvious example of this right wing government's support for corporate America is that it is that it is allowing Shannon to be used as a US military base, and Kenmare Bay as a training area. Fianna Fail is not so much an Irish Republican Party as a branch of the US Republican Party.

Our elite, look to the corporate dominated US state for inspiration, so let us look at the future Ahern and Harney have in store for us.

The US spends more on its armed forces than the rest of the world put together
 
The military accounts for $343 billion of the total Federal budget of $1,900 billion in 2002

Between 1995-99 the US accounted for 48% of all conventional arms exports, the nearest rivals were Russia at 13%, France 11% Britain 7%

In February 2000, there were 2 million people in US prisons, which is 25% of the entire world's prison population. This in a state with only 4% of the world's population

• The US devoted just 0.1% of its GNP to overseas aid, the smallest % of the OECD states
• 40 million Americans are functionally illiterate
• 31 million Americans live in poverty
• Real wages in the US are now 12% less than what they were in 1973
• Of the tax cuts made by Bush 43% have gone to the richest 1% of Americans
• 38.7 million Americans, including 8.5 million children were without health care.

 
In order to sustain their control of the state, the US corporate elite give Republicans and Democrats party's massive amounts of money to ensure they do what they are told. There was hardly a single elected representative who had not got money from Enron. Since the corporate sector also controls the media, no opposition to their dominance is given a voice. Indeed it finds an echo in the solid united front of the Irish political/media support for the destruction of Irish Independence, democracy and neutrality during the Nice referenda.

The United States gave massive support to Muslim fundamentalists in Afghanistan in order to weaken the Soviet Union. Now these fundamentalists have turned and bit the hand that fed them. The happiest people are the corporate sector leaders, as they have a new enemy to replace the Soviet Union and "Communism" to justify their military build up. Iraq had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attack, but those that did, do not have the resources to justify the massive military expenditure needed to provide the required profits, so states, such as Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Cuba, have to be defined as enemies to provide that justification.

What the Cold War provided was permanent war for a permanent arms industry and what the "war on terrorism" provides is a similar justification. A simpler solution, would be a massive boycott of Israel until it withdraws from East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza strip, to allow the establish a Palestinian state, with it's capital in Jerusalem.

A simpler solution would be for UN arms inspectors to be sent to Israel at the same time as they are sent to Iraq.

A simpler solution would be a real and sustained effort to have a more equitable distribution of the world's wealth.

For while Iraq is ruled by a dictator, that was not an issue while he fought Iran. States such as the US, France and Britain provided Iraq with massive military equipment during that war. Any states such as the US or Britain that provided massive amount of arms to Indonesia while their elite committed genocide in East Timor cannot be taken seriously when they say they support democracy is the reason they wish to attack Iraq.

The desire of the US oil companies to establish a pro US regime to give them control and ownership of the oil is a much more realistic possibility.

That is not to say the current regime should be allowed to have weapons of mass destruction. Iraq, like every other state, such as Israel, France, Russia, Britain, the US, India, etc should be visited by UN inspectors and their weapons of mass destruction destroyed.

If Iraq was the first state to have such weapons destroyed then the current situation in Iraq is a step in the right direction. If it is to indicate however, that only states loyal to corporate America can have such weapons, then it is a process towards permanent war rather than permanent peace. A permanent war, or Crusade, as Bush called it led by the rich white Christians, which they cannot possibly win.

There are alternatives to war as a method of solving problems, in particular the issue of Democracy, equitable distribution of wealth and the right of self determination of the Palestinian people, an absolutely core issue of the Middle East. They are issues that should be central to those of us who do not want permanent war. A war, which the rich corporate sector will lose, as there are just too many poor people in the world. The total population of the US and the EU only constitutes 12% of world's population. Bush cannot kill everybody.

Those of us that do not support the corporate elite need to build an alliance against the war not just in this country but also on a global basis.

We can take some initiatives in Ireland. PANA will be seeking support for a Nuclear Free Zone Bill and oppose the use of Shannon by the US.

The Irish elite will however continue to support the war, allows Shannon to be used and oppose the Nuclear Free Zone Bill. Their problem, however, is that the Irish people do not agree with them. The global corporate elite will continue to support the war. Their problem is that people all over the world do not support with them.
Fundamentalist religious beliefs, whether they are Muslim, catholic or protestant have nothing to offer. They are beliefs founded in the concept that all power derives from the Will of God, interpreted by particular people who have a direct line to God. To them, power does not derive from the people. If the poor are turning to the fundamentalists it is because those who claim to support democracy, such as Blair, Bush and Ahern have decided to back the corporates, to back the International arms industry.

The poor of the world see no difference between those who call themselves democratic socialists, liberals or conservatives. To the poor, they are all the parties of the rich.

To the poor, the only alternative on offer is that of fundamentalist religion, and because most of the rich are nominally Christian not fundamentalists.

It is the job of those of us that support democracy, equality and justice to show that there is an alternative to corporate power. If we fail, then we all lose. If we are successful, then there is a future for us all.

[Sub-X]

As polls narrow, Irish PM warns of 'disaster' if EU treaty defeated
http://euobserver.com/9/26051
28.04.2008

Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern has issued a stark warning on the consequences of rejecting the EU treaty as the latest poll shows a narrowing gap between the yes and no side.

A no vote would have "repercussions that would do immense damage to Ireland," and would be a "disaster for the country," he said on Sunday (27 April), according to the Irish Times.

His words were in reaction to a poll published by the Sunday Business Post that showed that 35 percent were in favour of the treaty, 31 percent said they were against and 34 percent remain undecided.

The results represent a decrease for the Yes side of eight percentage points, an increase for the No side of seven percentage points and an increase of one point for the undecided category when compared with a similar polls taken two months ago.

The high percentage of those who do not know how they will vote, as well as stronger showing for the no camp, comes just six weeks ahead of the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, set for 12 June.

The government is increasingly concerned that farmers may exercise their anger about current world trade negotiations during the treaty vote.

The leader of the Irish Farmers Association, Padraig Walshe, has repeatedly connected the two issues.

Addressing a rally of around 10,000 farmers in Dublin earlier this month - the biggest in recent years, Mr Walshe said: "Sell us out and we will have our say on the 12th of June."

He was referring to negotiations being conducted by EU trade commissioner Peter Mandelson on behalf of the European Union, on a world deal on liberalising trade. Part of securing a deal with developing countries is set to involve concessions by the EU on its farm subsidies regime.

Mr Ahern addressed farmers specifically on Sunday, pointing out how much the farming community had gained from the EU.

"The biggest beneficiaries [of the European Union] are the agricultural communities and they should be the ones leading this campaign for it," he told RTE, the state radio.

He added that the trade talks will be resolved and that he hoped that the "agricultural community quickly turn around their attitude to get behind the Lisbon agenda. It's in their interest more than any other interest or any other section in this country."

All member states need to approve the treaty for it to come into force. So far 11 of the 27 have done so. Ireland is the only country having a referendum on the document, with a no vote likely to put the treaty on hold for good.

This means the country is under extreme pressure to secure a yes vote, with much of high politics in Brussels on hold until after 12 June.

A series of senior politicians have visited Ireland to try and woo voters, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso.

The referendum comes at a time of change in Irish politics, with the long-serving Mr Ahern due to step down on 6 May to be replaced by current deputy prime minister Brian Cowen, as well as general uncertainty amid signs of a slowdown in the Irish economy.

[Sub-X]

France Wants to Join NATO to Ease the Way for European Defense
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=1986
23 Apr 2008

French President Nicolas Sarkozy says he will decide by late 2008 or early 2009 whether France will fully rejoin the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). It is one of the more important issues left unresolved at the recently concluded Bucharest Summit, where Sarkozy proclaimed: "I reaffirm here France's determination to pursue the process of renovating its relations with NATO."

Gen. Charles de Gaulle withdrew France from NATO's military structure in 1966 in protest over American dominance of the Atlantic Alliance. And more than 40 years later, the issue of American influence over European security remains a fundamental stumbling block to improved Franco-U.S. relations.

But France has been toying with the idea of rejoining NATO for more than a decade. Indeed, in 1995, Sarkozy's predecessor, the neo-Gaullist Jacques Chirac, told U.S. President Bill Clinton of his desire to bring France back into the alliance command structure. But the effort was abandoned when the Clinton Administration rejected French conditions for full reintegration, and when Chirac lost his governing majority in snap parliamentary elections in 1997.

Sarkozy, who has been called "an American neo-conservative with a French passport" because of his desire to mend relations with the United States, first announced the possibility of a French rapprochement with NATO in a September 2007 interview with the New York Times. But even if Sarkozy has pro-American leanings, he also is thoroughly Europe-centric in his worldview; correspondingly, he has spelled out French conditions for rejoining NATO that are very similar to those of Chirac: American acceptance of an independent European defense capability and a leading French role in NATO's command structures.

Sarkozy reiterated his demands in November, when, in an address to the U.S. Congress, he called on "the Alliance to evolve concurrently with the development and strengthening of a European defense." France's Minister for Europe, Jean-Pierre Jouyet, echoed this by saying: "We want to make openings with regard to NATO. . . . But let's be clear: We are ready to make these openings only if they allow the strengthening of a real European security and defense policy."

But French calls for an autonomous European military capability have been greeted with skepticism by several European countries that are reluctant to undermine the existing security links with the United States established through NATO. Indeed, some of the more U.S.-leaning European states suspect that France's renewed interest in rejoining NATO is in fact a Trojan horse designed, ultimately, to destroy the Atlantic Alliance from within.

Sarkozy, therefore, seems to have concluded that if he wants to advance the cause of autonomous European defense, he will first have to placate euroskeptics on both sides of the Atlantic by proving his commitment to NATO. But France is unlikely to rejoin NATO if it does not promote European integration. Indeed, the President of the EU Military Committee, French Gen. Henri Bentégeat, has said: "I think that if France normalizes its relations with NATO, European defense projects will become easier to progress." Says Sarkozy: "The more we are friends with the Americans, the more we can be independent."

Nowhere are French proposals for an autonomous European defense capability more controversial than in euroskeptic Britain, whose government is seeking ratification of the highly unpopular Lisbon Treaty (the repackaged European Constitution) this summer. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who had earlier promised to hold a popular referendum on the treaty, has now decided it will be easier to obtain a "yes" vote by sidelining British voters altogether and instead submitting the document directly to Parliament for ratification.

With this in mind, Brown presumably advised Sarkozy during his first official visit to Britain on March 26-27 to frame his proposals for European defense in such a way as to avoid endangering the Lisbon Treaty ratification process. Indeed, Jouyet, the French Minister for Europe, recently said that: "We will obviously take care not to jeopardize the ratification process of the Lisbon Treaty, because we know that in certain countries these issues are sensitive."

This probably explains why discussion of the symbolically important issue of French reintegration into NATO has been postponed to a meeting of the North Atlantic Council at the level of foreign ministers in December 2008, or even perhaps to NATO's 60th anniversary summit in April 2009.

An EU Army to Rival NATO?

France will assume the six-month rotating presidency of the European Union on July 1, 2008. And Sarkozy has already made it clear that the centerpiece of his (exceptionally ambitious) agenda will be the full development of an autonomous European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP).

The full extent of Sarkozy's vision for European defense will be published in the forthcoming "White Book" on French defense sector reform. But according to senior aides, Sarkozy's central proposal for the French presidency of the EU revolves around using provisions in the Lisbon Treaty that call for "permanent structured cooperation" to create what many believe in effect will become a common EU army.

In practice, the French plan is to proceed around an inner core of the biggest European countries ("strengthened cooperation" in eurospeak) called the G-6: Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain. (Other countries can join this initial group at any time.) France wants each G-6 country 1) to contribute 10,000 troops to a 60,000-strong "common intervention force" and 2) to commit to spending a minimum of 2 percent of GDP on defense.

France also wants the EU to have its own independent military planning capability (with its headquarters in Brussels). Says Europe Minister Jouyet: "We propose that Europe acquires the operational means for intervention with a planning center in Brussels." This has been echoed by French Defense Minister Hervé Morin: "An own planning staff in Brussels forms part of our ideas."

Another French proposal involves the creation of common EU arms market and the "definition of a common European disarmament and arms control policy." Says Jouyet: "We are ready for an internal market and an arms agency at the European level which will allow us to reinforce our industrial bases." Indeed, the European Commission recently proposed two new directives: one on defense procurement and another on intra-EU transfers of defense products.

France is also expected to proceed with a plan that would create a "common arms export policy" based on a proposal recently passed by the European Parliament. Furthermore, France wants to harmonize military training in Europe, as well as to "Europeanize" the foreign military bases of EU member states.

For the United States (and other pro-NATO allies), Sarkozy's plans pose a dilemma. On the one hand, the Americans want the Europeans to assume more of the burden for transatlantic defense. On the other hand, they want the Europeans to do this in a way that does not undermine NATO. And most of Sarkozy's proposals seem to be geared toward creating a rival European defense structure that over time will duplicate but not double NATO resources.

For example, the 60,000-strong EU force would draw on the very same troops that are currently committed to NATO. For such an EU force to be viable, troops would need to be on constant standby for EU missions. Considering that all EU countries are already stretched to the limit, Sarkozy's plans would almost certainly divert manpower away from the NATO mission in Afghanistan. And nearly all observers agree that the future of the Atlantic Alliance hinges on success or failure in Afghanistan.

Several European countries, especially Britain, have also resisted the creation of an autonomous EU military planning cell because of fears that it will duplicate the existing operational planning center at NATO known as SHAPE. And some EU countries are concerned that the creation of an internal EU arms market will make it more difficult for them to reach bilateral agreements with third countries (such as the United States) in relation to the licensing of exports of military equipment.

In an effort to alleviate some of these concerns, NATO in March 2003 reached a series of agreements with the EU known as the Berlin Plus arrangements. These guarantee that NATO not only maintains the right of first refusal to conduct crisis management operations (if the EU wishes to use NATO resources, it may only act independently in an international crisis if NATO chooses not to), but that all members have an effective veto by virtue of the fact that the EU may only draw on NATO assets if the whole alliance approves.

But the Berlin Plus agreements (and thus the whole debate over the EU's institutional relationship with NATO) will be reopened as a quid pro quo for France rejoining NATO. And if Sarkozy succeeds in creating an independent EU military, it will be at the expense of NATO, which in turn will dilute American influence over European security policy.

French Pro-Americanism Unlikely to Outlast Sarkozy

Although some analysts believe the pro-American Sarkozy is filling the shoes vacated by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, most of the French political class does not share their president's enthusiasm for things American. Indeed, their goal for more than 60 years has been to reduce American influence in Europe. Thus it seems doubtful that Sarkozy's overtures to the United States will outlast his own administration.

This was foreshadowed on April 8, when Sarkozy faced down a vote of no confidence because of his plans to deploy a battalion of 800 French troops to Afghanistan. (France already has 1,600 soldiers in Afghanistan, mostly around the capital, Kabul.) French leftists accused Sarkozy of a dangerous "Atlanticist drift" that risked turning France into Bush's lackey. The leader of the "moderate" opposition Socialists, François Hollande, said Sarkozy decided to send French troops to Afghanistan "under pressure from the Americans" and that France risked losing its independence on the world stage.

For most of the French ruling elite (the anti-American Left and the nationalist Right), the United States is considered to be the main problem in international affairs because of its reluctance to share its power. The only solution, in their view, is a French-led EU superstate that can counterbalance America on the global stage. And a unified EU foreign and defense policy that is completely independent of NATO (i.e., the United States) is essential to achieve equal status. Until then, anti-Americanism will continue to be the preferred means to accelerate the process of loosening the transatlantic link.

Sarkozy may be sincere in his desire to rejoin NATO. But by conditioning such a move on support for an independent EU defense capability, he is saying that to be more European tomorrow, he has to be more Atlantic today.

[Sub-X]

YES to Publicly Funded Healthcare - NO to the Lisbon Treaty
http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/160
April 25th, 2008 by John Meehan

The Irish healthcare system is in crisis and every day we hear new stories about people being denied treatment, waiting for days on trolleys and further cutbacks in essential services.

The health service is being driven into crisis by a Fianna Fail-PD-Green government whose aim is to outsource and privatise as much as possible. There are already American private health corporations, some of which are mired by healthcare fraud, involved in Harney's co-located private hospitals.

The Lisbon Treaty, which we will vote on in June, would make it harder to stop this. If we don't like what our government does  we can mobilise and demand change, or we can vote them out. But policies put in place by Lisbon would be almost impossible to change and would create international obstacles to getting a decent public health service.

At present there are protests over the deal that EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson is negotiating on agriculture at the WTO. But even if they wanted to, the Irish government cannot block Mandelson's proposals because the power of individual member states to veto EU proposals on trade in agriculture was given away in the Treaty of Amsterdam. Lisbon would give away the power to veto international trade agreements in health, education and social services

How would Lisbon put our health care at risk?

Lisbon would establish in treaty law, which cannot later be changed, the principle of international trade in all public services including health, education and social services. It would also give the EU the power to issue guidelines to governments on how they manage their budgets and how they finance public services. (Art 16, 104 and 115). This would put all public services under pressure to compete with private for-profit providers.

The experience in Britain, Canada and Australia shows that as more health services are privatised, insurance premiums rise, the quality of care falls and public waiting lists get longer. While EU treaties allow our governments to set out general policy for health care, when it comes to actually delivering services the competition rules of the EU apply. The European Commission and the European Court of Justice make this clear: private contractors must be allowed compete to deliver any parts of a service for which charges can be levied. This already applies to outsourced contracts, and could also be applied to ‘internal’ charges between hospital departments.

Catering and cleaning are already outsourced, and we know that contract cleaning has helped spread MRSA. Ambulances, lab testing, radiology - and some cancer treatment - are already being privatised. International agreements through the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to let multinationals deliver these services would make it even harder to reverse privatisation and repair the damage. Lisbon would make it easier for the EU to make these international agreements.

Health: just another service for sale?

Lisbon would remove the unrestricted power to veto proposals for international trade in health, education and social services that the EU makes on our behalf in the GATS. These trade agreements involve the removal of regulations so that transnationals can compete to run the service. Details of the EU's proposals are kept secret until the deal is finalised, both at present and under Lisbon. We don't know today what public services that Micheal Martin is offering to Mandelson to include in the EU's bargaining position; nor which of our services other countries are asking be opened for their multinationals. But we do know that Mandelson, the Commission and Lisbon promote privatisation.

Under Lisbon a veto would only be available when trade would “risk seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of Member States to deliver them” (Art 188c). This risk is not defined in the treaty, and it would be very hard to prove. As long as 55% of the Council of Ministers agreed with a trade proposal, the rest would be overruled. And the voting system in Lisbon would increase the weight of bigger states: the German vote would rise from 8.4% to 16.7%; Britain from 8.4% to 12%;  while Ireland would go from 2% to 0.8%. What supporters of Lisbon call 'greater efficiency' is actually a mechanism to outvote objections to unpopular policies.

Vote NO to Lisbon - say YES to Public Services

Arguments that health and social care would be protected under Lisbon simply don't hold water. If there is no intention to turn as much of these services as possible into private businesses (this is what 'trade' means), why does the Treaty have a clause that limits the veto on such trade?

The EU's commitment to 'liberalise trade in services', strengthened by Lisbon, will only make our health service worse. Lisbon would help put profitability rather than quality of care at the centre of our services. It should be rejected.

[Sub-X]

New Union UNITE says vote NO to Lisbon
http://www.swp.ie/news/swissue284/eureferendumnewunionunitesaysvoteno.html
Written by Jimmy Kelly, Regional Secretary UNITE Trade Union

 

UNITE which brings together AMICUS and the ATGWU has decided to campaign for a NO vote.
The Government – the combined opposition excluding Sinn Fein and some members of the Green Party – unfortunately the leadership of the Labour Party. All of the Government parties in Europe. Those are the forces lined up against us, however we must take on this fight and seek to move our ideas and our principles centre stage during the EU referendum campaign.

TRADE UNIONS

Trade Union organisations across the Republic of Ireland should be consulting with their members – with their lay structures – Shop Stewards – their Branches – their Districts – and their Executives within the context of making a recommendation to their membership on voting in this EU Referendum.

The context for that consultation and reaching a conclusion for a recommendation I am convinced is within the framework of workers rights.

Whether judged against the EU itself or judged against the performance of the Irish Government on workers rights, I would argue that all Unions and indeed the ICTU should conclude that recommending a NO vote is consistent with the defence of Employment Rights for workers here in Ireland.

Laval and Viking – Two cases which have been before the European Court of Justice – The findings mean that while confirming the right of workers to go on strike, in the case of Laval can make those rights of workers subordinate to the rights of free movement of goods and services – Now forgive me but I have always believed that the whole point of a strike was to prevent the movement of those particular goods or services provided by those workers on strike – until they get justice from their employer.

So in the climate following Laval and Viking I am very clear that any benefit of the doubt to be given between Bosses and Workers will fall to the Employers.

And it is the climate created by those on the YES side that I think we have to focus our thoughts on.

My Union UNITE has agreed a position on Social Partnership

• Wages
• Low Paid
• Union Recognition
• Equal Rights for Agency Workers
• Pension Rights

I won’t go into detail on the Wages front other than to point to the fact that Ireland has a low wage economy despite the perception blasted out by Government and Employer organisations of high wages effecting competitiveness.

We are seeking to move the agenda of the Irish Trade Union Movement beyond just asking for better treatment but starting to fight back against the Bosses and the Government to make concrete gains for workers in Ireland.

The Irish Government is refusing to give effect to workers rights beyond the aspirational language contained in Social Partnership documentation over a long number of years. 

It seems therefore sensible, logical and very necessary to take forward our agenda of Employment rights to seek to influence every opportunity to advance those demands.

So when we come to take a decision on recommending Yes – No – or stay Neutral,

What are the considerations for workers organisations?

WHERE IS THE SOCIAL EUROPE

First of all let’s look back to the last time we discussed these matters in detail – during the referenda on the Nice treaty – 6 – 7 years ago

At that time the Trade Union and Labour movement was encouraged to support the Nice Treaty on the basis that the Charter of Fundamental Rights would deliver on the Social Europe Agenda. Many trade unionists at the time supported the Treaty on that basis.

The Charter disappeared into a political declaration and while well meaning did not deliver in any substance on the social agenda.

If anything the ‘market economy’ has been in the ascendancy and the so-called social market has been overwhelmed by neoliberal economic policies.

Witness the Irish Ferries marches in 2005 to defend employment rights and in more recent times the decisions by the European Court in the case of Viking/Laval which in effect limit the effectiveness of trade unions in defending their members’ interests and taking collective action.

Of equal concern is the impression created by this judgement that only wages that are set through a national minimum legal wage mechanism are enforceable.  In other words JLCs and REAs have a question mark put against them.  The recent case taken by the Hotels Federation in the Courts challenging their JLC. (10 cents above the National Minimum Wage) shows what Irish bosses really want – cheap labour and no statutory rights for workers.

Add to that the recent defeat of the Agency Workers Directive, which sought equal treatment for Agency workers, to prevent their exploitation, and the EU ‘Social Agenda’ is on the ropes if not heading indeed for a count out.

Many EU States already provide for equal treatment or minimum requirements for agency workers, so in advance of the referendum there is nothing preventing the Irish Government from providing for equal treatment legislation.

This Reform Treaty revives the Charter of Fundamental Rights by making it part of EU Law. In other words, this sets out the rights that must be respected by the EU institutions and the Members States when they are implementing EU Law.

Articles of the Charter provide for Collective action and the right to strike. This is something which already exists in Irish Law; however the ECJ in the Viking/Laval case, previously referred to, has indicated proportionate use in this regard.

The Charter also makes reference to the right to associate (be a member of a trade union) and the right to collectively bargain. The former exists in Irish Law but the latter doesn’t.

Some commentators in the wake of the recent Supreme Court/Ryanair case would argue that employers cannot be compelled to collectively bargain with trade unions under the Irish constitution. The question thus posed, is, as the Irish Constitution provides for overrule by EU law; why does’nt the Irish Government provide for legislation in advance.

If the constitutional issue was the obstacle, then during the new round of talks on T2016, the Government and Employer sides could show their good faith in this regard, and provide for pre-emptive legislation for collective representation and bargaining by trade unions on behalf of their members where employers are not voluntarily prepared to engage, if indeed it’s coming anyway

Additionally, Articles in the Charter refer to the Social Europe and the need for intergenerational solidarity. The most obvious and material expression of this is Pensions. Surely it is time for Government and employers to agree to contribute to a fair and reasonable mandatory pensions system, along with employees. The unions have already signed up to the concept. Again we could have a pre-emptive move from Government and employers.

These are three areas, i.e. Collective representation and bargaining legislation, Agency Workers equal treatment, and mandatory pensions, where Government and employers could, in advance of the Referendum on the Treaty, and during the course of the T2016 negotiations signal their good intent and their commitment to the ‘Social Europe’.

Not only would it provide potential for a new agreement to replace T2016,( we haven’t forgotten the difficulties on the pay side), but it might also allow trade unionists to view more seriously those who ‘talk-up’ the ‘Social’ aspects of the Treaty without giving any material substance to it, as happened previously.

European Trade Union Congress

Before a special meeting of the European Parliament’s Employment and Social Affairs committee John Monks, representing the ETUC, stated:

‘Firstly, quickly, we need a "Social Progress Clause" issued in anticipation of the EU Reform Treaty (article 5(a)), which firmly establishes that the Treaty and especially its fundamental freedoms shall be interpreted as respecting the observance of fundamental rights and especially collective action. It should also establish the rights of workers and their representatives to take collective action to improve their working and living conditions above minimum standards. (There is a precedent for this procedure with the Amsterdam Treaty to which the Employment Chapter was added at a late stage. There are also precedents with the Monti clause and the Services Directive).’

He further stated that the TUC Executive would be meeting to discuss the details of the clause.  The ETUC has also stated that its Executive will be discussing ways of dealing with the fall-out of the European Court rulings.  However, at this stage neither the content nor the strategies informing such a clause has been worked out.

I believe that Irish Unions through their lay member Executives should consider placing a motion before the ICTU Executive or relevant committee to the effect that given the grave consequences of the Laval / Viking rulings and the necessity to ensure that trade unionists’ fundamental rights are protected, ICTU should

Call on the Government to postpone the Lisbon Treaty to allow time to address the issue of trade union rights

Demand that the Government use this ‘pause’ to negotiate an amendment or addendum to the Treaty to protect the right of collective action, or

Introduce legislation to protect such rights if it can be determined that the issue can be resolved at national level (Proinsias De Rossa, MEP, believes this is an option)

In the event that the Government fails to act on this issue, then the ICTU should oppose the Treaty in the upcoming referendum. 

The Irish Government has failed to provide a basis for workers to view this Referendum as genuinely delivering on rights in the workplace or delivering on the Social Europe as set out in the original Lisbon Treaty, therefore leading UNITE to the conclusion that workers in Ireland should vote NO.

[Sub-X]

The Treaty of contempt
http://www.local.attac.org/rhone/IMG/pdf/The_Treaty_of_contempt.pdf
Robert Joumard, Michel Christian and Samuel Schweikert
(Commission for European Integration, Attac Rhône)
September 7, 2007

Last July 23rd, the European Union presented a draft Reform treaty, modifyingthe two principal European treaties,the treaty on the European Union and the treaty establishing the European community entitled “Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union”.This project is scheduled to be formally adopted by the Europeansummit taking place on October 18 and 19,and subsequently submitted for ratification by the 27 members of the European Union,a process expected to reach its conclusionbefore the June 2009 European elections.

The Reform treaty is 145 pages long and contains 296 modifications.Twelve protocols, 51 declarations and various annexes are also included,all of which have the same juridical value as the treaties and form an integral part of them.Constantly referring to the already existing treaties,the whole document is clearly esoteric for most of us. We should rather consider the treaties in their modified state.

An article-by-article analysis of the project for reforming existing treaties shows that the Reform treaty changes the already existing treaties in such a way as to emulate the totality of the constitution project that was rejected by French and Dutch voters in spring 2005–55 and 62% against respectively.Part I of the constitution project,which presented the values and objectives of the Union and its institutional architecture,is here present in the modified treaties;Part II,which was based on the Charter of fundamental rights is recopied word for word;Part III,which deals with the policies and the modes of functioning of the Union is also present,just as is the case with Part IV,which deals with the conditions of admission and withdrawal for potential and existing member states.The treaty is not in any way ‘simplified’ as it is just as long and complex as the defunct Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe.

According to Valéry Giscard d’Estaing,“in terms of content,the propositions remain largely unchanged,they are simply presented in a different way”,also adding:“the reason for this is that the new text could not resemble the old constitutional treaty too much.The European governments thus agreed on the cosmetic changes necessary for the Constitution project to be easier to swallow”.The conservative European deputy Timothy Kirkhope went even further:“The comments held today by Valéry Giscard d’Estaing only reinforce what the other European leaders already think about the new Treaty,namely that the Constitution is back”.

A detailed analysis is fastidious,yet necessary;it shows that the values and objectives of the Union remain the same.The press inflated the supposed disappearance of “free and undistorted competition”from the objectives of the Union.However,protocol 6,which is a text of an equivalent reach to the treaties,makes more explicit the objectives of the Union:“the interior market as it is defined in article 3 of the treaty on the European Union is equipped with a system guaranteeing that competition is undistorted”.This is how undistorted competition is reintroduced in the Union’s objectives from where it had seemingly disappeared.

The so-called“fundamental”rights are not addressed to the citizens of the Union as one might think,but rather to the Union’s institutions and its member states once they take on the law code of the Union;these rights do not create“any competence or any novel task for the Union”;they remain subordinated to the other dispositions of the project,characterized by“free and undistorted competition”.
These“fundamental”rights are thus in no way fundamental.The Union recognizes and respects them but in no way guarantees that they will be applied.As concerns French law,these take on the aspect of“rebate”fundamental rights,which do not recognize labour rights,nor the right to a minimum wage or to welfare allocations,nor the right to decent housing,nor the right to equal access to healthcare and educational systems,etc.

The European representatives that we will elect will not have the right to propose laws.They will not have the right to vote on the earnings of the Union,nor the taxes,and they will have absolutely no right to deliberate on entire aspects of European politics.They will only be able to oppose an inadmissible policy of the European government(the Commission)if they have a two thirds majority vote.These representatives will also not represent equally all of the European citizens.For example,Belgium,Portugal,the Czech Republic,Greece,which all have between 10 and 11 million inhabitants,will elect 24 representatives;but the large French regions of the South-East or the Isle-of-France,which have the same population,will elect only half as many representatives.

The Union remains a project between governments,one in which ordinary citizens have no voice.There is no separation between legislative,executive and judiciary powers:the European Commission collapses legislative(initiating new laws),executive,and judiciary (monitoring the application of laws)powers into one.The Council is the only organ that votes on all of the laws(except for monetary policies for which the European Central Bank is the only deciding body),as the Parliament is excluded from 21 of the most important domains,out of a total of 90.The Council is not elected by the citizens,but is rather formed by the representatives of the executive branches of member states.The projected treaties keep European judges dependant of the executives who name them,and in no way stipulate media independence.

Also,this projected treaty vows allegiance to NATO and forces member states to augment their military defense spending.It defines the augmentation of agrarian productivity as the first priority of the common agrarian policy,but takes no consideration of the working conditions of farm laborers nor of environmental concerns.The theme of the open market economy,where“competition is free and undistorted”is ubiquitous in the project.Following this market economy logic,any public funding given to any economic sector,any public service,any labor code even,becomes an attack on“free competition”.

Once ratified, there is little hope that the treaties will be reopened for modification,be it to prioritize environmental or social concerns,or be it to permit the construction of European policy:the mechanisms in place for revising the treaty are limited to governments.If these texts are to form a de facto constitution,which should be defined as that which determines how policies will be decided upon collectively by the only true sovereigns in a democracy,the citizens,then they must be revisable by the citizens.To have transformed a constitution into an intergovernmental treaty is pure trickery,which allows,through word play,to shed the rules of democracy by short-circuiting popular sovereignty.

Let us recall that the Dutch and French vote in 2005 demonstrated that these populations remained attached to their public services,to solidarity,to social justice.It also showed their defiance to the mode of construction of the European Union,to the political personnel,to the European institutions.As surveys show,the desire to construct Europe is largely shared by all,but it is juxtaposed with a refusal to construct a supranational Europe,a refusal which is based on the insufficiencies of present-day European integration.

Faced with these facts,European leaders,especially French leaders,remain deaf and desire to govern Europe as they please,even if the citizens’will has already been clearly expressed.They are attempting to bring in through the window the project that we have chased out through the door by pretending that it is a different project.What contempt!What arrogance!

This project for a modifying treaty must be abandoned.

If our leaders still wish to impose the project through parliamentary means, the French representatives must reject it,hence respecting the choice of the voters and citizens.If it is claimed that voters have changed their minds in just two years,we need to reach out to them again and ask them,through a referendum,to ratify or to reject the projected treaties.

It is today necessary to pursue European integration on different grounds,to be defined by the citizens themselves.A fundamental reorientation in favor of a citizens’ Europe is indispensable.Faced with the political class’s incapacity to reconstruct Europe,it is the European citizens who must propose in the following months or years the constitutional basis of the Europe we wish to have:united, democratic but also ecological as our contemporary mode of development is no longer sustainable.What we need is a constituency,not the contempt that this imposed project expresses.

[Sub-X]

Henry Nitzsche Explains the Deceit of the EU Lisbon Treaty

Henry Nitzsche explains the drawbacks of the Lisbon (Reform) Treaty to the German Bundestag. How the EU got it in the back door without the people’s permission and by ignoring the French and Dutch.

[Sub-X]

Charter of principles for another Europe
http://www.fse-esf.org/spip.php?article583

Another Europe is possible: this is the horizon created by the anti-neoliberal social movements, creating a new stage in constructing a Europe of peoples.
 

INDEX
 Introduction
 1. Europe and the World
 2. Peace and security
 3. For a Europe based on rights, against all forms of discrimination
 4. For a democratic Europe
 5. Socio-economic rights for all persons residing in Europe
 6. Public services for access to rights
 7. The right to a sustainable environment

Introduction

The French and Dutch “No” to the “Treaty Adopting a European Constitution” revealed the failure of European neoliberal construction, anti-democratic and patriarchal, resulting in trade-offs between States without the peoples’ intervention. The elites claimed to be exercising a power invested in them,but which had not been conferred on them. The democratic deficit that has characterized the current construction of Europe has to be filled.

European mobilizations during the first years ofthe 21st century against the war, neoliberalism, sexism and racism,against the destruction of democratic and social rights and the privatization of public services and demanding the guarantee of universal rights, have opened the way to elaborating a project of a “Charter of Principles for Another Europe”, which we wish to submit for public discussion. The Principles of Another Europe are all equally important and have as their basis: equal dignity between persons and the inviolability of each person to be respected by all institutions; peace, freedom, justice and security as individual and collective assets;
equality between all, first and foremost, the parity between men and women, by guaranteeing difference and diversities; democracy ensuring equal representation and participation; European citizenship based on place of residence;  social rights, the right to work and rights at work, the only solution in order to eliminate poverty, different forms of exclusion, and impoverishment;a socially equitable economy, based on solidarity, sustainable life, and democracy  peoples’ freedom and citizen’ freedom.

Europe is not the same as the European Union: the process of enlargement by means of neoliberal policies is provoking in the east, but also in the west, unemployment, poverty, exclusion and is nourishing different forms of chauvinism.

The construction of the European Communities and of the European Union has has been characterized by the weight assigned to governments, to an unelected authority,the european commision, the central role of the market-place, the right to open competition and to transnational corporations, around which economic and social relations, as well as the institutions themselves, have been structured. From now on we are faced with an ”economic constitution” – the laws of the market-place are at the core of Treaties, prevail over democratic political decisions – in clear opposition to the founding principles of the constitutional Charters of the 20th century.

On the contrary, one must affirm the priority of fundamental social rights and of political and cultural rights, which require another economy to realise commonly-shared natural assets – land, water, air, energy – and public services. There has to be a recommitment to a vast process of social re-appropriation – new forms of social property - in order to satisfy all the social needs and permit a democratic development that can be ecologically sustained.

The Europe that we want is founded on the primacy of the rights of all and on the fundamental principle of direct participation by the citizens in public and collective decision-making. Europe must be a union of peoples freely associated together, grounded in constitutional democracy and a public space stretching beyond national borders, characterized by democracy at every level.

1. Europe and the World

The other Europe is founded on peace and the recognition of universal diversity. It rejects all strategies of economic or military domination and all forms of racism and chauvinism.

The other Europe contributes towards building world peace: it recognizes and promotes cultural and historical differences,in a framework of the equality of individual and collective rights and of universal human rights.So the new roots of Europe are consequently of “mixed blood” – a mixture of diverse national and ethic origins, thanks largely to the contribution of migrants: violence against migrants in the name of institutional borders is unacceptable.

Europe’s historical colonial experience, both internal and external, characterized by political and social domination, the plunder of resources, by wars leaving millions of victims, imposes on Europe responsibilities with respect to the economic and social conditions of most of the world, particularly the South, but also Eastern Europe.

The principle of solidarity and respect must guide relations between countries within the European space and all other countries. Europe has to act,conscious of a common interest, in advancing global social and economic rights.

Europe supports the right of peoples to decide their own futures and to make their own choices in economic, social, cultural and environmental matters. Europe commits itself to guaranteeing the sovereignty of each people over its natural resources and its immediate environment.

The human right to development is unalienable, to the same extent as other fundamental rights. The Europe we want participates in the creation of a new international economic order which answers to this requirement and, in this context,cooperates in a way that recognizes the disparity of conditions and promotes the necessary equality of rights.

The cancellation of the external debt of poor countries is a necessary elementary and immediate measure.

Economic agreements must include recognition and reciprocal application of human rights according to the regulations and international conventions.

Europe supports the project of taxing international capital transfers and is opposed to their free circulation.It supports the creation of regional economic relations that are opposed to the logics of neoliberalism.

Another Europe rejects the law of the“free market” and the existence of a dominant “commercial right” which results from this.The body of the international law is unique, valid for all States, international financial, economic,social and political institutions.The other Europe acts to integrate all existing international institutions within the framework of a democratized and radically-reformed United Nations.

2. Peace and security

Europe is founded on peace and on a security that is the result of social justice between the communities and the peoples.

Our Europe rejects war as a means for solving international conflicts and recognizes peace as a fundamental right of human beings and peoples.

Our Europe takes an active role in the defence and promotion of the universal values as the conditions for lasting peace:dignity, freedom, equality between all human beings, social, economic and democratic human rights.

Our Europe is committed to building peace through struggling against all forms of discrimination,injustice,exploitation,exclusion and threat,using international law,political negotiations and diplomacy as its fundamental instruments.It rejects all attempts coming from within or without aimed at transforming Europe into a military power on a global scale.

The Europe we want recognizes the right of all peoples to self-determination,respecting and guaranteeing the rights of minorities and their diversities, provided that they respect fundamental rights.As a result of this right,peoples must be free to decide about their political autonomy and their sovereignty in the economic,social and cultural spheres.

Our Europe recognizes the rights of individuals and peoples to resist oppression and injustices by all means that do not themselves result in the violation of universal human rights.

For this reason, our Europe supports the different initiatives to create an international system of justice capable of sanctioning States and all actors responsible for war-crimes.

Europe works for the active commitment of international institutions against any form of military,social or economic oppression and rejects as a matter of principle the use of military force.This is why it is in favour of the dissolution of NATO and of all other military alliances as well as in favour of the elimination of all foreign military bases throughout the world.

Europe rejects "humanitarian" and “preventative” war, since war can never solve problems;on the contrary,it only produces new violations of human rights and of international law.For the same reasons, it also rejects all forms of colonial and imperial domination.

Europe repudiates all use and production of nuclear arms,all weapons of mass destruction as well as torture,the death penalty, and all forms of degrading treatment. It is committed to disarmament and demilitarization, in order to construct an open and welcoming world and a society that ensures the free circulation and settlement of human beings.

In order to create the conditions necessary for a peaceful and democratic international order, our Europe will promote a global policy of cooperation for development, guaranteed by bilateral and multilateral treaties, reinforcing the political,economic and social rights of citizens and peoples.

Our Europe recognizes the rights of individuals and communities to a life free from all aggression, danger and threat: its security is a consequence of the security of others.For this reason it will install an enlarged common and interdependent system of security, displacing the notion of security of states, moving towards the security of human beings.

In the name of these principles,our Europe abstains from any threat or offensive action by acting to prevent conflicts, by promoting peaceful solutions and through the humanization of international relations.

3. For a Europe based on rights,against all forms of discrimination

Our Europe respects and guarantees through all its spheres the principle of the equality of citizens respecting their differences and diversities.

Europe recognizes as a fundamental value and guarantees the right to equal status and effective equality between men and women in all spheres of political,economic, social and private life as well as the freedom of sexual orientation.

Europe is against the commercialization of sexual relations and guarantees the rights of prostituted persons.

All citizens participate on an equal footing in political life.Political institutions adopt constraining measures to achieve the equal participation of women and men within institutions,decisional bodies,and political and social agencies and organizations.

Every person who resides on a long-standing basis in the territory of Europe obtains its citizenship with all the associated.

All public institutions must guarantee the human rights and freedoms of women and take action against all forms of patriarchy.Every woman,in every country,will have the liberty to control her body,notably the right to abortion,contraception,the choice of maternity and control over artificial fertilization.

Every woman will have the right yo choose how she conducts her private life (celibacy, marriage, cohabitation, divorce).Institutions must take action against all forms of patriarchy.They must commit themselves to ending all trafficking in human beings and slavery in all its forms.

Europe commits itself to act with determination against racism,antisemitism,islamophobia.

Public institutions take and promote all the initiatives required aimed at ending sexist violence against women and children,within and outside the family and call upon all countries to elaborate a framework law against violence perpetrated against women, together with effective measures for its implementation.

Europe is against the commercialization of sexual relations and guarantees their citizenship rights to prostituted persons.

Europe affirms the secularity of public institutions.It guarantees the dignity and freedom of conscience of all citizens regardless of their origins,opinion or beliefs,the freedom of individual and collective religious practices,insofar as these respect the rights of all citizens.

Europe recognizes the principle of the freedom of settlement and the free circulation of persons by guaranteeing this as a universal right.It guarantees the right to asylum.All peoples have the right to self-determination,while guaranteeing the fundamental rights of individuals.

Every person belonging to a national minority will have the right to select freely to be treated as such without any hindrance resulting from this choice or the exercise related to this choice.

The language-of-origin of school-children and students in public schools is respected and taken into account;its teaching is facilitated.

Public institutions contribute through their action to overcoming material,cultural, symbolic and linguistic barriers existing between peoples.

4. For a democratic Europe

The European Union is not today democratic.There is not a separation of powers:the Union’s executive organ is given legislative powers; the Council of the European Union(also known as the Council of Ministers)is a legislative organ,while it is at the same time a meeting-place of national executives.

We wish to affirm the primacy of the peoples,as the irreplaceable sources of democratic legitimacy and of citizens’ equal participation by men and by women,as the fundamental democratic principle in making decisions that concern them.

A democratic refounding process has to be set in motion,in which the peoples and citizens must play the principle role to construct a democratic and social Europe,in order for the political and citizens’ choices to take precedence over the laws of the market-place and of the profit motive.

The Europe that we are projecting will be a Union of Peoples,it will be built in the name,by and with its peoples,democratically organized at all levels.

The end of the democratic deficit of European institutions will begin when,within a political constitution of Europe,we are able to really proclaim “We,the Peoples of Europe” rather than “We,the States of Europe”.

The progressive passage from a Europe of States to a Europe of united peoples, organized in a truly creative way,must therefore be marked by political institutions that acquire their legitimacy through the will of the peoples,expressed directly through consultations or popular initiatives,or indirectly through the election of representative European assemblies,either with the participation of European citizens at the different levels(local, regional, national, etc.)or in the various political and social jurisdictions where collective decisions concerning them are made.

Our European constitutional democracy therefore constitutes a novel political entity.Political representation in the European space is a multi-level democracy and includes the representation of the peoples,of countries,of regions,of local communities.A transnational democracy is founded moreover on the non-hierarchical cooperation between these different levels.It follows that the structuring of the institutions must be founded on dialogue and cooperation between equals,rather than on the hierarchy between different political or jurisdictional,national and European authorities.

At each point, citizens intervene in the important political,economic and social decisions.For this, they elect and control their representatives.At each level of competence,the government organs are responsible to the representative institutions.They must exercise the legislative initiative and political control – in association with the citizens and national, regional and local institutions.

For a true democratic Europe,the right to information and the freedom of communication must be treated as fundamental collective and individual political rights.These guarantee their autonomy to communicate,to inform themselves,to develop freely as well as to participate on an equal footing in the information and communication networks in the European public sphere.

5. Socio-economic rights for all persons residing in Europe

Equal rights and solidarity are a pillar of our Europe.They guarantee the social cohesion of our societies.Socio-economic rights have been acquired through social mobilization and enshrined in the 1948 UN Declaration,by UN covenants on economic and social rights adopted in 1966,by the ILO Conventions,by the Turin 1961 European Social Charter,by the 1989 Community Charter on workers’ fundamental social rights,the CEDAW

The defence and development of socio-economic rights constitute one of the objectives of our Europe.Europe is,at all levels,jointly responsible as the real and effective guarantee of these rights,according to the principles of indivisibility and of universality.They form an integral part of the fundamental rights.

The rights declared must be subject to the jurisdiction of European and national courts.Any act by European institutions that violates the essential content of these rights must by subject to annulment by the European Court,as well as the non-application of these rights by national judicial bodies.Access to the judicial system is guaranteed, notably for persons with limited resources.

Respect of socio-economic rights is based on the following principles:the principle of social non-regression:no European decision may contravene what has been acquired and social rights as recognized by a national legislation.
The principle of levelling upwards of norms allowing for the strengthening of legal protections accorded to workers rather than alignment with the lowest common denominator of national legislations.The application for all women in all countries of the European clause that is most favourable to them.

The basis of our Europe is the respect for the right and dignity of workers regardless of their working situation.

Equality, cooperation, solidarity, the democratic definition of needs and social rights are the dominant values of Europe.These replace competition and free-trade.

Every European citizen has the right to benefit from a quality of life that provides protection from poverty and exclusion and allows for the full participation in social and cultural life:this means the eradication of unemployment,of economic insecurity,of poverty and all forms of exclusion.

The common salary and revenue norms below which one cannot pass will be fixed in taking account of the degree of development and the gains that have been obtained in each country.Guaranteed individual minimum revenue,minimum salaries and a calendar for harmonization “upwards”of social rights will be defined In function of this.

The right to a job and an income must be applied while prohibiting all forms of discrimination based on religion,sex,sexual orientation, political opinions or country of origin.The principle of “equal pay for equal work”must become a reality.

Everyone has the right to freely choose their job.

Self-employed workers(tradesmen,peasants)also have this right to revenue guarantees,to training,to working conditions,to democratic representation.

The reduction in working time will be an objective throughout Europe,starting with the generalization of the 35-hour work-week.

Europe acts at all levels to ensure that stable labour contracts without fixed duration become the norm throughout Europe.

All workers will be protected against lay-offs.Any arbitrary firing of workers is prohibited.The right of share-holders to close enterprises just for their own profit will be prohibited.Any project of laying off workers must be accompanied by guarantees for the workers in terms of training, income maintenance and the return to work.

Night work is prohibited to minors under the age of 18 and is only authorized in sectors where it is essential.

Europe recognizes social dialogue, trade-union freedom and the right to form associations as among its fundamental values. All workers have:
 the right to collective negotiation at the level of the company, of their occupational category, at the national or European levels;
 the right to approve the collective agreements that concern them;
 the right to strike, including for motives of solidarity and political motives, at the local, national and European levels. Lock-outs are       prohibited.

Fair representation and democracy in the work-place and in the trade-unions constitute fundamental rights at all levels. Workers’ and trade-union representation, democratically elected at the European level, is one element of European democracy.

A European Enterprise Council (EEC) has to exist within all companies with establishments in several different States.The EEC has the right to information,to preliminary consultation as well as the right to intervene in management decisions concerning the size of the labour force, working conditions and the economic choices of the company.To guarantee the same rights to all, companies subcontracting work will be responsible for the workers employed by their subcontractors.

Social security,unemployment benefits and pensions will reflect,both in how they function and how they are financed,a public logic based on solidarity,as opposed to recourse to individualized systems tied to the market-place(pension funds, private insurance, etc.) The public system (social security) will have to guarantee a decent standard of living for all,whatever the contingencies may be.

In order to guarantee the effective respect for the rights presented in this Charter,Europe must establish appropriate political,economic and social policies,at all levels.Particularly,fiscal and social dumping will end with the harmonization of fiscal policies and a public services policy that is no longer subject to competition.

6. Public services for access to rights

Defending public services must be at the heart of proposals for another Europe.

Public services, despite the different ways in which they may be organized in different countries,must not be answerable to competition from the private sector and the profit motive.They must assure the satisfaction of fundamental rights and the access of all to the humanity’s common assets.
Public services must entail the public,democratic management of these resources.They must cede to a process of social re-appropriation,by satisfying the needs of persons by setting up a process to define these needs in the spheres in which public services operate.This concerns equally health, education,housing and transportation,as well as all the modern means of communications.

The commercialization and impoverishment of knowledge,of education and of research must stop.

Education must be considered as a guaranteed fundamental right for all,contributing to real cultural development for everyone.Europe must supp
 permit the social and cultural emancipation of all and breaks free of our society’s inegalitarian schema; the educational system must support social inclusion and avoid social selection. It must not create discrimination based on origins, on social classes, or physical abilities or gender. School-children from immigrant families, those suffering from physical handicaps or persons who suffer social exclusion must all be integrated in the regular educational system and not be separated through the existence of different educational trajectories.
 promote the active participation of school-children during their studies as well as respect the different learning time needed by each child to succeed.
 develop a critical spirit and exclude all forms of proselytizing.

Education must guarantee students’, teachers’ and researchers’ complete independence in what is taught and the research they conduct, and must not be constrained by the logic of short-term utility. Research must receive sufficient public funding to carry out its tasks (the production and dissemination of knowledge, training and, via research, expertise).

Health is a right
 
 The health-care system must be public, free and available to all. It must respect the physical and psychological integrity of citizens and the health-care personnel.
 All medical personnel and citizens must be involved in the institutions that manage the health system. The institutions must in particular give priority to the active participation of citizens in managing the health-care system.

For a real right to housing for all Everyone must be able to have access to real housing,thanks to public housing authorities that are given the financial and legal resources enabling them to promote massive policies of construction of social housing and to combat speculation in real estate and land prices.

7. The right to a sustainable environment

The logic of neoliberalism is by its nature wasteful and predatory.Today’s technologies would be able to cover the basic needs of the whole humankind.

Instead,financial capital groups create artificial needs (by subliminal advertising) in countries with the buying power,thus exploiting human and natural resources everywhere.The Third World is the most vulnerable, more than 15,000 children die every day of hunger and curable diseases.

The irreversible anthropogenic climate change is the most acute danger for the Earth, as well as a global social catastrophe.

Vision of a new lifestyle

There is an absolute necessity for Europe to change towards a new lifestyle of sustainable production and consumption.Saving materials and energy,radical change from using fossil fuels to renewable resources,severing economic growth from the increased transportation of goods,assuring chemical and biological safety and halting the loss of biodiversity – these are not a choice but a necessity.

People’s vital interests of people and health must be put above the interests of corporations and financial groups repeating endlessly the “loss of competitiveness” – which in fact only means increasing their already enormous profits.European nations should not compete through social,economical and environmental dumping but work together for the change towards sustainability:we have to pass nature and society to future generations in a state no worse than we inherited from our ancestors.

The first steps towards this end are: internalization of “external costs”(for any use of natural resources, polluting and waste dumping), environmental tax reform,including the Tobin tax,and introducing sets of indicators to measure sustainability instead of today’s single indicator,gross national product (GDP),which says nothing about the quality of life.

The new sets have to be composed of economic,environmental and social indicators.

A new radically different conception of development must be adopted: economical in its use of natural resources, ecological,respectful of the environment,centred on the development of human capabilities and respecting cultural diversity,protection of the natural environment and maritime safety.

Also new forms of mobility should save energy by supporting public transport over individual ones,giving preference to railways over road and air transport as well as avoiding unnecessary transport of goods,e.g,by introducing tolls and taxing fuels for air and ship transportation.

Alternative transport must be facilitated through a combination of walking and cycling with the public transit..

Natural resources, shared assets of humanity.

Natural resources must not become subject to intellectual property rights or patents.Remaining outside the private and commercial domains,they must be managed by public policies and involve citizens’ participation.They must remain beyond the scope of commercial treaties.

Water is a common asset and access to safe drinking water is a fundamental right to which all must have access.Water distribution must be provided by public institutions and its management must include the participation by citizens.

Energy consumption must undergo radical changes.New choices are required around the following principles:increased economies in the use of energy,diversification of sources and priority to renewable and sustainable resources.To economize energy,non-polluting transportation must be encouraged and public transportation developed.

Similarly,the habitat must respect strict ecological norms.Environmental risks must be factored into public health policies.Regulations must clearly control polluting industries,in particular concerning the production and commercialization of chemical substances.

Public institutions must guarantee,as a fundamental individual right,food that is healthy to eat and in sufficient quantity

In the face of multinational corporations exploiting peasants,it is necessary to develop and apply public regulations in order to discourage their practices.On the contrary,support must be provided for non-polluting agricultural systems,labour-intensive rather than capital-intensive,as well as closed distribution circuits.Polluting agricultural practices must be discouraged.Production of GM products must be prohibited(except in a context that is strictly confined to basic research).

The principle of food sovereignty,that is the right to decide one’s own agricultural and food policies,must be respected for all regions of the world and for all countries.The countries of Europe therefore have a particular responsibility in developing their agricultural policies and in their commercial treaties with countries in the South.These agricultural and commercial policies must take a fundamental new direction to respect the principle of food sovereignty.

Peace,equality,justice,freedom,democracy,social and fundamental rights!For another Europe,for another world founded on solidarity,a sustainable environment!
 

[Sub-X]

The NO momentum is steaming ahead
http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=292
29.04.2008

According to the latest Sunday Business Post/Red C monthly tracking poll there’s been a dramatic change in support for the Lisbon Treaty:

“Support for the treaty has fallen from 43 per cent in February to 35 per cent today among those entitled to vote in the referendum. Those opposed to the treaty have increased from 24 per cent to 31 per cent. The number of undecided voters remains almost unchanged, at 34 per cent.

With seven weeks remaining until the expected polling date, incoming taoiseach Brian Cowen, the government and the broader Yes campaign face a difficult struggle to regain the initiative.”

- Sunday Business Post

This is a huge boost to the NO campaigners who are working tirelessly to educate the public about the significance of the treaty. Almost all of their campaigns are operating on a tiny budget with unpaid volunteers going around the country giving talks, running websites, handing out free information, making videos and doing whatever it takes to get the message out.

Compare this to the Yes campaign and the difference is startling, millions are being spent on advertising, bringing over EU leaders, funding RTE to promote the treaty and using the National Forum on Europe to promote the Yes side. Their campaign is all about promoting the EU rather than providing any meaningful debate on the details. They are relying on spin, propaganda and outright lies to manipulate the public into voting yes, and we have reached a stage in this country were our public representatives no longer represent us. Our “representative’s” loyalties are now firmly with their masters in Brussels and their role is to hand over what control we have left.

[Sub-X]

Massive admission by Roche in Irish Times
http://www.libertas.org/content/view/267/1/
30 April 2008

Dick Roche has admitted that no further referenda are needed to change the contents of the Lisbon Treaty, according to a report in the Irish Times this morning.

According to John Downes and Mary Fitzgerald, writing on page 9 of this morning's Times, Minister Roche told the Joint Oireachtas Committee on European Affairs that areas of decision making currently under unanimity could be surrendered to Brussels based on the approval of the Dáil and the Seanad.

This means that important areas of policy competence could be handed over to Brussels without need for a further referendum.

Libertas has repeatedly made this point in relation to article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty, - the so called "Passarelle clause", only for Minister Roche to repeatedly accuse the campaign of "lying" on the issue.

Responding to the news, Libertas executive director Naoise Nunn said:

"This confirms everything we have said on article 48.

We are giving our Government, under Lisbon, the power to hand over vetoes on issue after issue without consulting the people further. This is an enormous admission by the Minister.

What he is saying is that the contents of this Treaty can be changed without need of a further referendum.

Why is it that when we pointed this out, on December 13th, we were accused of lying by the Minister and his cohorts?

The truth is that we have been honest with the Irish people, and it is the Minister and his Government who have been misleading.

This admission this morning is all the reason people need to vote "No"."

[Sub-X]

Supporters of Lisbon cover up the truth
http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/172

As the debate on the Lisbon Treaty heats up and polls show a surge in the No vote, government and Opposition supporters of the Treaty are using more spin to drum up support. Bertie Ahern himself has got into the act, scaremongering that a rejection of Lisbon would be “a disaster for Ireland”. He gave no evidence to support his claim, nor mentioned the fact that no 'disaster' happened in France or the Netherlands after the rejection of the EU Constitution. Investment in France actually went up. And Labour have recently claimed the Treaty would protect public services.

Brendan Young of the Campaign Against the EU Constitution said:

“The government and Labour are claiming that Lisbon will protect public services. Nothing could be further from the truth. Article 16 would give the EU power to tell governments how they should manage their public services. Article 115 would increase the powers of the EU to tell governments how they should manage their budgets in the event of a deficit. Both of these Articles could be used to push the outsourcing of public services. And Article 188 would remove the veto on international trade agreements in health, education and social services, letting transnational corporations cherry-pick and run the services from which they can make a profit.”

Mr Young continued:

“We gave away the power to veto trade in agriculture in the Treaty of Amsterdam, so the government does not now have the power to block the proposals Mandelson is making for the EU at the WTO. Because of this, many farmers no longer support Lisbon. In a few years time we could be in the same position on health, education or social services if Lisbon is passed. We could even have a situation where Lisbon would enable the present government to secretly support EU proposals for trade in health or education, and some years later blame Brussells for the outcome of the same EU proposals – like the recent water charges or part-privatisation of the ambulance services.”

Brendan Young concluded:

“The Lisbon Treaty and the rulings of the European Court of Justice – the highest court in Europe – are forming a pincer movement to open public services to private for-profit providers. The Court has ruled that when it comes to delivering a service on the ground, the market rules apply and private companies have to be let bid to deliver public services. And we know from experience that privatisation leads to two-tier services – healthcare being the most glaring example. The truth is that this Treaty is a tool in the hands of the privatisers. Lisbon's supporters – especially Labour, the ICTU and the unions should come clean on that.”

[Sub-X]

Ashley Mote - Who Governs Britain (video)*
http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=296
26.04.2008

A critical view of the EU Constitution by Ashley Mote, author of “Vigilance: A Defense of British Liberty”.

Who Governs Britain

[Sub-X]

Sign the contract for a weaker Ireland - Kenny
http://www.libertas.org/content/view/269/1/
01 May 2008

"Enda Kenny devoted only one paragraph of a lengthy speech at his party's Lisbon campaign launch to discussing the Treaty of Lisbon, - he spent the rest of the time waffling on about EU membership in an attempt to sell the Irish people a dodgy contract", Libertas Campaign Director David Cochrane said today.

During the launch, Mr. Kenny spoke at length about the benefits of Ireland's relationship with Europe, - a point on which there is no disagreement between Fine Gael and the "No" campaign, and devoted a large amount of time to raising the spectre of marginalisation in the event of a "no" vote.

He devoted only one paragraph to discussing the contents of Lisbon in the whole of a lengthy speech. Responding to the Fine Gael Launch, Mr. Cochrane said:

"We get it Enda. You think Europe's been good for Ireland. So do we.

However, unlike Fine Gael, we do not blindly believe that everything that comes from Europe is worthy of our support, and this Treaty is particularly lacking in merit.

The "Yes" campaign has failed to learn their lessons. The Irish people are intelligent enough to discern between EU membership, which we voted on in 1973, and the future of the EU, which we will vote on in six weeks time. They are mature enough to realise that while Europe is good for Ireland, not everything that comes from Europe is good for Ireland.

We have raised issue after issue about Lisbon. Today, Enda Kenny dismissed those issues with one-liners, instead of giving the people of Ireland the debate they deserve, and he professes to want. Let's have that debate.

For example, let's debate agriculture. Mr. Kenny told the Government recently to veto the World Trade Talks to protect Irish agriculture. Why doesn't he tell Irish farmers that he is asking them to vote away that veto?

He is asking the people of Ireland to vote away their seat on the commission. He is asking them to halve their vote at the most important decision making body in the EU. He is asking them to support his interpretation of fuzzy language on taxation.

You are asking them to hand over our veto in 60 policy areas.

Be honest with the people Enda. You want Irish farmers and businesspeople, along with the rest of us, to sign a contract for a weaker Ireland."

[Sub-X]

RTE’s Sean Whelan: ‘Enough is Enough’
http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=297
02.04.2008

Since the last article exposing how RTE (Ireland’s broadcasting organization “owned” by the Irish people) are manipulating the Irish public on the Lisbon Treaty (RTE SELLING the Lisbon Treaty!), far from changing their blatant manipulation and deceit they have increased it over the last week, their website called “RTE Lisbon Treaty” has continued it‘s one-sided propaganda. Sean Whelan their European Political Editor who is clearly in support of this Treaty is their number one when it comes to this cause. He even has his own section called “Our Man In Brussels“, where he has articles and interviews which are supposed to be impartial towards the Lisbon Treaty but are clearly written and spoken by someone in favour of a yes vote.

“A Matter Of Tax”, an article which was written after the French Finance Minister, Christine Lagarde said they would push harmonised taxes in the EU:

A Matter Of Tax
by Sean Whelan
www.rte.ie/news/2008/0411/corporationtax.html

“Sean Whelan, Europe Editor, looks at the issue of corporation tax and the Lisbon Treaty, after the recent comments by France’s Finance Minister.

Just when the Government thinks it is dead and buried as a referendum issue, up jumps the corpse of the Common Consolidated Tax Base (CCTB) to frighten the good folk of Ireland.

CCTB was given the French kiss of life last Monday, when Nicolas Sarkozy’s finance minister, Christine Lagarde, said the French presidency of the EU in the second half of this year would press the issue.

Libertas, the anti-Lisbon campaign group, was quick to pounce on the issue as proof that Ireland’s relatively low corporate tax rate is threatened by the Lisbon Treaty.

There was even the unusual sight of Labour Party leader Eamon Gilmore coming to Brussels and pledging to support the Irish Government in its efforts to stop the CCTB plan in its tracks.

But what is all the fuss about? Firstly, as even Commissioner Kovacs accepts, the Irish Government, amongst others, will veto this proposed directive, which nobody has seen yet, when it is tabled.

Proponents of the system say it will increase transparency and make it easier to eliminate what they call ‘harmful or unfair’ tax policies. Opponents say it is unworkable, that it will drive business away from Europe, and lead to higher tax rates. Worst of all, they say it will lead to a harmonised single tax rate for business right across the EU.

Win, lose or draw on the Lisbon referendum, this issue is still going to be out there, and is not going to go away anytime soon. I believe it is not going to make it as an EU policy, because the current system suits too many governments and companies, both of whom see advantages in a lack of transparency. In the Irish case, I cannot see a change in Government policy, unless the multinational companies see advantages in a harmonised system: if they threaten to pull out of Ireland because it is not using CCTB, then expect a change.”

When the French Finance Minister, Christine Lagarde, revealed their harmonised tax plans a little early, they realised the concern of Irish voters, and several ministers along with Sean Whelan himself went in to damage control mode. His article from start to finish is to defuse the understandable and general concern that both Irish and European citizen’s have about issues such as tax harmonisation.

Even though the ministers and Sean Whelan are trying to convince us that the Lisbon Treaty will allow member governments to keep their veto on these matters, Article 113 can allow the Council to bring in harmonization of ‘indirect taxes’ which will be defined by the ECJ.

The EU Court can rule that the unequal company tax rate is a “distortion of competition” because of the way profits are derived form sales in countries with different tax regimes. This can be done without affecting the unanimity requirement needed to change laws in this area or to change the tax rate. But if such a ruling is made, the offending State would have to take steps to make a change, or it would find itself before the Court again.

Also Article 311 would allow the EU to introduce any kind of new tax to finance its activities as it seeks to attain its objectives creating a new form of it’s “own resources.” This would need to be done unanimously but would not require a referendum, as we would have given permission for it by ratifying Lisbon.

The National Parliaments will only have the “power” to debate issues but no power to block any laws being made in Brussels, which is not a power at all. If the French or German Governments feel the Irish are distorting competition with our 12.5 % corporate tax rate they could take the matter up with the ECJ, the same way a business can if they believe their competitors are involved in restrictive competition.

Not surprisingly another point Sean Whelan forgot to raise was QMV, which once it becomes active will allow big nations like Germany and France, who are already biting on our heals for tax harmonisation, a controlling say in how the EU is run on almost every issue. Even if 12 medium sized states join together (Ireland, Denmark, Portugal, Sweden, Austria, etc) they still will not be able to block a decision, as a 35% population count is also required. The nations of the EU will be under playground rules, where the bigger you the better. Ministers from bigger states will gain more weight, and these individuals will be able to drag entire nations along with their them. You can call it the price of being “more democratic.”

But as Sean himself said as an “impartial” reporter, “I believe it is not going to make it as an EU policy because the current system suits too many governments and companies, both of whom see advantages in a lack of transparency.” Nothing to worry about then, we can lay our real concerns to rest. But aren’t all the people in support of this Treaty saying it is going to make the EU more transparent in all areas? Maybe the yes side are unwittingly getting the message across that the treaty and the EU are transparently ill-defined in all areas.

RTE and Sean Whelan were quick to pounce on and distort Bertie Ahern’s resignation before the referendum (mainly because of his ongoing involvement in the Mahon Tribunal). This resignation announcement made all the wrong headlines for those who want the Irish to vote yes on the Treaty of Lisbon.

Sean Whelan’s “impartial and unbiased” article which highlights how Bertie Ahern’s money problems could cause the Irish to vote no:

“Ahern’s departure good for the referendum?”
www.rte.ie/news/2008/0402/aherntreaty.html

“Sean Whelan, RTÉ’s Europe Editor, looks at EU reaction to Bertie Ahern’s departure plans, and the effect it may have on the Lisbon Treaty vote.I broke the news of Bertie Ahern’s resignation to a Commission employee just after midday. Without blinking, he shot back with ‘that’s positive for the referendum’.

First reactions are usually best, and that’s the kind of unsentimental analysis you expect from political professionals. The Bertie factor is now gone from the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, and his European colleagues are breathing a little easier. Nobody will be voting against Lisbon as a way of getting rid of Bertie Ahern, so that element of political risk is gone, removed by Mr Ahern himself.

In his resignation statement on the steps of Government Buildings, he said he was going because the ‘constant barrage of commentary on tribunal related matters’ was dominating the political agenda at what he called ‘an important point for our country’.

The immediate national interest test for Ireland is the Lisbon referendum. The political risk of the Lisbon referendum becoming a referendum on Bertie Ahern was too great. It added too much uncertainty to the equation, increasing the risk of losing the referendum - and the consequent damage to national interest.

So having done ‘the right thing’ for Europe, will Europe do the right thing by Bertie and give him the proverbial ‘big job in Brussels’?

The question is, was he under pressure from other Government leaders to ‘do the right thing’ for the treaty?

They all know there was a ‘Chirac factor’ in the French referendum that shot down the EU constitution, and there was concern about a ‘Bertie factor’.”

Where can you start to critically examine such pro-Lisbon propaganda from someone who is supposed to be impartial and unbiased, how about the first sentence:

“I broke the news of Bertie Ahern’s resignation to a Commission employee just after midday.” That is something of interest to note when it comes to Sean Whelan; it is all about I. I broke the news of Bertie Ahern’s resignation, I believe it is not going to make it as an EU policy, I cannot see a change in Government policy etc. You would be able to write up ten pages of Mr. Whelan saying I believe this and I believe that, but the thing he and RTE seem to have forgotten is, it’s not what RTE or their reporters/presenters “believe” or “think”, it’s about reporting and informing the public of serious issues in a critical way.

The most worrying aspect of the article was how he trid to say the French people only rejected the EU Constitution because of the “Chirac factor.” What if the Irish vote no on the Treaty Of Lisbon will he say it was because of a “New Prime Minister Factor” and not because the Irish know the Lisbon Treaty is bad for Ireland and bad for Europe.

After taking a closer look at RTE and their coverage of the treaty it was no surprise when Sean Whelan popped up again on the TV show Prime Time (17th April 2008). The show was mainly impartial and covered serious questions of what the treaty will do, but that ended when the time came for Sean Whelan to give his expertise. Whelan came out with the usual spin that if Ireland votes against the Lisbon Treaty we will lose much influence in Brussels, when in fact if we vote yes our voting weight will be cut by more than half and we will not have an EU commissioner for 5 out of every 15 years, but to Whelan that is irrelevant. Indeed he has gone to great pains to not once critically analyse the articles contained in the treaty, and the real effects it will have. This kind of behavior cannot be tolerated, especially when it involves something that will effect the lives of 500 million people.

Click here to view the Prime Time show where Sean Whelan engaged in scaremongering without apology: Sean Whelan says if Ireland votes against the Lisbon Treaty we will lose much influence in Brussels.

The majority of the Irish public look to RTE to provide impartial and critical analyses of serious issues. But RTE has long ago turned their back to public obligations in favour of spin and generating revenue from advertisements. In other words compromising quality for profit. This kind of practise cannot be allowed and RTE must remove Sean Whelan from his current job immediately, or RTE must be sued for not living up to it’s legal obligations to the public (a service broadcaster, a non-profit making organization owned by the Irish people, which are of the highest impartial quality).

Whelan’s favourite catchphrase on the treaty seems to be “enough is enough”, referring to the institutional changes he believes needs to be made in the EU, but the real enough is enough should be the corruption, lack of accountability, increased centralisation of power and the sheer contempt for you and I, the people of Europe.

[Sub-X]

No To Lisbon Campaign Gathers Momentum
http://www.eirigi.org/latest/latest020508.html
02/05/08

éirígí stepped up their campaign for a No vote in the upcoming Lisbon Treaty referendum over the weekend, bringing the reasons for a rejection of Lisbon onto the streets and into public meetings in both Donegal and Dublin.

The Tallaght community was provided with the crucial facts when éirígí’s No to Lisbon leaflet was distributed on Thursday evening (April 24) – to coincide with the Forum on Europe public meeting, which was taking place in the nearby Plaza Hotel.

Meanwhile, the Darndale Roundabout in Malahide was the scene of a well-attended and highly visual demonstration on Saturday (April 26), which aimed to counter the government-encouraged lack of debate, which has so far surrounded the run-up to the Referendum.

Also on Saturday, éirígí’s Daithí Mac an Mháistír was one of the main speakers in a public meeting on the issue in Dungloe, county Donegal.

Speaking at the event, Daithí said:

“éirígí has taken the decision to dedicate itself to wholeheartedly opposing the Lisbon Treaty and we will be actively campaigning on the issue right up to the day of the Referendum.

“To do so is to stand on the side of democracy and a vision of Europe wherein the people are sovereign; wherein politicians are the servants of the citizens of their respective states.

“Saying No to Lisbon is to say yes to the possibility of a democratic Europe, to the possibility of James Connolly’s vision of a ‘free federation of free peoples’. This is the only vision for Europe that éirígí will countenance.

“A substantial No vote in this Referendum will indicate that there are many in Ireland who share this vision.”

Meanwhile, a recent poll carried out by the Sunday Business Post/Red C monthly tracking poll indicates that, despite the atmosphere of confusion generated by EU bureaucrats in favour of the Treaty, people are getting the facts and inching towards rejecting another encroachment on Irish democracy and sovereignty.

Support among the Twenty-Six County electorate for the Treaty has fallen from 43 per cent in February to 35 per cent at the time of the poll last week.

Opposition to the Treaty has increased from 24 per cent to 31 per cent, with the number of undecided voters remaining almost unchanged, at 34 per cent.

Mac an Mháistír commended the éirígí and CAEUC activists who have been diligently involved in raising awareness.

“Hopefully, the deception emanating from the EU elite and Leinster House is beginning to be seen for what it is. People are sitting up and taking notice of the reality of what this Treaty will mean for our country and our future.

“This is in no small part due to the activism of citizens with a genuine social conscience who, against the might of the state spin machine, have and will continue to expose this latest attempt to create a united states of Europe for the benefit of wealthy politicians and businessmen, maintained on the exploitation of the 500 million working citizens of this continent.

“We must continue in the same vein. I am confident that any voter in the Twenty-Six Counties with knowledge of the facts will vote this Treaty down. It is our job to encourage everyone to arm themselves with the facts and I commend the great work done so far and encourage everyone to raise the tempo in the coming weeks to ensure that the Treaty is binned once and for all.”

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

“If you strike at,imprison,or kill us,out of our prisons or graves we will still evoke a spirit that will thwart you, and perhaps, raise a force that will destroy you! We defy you! Do your worst!”

A Irish Republic,the only purely political change in Ireland worth crossing the street for,will never be realised expect by a revolutionary party that proceeds upon the premise that the capitalist and the landlord classes in town and country in Ireland are criminal accomplices with the British government in the enslavement and subjection  of the nation.Such a revolutionary party,must be socialist,and from socialism alone can the salvation of Ireland come.

-James Connolly 1909

[Sub-X]

New EU foreign policy think tank created - European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR)
http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=1996
By Helena Spongenberg

A group of European politicians and intellectuals have started a new think tank aimed at pushing EU capitals to creating a "more coherent and vigorous" foreign affairs policy in an attempt to make Europe a stronger player on the global stage.

The new think tank - European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) - was launched on Tuesday (2 October) by fifty founding members such as former prime ministers, presidents, European commissioners, MEPs and ministers as well as intellectuals, business leaders, and cultural figures from the EU member states and candidate countries.

They include Martti Ahtisaari, former Finnish president and current special UN envoy for Kosovo; Joschka Fischer, former German foreign affairs minister; Gijs de Vries, former EU counter-terrorism coordinator; Timothy Garton Ash, renowned professor of European studies; and Bronislaw Geremek, MEP and former foreign minister of Poland.

They call on European governments "to adopt a more coherent and vigorous foreign policy in support of European values and interests backed by all of Europe's power: political, cultural, economic and – when all else fails – military."

The centre will be based in seven EU capitals - Berlin, London, Madrid, Paris, Rome, Sofia and Warsaw - and headed by Mark Leonard - a writer and former director of Foreign Policy at the UK-based Centre for European Reform.

"Europe needs to come of age. We need to stop complaining about what others are doing to the world, and start thinking for ourselves. We want a can-do foreign policy, where European power is put at the service of European values," he said in a statement after the launch.

[Sub-X]

Masonic Influence in the EU
http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=3562
2008 04 26

Top Left: António Reis Grandmaster of Grand Orient Lusitano (Portugal), top right: Yvette Nicolas Great Teacher of Women's Grand Lodge of France, bottom left: José Manuel Barroso President of the European Commission, bottom right: Jean-Michel Quillardet, Grand Master of the Grand Orient of France.

The French Federation of Le Droit Humain represented by its president, Michel Payen, met on April 8, 2008 with the president of the European Commission, José-Manuel Barroso, [...] This meeting constitutes a major event regarding the place of Freemasonry in the construction of Europe; this place was underscored not only by the interest and attentiveness that President Barroso showed to the delegation and the time he accorded them, but also by the commitments he made to the values espoused by liberal and adogmatic Freemasonry, its positions and its opinions on subjects of concern. It was the first time that Freemasonry, as such, was able to express itself to such a high level European institution.

The delegation received assurances from President Barroso of his attachment to the spirit of "laïcité" and to the principle of separation of religion from the State. The delegation stressed the importance of the Enlightenment in the history of Europe, a dimension to be taken into account at least equally with its religious roots, and certainly more closely tied to the roots of antiquity.

Finally, a principle of communication between the liberal and adogmatic Masonic Orders and the services of the European Commission, to be used whenever needed, was decided upon. Thus the French Federation of Le Droit Humain will propose, in the near future, a recommendation concerning the principle of emancipation that ought to form the basis of all European education systems, in direct relation to a recognition of the contribution of the Enlightenment to the common culture of the peoples that compose Europe, and in accordance with the principles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Article from: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3184

I found it interesting that the above article excluded the information about what organizations had put together the meeting… namely “Women's Grand Lodge of France”, “the Grand Orient of Portugal” (Grande Oriente Lusitano) and “the Grand Orient of France”. See below for full text.

The French Federation of Human Rights represented by its President, Mr Michel Payen, was received on April 8, 2008 by the President of the European Commission, Mr Jose-Manuel Barroso, in a delegation composed of the Women's Grand Lodge of France, the Grand Orient of Portugal and Grand Orient of France who had taken the initiative of this rendezvous in agreement with other obédiences adogmatiques at the meeting of the Grand Masters and Presidents of January 2008.

This meeting is a major event about the role of Masonry in construction
of Europe, this place has been highlighted not only by the interest and listening real as President Barroso has shown the delegation and the time he spent but also by the commitments made in terms of attention to the values defended by Freemasonry liberal and adogmatique, its position and his opinion on major issues that concern them. That is the first time that Freemasonry has been able to speak es quality at such a high-level forums European.

The delegation was assured of the commitment of President Barroso to freedom of conscience, the spirit of secularism and the principle of separation of religion from the state. The delegation pointed out the importance of the Enlightenment in Europe's history, size to be
has at least as far as the religious roots and certainly more in line with its roots antiques.

Finally, the principle was incorporated in a communication of orders and Obediences liberal and Masonic adogmatiques with the Commission as necessary. Also, the French Federation of Human Rights will Does in the near future a proposal recommendation on the principle of emancipation which should underlie all education systems in Europe, directly related to the recognition of the contribution of Enlightenment
in the common culture of the people who compose it and in accordance with the principles of the Charter Fundamental Rights.
Accordingly, the Freemasons of the French Federation of Human Rights are invited to discuss widely on issues concerning Europe and to raise their opinions for a original expression, strong and nourished can we characterize in the European debate.

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

Below is another press release from The Grand Orient de France

Receiving GODF by the President of the European Commission
http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=3562
Author: The Grand Orient de France

For the first time since the creation of the European Union, the Grand Master of the Grand Orient of France Jean-Michel QUILLARDET, accompanied by a delegation representing all Obediences Masonic Europe, was received on April 8, 2008 by Mr. José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission.

The Grand Master and his delegation reaffirmed their commitment to freedom of conscience and concern about the return of religious fundamentalism and in Europe. President Barroso has, meanwhile, stressed the importance of the process of separation of church and state.

The historical roots of Europe were also raised by President Barroso has recognized the decisive contribution of the Enlightenment and the necessity of secularism.

The delegation gave him a note. It was decided to continue this constructive dialogue through regular exchanges between the Commission and the European Obediences Masonic liberal and adogmatiques.

The Grand Master also called the European Union to a firm position regarding the unacceptable suffering for Human Rights in China.

The delegation was composed of:

G.O.D.F. -- Represented by his Grand Master, Jean-Michel Quillardet
G.L.F.F. -- Represented by the Great Teacher, Yvette Nicolas
French Federation of Human Rights - Represented by its President, Michel Payen
Grand Orient Lusitano (Portugal) - Represented by his Grand Master, Antonio Reis

Obediences on behalf of the European liberal and Masonic adogmatiques.

Article from: http://www.godf.org/comm_p_detail.asp?num=141

[Sub-X]

20 reasons to say NO to the Lisbon Treaty
http://www.pana.ie/idn/170108.html
by Eoin Ó Broin

IN THE coming months, the 26 Counties will hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. The treaty is the most significant revision of the structures, procedures and policies of the EU since its foundation. It is vital that republicans understand the treaty and are able to debate the issues involved.

Recent Eurobarometer and Irish Times/MRBI polls indicate that Irish attitudes to the EU are changing. People are becoming more critical of the direction of the European Union. A majority of the 26-County electorate has yet to make up their minds on the treaty.

In the coming campaign every activist has a role to play in convincing friends, family, work colleagues and neighbours of the reasons why this treaty is bad for Ireland and the EU.

Download Sinn Féin, An Phoblacht article (pdf file) that shows you 20 reasons to say NO to the Lisbon Treaty

There is no doubt that the EU needs radical reform. Sinn Féin has a clear agenda for change. We want an EU that:-

• Deepens meaningful democracy and meets the highest standards of accountability;
• Protects and promotes human, civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights;
• Assists member states in building prosperity and equality;
• Combats poverty, inequality, discrimination and social injustice;
• Pursues environmentally-responsible and sustainable policies;
• Promotes conflict resolution, peace building and global stability;
• Protects Irish neutrality and opposes militarisation and the arms trade;
• Assists the developing world overcome global poverty, inequality and disease.

The Lisbon Treaty does none of these things.

ANOTHER EUROPE IS POSSIBLE — BUT ONLY IF WE SAY NO TO THE LISBON TREATY

[Sub-X]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The above two paragraphs are from
www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/03/18/helga-zepp-larouche-no-europe-empire.html
*
Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World - Executive summary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World

[Sub-X]

Nigel Farage (UKIP leader) on the "Lisbon Treaty."(10 mins)

"A pack of lies are being told because you do not want a referendum.We all know the truth, the Lisbon Treaty IS the same as the EU constitution.Exactly same number of new competancies. Exactly same number of surrenders of vetos.And it IS constitutional because it gives the EU a full legal personality.But worse still it gives it the ability to amend itself into the future.And I must say I wish the people of Ireland, those that believe in democracy,every success in a couple of months time...and I hope they send a large resounding NO.."

Nigel Farage on Who's Who in the EU Commission.(3 mins)

If you are unfit for office in your own country, just head to Brussels.

The REAL Face of the EU.(43 mins) 
 

[Sub-X]

U'll NEVER SEE THIS on TV: Revolt at European Parliament

[trixi1]

'They' have been using the EU situation as the model of what they want to happen to us here in North America by the exact same people behind the curtain. What's good for one continent is surely good for another in their psychotic minds. That can't be stressed enough (though it has here on this forum). What I can't honestly get is how everyday people don't see this planned destruction of sovereignty and trampling of individual freedom. Wake up people! For what is yours today won't be there tomorrow unless you fight this.

[Sub-X]

'They' have been using the EU situation as the model of what they want to happen to us here in North America by the exact same people behind the curtain. What's good for one continent is surely good for another in their psychotic minds. That can't be stressed enough (though it has here on this forum). What I can't honestly get is how everyday people don't see this planned destruction of sovereignty and trampling of individual freedom. Wake up people! For what is yours today won't be there tomorrow unless you fight this.

You are so right,this is just the first major step towards the NWO.This is NWO in the making and people just don't to hear it,the EU superstate as nearly been achieved.Next step NAU and already with the devaluation of the dollar,I feel this is the very crisis that is needed to push people towards the NAU.
As Ron Paul says which is so true,its less government we need not more,say no to NAU and save your national sovereignty and constitution.

[Sub-X]

EU International Embassies (Plans in Place Before Irish Vote)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1922140/EU-plans-international-embassies.html
03/05/2008

The European Union will open its own embassies under a plan critics fear represents a "power grab" by Brussels officials pushing for a federal superstate.

The secret plan represents the first time that full EU embassies have been discussed seriously.

The "Embassies of the Union" would be controlled by a new EU diplomatic service created by the Lisbon Treaty.

The Daily Telegraph has seen a high-level Brussels document discussing plans for a "European External Action Service" (EEAS) which was proposed under the new EU Treaty, currently being ratified in Westminster.

Talks have so far remained behind closed doors. Officials fear political fallout over plans to implement the new Treaty before it has been fully ratified.

Working papers circulating in Brussels suggest that more than 160 EU offices around the world, including in member states, would become embassies.

The new service would rival established diplomatic services. Britain, with one of the world's largest, maintains 139 embassies and high commissions in capital cities.

Equally controversial is a proposal for EU ambassadors who would be accountable to the European Parliament.

"Parliament should aim for proper hearings of special representatives and ambassadorial nominees in the tradition of the US Congress for nominations of a clearly political nature," says the document.

Plans for the new foreign service have raised highly sensitive political issues by giving trappings of statehood to the EU and by fusing, for the first time, national diplomats with existing "eurocrats".

A vicious battle over who should control the diplomatic corps has broken out between national governments and the European Commission.

Countries such as Britain are alarmed that the EEAS, which is expected to take on some consular activities, would be a stepping stone to a single "supranational" euro-diplomatic service.

Meanwhile, Brussels officials fear that, if controlled by national governments, the new EEAS would draw power from "Community" bodies, such as the Commission, to inter-governmental institutions such as the Council of the EU, which represents member states.

"Any inter-governmentalism of policy areas under Community competence has to be avoided," states the confidential document.

"The EEAS will have to be in a specific way administratively connected to the European Commission."

The EEAS will number between 2,500 to 3,000 officials at its inception in January next year. It is then expected to grow to 7,000, or even up to 20,000, according to different estimates.

Britain, which loses its veto over the EEAS after it is created by a European summit decision expected in October, is expected to contribute around 20 to 30 senior diplomats to the EU service.

William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, said yesterday: "As predicted the renamed EU Constitution is forming the basis of a power grab by the EU. It exposes Labour's stupidity in giving up the veto on an area key to Britain's interests."

A Foreign Office spokesman said: "The UK opposes and will argue against naming EEAS offices embassies.

[Sub-X]

The Civic Society Enters the Fray
http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=303
06.05.2008

“The Irish Alliance for Europe has formally launched its campaign for a Yes vote in the Lisbon Treaty Referendum. The Alliance describes itself as a non-party civic society organisation which brings together trade unionists, business people, academics and politicians.”
-RTE: Alliance launches Treaty Yes campaign

“Civic” and “society” are defined in the dictionary as:

“Civic: of or pertaining to citizenship; civil: civic duties

Society: an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes” 1

We can now assume that this group is an organization of patriotic or benevolent individuals who have come together to fulfill their civic duties for this country by campaigning for a Yes vote. We can also assume that their loyalties lie first and foremost with this country and not with foreign entities or organizations, so let’s look at some of the key individuals and what they say:

“Chairperson Ruairi Quinn said the Alliance had a vital role in correcting what he said were ‘distortions and misrepresentations’ about the Treaty created by its opponents. He told the launch that the Treaty is the best possible deal for Ireland and it protects Ireland’s vital interests and voice in Europe, while improving EU structures and allowing Europe to move forward” - RTE

It’s not clear what ‘distortions and misrepresentations’ Ruairi Quinn is referring to here, the No campaigners are the ones whom quote treaty articles the most most, while the Yes camp use sweeping generalisations about the supposed “benefits” of the EU (not the treaty). He also claims that “it protects Ireland’s vital interests and voice in Europe”, but again it’s difficult to understand what he’s talking about, is Quinn referring to praise from the other political leaders denying their citizens a vote, or is it QMV where our voting weight will plumit to 0.8% and will make our voice so insignificant as to be worthless. The Irish politicians would be patted on the back by their EU counterparts if they pull off a yes vote but this will quickly disappear with the long-term debilitating effects of the new voting system. It appears that from day one Ruairi Quinn has already indulged in distortion and misrepresentation while accusing the No side of same, we should prepare for more of the same.

“Garret Fitzgerald described opponents of the Lisbon Treaty as ‘nitpickers of the extreme right and left’. Describing Irish influence in the drawing up of the treaty, he said it was our treaty more than anyone else’s.” - RTE

Here’s what Garret Fitzgerald said about the treaty in June 2007, as reported in The Irish Times:

“Virtual incomprehensibility has thus replaced simplicity as the key approach to EU reform. As for the changes now proposed to be made to the constitutional treaty, most are presentational changes that have no practical effect. They have simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum”

It seems that Dr. Fitzgerald is now contradicting his earlier statement even though nothing of any significance has changed in the treaty since, and he now describes anyone who tries to look into the significance of the treaty as a ‘nitpicker’ of the ‘extreme right and left‘. Are we now to assume that if we look at this treaty too closely we are to be branded as extremists and should we just ignore the small print and trust the “authorities” on the matter? Authorities such as Angela Merkel (German Chancellor)? She said, “The substance of the constitution is preserved. That is a fact.”2 or should we listen to an authority who helped draft the constitution, Giscard D’Estaing (former French President) who explained why they made slight of hand changes to this treaty, “to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary,”3 he said.

“Dr Fitzgerald said if the people turn it down, it would be absolutely incomprehensible to other member states, and would lose Ireland the good-will of 26 governments” -RTE

Again a contradiction of his earlier statement unless by “other member states” he’s referring to the political class who are in contempt of their citizens by not allowing a referendum and selling the idea of ratification by parliamentary majority. Many on the Yes side are suggesting we ignore the ratification process in the other member states and focus exclusively on the debate here, and some on the No side have gone along with this. However it’s not the role of either side to decide on the parameters of the debate, it’s up to each individual to decide if this is an important issue or not and vote accordingly.

It will be interesting to see which of the Trade Unionists will be involved in this organization given the recent “Laval case” and the ruling by the ECJ, which will have further legitimacy under Lisbon. This will have profound effects on workers’ pay and conditions across Europe, and the Trade Unions’ silence so far has been deafening. It’s now time they came out and stated their position on this issue to their members and explain objectively how the treaty will affect them instead of more spin about the need for further integration.

Two of the key individuals in this campaign, Garret Fitzgerald and Pat Cox are both reported to have been attendees at Bilderberg meetings, which is a highly secretive organization of the world’s elites that has been around for 50 years with almost no reporting by the mainstream media:

Garret Fitzgerald (1975 and 1977, while he was Foreign Affairs Minister)

Pat Cox (2001, while he was an MEP)

In 1991 Chairman of Bilderberg David Rockefeller described the media’s lack of coverage and the elites intentions of global governance:

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine, and promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during these years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government which will never again know war but only peace and prosperity for the whole of humanity.”

The secrecy and many unanswered questions about this elite group concerns many people that the globalists have far more sinister intentions, as global planning such as the “prosperity for the whole of humanity” should not be done in private without the oversight of the world’s citizens by an elite (some of whom are war criminals). Jim Tucker has been tracking the Bilderbergs for 27 years believes they are a covert world government, in his new book “Bilderberg Diary” he exposes how these elites set the prices of nearly all the worlds’ natural resources, how they control and manipulate most governmental institutions around the world. These elite member own and influence the central banks that print our currencies, allowing them to manufacture the booms and busts in the global economy. The elite gain great power over 3rd world governments and resources using the IMF funded by tax money from ordinary citizens, not to mention the influence of their tax free foundations and corporations.

Before the well funded Irish civic society organization sets out the reasons why we should vote yes to the anti-Democratic treaty we need to ask some serious questions about the motivation behind their campaign. Are they really interested in the future of this country or do they have another agenda, and where are their real allegiances?


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

1. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v1.1)

2. “The substance of the constitution is preserved. That is a fact.”- German Chancellor Angela Merkel, European Parliament, 27 June 2007

3.“The difference between the original Constitution and the present Lisbon Treaty is one of approach, rather than content … the proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary … But lift the lid and look in the toolbox: all the same innovative and effective tools are there, just as they were carefully crafted by the European Convention.”- V.Giscard D’Estaing, former French President and Chairman of the Convention which drew u the EU Constitution, The Independent, London, 30 October 2007

[Sub-X]

Blow for Lisbon as union joins No side
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/blow-for-lisbon-as-union-joins-no-side-1367565.html?service=Print
May 06 2008

THE Government's Lisbon Treaty campaign was dealt another blow last night as a prominent trade union added its voice to the No campaign.

The country's largest craft union, the Technical, Engineering and Electrical Union (TEEU), which represents 45,000 workers, yesterday announced its intention to encourage members to vote against the treaty on June 12. It joins UNITE, representing both AMICUS and the ATGWU, in advocating a No vote.

Yesterday, the Irish Farmers Association (IFA), which has warned of a No vote if its concerns about World Trade Organisation talks are not allayed, intensified its campaign with a letter to all 166 TDs and 60 senators.

Threat

IFA President Padraig Walshe told elected representatives the threat to farmers' livelihoods from EU Commissioner Peter Mandelson's WTO cuts was the "single obstacle" to farmers voting Yes in the referendum.

Mr Walshe insisted that "sensitive product" status for beef on the conditions being negotiated in the WTO was not a viable situation. Under this arrangement, imports from Brazilian ranchers would increase by 780,000 tonnes at very low prices, and force Irish cattle prices down.

"Historically, Irish farmers saw the European Commission as the independent body that defended their interests.

"It is crystal clear to me now that Mr Mandelson has single-handedly undermined that belief," Mr Walshe said. "Irish farmers have zero confidence in Mr Mandelson to represent their interests. They see him as selling out their futures."

The IFA president added that it was a matter of public record that the IFA has always adopted a positive position on EU integration.

"I still want to do that, but if there is a negative threat from Geneva, farmers are unlikely to vote against their interests," he said.

But Fianna Fail MEP Sean O Neachtain last night claimed that Ireland would face "economic destitution" if the treaty was rejected.

Moving away from the EU in an "isolationist straightjacket" on the back of a No vote was the last message that Ireland should send out to international investors, he said.

Warned

"Ireland now needs Europe more than Europe needs us. The American multinationals have already warned us that a No vote will result in lower levels of investment coming into Ireland from America," he said. "Lower levels of investment from America into Ireland will mean less jobs being created in our economy."

Although the IFA has not explicitly stated its position on the Lisbon Treaty yet, the TEEU yesterday said it would be voting No on the back of recent judgments by the European Court of Justice that had shown that the pendulum had "swung against workers' rights and in favour of big business".

"In the circumstances, it would be foolish to provide the institutions of the European Union with more power," the union's general secretary Eamon Devoy said.

[Sub-X]

Craft Union Calls for Rejection of EU Treaty
http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/183
Paul Cullen,Irish Times
May 6th, 2008

The State's largest craft union, the Technical Engineering and Electrical Union, has urged its 45,000 members to vote "No" in next month's Lisbon Treaty referendum.

TEEU general secretary designate Eamon Devoy said recent judgments by the European Court of Justice demonstrated that the pendulum had swung against workers' rights and in favour of big business.

In these circumstances, it would be "foolish" to give more power to EU institutions.

The decision by the TEEU, which represents middle-income workers in manufacturing, construction, energy, engineering and electrical contracting, will come as a serious blow for the "Yes" side in the treaty debate, which is increasingly worried about the breadth of sectional interests showing hostility to the treaty.

The TEEU is the first major union to take a public stance on the referendum; a number of other unions have said they would like to see concessions from the Government on agency workers in the national pay talks before pledging their support.

The national executive of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (Ictu) will decide on its stance when it meets on May 18th.

The pro-treaty group, the Irish Alliance for Europe, last night described the TEEU's decision as premature because, it claimed, the issues the union wanted addressed would be dealt with in the treaty.

Its chairman, former Labour party leader Ruairí Quinn, said it was "very much" in the interests of ordinary workers that the treaty be passed. "By voting 'Yes' we will be giving unprecedented protection to Irish workers by enshrining the Charter of Fundamental Rights into EU law," he said.

He predicted other unions would support the treaty.

Explaining the decision of his union's national executive, Mr Devoy said that while recent European court judgments accepted workers' right to organise in unions, they negated this by saying industrial action could not be taken where it conflicted with the provision of goods and services, regardless of the social consequences.

He cited the Laval case, where the court found against Swedish workers who were preventing lower-wage Latvian workers from accessing a building site, and the Viking case, involving a Finnish company which crewed its boats with cheaper Estonian workers.

A third case, known as Ruffert, struck a particular chord with TEEU members, he said. Here, the court found that a Polish subcontractor operating in Germany was entitled to pay workers less than half the agreed minimum wage for the construction sector, because the right to provide unrestricted services took priority over collective wage agreements.

"Twice in recent times we have found Polish workers at Moneypoint being grossly exploited by German contractors and paid as little as €5 an hour. In another instance we discovered Serbian electricians being paid as little as $3.81 an hour. We were only able to ensure proper rates were paid to these workers after strong pressure, including the prospect of industrial action, was exerted on the companies concerned."

The Ruffert judgment raised the spectre of similar abuses of vulnerable migrant workers in future, he said, and would make it "all but impossible" for Irish workers and companies to compete for tenders. Mr Devoy said that until EU states were prepared to recognise the right of workers to take industrial action in defence of living standards", the TEEU would not support "reforms that only strengthen big business".

[Swedish-rebel]

best thread on PP....keep it comming Sub!

[Sub-X]

best thread on PP....keep it comming Sub!

Thanks Rebel,I'm glad that its of some help to people 

ANOTHER REASON TO VOTE ‘NO’: THE EUs ANTI-FARMER BIAS
http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/178
From Frédéric Viale and Susan George - ATTAC France
2 May 2008

As the world food crisis deepens, authorities from the IMF, the WTO and the European Union are all claiming that an agreement concluding the now-stalled trade negotiating cycle [the “Doha Round”] at the WTO would contribute to resolving the crisis. And as the referendum in Ireland approaches, the most ardent defenders of the Lisbon Treaty are trying to convince the Irish that it is in their interests to vote Yes. In both cases, these spokespersons are being economical with the truth when they are not telling outright lies.
Despite appearances, the EU’s basic position in the WTO is not one of defending farmers’ interests. The Commission document of 4 October 2006 “Global Europe: Competing in the World” makes this crystal clear.

The Commission’s “renewed market access strategy” is devoted to:

(i) Improving access to markets and resources in third countries by addressing non tariff barriers to EU exports and investments; tackling export taxes and restrictions on access to resources; further strengthening the presence of EU companies in third countries through permanent establishment; delivering better market access in services; opening public procurement markets; ensuring that positive changes induced by openness are not jeopardized by abuses of fair competition; securing IPR [Intellectual Property Rights] protection.
 
(ii) Improving Europe’s capacity to benefit from openness to trade and investment by ensuring internal policies reflect global challenges; equipping people for change; ensuring the benefits of trade policy are passed on to consumers.
Agriculture is not on the Commission’s list and small wonder: farmers are only 2 percent of the European population and agriculture represents only 2 percent of its GDP. Services, on the other hand, make up over three-quarters of GDP but only a quarter of world trade, so there is great scope for improvement.

Access to foreign government procurement contracts would mean a huge new goldmine and breaking down barriers to corporate investments as well as insuring Intellectual Property Rights in countries like China are paramount. As paragraph (ii) notes, “internal policies [must] reflect global challenges” and “equip people for change”. Internal policies like the CAP?  People like farmers?

Agriculture is nothing more than a thorn in the side of the pro-business EU Commission and it is impatient to make progress in these lucrative areas of far greater interest to EU corporations. True, some member States remain deeply attached to the Common Agricultural Policy—mainly Ireland, France and Poland—and consequently, EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson has not been able to concede as much as he would have wished. The negotiations have thus been held up for years, paralysed by North-South disputes over agriculture.

Now, however, signs of movement can be discerned in the WTO agricultural market access negotiations, thanks to a relatively unknown mechanism known as “Sensitive Products”. It was introduced at the insistence of the EU Commission in order to shield certain “sensitive” farm commodities from the blanket agricultural tariff cuts set out in the draft texts—typically those products that currently enjoy the most protection. In exchange for a lower tariff cut on Sensitive Products, WTO members using this mechanism have agreed to increase their import quotas on these goods.

Carin Smaller of the International Agricultural Trade Policy Institute recently reported:

“The Sensitive Products negotiations are significant [because] the agricultural goods that are expected to be shielded under this mechanism are also the products that are of most interest to agricultural exporters in [the rich, developed countries]; they include dairy products (milk, cheese and butter), sugar, meat (beef, pork and poultry), rice, and edible oils....the U.S has been active in the most recent Sensitive Products negotiations, displaying a level of interest that has not been visible for several months.”

Without committed U.S. engagement, WTO members cannot hope to complete the Doha Agenda.

So there is “movement” and, since the US is coming back on board, hope in certain quarters. Superficially, one might think this could be favourable to European producers exporting these products but in fact, although some protection exists where exports are concerned, they would be under simultaneous pressure from higher import quotas. Finally, the protection of some products [but only where exports are concerned] does not imply protection of all products, to the contrary.

It has been further agreed that European farm subsidies must be eliminated by 2013. The EU is keeping this matter as quiet and vague as possible—otherwise people might start asking how continuing the CAP can be compatible with eliminating all subsidies that farmers, in particular Irish farmers, now receive.

Furthermore, under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty [notably via articles 188B and 188N], trade agreements will no longer be ratified by national parliaments but by the European parliament—and this provision includes agreements reached at the WTO or anywhere else. The WTO negotiations may get a boost from a mini-Ministerial meeting expected to convene in Geneva later this month. If so, they could clinch a deal to take effect in the fall—by which time the Irish will have already voted. The EU is asking them to vote blindfolded. There will be no opportunities later for misgivings or a change of heart.
 
References:
1/ Commission Staff Working Document SEC(2006) 1229, 4.10.2006

[Sub-X]

Alternative Guide to the Lisbon Treaty
http://www.pana.ie/idn/030508.html
May 2008

Foreword

Sinn Féin believes Ireland’s place is in Europe. Co-operation with our European partners is valuable and must continue. Sinn Féin has supported EU measures that are in Ireland’s interests in relation to Irish agriculture, the environment and equality. We welcome EU support for the peace process in Ireland and for the development of infrastructure. However, not everything has been good and this Treaty is a step too far and is a bad deal for Ireland.

Contrary to what the government has claimed no matter how people vote in the referendum Ireland’s place in the EU will be secure.

You can support the EU and be against the Lisbon Treaty. You can support the EU and still want to see democracy and accountability. You can support the EU and still believe that our government should use their position positively and not go along with what suits the larger countries.

The Lisbon Treaty referendum will have huge consequences for this country and it is important that there is a mature debate. In January the National Forum on Europe produced a summary guide to the Lisbon Treaty. Unfortunately despite detailed discussions with them we felt that the final document was biased and so have produced our own an alternative guide to the Lisbon Treaty.

I want to commend the National Forum on Europe for their work and for agreeing to circulate this alternative guide to the Lisbon Treaty alongside their own document. I would encourage as many people as possible to read the Lisbon Treaty which can be accessed at www.no2lisbon.ie

An alternative guide to the Lisbon Treaty

[Sub-X]

Speech by Gerry Adams MP MLA to the Forum
http://www.forumoneurope.ie/index.asp?locID=113&docID=1657

The Sinn Féin President debated the Treaty with members of the Forum on Europe in the Royal Hospital, Kilmainham, Thursday 1st May 2008:

I would like to thank the Forum on Europe for the invitation to speak here today. On June 12th the people of this state will take a decision of immense importance. Whatever side of the debate you are presently on, and particularly for those who have yet to make up their minds, it is important that the debate on the Lisbon Treaty is open, honest and frank.  Sinn Féin is committed to such a debate and we welcome the opportunity to discuss these important issues today and in the coming weeks.

It is disappointing that we will not have a referendum in the North. Despite the fact that the Lisbon Treaty will affect all of us on this island, those of us who live in the North are being denied the right to a referendum.

I am particularly pleased to be addressing the Forum on May 1st, international labour day. Workers rights have been a central focus of Sinn Féin’s political efforts. At a time of increasing economic uncertainty, rising prices, rising unemployment and recession, the issue of workers rights is more important than ever. The issue of workers rights is also central to our party’s analysis of the Lisbon Treaty, I will return to this later.

Republicanism and Europe

At the core of my approach to politics is a deep belief in the republican ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity. These ideas emerged from one of the foundational moments of modern Europe, the French Revolution. Every generation of Irish republican political thinkers has sought inspiration from the progressive currents of European political thought. Republicanism, from its origin to the present day is a European political movement, committed to creating a society based on popular sovereignty, personal liberty and social, economic and cultural equality

These values form the benchmark against which Sinn Féin assesses the Lisbon Treaty not only in establishing the impact of the treaty on Ireland, but also on the European Union and the wider world.

Ireland’s place is in Europe

Sinn Féin’s believes that Irelands place is within the EU. Irish membership has brought social and economic benefits to Ireland, north and south. We are also aware that not everything has been good news, and often proposals that emerge from within the EU institutions have negative effects on Ireland. So we believe that the best approach to the EU is to critically assess each proposal on its merits. When something is in Irelands interests, or indeed the interests of the European Union as a whole, we support it. However when something is clearly not in our interests or that of the wider EU, we oppose it and campaign to change it. Our MEPs have demonstrated the value of this approach by supporting progressive proposals on the floor of the European Parliament aimed at combating poverty, inequality and social exclusion, promoting human rights and tackling climate change, while opposing attempts to undermine public services, workers rights and environmental sustainability.

Today in Ireland and within the European Union institutions Sinn Féin is playing an active role in the ongoing movement to build a European Union, which deepens meaningful democracy and meets the highest standards of accountability and;

·      Protects and promotes civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights

·      Assists member states in building prosperity and equality

·      Combats poverty, inequality, discrimination and social injustice

·      Pursues environmentally responsible and sustainable development policies

·      Promotes conflict resolution, peace building and global stability internationally

·      Protects neutrality, opposes militarisation and the arms trade

And which assists the developing world overcome global poverty, inequality and disease

These are the positive policies that we stand for and which any proposal must contain if it is to secure our support.

LisbonTreaty

It is in this context that we come to the Lisbon Treaty. Does it advance the interests of the Irish people, the European Union and the wider world? Does it promote equality and sustainable economic development? Does it promote greater democracy and transparency within the EU institutions? Does it seek to play a constructive role in ending conflict and building a more peaceful world?

We also look to how if affects this states position within the EU. Does it strengthen or weaken our influence in the EU?

After serious analysis and internal debate, Sinn Féin has taken the view that the Lisbon Treaty represents a bad deal for Ireland, for the EU and for the developing world.

Democracy

There is little doubt that the European Union is currently suffering from a crisis of confidence across the member states. Turnouts for European Parliamentary elections are at an all time low. In the 2004 the average turnout across the EU was 45%. In the Netherlands it was 39%. In Britain it was 38%. Similar figures were recorded in Portugal, Spain, France, Denmark, Germany, Austria and Finland. A significant number of newer member states recorded turnouts less than 28%.  While this states turnout is marginally better at 55%, it is still significantly lower than turnouts for Leinster House.

By comparison, when the peoples of France and the Netherlands rejected the EU Constitution in 2005, turnouts were significantly higher. In France 70% of voters went to the polls rejecting the Constitution by 55%. In the Netherlands turnout was 62% of which 61% said no.

Across the EU voters no longer understand or have confidence in what the EU stands for, where it is going, and how it takes its most important decisions.

The Lisbon Treaty was an opportunity to rectify this situation. Unfortunately it does the very opposite. It further centralises decision making in the EU institutions and gives the EU more than 100 new powers across a wide range of policy areas. This figure includes more than 30 new legal competencies, the loss of more than 60 vetoes for individual member states, a range of new roles and offices and self-amending articles including Article 48. This is a significant increase in the powers of the EU and to date no argument has been made to explain or justify such changes.

The Treaty also significantly undermines the role of small states within the EU’s decision-making process. In addition to losing the right to an Irish Commissioner for 5 out of every 15 years the Treaty also proposes to reduce this states voting strength on the Council of ministers by 50%. While the loss of a Commission affects all states, larger states like Britain, France and Germany increase their voting strength at Council by 50%.  Indeed the Irish delegation to the Convention on the Future of Europe resisted the loss of a Commissioner, only to cave in at the end. And while privately they are admitting that the loss is a real negative in public they are suggesting that it is a good deal. Combined, these changes mean that Ireland will have less influence in the design of future proposals, less weight in key decisions, and a reduced capacity to block decisions that are not in Irelands interests.

The self-amending clauses are important to mention here. These articles allow the Council, acting by unanimity, to transfer decisions to Qualified Majority Voting and, under article 48 to amend existing treaties. While any application of Article 48 would be subject to ratification by member state parliaments, there is no guarantee of a referendum. Indeed anyone reading UCD law lecturer Rossa Fanning’s article in the Irish Times on April 22 would conclude that Article 48 could be applied to a large range of policy areas without any recourse to a referendum.

Supporters of the Treaty tell us that it will make the EU more democratic by giving more powers to the European parliament, member state parliaments and citizens. However when you look at the detail of these new powers they are found to be wanting. And the government’s suggestion that the Lisbon treaty involves the greatest transfer of power to the member states is complete and utter nonsense.

While the increase in co-decision within the European Parliament is significant, it continues to play a secondary role to the European Commission. The Treaty also does nothing to address the gap between the work of the Parliament and citizens in member states.

With regard to member state parliaments, the proposed measures are minimalist. Member states will be given an extra two weeks to scrutinise proposals coming from the Commission and if a third of member states believe the proposal breaches the principle of subsidiarity they can object. Of course the Commission is not obliged to do anything other than “consider” the objection.

The orange card, which has a somewhat different connotation in Ireland, is an even less effective tool, as its application requires the support of half the member state parliaments and either the European Parliament or Council. Eight weeks is too short a period for effective scrutinising of detailed EU proposals, as anyone involved in the Oireachtas European Affairs Committee or European Parliament will admit. The limitation of these measures to the issue of subsidarity is extremely restrictive. And the requirements to secure support of other member state parliaments or the European Parliament or Council constitute extremely high barriers to their application.

I wonder if either of these tools would ever be successfully applied if this Treaty is ratified.

The citizens initiative is similarly weak. While as a lobbying tool it has merit, and is already being used, once again there would be no obligation on the Commission to do anything other than “consider” any proposal. It also sets a dangerous precedent, whereby the minimum number of signatures required to have a proposal even considered by the commission would have to be 1 million.

On balance, when one weighs up the increased centralisation of powers, the self amending articles, the loss of influence of smaller member states and the weak measures offered to member state parliaments and citizens, there is no doubt that the Lisbon Treaty is a bad deal both for Irish and EU democracy, and if ratified will deepen the existing democratic deficit.

Neutrality and Militarisation

Sinn Féin has long advocated a policy of active neutrality, rejecting participation in any military alliance and supporting an enhanced role for the United Nations in resolving conflicts around the world. We have also been for a greater focus on solving the causes of conflict, such as political and economic inequality and instability and the absence of democracy. Our own experience of conflict and conflict resolution has taught us that the path to peace is not to be found in increasing military capabilities but in dialogue, inclusivity and equality.

After Nice 1, the Irish government assured the people that there would be no erosion of neutrality or participation in a common defence without a referendum.  However actions by this Irish governments and the impact of the Nice Treaty continue to undermine neutrality. The use of Shannon airport by US troops on route to Iraq; financial contributions to the European Defence Agency; membership of Partnership for Peace and the new EU Battle groups are all in breach of clear international definitions of neutrality.

At the same time there is a growing desire among many of the more powerful Governments at the heart of the EU project, to see the Union develop its own military capability, independent of the United Nations and in concert with NATO.

This state is playing an increasingly significant role in both NATO and the evolving EU military structures.  Irish troops serve at NATO HQ in Brussels under the NATO-led ‘Partnership for Peace’ initiative.  Irish troops have served in NATO-led missions, including Afghanistan.  There is a full-time EU Military Staff headquartered in Brussels which is responsible for ‘command and control’ of EU military capabilities – this reports to an EU Military Committee, which in turn reports to the EU Political and Security Committee and from thence upwards to the EU Council of Ministers.  Irish army officers serve with the EU Military Staff, and this state is represented at all other levels of this network.  In terms of actual military operations, the EU can call upon a number of Battlegroups – groups of 1,500-2,500 soldiers capable of being deployed within 15 days of agreement by the EU Council of Ministers. The first EU Battlegroup deployment – to Chad– is under the command of an Irish Lieutenant General. 

The Lisbon Treaty undermines neutrality further. Its makes clear that the EU will have common foreign and common defence policies and that such a policy must be compatible with NATO. While the exact detail of such policies is left to a future date, and the Irish government retains its veto, there is no doubt that the end goal is clearly defined. Do we want a common foreign or defence policy with countries such as France, Britain or Germany. Are the strategic and international interests of this state best served within such a context? In my view they are not.

Article 28 of the Lisbon Treaty contains three separate clauses that will result in increased member state spending on domestic and EU military capabilities. The article states clearly that member states must progressively improve their military capabilities, as directed by the European Defence Agency. The same article also establishes a start up fund for foreign or defence interventions as yet undefined and a mechanism for rapid access to appropriations again for interventions as yet unspecificied.

While this state will retain the right to opt out of any future military interventions, a new procedure contained in Lisbon, called “structured cooperation” would allow a smaller number of member states to agree a foreign policy or military intervention to be carried out with the imprimatur, finance and logistical resources provided through the EU.

More troubling is the expansion of the list of approved military actions, known as the Petersberg Tasks. To date these tasks have been primarily focused on peace building and humanitarian intervention. However under Lisbon this list is expanded to include disarmament missions and provision of military assistance.

As a consequence of the Lisbon Treaty, this state will be drawn even further into the emerging EU military capacity.

The Economy

The Irish economy is changing. Recession, unemployment, loss of tax revenues have all hit the headlines in recent months. There is a consensus that the boom is over and a new approach to the future of the Irish economy is urgently required.  The challenge is to tackle the existing levels of Celtic Tiger inequality while delivering the next generation of jobs in the Irish economy. This means supporting indigenous business and the farming community and ensuring that we remain an attractive location for investment. This means investing in infrastructure, education, public services and workers rights. The Lisbon Treaty hinders efforts to ensure that Ireland is economically successful.

The Lisbon Treaty hands powers to the European Commission to complete the internal market in services as envisaged under the widely opposed Services Directive, accelerating the race to the bottom in terms of pay and conditions.

Public services, defined as Services of General Economic Interests, will be subject under article 16 to new ”economic and financial conditions”, meaning that services like health care and education, would be subject to the rules of competition.

Indeed in their recent written submission to the National Forum on Europe IBEC argued that the Lisbon Treaty “…creates the legal basis for the liberalisation of services of general economic interest…[including]…Health, Education, Transport, Energy and the Environment.”

This will inevitably result in further privatisation and in turn greater levels of inequality.

The Treaty Protocol on the Internal Market and Competition provides the EU with a mandate to remove “distortions” to service provision - which are likely to include important protective workers’ rights regulations

Contrary to claims made by the Labour Party The Charter of Fundamental Rights does not guarantee workers rights.

The negative implications of the Lisbon Treaty for workers is part of a continuing trend.  David Begg, General Secretary of ICTU summed up this trend saying, “While business rights are being codified and strengthened, workers can only expect loose frameworks and vague approaches to enforcement.”

There has been dismay at the recent European Court of Justice judgement in the Laval case which upheld the right of a Latvian company operating in Sweden to import Latvian workers to do the job at Latvian rates rather than compelling them to pay Swedish rates. The recent Rueffert ruling bans public authorities from putting conditions respecting collective agreements on the award of public contracts.

These ECJ judgements followed on from other negative developments such as the Services Directive and the Green Paper on “flexicurity”. They indicate the direction of current EU policy and how the new provisions in the Lisbon Treaty will be employed.

Workers and trade unionists should note the governments failure to protect pay and conditions and enforce labour law when our labour market was opened to workers from the accession states.

In the past much progressive social legislation has had its origins in the EU and on this basis it has been supported by trade unionist and others. Unfortunately in the last decade these gains have been undermined by developments that have sought to sacrifice a progressive social agenda in favour of a narrowly defined focus on competitiveness.

In recent weeks we have seen a significant level of concern from within our farming community about the current round of World Trade Organisation trade talks. Irish farmers and development NGOs are rightly concerned at the agenda being pursued by European Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson, an agenda that is bad for Irish farmers and the developing world. The approach of the current Trade Commissioner is part of a pattern that emerged under his predecessors Pascal Lammy and Leon Brittan and will continue after he is gone. It is an agenda that aggressively promotes free trade irrespective of the costs to European family farms and rural communities, or the world poorest communities and countries.

The Lisbon Treaty contains new provisions that will considerably strengthen the Commission in its pursuit of free trade over fair trade.

Article 2 (b) gives the EU exclusive competence over commercial policy, including the negotiating of international trade agreements. Article 188 gives the Commission power to initiate and conclude negotiations including international trade agreements at the same time as transferring the final decisions on such agreements from unanimity to Qualified Majority Voting at the Council, thus ending this states veto. Article 10(a) mandates the “progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade” to be one of the EUs guiding principles in its interaction with non-EU member states. Restrictions would include agricultural subsidies, preferential treatment for developing world companies in government procurement contracts or environmental and workers protections.

Last week Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny, addressing this very Forum urged the Irish government to use its veto at the Council if the outcome of the WTO trade talks is bad for Irish farming. We agree with Fine Gael on that. The Irish government should use its veto but the question is why does Fine Gael – why does the government, want to give up this veto.

If the Lisbon Treaty is passed, that veto will be gone. What will we do then in future rounds of WTO talks? This treaty, like the Mandelson proposals are clearly not in the interest of Irish farmers. They are going to do with the farming industry exactly what they have done with the fishing industry if we let them.

The situation for the Irish business community is just as serious.  Moves towards tax harmonization rightly worry most Irish people.  If we take a step back and takea cold look at the political realities we see that the European Commission is committed to bringing forward a proposal to bring in a common corporate tax base this year. We know that a majority of Member States including France, one of the biggest, and the next holders of the Presidency are in favour. Fine Gael and Labour MEPs have also voted in support of measures on EU Tax harmonisation.  The Irish people should consider very carefully the implications of accepting Lisbon when to do so will empower these forces to create a common corporate tax base with or without Ireland.

Article 48's new procedure for amending aspects of the Treaty (the self-amending article) maps out another new way around the Irish veto. At present the Government can’t drop the veto without a referendum. If Lisbon Treaty goes through a referendum is not required. A citizen’s right to a vote on this matter will be removed. Why should any state ask its citizen’s to give up the right to vote? Why on earth would any Government or political party campaign to remove this right?

All Irish political parties say they are committed to maintaining tax sovereignty. The Treaty makes it easier to bring in tax harmonisation. Anybody who is serious about defending our ability to define our own tax policy must say NO to Lisbon.

I would now like to take a few minutes to respond to some of the arguments raised by supporters of the Treaty over the last few months at the Forum.

Charter of Fundamental Rights

Sinn Féin strongly supports any measures that enhance the protection and promotion of human rights and equality at home, in the EU and in the wider world.  We support the Charter of Fundamental Rights.  We have called for its incorporation into EU law, and for its inclusion in a non-Constitutional Treaty. 

However, the claim that the EU Charter is somehow a major step forward in human rights is an illusion.  Even its advocates acknowledge that it is little more than a restatement of existing human rights law. Indeed, in its analysis of the Charter the Institute for European Affairs argues that it ‘does not create any new rights’ and moreover that the social and economic rights in the Charter ‘do not give rise to direct claims for positive action’

Social Clause

Much has been made in some quarters of the Social Clause contained in Article 9 of the Treaty. It is agued that this paragraph constitutes a significant advance in the struggle for a more equitable EU. I wish this was the case. Unfortunately the Clause will go the same way as the commitments to social cohesion and environmental sustainability in the Lisbon Strategy and the Social Chapter before it. As former European Roundtable of Industrialists General Secretary Keith Richardson said of the Social Chapter, it is, “a large waste of time...If politicians feel it is important to get a chapter referring to the desirability of full employment, and if they think it will help with public opinion we don’t really object...provided of course that it remains in general terms, related to aspiration.” And so it will be with the Social Clause, a worthy aspirational statement, used to secure support for the Treaty and quickly forgotten by the Commission and Council once it has served its purpose.

Contrary to claims by some supporters of Lisbon that it is the most social Treaty to date, it signals the final death of Social Europe with little thought for social or environmental consequences.

Vote no for a Better deal for Europe

Supporters of Lisbon say that to challenge or to reject this Treaty is an anti-European act. They have argued that rejection of Lisbon will bring economic devastation, political isolation and international ridicule.

All of these claims are false. They are the stuff of scaremongering and blackmail.

The threat to our economy is not in a rejection of Lisbon. It is in the ongoing privatisation policies of the government and the failure to properly invest in education, health, childcare, research and development, and broadband. Rectifying these failure will be all the more difficult if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified.


Like the vast majority of people on this island I believe that Ireland’s place is in Europe. Benefits have come as a result of our membership of the EU and continued co-operation with our European partners is essential if we are to meet the challenges facing us in the time ahead.  And one thing is certain. Regardless of the outcome of the referendum Ireland’s place in the EU will be secure. The question now facing the Irish people is - is the Lisbon Treaty a good deal for Ireland, is it a good deal for the rest of Europe.  The answer, I believe is a resounding no.

However rejecting the Lisbon Treaty is not enough. We need to argue for a better deal for Ireland and a better future for Europe. If Sinn Féin were involved in such a negotiation our objectives would be to secure:

• A permanent EU Commissioner and reform of the Commission itself
• A greater equality in voting procedure at the Council
• A meaningful mechanism for member state involvement in the legislative process
• The abolition of all self amending articles
• A specific article recognising and protecting neutrality
• Opt outs ending financial support for nuclear power, the European Defence Agency, the start up fund and all other areas of military expenditure
• Protocols reserving this state’s right to continue making its own decisions on taxation.
• Specific measures promoting and protecting public services such as health and education
• A greater emphasis on promoting fair trade over free trade and a significant increase in the importance of the development and aid   agendas
• Concrete protections for workers rights

160 years ago, revolution swept across the continent of Europe as ordinary people demanded their right to political liberty, social and economic equality and national solidarity. 1848 was known for decades as the Spring of Nations, and brought the ideas of the French Revolution into also every country on the continent. Ten years later James Stevenson founded the Fenians, and mobilised the marginalised and dispossessed of this country to the cause of Irish independence and social and economic equality. Today 150 years on Irish republicans continue to be part of that European wide movement for a more democratic and more equal world.

In the spirit of the French Revolution and the Spring of Nations, Sinn Féin is calling on the citizens of this state to reject the Lisbon Treaty, to reclaim the future of Europe and in doing so secure a better deal for Ireland and our European neighbours.

[Sub-X]

The Militarisation of Ireland’s Foreign and Defence Policy
A Decade of Betrayal, and the Challenge of Renewal
http://www.pana.ie/idn/060508.html
Written and researched by Mark Doris
May 2008

Introduction

This paper shows that Ireland's commitment to international peace, justice and disarmament has been progressively rolled back over the past decade. The record of recent governments and, to a lesser extent, of opposition parties and independents, in the area of Ireland‘s foreign and defence policy is set out in three parts.

The first part focuses on the controversial use of Shannon airport, in particular its use as a staging post or refuelling stop for troops and/or munitions en route to a war in Afghanistan of dubious legality and an illegal war in Iraq, and its use by agents of the United States as a stopover point in secret abduction and torture operations.

The second part outlines the extent to which Ireland has become involved in various military structures outside the remit of traditional United Nations peacekeeping missions. These include NATO and the newly-formed EU Battlegroups. The third part summarises the Government‘s response to Ireland‘s participation in the international arms trade. Afri intends this paper to be a resource that will assist ongoing monitoring and debate in this important area of Irish policy.

We also wish to suggest what the current government – elected by the 30th Dáil – must do to reverse the process of militarisation we have witnessed over the last decade, and how Ireland's foreign and defence policy might be demilitarised and renewed in the future.

The Militarisation of Ireland’s Foreign and Defence Policy:A Decade of Betrayal, and the Challenge of Renewal

[Sub-X]

Gluaiseacht An Phobail(Peoples Movement)
www.people.ie


People's Movement rejects taxation claims

EU pushes for nuclear energy

Merkel's credibility questioned

‘Charter of Fundamental Rights’

Lisbon treaty analysis

[Sub-X]

‘Myths & Misrepresentations’
http://nationalplatform.wordpress.com/category/myths-misrepresentations/
Irish Referendum, Treaty of Lisbon: Some Myths

SOME MYTHS ABOUT THE LISBON TREATY

Myth 1. LISBON WILL MAKE THE EU MORE EFFICIENT:

If you get rid of democracy and the need to consult with people, you can certainly get more laws passed. But will they be good laws? Is that more efficient government? When it comes to law-making it is quality that counts, not quantity. Hitler could issue new laws ever five minutes, but were they good laws?

The advent of 12 new Member States has not made the negotiation of new EU laws more difficult since they joined the EU. On the contrary, a study by the Science-Politique University in Paris calculated that new rules have been adopted a quarter times more quickly since the enlargement from 15 to 27 Member States in 2004 as compared with the two years before enlargement. The study also showed that the 15 older Member States block proposed EU laws twice as often as the newcomers. Professor Helen Wallace of the London School of Economics has found that the EU institutions are working as well as they ever did despite the enlargement of the EU from 15 to 27 members. She found that “the evidence of practice since May 2004 suggests that the EU’s institutional processes and practice have stood up rather robustly to the impact of enlargement.” The Nice Treaty voting arrangements thus seem to be working well.

Myth 2. LISBON ENABLES THE EU TO DEAL WITH CLIMATE CHANGE:

Lisbon would commit the EU to “promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems and in particular combating climate change”(Art. 191.1 TFEU). This is laudable, but its significance has been “spun” out of all proportion. Note that the action is “at international level”. It does not give the EU new powers internally. Any internal actions on environmental problems would have to be reconciled with the EU’s rules on distorting competition, safeguarding the internal market and sustaining the energy market. Combatting climate change can carry heavy costs. EU targets for carbon dioxide reduction in Ireland announced earlier this year would cost Ireland €1000 million a year if implemented, which would average some €500 per household. In fact the EU’s carbon reduction targets would impose a heavier relative burden on Ireland than on any other EU country. Also note the absurdity that the new Treaty reference is to combatting climate-change, without qualification. It is not just “man-made” climate change. So the EU is going to take on things affecting climate-change which are not of human origin, like sunspot cycle as well!

Myth 3: LISBON MAKES THE EU MORE DEMOCRATIC:

Lisbon provides that if one-third of National Parliaments object to the Commission’s proposal for an EU law, the Commission must reconsider it, but not necessarily abandon it (Protocol on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality, Art.7.2). It might review the draft law, or if it considered the objection was not justified, it might ignore it. This right to complain, for that is what it is, is not an increase in the powers of National Parliaments, as it has been widely misrepresented as being, but is symbolic rather of their loss of real power. To say that it is an increase in the power of National Parliaments to “control”, or even to affect, EU legislation is a blatant lie. Lisbon takes away major law-making powers from National Parliaments. It would give power to the EU to legislate in relation to some 32 new policy areas, thereby removing these areas from decision by National Parliaments. It also gives the EU the power to decide many other matters.

Lisbon would increase the power of the European Parliament by giving it many new areas of new EU law which it could propose amendments to, but that does not compensate National Parliaments and the citizens who elect National Parliaments, for their loss of power to decide. The new EU laws would still be PROPOSED exclusively by the non-elected Commission and would then be MADE primarily by the Council of Ministers, mainly on the basis of population-based voting. The EU Parliament can only amend these EU laws if the Commission and Council agree. Ireland would have 12 members out of 750 in the European Parliament under Lisbon,a reductuon from the current 13. When we had 100 out of 600 MPs in the 19th century UK Parliament, the Irish people were not that happy with the laws that were passed there. Yet Westminster was a real Parliament which decided all UK laws. The Irish representatives could propose laws in it, as they cannot do in the European Parliament.

If someone says that it is the National Government which really decides what laws are passed in the Dail or Parliament, because the majority of TDs or MPs belong to the Government party, and the EU Commission is acting like a national government in proposing EU laws, the obvious reply is that National Governments are elected by National Parliaments, who in turn are elected by the national citizens. But the EU “Government”, the Commission, is not elected. It is appointed by the Commission President and the EU Prime Ministers and Presidents on the basis of qualified majority voting.

[Sub-X]

The 'Lisbon Treaty' and 'EU Constitution' compared
http://www.people.ie/english8.html

The documents below provide a detailed comparison between the provisions of the 'new' Lisbon Treaty and the proposed EU Constitution which was rejected by the voters of France and the Netherlands. The following conventions are used: provisions in black have been carried over from the Constitution unchanged;those in blue are provisions of the Constitution that were scrapped or amended;those in red are provisions of the Constitution that have been further extended.

• Institutions
• Competences
• Qualified Majority Voting
• Passerelle clauses

[Sub-X]

Lisbon Treaty to bind us to Euratom
http://www.people.ie/contreaty/euratom.pdf

The Lisbon Treaty has a binding protocol attached which was added without debate at the last minute. This protocol, Protocol No. 12, links the provisions of the European Atomic Energy Treaty to the Lisbon Treaty and applies the financial provisions of the Union to the European Atomic Energy Community. The Euratom Treaty binds EU member states to ‘create the conditions necessary for the speedy establishment and growth of nuclear industries’ while ‘facilitating investment to develop nuclear energy’. So, for the first time, these provisions are legally and constitutionally binding on those member states that accept Lisbon. The EU Commission is responsible for the
financing of Euratom through the EU budget and decisions on loans etc. are made in secret. There is absolutely no public consultation and the Commission is pro-nuclear.

John Gormley, who was an alternate member of the convention that drew up the Constitution warned during the debates that the inclusion of Euratom in the Treaty would ‘put a bomb’ under the Constitution/Treaty.The argument was advanced that the complexities of the Treaty would be reduced to the question, ‘are you for or against nuclear energy?’ He was supported by his fellow Green member, the Austrian Johannes Voggenhuber.

Two major concerns arise from the addition of Protocol 12: with the recent accession of the new member states,a majority now have nuclear reactors but there are no common safety rules that can be enforced and, secondly,there is now a danger that the balance of forces in the EU in favour of the aggressive promotion of nuclear power may change, through the dual effect of the accession of the new pro-nuclear member states and the powerful binding Protocol 12. This could result in the diversion of larger portions of the EU budget to the development of nuclear power. Furthermore, the Lisbon Treaty at Title XVI, ‘Energy’, states that ‘the Council may unanimously adopt measures ... significantly affecting a Member State’s choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply’. With a pro-nuclear Commission, a legally binding Euratom Treaty and the majority of member states using nuclear power, it doesn’t take a genius to guess that Minister Ryan will come under extreme pressure to acquiesce in the drive for a nuclear-powered EU, especially as the Lisbon Treaty is a self-amending treaty.

Public opinion in Sweden and Germany has achieved a phase-out of nuclear power. These hard won outcomes may now be reversed by the Euratom protocol. Indeed, the first signs of such a shift is beginning to appear in Ireland with the ICTU, through the urgings of the ETUC, calling for a debate on the desirability of nuclear power, as has the government and business interests.

The Green Party leadership makes much of Declaration 44 which states in full that ‘Germany, Ireland and Austria note that the core provisions of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community have not been substantially amended since its entry into force and need to be brought up to date. They therefore support the idea of a Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, which should be convened as soon as possible’. Of course, if there are any changes resulting, they will not affect the relationship between Euratom and the Lisbon Treaty, and it should be remembered that a Declaration is only aspirational, not binding.

But it is the support extended by our Green Minister for Energy for the Treaty which is most puzzling.Eamon Ryan’s brief includes co-ordination of a campaign to close Sellafield and his party policy states clearly its opposition to the use of nuclear power. As Minister, he could hardly have been unaware of the issues as even John Bruton had pleaded at the convention for Euratom to be re-focused on safety and be used as an instrument to close Sellafield. Maybe he should consult ‘Previous Generation – ten reasons why nuclear power makes no sense for Ireland’ and available on the Green Party website!

[Sub-X]

Constitutional Implications of the Treaty of Lisbon
http://www.people.ie/contreaty/np2.pdf

Constitutional Implications of the Treaty of Lisbon

“The Constitution is the capstone of a European Federal State.”
Guy Verhofstadt, Belgian Prime Minister,Financial Times, 21 June 2004

“The pooling of coal and steel production should immediately provide for the setting up of common foundations for economic evelopment as a first step in the federation of Europe .”
Schumann Declaration, 9 May 1950,on the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community

“From the inside it looks like an arrangement based on Treaties between States. From the outside it looks like a State itself.”
Jens-Peter Bonde MEP,From EU Constitution to Lisbon Treaty; www.bonde.com

“The State may ratify the Treaty of Lisbon signed at Lisbon on the 13th day of December 2007, and may be a member of the European Union established by virtue of that Treaty . No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by membership of the European Union, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State.”
28th Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2008(what the people will be voting on in June)

[Sub-X]

Lisbon: Not just another EU treaty
http://www.nationalplatform.org/wordpress/?page_id=60

Below are the two key sentences of the amendment which you will be asked to put into the Irish Constitution on Thursday 12 June. If people vote Yes they will be giving the European Union the constitutional form of a Federal EU State, in which Ireland would become a provincial state or region. This would be the end of Ireland’s position as an independent sovereign country. The French and Dutch have already rejected this proposal in referendums. By voting No we remain full EU Members based on the Nice Treaty, but we reject the Lisbon Treaty as a step too far. Millions of Europeans who are being denied referendums on Lisbon by their politicians, are hoping that we will say No to it for their sakes.


“The State may ratify the Treaty of Lisbon signed at Lisbon on the 13th day of December 2007, and may be a member of the European Union established by virtue of that Treaty. No provision of this [Irish] Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by membership of the European Union, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State” (emphasis added)- 28th Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2008 What the Irish people will be voting on in the referendum.


The Lisbon Treaty would


1.Establish a legally quite new European Union in the constitutional form of a Federal EU State. This new EU based on the Lisbon Treaty would have the same name but would be fundamentally different from the present EU, which was founded by the 1993 Maastricht Treaty. The first sentence above shows this. Lisbon would turn Ireland into a provincial or regional state within this new Union, with the EU’s Constitution and laws being made superior to the Irish Constitution and laws in any case of conflict between the two. It would be the end of Ireland’s position as an independent sovereign State in the international community of States (Arts.1 and 47 TEU; Declaration No.17 concerning Primacy);

2.Turn us all into real citizens for the first time of this new post-Lisbon European Union, owing obedience to its laws and loyalty to its authority over and above our obedience and loyalty to Ireland and the Irish Constitution and laws. One can only be a citizen of a State. We would retain our Irish citizenship, but it would be subordinate to our EU Federal citizenship, as is normal for citizens of Federal States such as Germany, the USA, Switzerland, Canada etc. (Art.9 TEU);

3.Be a power-grab by the Big States for control of this new Union. By basing EU law-making primarily on population size, the Lisbon Treaty would double Germany’s say on the EU Council of Ministers from 8% to 17%. France’s say would go from 8% to 13%, Britain’s and Italy’s from their current 8% to 12% each. Ireland’s voting weight on a population basis would be more than halved to 1% (Art.16 TEU);

4.Amend the existing treaties to give the EU Court of Justice the power to rule against Ireland’s 12.5% company tax rate if it decides that this causes a “distortion of competition” in the EU internal market as compared with Germany’s 30% rate (Art.113 TFEU). This low rate of tax is the principal reason for foreign firms coming to Ireland and staying here when they come. Lisbon would also give the EU the power to impose its own EU taxes directly on us for the first time (Art.311 TFEU);

5.Copperfasten last December’s Laval/Vaxholm judgement of the EU Court of Justice, which makes it illegal for Governments or Trade Unions to enforce pay standards higher than the minimum wage for migrant workers. At the same time Lisbon would give the EU full control of immigration policy (Art.79 TFEU). This combination threatens the pay and working conditions of large numbers of Irish people. A new Treaty Protocol is needed to set the Laval judgement aside;

6.Remove any Irish voice from the EU Commission, the body which has the monopoly of proposing all EU laws, for five years out of every 15 (Art.17.5 TEU);

7.Abolish our right to decide who the Irish Commissioner is when it comes to our turn to be on the Commission, replacing it by a right to make “suggestions” only for the new Commission President to decide (Art.17.7 TEU);

8.Hand over to the EU the power to make laws binding on us in 32 new policy areas, such as crime, justice and policing, public services, immigration, energy, transport, tourism, sport, culture, public health, the EU budget etc.;

9.Give the EU Court of Justice the power to decide our rights as EU citizens, including such matters as the right to life, the right to strike, the rights of the child, the right to fair trial etc. Ireland’s Supreme Court would no longer have the final say on
what our rights are (Art.6 TEU);

10.Be a self-amending Treaty which would permit the EU Prime Ministers to shift most of the remaining policy areas where unanimity still exists, to majority voting, without a need for new EU Treaties or referendums (Art.48 TEU);

11.Militarize the EU further, requiring Member States “to progressively improve their military capabilities” and to go to the defence of other Member States in the event of war (Art.42.7 TEU).

[Sub-X]

EU Misinformation
http://www.nationalplatform.org/wordpress/

Barroso, Bonde and Ireland’s company Taxes . . . Excerpt from “Bonde’s Briefing” by Jens-Peter Bonde MEP, Chairman, Independence and Democracy Group in the European Parliament, forwarded for your information

Misinformation in Ireland

I was in Ireland this weekend (18 April). Accidentally I met the Commission President José Manuel Barroso at the University of Cork. I had two other meetings. He made a splendid speech, particularly when he went outside his manuscript.

It became clear to me that his civil servants had agreed a part of his speech with the Irish Government representatives to mislead Irish citizens about a hot issue in the Irish debate: their low corporate tax at only 12.5 %.

Mislead is a strong - but very precise - expression. Barroso said there was nothing new in the Lisabon Treaty about taxes.

This is positively wrong. The new Art.113 TFEU(Treaty on the Functioning of the EU) about taxes adds a new phrase of “and to avoid distortion of competition” as an amendment to the Article. This is a clear invitation to the European Court of Justice to outlaw the very distorting low Irish rate.

Today the EU is only competent to harmonise tax laws under Article 113 if it is “necessary to ensure the establishment of the internal market”. With this Lisbon Treaty amendment the EU can also harmonise tax laws if competition is distorted - this is a much wider concept. When is competition not distorted by differences?

In a new special Protocol to the Lisbon Treaty, “Protocol on the Internal Market and Competition” (No. 4), it is also added that the Internal Market “includes a system ensuring that competition is not distorted”. National hindrances can be outlawed, even by legislation based on the so-called “Flexibility clause” referred to in this Protocol.

In Art.116 TFEU distortions of competition can be hindered by laws decided by qualified majority voting in the Council. First, the Commission consults the distorting Member State. Article 116 then provides: “If such consultation does not result in an agreement eliminating the distortion in question, the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall issue the necessary directives. Any other appropriate measures provided for in the Treaties may be adopted.”

In the Reader-Friendly Edition of the Consolidated Treaties which I have edited (see euabc.com ) the text in bold is the new addition to Article 113 on corporation taxes made by the Lisbon Treaty: “and to avoid distortion of competition”. Hindrances may be eliminated by majority voting.

So, if I was Irish and interested in the low corporate tax - which I am not - I would propose a strong Protocol to protect the low rate. It is not difficult to foresee an attack from another country - or company. The French Presidency has already signalled its plans for taxation before they enter into office 1 July.

The Irish Government has criticized the French intentions. Well, the tax issue is also included in the annual work program for Barroso’s European Commission for 2008!

“Work will also be continued in order to allow companies to choose an EU-wide tax base as set out in the 2008 Annual Policy Strategy. An impact assessment has been launched to examine the options and their implications”, it is said at page 7 of the Work Programme.

The Commission will only publish their proposal - after the Irish referendum. All controversial proposals are delayed before referendums. This is normal practice for the Commission. It is only un-normal that the method has been leaked to the press with the publication of a private e-mail from a British diplomat referring to information received from the Irish Government in confidence.

The Commission is working on a proposal to harmonise - maybe not the rate, but the base for calculating corporate taxes. The economic effect for Ireland may be the same.

Ireland has earned a lot on multinational companies settling in Ireland but selling products to the whole of the EU. Now, the Commission proposal - according to rumours - will distribute profit for taxation according to the spread of the turnover.

It does not sound surprising - or unjust - to me. This is the way the Commission is thinking - in spite of the Barroso speech to calm the Irish voters before their referendum scheduled for 12 June.

A joint rate will require unanimity, yes. But to outlaw the low rate in a Court verdict only requires a simple majority in the EU Court of Justice in Luxembourg. It is mis-leading not to tell the Irish the full truth about the Lisbon Treaty and taxation.

Even new direct taxes for the Union could be introduced by the Lisbon Treaty. See Art. 311 TFEU on the establishment of new Union “own resources” by unanimity among Member States.

“…it may establish new categories of own resources”, it is said in the new Art. 311 inserted by Lisbon.

It is also said stated: “The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies”.
http://www.bonde.com/index.php/bonde_UK/article/bondes_briefing_23042008

A Note on Jens-Peter Bonde MEP

The author of the above statement, Jens-Peter Bonde, Danish MEP, has just edited a “Reader-Friendly Edition of the Consolidated Treaties as Amended by the Treaty of Lisbon“. This shows the additions to the two main EU Treaties that would be made by Lisbon in bold type, and the deletions in strikethrough.

This volume contains an invaluable index which will enable anyone interested in a particular topic to find easily the Consolidated Treaty Articles relating to it and to see how these would be affected by any deletions or additions made by the Lisbon Treaty.

This Reader-Friendly Edition of the Lisbon Treaty is now downloadable free from bonde.com.

Bonde has also written a short 100-page book describing the background to the Treaty and giving a general analysis of it: “From EU Constitution to Lisbon Treaty”. This will be downloadable later this week from the web-sites: bonde.com and euinfo.ie

Jens-Peter Bonde was a member of the Convention on the Future of Europe which drew up the original EU Constitution that would now be brought into being indirectly rather than directly by means of the Lisbon Treaty. He has been an MEP since the first direct elections to the European Parliament in 1979 and he is retiring from the Parliament on 9 May, Europe Day, having recently reached his 60th birthday. He first came to Ireland in 1986 to express support for the late Raymond Crotty in his constitutional action on the Single European Act, which led to the current referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. He is chairman of the Independence and Democracy Group in the European Parliament to which Munster MEP Kathy Sinnott belongs. He has written some 40 books on EU-related topics over the years and is widely known and respected for his tireless work over decades for a more transparent, less centralised and more democratic European Union. Together with Ireland’s John Gormley and others he produced a minority report on an Alternative to the EU Constitution at the close of Giscard d’Estaing’s Convention on the Future of Europe in 2004.
For enquiries contact Anthony Coughlan at 01-8305792.


Jens-Peter Bonde himself may be contacted at the European Parliament at 00-32-2-2845167 and at Jens-Peter.bonde@europarl.europa.eu