..and now something completely different!

Curvy cucumbers and knobbly sprouts will be back on supermarket shelves following an EU U-turn on wonky vegetables.

On Wednesday, Brussels will lift a ban on the sale of “misshapen” fruit and veg, which could see prices fall 40%.

…news from UKIP, which has made a new political group in EP together with Lega Nord

The National Platform EU Research and Information Centre
24 Crawford Avenue
Dublin 9
Ireland

Tel.: 01-8305792
Web-site: nationalplatform.org

Tuesday 30 June 2009

It seems that the Constitutional Court is saying that Germany, at least, must ensure that their parliament - both houses - participates in major EU decisions.

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung says the Constitutional Court ruling is demanding a law to guarantee the rights of the German Parliament in the EU decision-making process.

If that is so, should not Oireachtas Eireann have a law requiring this too - and Westminster and Paris and Prague and Bucharest, and 22 others?

Should not all EU National Parliaments also have “participation in European lawmaking procedures”?

The most important operative paragraphs of the Court’s ruling seem to be these ones:

• The Basic Law does not grant the German state bodies powers to transfer sovereign powers in such a way that their exercise can independently establish other competences for the European Union. It prohibits the transfer of competence to decide on its own competence (Kompetenz-Kompetenz).

• The principle of conferral is therefore not only a principle of European law (Article 5.1 of the Treaty on European Union; Article 5.1 sentence 1 and 5.12 of the Treaty on European Union in its version of the Treaty of Lisbon ), but, just like the European Union’s obligation to respect the Member States’ national identity (Article 6.3 TEU; Article 4.2 sentence 1 TEU Lisbon), it takes up constitutional principles from the Member States. The integration programme of the European Union must therefore be sufficiently precise.

• To the extent that the Member States elaborate the law laid down in the Treaties in such a way that, with the principle of conferral fundamentally continuing to apply, an amendment of the law laid down in the Treaties can be brought about without a ratification procedure, a special responsibility is incumbent on the legislative bodies, apart from the Federal Government, as regards participation, which, in Germany, must, on the national level, comply with the requirements under Article 23.1 of the Basic Law (responsibility for integration).

• The act approving a treaty amending a European Treaty and the national accompanying laws must therefore be such that European integration continues to take place according to the principle of conferral without the possibility for the European Union of taking possession of Kompetenz-Kompetenz or to violate the Member States’ constitutional identity which is not amenable to integration, in this case, that of the Basic Law.

• For borderline cases of what is still constitutionally admissible, the German legislature must, if necessary, make arrangements with its laws that accompany approval to ensure that the responsibility for integration of the legislative bodies can sufficiently develop.

(Signed)

Anthony Coughlan
Director

German Constitutional Court suspends ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, demanding a change to German law giving parliament more say over EU decision-making

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reports that the German Constitutional Court has ruled that the Lisbon Treaty is compatible with the German Constitution, but has withheld approval for immediate ratification, demanding a law to guarantee the rights of the German Parliament in the EU decision-making process.

The press release of the Constitutional Court notes that the German ratification act should be modified because the German Lower House and Upper House “have not been accorded sufficient rights of participation in European lawmaking procedures and treaty amendment procedures.”

It continues: “the Federal Republic of Germany’s instrument of ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon may not be deposited as long as the constitutionally required legal elaboration of the parliamentary rights of participation has not entered into force.”

The press release notes that: “the further development of the competences of the European Parliament can reduce, but not completely fill, the gap between the extent of the decision-making power of the Union’s institutions and the citizens’ democratic power of action in the Member States.”

FT Deutschland notes that “the Judges have considered the EU to have a democratic deficit. Therefore sovereign rights such as decisions on budgetary matters or on penal law, cannot be transferred to the EU without the consent of the German Lower and Upper House.” The newspaper reports that this means the German Parliament will in future need to consent to any changes to the EU treaties, with Frankfurter Rundschau reporting that military operations, “which could be possible after Lisbon”, will have to be approved by the German Parliament.

Deutsche Welle quotes the Court saying: “If one wanted to summarise this result, one could say: the Constitutional Court says ‘yes’ to the Lisbon Treaty but demands that parliament’s right to participation be strengthened at the national level.”

Die Welt notes that the German law giving the Parliament more say could pass soon, with a first reading to be held on 26 August. The leader of the Christian Democrat faction leader in the German Parliament Norbert Röttgen has announced that the second and third reading are planned for 8 September. German elections are to be held on 27 September.

New poll shows 77% of German voters want a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty

Judges at the German Constitutional Court are tomorrow due to rule on the compatibility of the Lisbon Treaty with the German Constitution. Ahead of the decision, Open Europe, in collaboration with the Institute for Free Enterprise in Berlin, has published a new poll which shows that 77% of Germans want to be given a say on the Lisbon Treaty in a national referendum. Voters were asked: “Do you think that German voters should be given the opportunity to have their say on the new EU Treaty in a national referendum?”

• 77.3% said yes,
• 20.7% said no,
• 1.9% said they don’t know.

Euractiv quotes Open Europe Director Lorraine Mullally saying, “This poll clearly shows that it is not only the Irish who want to be consulted on the Lisbon Treaty. This treaty transfers significant powers from the national to the EU level, and German voters want to be given a say.”

“Politicians claim they want to see more debate about the EU at national level, and yet they have conspired to deny voters a say on the Lisbon Treaty. Research shows that referendums on European issues significantly improve the public’s interest in and knowledge of the EU - so referendums should be encouraged, not avoided at all costs.”

“If politicians want people to connect with the EU, they should give them a say on the big issues like treaty change. The public are crying out to be consulted - it is time to stop pretending that politicians know best, and inject some democracy into EU politics.”

German daily Die Welt looks to the German Constitutional Court’s decision and notes that for matters which will be decided in the Council with Qualified Majority Voting, the German parliament’s assent will be needed. FAZ cites several experts criticising the scope of the Lisbon Treaty, with Law Professor Markus Kerber saying: “Brussels is acting like a nameless regime of selfish elites. The Commission has become the ‘many headed serpent’ of Europe, robbing ever more democratic power from the citizens.”

Dietrich Murswiek of Freiburg University is quoted saying, “the Lisbon Treaty brings powers to Brussels in many essential areas. It is a gigantic camouflage”, while Die Linke Co-Chairman Oskar Lafontaine believes the Treaty is a “programme for military armament and a step towards a ‘Europe of corporations’”.

other sources:
- eu-info.de
- euobserver.com

Crisis in Eastern Europe: Historical basis, economic background, social outcome

by Hannes Hofbauer (June 2009)

speech at the conference of “Transform! European network for alternative thinking and political dialogue” in Prague.

Space:
Dealing with the term “Eastern Europe” we mean those regions between respectively on the edges of the three historic centres Moscow (Russia), Constantinople (Ottoman Empire) and Vienna (Habsburg monarchy). Today these regions correspond to the new member-states of the European Union of 2004 (except Malta) and of 2007, the Western Balkan states, and – with a small question mark – Moldova. Belarus und Ukraine also belong to our definition of “Eastern Europe”, although we will not concentrate on them during this discussion.

Historical remark:
Eastern Europe is and was a part of the capitalist world system since at least the 16th century. Historically we find three different structures of economic and social development in this region being the basis of the fact that Eastern Europe was no homogeneous block in the past and is no one today.
a) North-East: under the dominance of the “Deutscher Orden” some regions belonged to what is called “second serfdom” namely in the Baltic and Poland. Under the total control of landlords, non-free “peasants” grew cash-crops for England, feeding their proletarianized colleagues in the early period of Industrial Revolution.
b) South-East: under the dominance of the Ottoman “Sublime Porte” some regions belonged to a tributary economic system delivering parts of their harvest and male children to the Ottoman administrators. This happened under the direct rule of Constantinople with centralized tax-collection (like in the central part of Hungary, Bulgaria, Serbia/Bosnia, Greece, Albania …) or through the reign of sovereign princes (like in the three parts of today’s Romania).
c) Centre-East: under the dominance of the Habsburg Empire some regions represent the east-central type of feudalism where peasants contributed harvest, money and work force (robot) to the local nobility. Between the two main authorities, the Emperor in Vienna and the Pope in Rome there developed a new class – the bourgeoisie – in towns that managed to get economic and political freedom. Bohemia and Moravia belonged to this sphere of interest as well as parts of Hungary.
d) Politically we could name a forth structure which was important during the long lasting fight between Habsburg interests and Ottoman interests in Eastern Europe. We speak of the so-called “Military border” / Confin. This was a zone of more than 1500 kilometres length, reaching from the Croatian coast to the north-east of Transylvania. The Habsburg Empire colonized these territories with so called “military peasants”. These peasants found themselves under direct control of the Viennese authorities exempted from further feudal burdens. They were given economic and religious/cultural privileges. These military peasants fought not only against the Ottomans, but – if needed like in the middle of the 18th century – also against the Prussians. The “Military border” existed from the 1520ies to 1881. In the southern part its Serbian orthodox population was exiled only in 1995 with the ethnic cleansing of Croatia.

We will not discuss another main historical gap that constitutes different forms of economic and social development, but we have to mention it. Since the “Great Schism” of 1054, Europe is divided into an Eastern and a Western sphere. The pope in Constantinople and his counterpart in Rome stand for two different religious/cultural concepts for the continent (not to speak of the installation of a “Third Rome” in Moscow). For Eastern Europe as we define it this is important because the first round of EU-enlargement only took place in regions belonging to the Western cultural sphere (with the exception of Cyprus), whereas the enlargement in 2007 including Bulgaria and Romania was a take-over of orthodox societies.

Before 1998, when the first “screenings” of the “acquis communautaire” with Eastern European candidate states to the EU began on a bilateral level (Brussels versus each candidate state), the three multi-ethnic entities were already dissolved: Soviet Union and Yugoslavia during 1991, Czechoslovakia at end of 1992. Brussels only took small national units with nationalist elites to integrate them peripherally into the Union. Six out of ten candidates – and later member states – had been newly created: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Czechia, Slovakia, Slovenia. This is important to show the socially and politically national character of the enlargement of the supra-national institution of the “European Union”.

Methodological remark:
We reject any concept of stages of progress, whether liberal or Marxist, which hold that modern economic growth, set up in core regions, spreads gradually to less developed areas. On the contrary, in our analytic framework, the existence and permanent reproduction of regional disparities represent – in line with social differences – the main driving force of capital accumulation.
As we can see again during the so-called transition period in Eastern Transform! European network for alternative thinking and political dialogue Europe (1989 – 2004/07) and now after the appearing of the “new” global economic crisis, capital accumulation polarizes the continent along the lines of a centre-periphery structure. Being integrated and therefore forced to compete within the world-market, historical traditional differences between regions and societies assume the character of disparities. This links the progress of the centres (in the West) to their capacity to gain profits out of regions and societies in the periphery (in the East), which, by the pressure of higher and cheaper productivity, had become structurally dependent. We can see this phenomenon in the actual statistics later on.
Once having lost their capacity of regional self-reliance and reproductivity, peripheries supply the core regions with the needed products. This can be agricultural products in the past, or raw materials and labour force or manufactured goods like textiles in the 1960ies or cars in the 2000ies taking advantage of the lower costs of labour and landed property in the periphery.
To summarize: capitalism (as we face it, also in its quite aggressive form since 1989/91), is constituted by the simultaneousness of non-simultaneous means of production (Gleichzeitigkeit des Ungleichzeitigen) how it is specified philosophically by Ernst Bloch and historically/ socially by Immanuel Wallerstein. Besides the commodification and alienation of work leads to a well-related dichotomy of capital and labour on a world level.
Together with this theoretical framework the observation of the Russian economist Nikolai Kondratieff may be helpful to understand the actual crisis. Kondratieff’s economic cycles last 50 to 60 years following more or less the needs of the construction industry. The so-called A-phase contains 30 years of upswing whereas the B-phase is characterized by a down-turn or decline. Historically the last B-phase in Kondratieff’s theory of cycles started in the middle of the 1970ies and should come to its peak (which is in economic terms the bottom) in the 2010s. This “prediction” would go together with the actual reality.

Economic backgrounds of the crisis:
What happens in Eastern Europe since the break-down of the Soviet Union and the Comecon in 1991 can be defined by a shift of the primacy of politics to the primacy of economy. Because capital accumulation did not take place in private hands on a high level in Eastern Europe the take-over of Eastern economies by Western capital was a logic consequence. Different to the Soviet sphere where Boris Yeltsin guaranteed enormous private accumulation in a few local hands (oligarchs), Eastern Europe fought with a lack of capital throughout the 1990ies. So we have to look at the Western core countries and its global economic players to understand the driving force of the take-over (named “integration”) of Eastern regions and societies. The whole enlargement-process is rooted in the needs of Western capital to accumulate. In capitalist terms, this is “natural”, nevertheless EU-enlargement often was seen even by the left as “giving helping hands” to sisters and brothers in the East.

Realisation of profits is the starting point. Let’s have a look at how this process came into being after World War II. The period of rebuilding Europe after the destructions of World War II ended around the late 1960ies/ beginning 1970ies. Since then we face three capitalist attempts to overcome the structural crisis of over-production:

1) first answer to face the crisis of over-production was made by restructuring of enterprises and whole branches. Related to operational economy this happened by lowering costs and a concentration process. Multinationals came into being at almost all levels and branches. Within the “international division of labour” entrepreneurs in the late 1960ies began to outsource and transfer industrial mass-production into low-cost countries with cheap labour and – at the same time with the help of state-institutions in the core countries – to import cheap labour into the centres. Eastern Europe saw its first “world market factories” with textiles in Hungary in the 1970ies (e.g. state-run factories for “Triumph International”), whereas the imported workers came from the southern and eastern parts of Yugoslavia.
Technologically the answer to overcome the crisis focused on new technologies with the result of digitalization. Eastern Europe was cut from any of these developments in the West because of the Cocom-embargo (of the Coordinating Committee). These laws were put into practice by the USA in 1948 together with the introduction of the Marshall-Plan. Marshall-Plan for the Western countries and Cocom-Embargo for the East were to sides of one medal. Cocom embargo hindered the export of high-technology commodities to communist countries. This embargo first was lifted in 1998 (!) with Hungary.

2) second answer to overcome the structural capitalist crisis was the shift of capital from the sphere of production to the sphere of speculation. Because the income and profitability in industrial production declined, capital moved to the financial sector. Low interest rates in the USA during the 1970ies led to relatively cheap money that was credited to peripheral countries. Apart from Latin America, Eastern European countries like Hungary, Poland and Romania (beside Yugoslavia for more political reasons) took up credits. To control these countries financially they were put under the umbrella of IMF in 1972 (Romania), 1982 (Hungary) and 1986 (Poland). Ronald Reagan raised the interest rates to repatriate U$ from the Arab oil exporting countries. He used these repatriated dollars to start a huge program of military Keynesianism (with the development of new aggressive weapons like Cruise Missiles and the deployment of new atomic weapons in Western Europe to provoke the arms race in which the Warsaw Pact soon later found itself trapped). Eastern European countries saw themselves caught in a debt-trap. This debt-trap later turned out to be useful for IMF and World Bank to dictate their conditions for further credits (especially in Poland and Hungary, not in Romania).

3) third answer to face the crisis of profit realisation lies in the expansion of spheres of interest and markets (sales markets and labour markets). In Eastern Europe this takes place only after a strong economic and military integration of 12/ 15 core countries into the European Union. Economically this was done in Maastricht 1992, militarily in Amsterdam 1997. The concept of economic convergence with the domination of big capital throughout Europe and the military background was finished before the first Eastern European countries asked for membership.
One could explain the whole process of EU-enlargement as a reaction to the US-strategy to enlarge its influence in the Middle East beginning with the first war on Iraq in 1991 which in a sense was itself a reaction to the productivity of East Asian societies, especially in China.

Transition period continued and deepened towards peripheralization: The transition period in Eastern Europe since 1989 led to an enlargement of the European Union. 10 countries in 2004 and 2 countries in 2007 got integrated into the regulations of the Acquis Communautaire following the four capitalist freedoms (freedom of the movement of capital, commodity, services and work-force). This enlargement process is not finished. Croatia and Macedonia are on the waiting list. At the same time the EU-Commission invites new countries into the so-called process of integration by defining conditions of accession. It exercises economic and political pressure on governments in Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, Albania, Kosovo. All this pressure aims at the liberalisation of the flow of capital, commodity, services and work-force.
How did this transition function? What were the different steps to transform Eastern European regions and societies into European Union’s periphery? We see the following elements:

i) Capital flow:
Since the very start of transition, capital and income flows constantly from East to West. Starting with the regular payment of interest rates for credited money, Eastern European countries also immediately faced an outflow of black money. Foreign investment served as a quick means to repatriate profits towards the Western headquarters of banks, services and industries. The “Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies” came out with the latest figures in June 2009 showing that an average of 70% of profits realized by foreign investors in the new EU-member states is being repatriated. The main macro-economic figure proving the squeezing-out of an economy, the current account, gives an idea of the peripheral status of Eastern Europe within the European Union. In 2008 the current account (calculated in % of the GDP) within the EU-15 was more or less balanced with – 0,04%. At the same time in Eastern Europe the deficit of the current account figure was enormous: –7,4% average within the NMS-10, with the negative record of – 24,5% for Bulgaria.

ii) Inflation:
Right from the beginning of the transition period the question was put how to insure foreign investment into economies without hard currencies. This problem was solved through hyperinflation between 1990 and 1993/4. Inflation rates accelerated up to 600% per anno (in Poland 1990), 300% in Bulgaria and Romania and 1500% in Ukraine. Even in Hungary and Czechoslovakia inflation rates reached 40% and 25% per anno. High inflation rates are a means to deprive all people who have nothing more than work force and a savings booklet. In this respect hyperinflation took away the communist promises for consumption and cleared the markets for new investors and sellers.

iii) De-industrialization:
Under these circumstances it was not astonishing that the rate of industrial production in Eastern Europe declined massively after 1989. Within five years industrial production fell by 40% in Hungary and in the Czech republic, by 50% in Poland and Slovakia, and by 60% in Romania and Bulgaria. After this massive de-industrialization, industry was rebuilt along the interest of new, mainly Western European investors. This can be seen perfectly for instance in the car producing industry, where a whole car-cluster emerged stretching from Bohemia to Silesia, Slovakia and Hungary. It supplies the markets in the West with cars.

iv) Privatisation:
With the exception of Slovenia all Eastern European countries faced a total change of ownership throughout the transition period which was finished before the respective states became members of the EU. In the banking sector (like in other sectors) foreign capital holds between 75% and 100% of the local entities. Privatization (which means “robbery” when we think of the Latin root of the term) took place in four different forms: +) direct selling out by a state institution (Treuhand), +) auctions, +) privatization through coupons following the idea of a “people’s capitalism”, +) restitution to former owners or their heirs.
The exception of Slovenia can be explained by the fact that there the formal ownership of workers was capitalized by a system of “workers buy-out”, giving workers and pensioners a chance to become new owners of their former enterprises.

v) Cheap labour:
The basis of the displacement of industrial capacities from Western Europe to Eastern Europe was and still is cheap labour. In the middle of the 1990ies, when new investments in Eastern Europe took place on a large scale, the average Hungarian worker was 10 times cheaper then the German one, the Slovak worker was 13 times cheaper and the Ukrainian one 34 times (!). In the year 2000 the average wage mounted to 150.- U$ in Romania, 350.- U$ in Slovakia, 500.- U$ in Czechia, Poland and Hungary. Only in Slovenia with a totally different development concerning the whole transformation process a worker earned 1000.- U$ average in the year 2000. In 2006, after the peripheral integration of 10 new member states into the EU, the average wage in Hungary, Czechia and Poland was 5 times lower than in Germany, in Slovakia more than 6 times, in Bulgaria 20 times. This simultaneousness of non-simultaneous means of production was translated into huge profits.

vi) Orientation towards European Union markets:
Foreign trade of Eastern European countries shifted towards the core countries in the European Union. This totally one-sided orientation accelerates economic problems in the moment of today’s crisis when the demand for Eastern European products is declining sharply.

vii) Transition mortality & loss of people:
During the first 5 years of the transition period (1989 – 1994) a UNICEF-Study found out a huge dropping of life expectancy especially for men in their 50ies. Only in 1993 there was an increase of 670.000 deaths in whole Eastern Europe including Russia and Ukraine compared with the year 1989. This loss of human beings is running under the term of “transition mortality”. It only stopped in the second half of the 1990ies.
Other social figures show a reduction of population. Between 1990 und 2006 the Baltic states, Czechia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria lost parts of their citizens. In Bulgaria this loss was 12% (!). The decline of population was (and is) due to “transition mortality”, migration, and refused reproductivity.

The new crisis is not new:
After the 10 ex-communist countries became members of the European Union the neoliberal attacks come from the east. National elites take the cheap labour as an advantage to attract foreign investors. Parallel to this many countries introduced a neoliberal anti-social form of tax regime. With flat tax rates (f. ex. of 19% in Slovakia) progressive taxation in Western Europe is under attack. Austria for example reacted by lowering taxes for profits of enterprises from 35% to 25%, Germany reacted by increasing the VAT up to 19%.
Although Eastern European people are accustomed to economic crisis since at least 20 years and longer (middle of the 1970ies) and later under the pressures of IMF and the promises of European Union, the new economic crisis touches peoples and regions heavily. Nowadays nobody speak of “emerging markets” any more, since decline of industrial production reached Eastern Europe again in 2008. The “Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies” (WIIW) found out that industry production went down by 10% to 20% compared with 2007.
Foreign debts keep Eastern Europe in a trap. At the end of 2008 the debts of the 10 new ex-communist EU-member-states reached 636 billion Euro. This is far more than the cumulated foreign direct investments of 454 billion Euro.
Weak states with almost no financial possibilities to face the economic crisis not only depend on transfer-money from Brussels, but also invent new anti-social programs to fulfil Maastricht’s restrictive criteria. The Hungarian government actually is on the way to take peak position in this sense: cutting pensions and increasing mass-taxes like VAT.

The idea of catching-up under liberal conditions failed. If we take the figures of industrial production (as they are published by the WIIW) and index the year 1990 with 100, the following countries did not even reach this figure in 2007: Bulgaria, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania, Croatia, Macedonia (no figures for Albania, Serbia and Bosnia are given). Only Hungary and Slovakia (due to their car-cluster-industry) caught up to some extent compared with the average of the EU-15. And only Hungary reaches the catching-up figure of Turkey if you compare it with the EU-15.
The European Union with its concept of economic convergence and social and regional divergence cannot be seen other than an imperialistic project towards its Eastern periphery. Differentiations within the states do not contradict this point of view but underline the form of development.

Literature:
Hannes Hofbauer/ Andrea Komlosy, Restructuring (Eastern) Europe. In: Eszmélet – First International Conference of Social Critical Reviews. Budapest 1991
Hannes Hofbauer, EU-Osterweiterung. Historische Basis – ökonomische Triebkräfte – soziale Folgen. Wien 2007
Alice Teichova, Central Europe in the Twentieth Century. An Economic History Perspective. Aldershot 1997
UNICEF, Crisis and Mortality, Health and Nutrition. Florence 1994 Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies (Handbook of Statistics 1995 – 2008)
The World Bank, Reports 2002 - 2008

Publication in German language:
Hannes Hofbauer, EU-Osterweiterung. Historische Basis - ökonomische Triebkräfte - soziale Folgen. Wien 2007. Promedia Verlag

Czech social democrat party considers suspending President Vaclav Klaus’ powers over refusal to sign Lisbon Treaty

EU Observer reports that the Czech social democrat party is considering suspending President Vaclav Klaus’ powers if he refuses to sign the Lisbon Treaty. The article notes “temporary suspension would require a simple majority of 41 votes in the country’s 81-seat senate and would allow caretaker Prime Minister Jan Fischer to sign the document instead”. The Lisbon Treaty has been ratified by the Czech Parliament and Senate but its compatibility with the Czech Constitution is currently being analysed by the Czech Constitutional Court with a decision expected in September.

Klaus has vowed to be the last to sign the Treaty and will wait until Germany, Poland and Ireland have ratified it in the hope that the Conservatives may be elected in the UK by then. Former Constitutional Court judge Vojtech Cepl said “There is nothing in the constitution that gives the president the right to veto decisions of the country’s highest institutions.” However, senate press spokesman, Petr Kostka said “The probability is very low. It’s the opinion of just a few senators and not of the whole chamber. The president of the senate, Mr Premysl Sobotka [an ODS party member], has said he doesn’t agree with the suspension.”

source: EU Observer

Meanwhile Adrian Michaels in the Telegraph writes, “If democracy is about listening to the people, then Iran isn’t the only place where things have got a bit strained. A year ago, 53 per cent of Irish voters declined to ratify the substantial increase of the European Union’s powers and reach enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty. Yet in early October, the country will be holding another referendum, in which the people will be given a chance to come up with a better answer.”

What an interesting Facebook thought!

Along with these explanations:

One million European citizens can call on the European Commission to propose a change in European law!

EU Directives and European Court of Justice decisions are used to attack trade union collective bargaining, the right to strike and workers’ pay and conditions.

Workers must simply defend the fundamental right to work under union agreements – a right not given by EU directives or treaties.

EU rules allow employers to escape from national collective bargaining and employment legislation and impose lower wages and worse working conditions, creating a “race to the bottom”.

The Lisbon Treaty turns the EU into a state in its own right and gives the bloc its own legal identity. The unaccountable European Court of Justice, an EU institution, would effectively become the ‘supreme court’ of the EU.

Under the treaty, the unelected EU commission would propose all EU law which would then be imposed on member states by the council of ministers mostly on the basis of qualified majority voting.

Under Article III-147 of the EU Constitution: “A European framework law shall establish measures to achieve the liberalisation of a specific service”. That provision remains in the Lisbon Treaty. In other words the treaty forces governments to hand public services over to private corporations.

The parliament has no legislative powers powers and it is bound by all the treaties, including the Lisbon Treaty if it comes into force. All that self-serving and well-heeled political elites just serves the EU institutions which impose laws on over 500 million European citizens without their consent.

The euro is controlled by the European Central Bank (ECB) which dictates interest and exchange rates. These are two key levers which should instead be used by national governments to control their economies. By obeying the strict criteria of the euro considerable damage has been done to the public sector. Control of economies in the eurozone is exercised by the EU Commission, Council of Ministers and ECB directly over national interests. The crisis is being used as an excuse to press for complete ratification of the Lisbon Treaty which would impose the euro on all member states.

The Lisbon Treaty develops an armed wing for the EU, complete with its own military-industrial complex. For Brussels this means developing an EU rapid reaction force that will carry out military operations in the interests of “Europe”. The constitution will demand that member states “actively, unreservedly and loyally” support a single foreign and military policy. The Lisbon Treaty also formally ends the military neutrality of Ireland, Denmark, Sweden and Austria, also without asking the citizens of those states.

European Union is accumulating a vast range of powers that pose a threat to civil liberties. The Lisbon Treaty will continue this process by expanding the role of EU police force, Europol, whose agents have been granted immunity from prosecution.

EU directives give state agencies the right to monitor all electronic traffic including data relating to e-mails and websites we visit, without a court order.

These and other measures, taken together with the completely undemocratic structure of the EU, means that a system of Brussels-based government is taking shape which represents a huge threat to the basic freedoms of ordinary Europeans.

These, and a million other reasons, are why countries should leave the European Union…

---

…by you joining the fb group, apparently.

And do tell your friends to do the same, please :)

Two weeks after the European elections returned 26 Conservatives David Cameron has fulfilled his controversial pledge to form a new bloc large enough to qualify for full recognition in Strasbourg.

The new grouping brings together centre-right MEPs from eight EU countries under the name “European Conservatives and Reformists Group”, with the UK Tory faction as the biggest single national element.

Second largest will be the 15 MEPs from Poland’s Law and Justice Party (PiS), followed by nine MEPs from the Czech Republic’s ODS (Civil Democrats) party.

The group is likely to be the fourth largest bloc in the new European Parliament - but the Tories are still negotiating with other likely allies.

The new group pledges itself to uphold “the sovereign integrity of the nation state” and “opposition to EU federalism”.

It demands “effectively-controlled immigration and an end to abuse of asylum procedures” and “an end to waste and excessive bureaucracy and a commitment to greater transparency and probity in the EU institutions and use of EU funds”.

Finally, the group seeks “respect and equitable treatment for all EU countries, new and old, large and small”.

source: The Telegraph

Iceland’s former Prime Minister, Geir Haarde, said in a lecture at The Institute of European Affairs in Dublin, Ireland, that he did not believe membership of the European Union would have saved Iceland from the “financial hurricane” which triggered the country’s financial meltdown last autumn and the collapse of the its three biggest banks, noting EU membership had not saved Latvia’s economy from shrinking an expected 18 percent this year. Furthermore he pointed out that the Irish economy was expected to shrink between 10.75 and 12 percent this year while the percentage in the case of Iceland was 10 percent.

Sources:
Haarde in Dublin: Ireland worse than Iceland (Icenews.is June 22, 2009)
Irish GDP will shrink faster than Iceland’s, says ex-PM (Independent.ie June 19, 2009)

On her Mail blog, Mary Ellen Synon writes about the EU’s ‘Stockholm programme’, which will give the EU new legal powers over cross border police co-operation, counter-terrorism, immigration and border controls if the Lisbon Treaty comes into force.

The Irish Times quotes Statewatch Director Tony Bunyan saying that the proposals will “require unfettered powers to access and gather masses of personal data on the everyday life of everyone so that we can all be safe and secure from perceived ‘threats’. But how are we to be safe from the State itself, from its uses and abuses of the data they hold on us?”

(…again thanks to Open Europe)

Following the EU summit in Brussels last week, Open Europe has published a briefing on the ‘guarantees’ offered to Ireland in exchange for holding a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Despite promises from the Irish government that they would not force people to vote on exactly the same text a second time around, the deal reached at the EU summit last week makes no change whatsoever to the text of the Treaty, meaning Irish voters will be voting on exactly the same text they rejected last year.

EU leaders agreed to attach a series of ‘declarations’ as a protocol to the Treaty after the second Irish referendum and once it is already in force, but the text of the conclusions of the summit notes that: “The Protocol will clarify but not change either the content or the application of the Treaty of Lisbon.”

Czech Prime Minister Jan Fischer said: “It is an explanatory clarifying text which changes not a dot nor comma of the Lisbon Treaty.” The Irish Times reports that former Green MEP Patricia McKenna said that* the ‘guarantees’ given to Ireland were nothing more than a “ludicrous charade” and that the public had been given the false impression of legal certainty when this didn’t exist.*

According to Saturday’s Irish Times, newly elected Socialist MEP Joe Higgins repeated at a press conference that the EU summit was an “elaborate charade” meant to distract attention from the key issues. “The debate on the Lisbon Treaty has yet to be held because we’ve been dealing with side issues.” He said: “The reasons why people voted No to the treaty have not been addressed or rectified, and for that reason, once that message gets across to people, I don’t think they are going to change their vote.”

Saturday’s Irish Independent reported that October 2nd is the most likely date for a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland. The paper today reports on the launch of a new group, called ‘Ireland for Europe’, which will back the Yes campaign and will feature Irish celebrities, with Irish PM Brian Cowen vowing to personally take charge of the campaign for a Yes vote.

Attempts towards “guaranteeing state” notified to the office responsible for defending the constitution

Human rights activist regards attempts toward the “guaranteeing state” as presumably anti-constitutional

19.06.2009

Today, the human-rights activist Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing has addressed herself to the federal office responsible for defending the constitution, in order to inform it about a presumable anticonstitutional ideology and about attempts of persons and within an association towards the implementation of this ideology, which have not been mentioned yet in the report of the federal office responsible for defending the constitution.

The notification deals with the ideology of the “guaranteeing state”, whose protagonists most often appear quite well-adapted. Changing the type of state to the “guaranteeing state”, however, would bring an administrational disaster to Germany, would destroy the rule of the law, and would lead up to the de-facto dissolution of the very statehood.

The ideology of the “guaranteeing state” demands to commission to private companies all tasks of the public services and of the public administration and vast parts of the national security. A magnet for conflicts of interests. The cheapest offer for running the environmental administration would probably come from the industry, for running the financial administration from the banking sector, for the residents’ registration offices the media sector, and for diplomatic services, police, army, secret service, and jails from private security and mercenary firms.

Commissioning tasks of the inner and of the exterior safety to private companies would, according to the point of view of the human-rights activist, lead to a situation like at Colombia with paramilitary as a state within a state.

This ideology even considers to taking the task of protecting the basic rights away from the courts and to give these tasks to private mediators. A part of the “guaranteeing state” ideologists even wants to allow private competitors with regard to legislating. The “guaranteeing state” ideology wants to commission the supervision over these private companies, which are, formally for a limited time, entrusted with sovereign power, to other private companies.

The human-rights activist regards as particularly dangerous the combination of the “guaranteeing state” ideology and the “governance” model (also called “horizontalization”). The latter model strives for a reduction of the material law, that means of the legally prescribed rights and duties, to the greatest possible extent. This would open a greatest possible room to negotiate between the state on the one side and the business respectively the citizens on the other one. Who has power, would be able to negotiate with the state any special conditions for himself. And this would be combined with public authorities, which would be run by private firms, so that, often, the same people would sit on both sides.d

The human rights activist regards “guaranteeing state” ideology, even though the non-violent appearance of the protagonists of this ideology, as anti-constitutional, because this ideology would significantly damage 6 out of 7 features of the free democratic constitutional structure (§4 par. 2 BVerfSchG (Law on the office responsible for defending the constitution)), and already the rejection of 1 of these features can be anti-constitutional.

This ideology would destroy the rule of the law, especially with regards to the equality before the law, to the legal clearness and legal safety, to the right of recourse to legal action, and to the protection of the basic rights.

Also democracy would be shaken to its core, because the democratically elected organs of the state would, within the “guaranteeing state”, be deprived of their supervision over the then privately run areas administration, military, police, and secret service, and be deprived of their power because of the loss of their knowledge how to run these services. The rule of the law (art. 1 par. 2+3 Basic Law (German Constitution), art. 20 Abs. 2+3 Basic Law) and democracy (art. 20 Abs. 1 Basic Law) both belong to the structure principles of our Basic Law (i.e. Constitution), which are protected by the eternity guarantee (art. 79 par. 3 Basic Law); the destruction of these structure principles would shaken the whole state.

The “guaranteeing state” would turn Germany, in addition to that, into a “failed state”, and so into a danger for Europe according to the EU Safety Strategy, because of the features abuse of power, weak institutions, and lack of accountability. There is a reason for the basic-right like right to the so-called “function reservation” (art. 33 par. 4 Basic Law): to guarantee for all inhabitants of Germany, that sovereign power is applied only by persons, whose economical existence depends on their faithfulness to the Basic Law, and not on their faithfulness to economical interests of private firms.

Most lobbyists towards the “guaranteeing state”, however, are fully aware, that the change of the type of state, which they are striving for, would dissolve the rule of the law of the Basic Law, and they see substantial legal problems with regard to democracy, but they, nevertheless, go on, even do not care of the eternity guarantee.

The biggest gateway for the “guaranteeing state” ideologists, up to now, has been the (unfortunately) broadly disseminated credulity of politicians towards to graduates and to jurists. There is, from the point of view of the human rights activist, the urgent danger, that persons, who are striving for the implementation of this presumably anti-constitutional ideology, are purposefully striving for key positions in policy counselling, media, jurists’ career networks, judiciary, and universities, respectively already have occupied some of these positions.

V.i.S.d.P:

Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing
Thorner Str. 7
42283 Wuppertal
Deutschland

Today’s EU Summit on Ireland

Comment by Jens-Peter Bonde, MEP 1979 - 2008
euabc.com and bonde.com

On Friday 19th of June, little before 3 pm, the Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen entered his briefing room on the 20th floor in the Justus Lipsius building in Brussels to claim a big political victory.

“We came to have legally binding guarantees, and we got them.”

The Irish had arranged a drama with the Council presidency and the British delegation by leaking a confidential letter from the Irish Prime Minister to the other Prime Ministers. He asked them to support a legally binding protocol on Irish concerns, to be able to call and win a second Lisbon referendum.

The British played their role to perfection. It would be very difficult to deliver that to the Irish. The negotiations could not be finished on the first day. The prime ministers needed to use the night for these very difficult negotiations - resulting in a document that was actually finalised days before…

The press was then invited to play their role in what looked like a re-play of the famous fairy tale of Hans Christian Andersen: The Emperor’s New Clothes. Claim a big Irish victory to help the Irish Prime Minister convince the Irish voters to change their No into a Yes.

There is no real content in these so-called Irish guarantees. But they will be inserted in the next treaty following the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty. It may be the next accession treaty with Croatia.

It could also be with a new protocol changing the numbers of seats of the European Parliament. Any treaty can include the document or part of the document called “Ireland and the Treaty of Lisbon”.

It will make it legally binding. Until then it exists simply as a political agreement between prime ministers to agree on something at some point in the future. This is possible politically, but not legally. No government can bind the next government. No parliament can bind voters to come back and give support for this Protocol.

If Ireland insists that the agreement made on 19 June is legally binding, there is only one way forward: to open the ratification process on the Lisbon Treaty again and have all 27 member states sign and ratify an amended Lisbon Treaty.

They cannot claim a legally binding victory and then avoid the necessary ratification together with the Lisbon Treaty. Under EU law a protocol is only legally binding when it is ratified by all member states. There is no third way. You cannot have your cake and eat it. Not-binding is still not identical with binding.

There is now a possibility of re-opening the debate of the Lisbon Treaty. Others may have other suggestions, for example seeking legally binding protocols on Democracy, Accountability and Transparency. These are more needed than the Irish assurances, since the latter change nothing.

But they establish enough legal uncertainty on the interpretation of existing treaty articles to make it fully legitimate to require new ratifications in all Member State parliaments.

Hopefully some parties, MPs and at least one President - Czech President Vaclav Klaus - may now demand that.

Lawyers will support this argument. For example, I have received the following comment from Mr Leolin Price CBE QC today: “The Lisbon Treaty is not yet in force. To be in force it requires ratification by all Member States. The Irish ‘No’ means that the present position in domestic UK law is that the Treaty is not yet operative and does not have any relevant legal status.”

Changes to the Treaty to help the Irish Government get the Irish “No” replaced, in a Second Referendum, by a new Irish “Yes”, will mean that existing ratifications by member states, including the UK, will be without effect; and re-ratification of the Treaty including the changes, will be necessary in order to give the changed Treaty operative effect and status under UK law.

” ‘Guarantees’ given to the Irish, or new ‘interpretations’ which change the effect of the Treaty have the same consequence as any more formal changes: They make existing ratifications irrelevant and require re-ratification by all member states which have so far given their ratification. In particular the UK ‘ratification’ already given will not be effective and under UK law there will have to be a new ratification in order to give any effect to the Treaty. “

In 1992 the Danish government tried to bind a future Danish parliament by ratifying a change to come at a later day. A professor of State law, the late High Court judge Henrik Zahle, issued a memorandum against “giving up sovereignty in advance”. The Danish Government had to withdraw this future decision from the Referendum Bill and give a free hand to future politicians. It is just as illegal to try to bind future politicians as to include the Irish Assurances in a future treaty.

It is not possible. Then, the Irish Government will claim the commitment is legal under international law. The agreement will be sent to the register of international agreements at the United Nations and thereby be legally binding between governments.

This is a breach of the Lisbon Treaty Art. 344 and the similar rule in the Nice Treaty forbidding Member States from settling conflicts of interpretation outside the EU institutions. There is only one court that is able to settle conflicts between EU Member States, and this is the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

THE 1992 DANISH OPT-OUTS

The European Council made a similar exercise after the Danish No to the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. But that time the Danish opt-outs were already in the treaty. The treaty articles were legally binding. The 1992 Edinburgh Agreement was more of a moral commitment from the other prime ministers. Conflicts over the interpretation of the Maastricht Treaty could not be settled in the international court in the Hague. Only in the EU Court in Luxembourg.

The whole EU Summit strategy for dealing with the Irish No vote was similar to the way the prime ministers at the time established the Edinburgh Agreement of December 1992. Denmark then exchanged its No to Maastricht for political guarantees that the Danish opt-outs from some provisions of that Treaty could only be changed by a new Danish referendum.

The European Council has now made another “decision” of the prime ministers and presidents of the EU Member States.

This so-called “decision” did not previously exist as a formal legal instrument of EU summits. It was specially invented to get around the Danish No to Maastricht in 1992, by the head of the Council legal service, Jean-Claude Piris.

It is a creative way of giving people a feeling of legal certainty which does not and cannot exist since only properly ratified EU treaties, with their Protocols, can offer binding legal guarantees in EU law.

This “decision” of the EU summit changes absolutely nothing in the treaties. If it did change anything, even the smallest change could only be validated through new ratifications by all 27 member states in their national parliaments or by referendums.

Just as in the 1992 Edinburgh Agreement these Irish “assurances” include an explicit statement that “these concerns (are) in conformity with that treaty”. This is the core sentence in the Summit document. In the so-called “Irish assurances” not one single comma in the Lisbon Treaty will be changed.

Up until now no government has been able to give a single example of a national law which cannot be affected in some way or other by the Lisbon Treaty.

This does not mean that the current generation of politicians has in mind the establishment of European laws in all areas. But in reality they could do this if they wished with a few derogations. Decisions of the European Court could also affect virtually every single area of what is currently believed to be a purely national responsibility.

This “decision” of the EU summit isn’t signed by the heads of states or government. In legal form it is simply an Annex to a Summit Declaration which, in contrast to a Treaty Protocol, is not binding in EU law.

The “decision” is followed by a common “solemn declaration” which may express the intentions of the politicians taking part. It does not prevent politicians at future summits affecting these “assurances”.

Finally, Ireland has its own Irish Declaration. A unilateral Declaration of this kind has to be interpreted as a statement of position by one state which the others do not necessarily agree with. If they did agree to it, it would have been part of the joint declaration or the earlier “decision”, in the name of all 27 states.

The fate of the EU’s Lisbon treaty had been thrown into question once again on Thursday after Vaclav Klaus, the Czech president, threatened not to approve special legal provisions for Ireland.

Mr Klaus said the Czech parliament must ratify the guarantees on national sovereignty that Ireland wants in order to hold a referendum on the treaty, or he would not give them the green light.

The Irish guarantees, covering taxation, military neutrality and right-to-life policies, were the first order of business for the EU’s 27 national leaders as they gathered in Brussels for a two-day summit.

The Lisbon treaty, which would create the EU’s first full-time president, streamline the bloc’s decision-making procedures and give more powers to the European parliament, is the culmination of almost a decade of efforts to modernise the EU’s institutions.

Irish voters rejected the treaty in a referendum a year ago, and Mr Klaus and Lech Kaczynski, the Polish president, have refused to sign the document even though their parliaments have approved it.

Mr Klaus’s latest move indicates that he may try to find an excuse not to sign the treaty, even if Irish voters back Lisbon in a second referendum expected in October. Opinion polls in Ireland suggest that popular opposition to the treaty has fallen sharply since the Irish economy’s descent into crisis.

Apart from legal guarantees of sovereignty, Ireland will secure a declaration on the protection of workers’ right and has been promised it can keep a seat on the European Commission.

Mr Klaus contended that the guarantees altered the treaty in such a way that they would require separate ratification by the Czech parliament under the nation’s constitution.

His argument was contested by Jan Fischer, the Czech prime minister. However, Mr Fischer is a non-party, interim premier who, in contrast to Mr Klaus, is unlikely to remain in office after elections in October.

The worst fear of EU leaders is that Mr Klaus delays signing the treaty for so long that a strongly Eurosceptic Conservative party replaces the UK’s Labour government and holds a referendum on Lisbon, resulting in a No vote that would kill it for ever.

…whole article in the FT

Tuesday, 16th of June 2009

Comment by Jens-Peter Bonde, MEP 1979-2008;
euabc.com and bonde.com

The EU Summit Strategy for dealing with the Irish No vote to Lisbon is similar to the Edinburgh Agreement of December 1992, when Denmark changed its No to Maastrict for full Danish opt-outs from some provisions of that Treaty.

First, the European Council will make a ‘decision’ of the Prime Ministers and Presidents of the EU member states.

This so-called ‘decision’ did not previously exist as a formal legal instrument of EU summits. It was specially invented to get around the Danish No to Maastrict in 1992 by the Head of the Council Legal Service, Jean-Claude Piris. It is a creative way of giving people the feeling of legal certainty which does not and cannot exist since only properly ratified EU treaties, with their Protocals, can offer binding legal guarantees in EU law.

This ‘decision’ of the EU summit changes absolutely nothing in the treaties. If it did change anything, even the smallest changes could only be validated through new ratifications by all 27 member states in their national parliaments, or by referendums. Just as in the 1992 Edinburgh Agreement the Prime Ministers and Presidents state their desire ‘to address those concerns in conformity with that treaty’ (i.e. the Lisbon Treaty).

This is the core sentence of the Summit document. In the so-called ‘Irish assurances’ not one single comma in the Lisbon Treaty will be changed. Up until now no government has been able to give a single example of a national law which cannot be affected in some way of other by the Lisbon Treaty.

This does not mean that the current generation of politicans has in mind the establishment of European laws in all areas. But in reality they could to this if they wished with a few derogations. Decisions of the European Court could also affect every single area of what is currently believed to be a purely national responsibility.

This ‘decision’ of the EU Summit isn’t signed by the Heads of State or Government. In legal form it is simply an Annex to a Summit Declaration.

The ‘decision’ is followed by a common ‘Solemn Declaration’ which may express the intentions of the politicians taking part. It does not prevent politicians at future Summits affecting these ‘assurances’.

Finally, Ireland has its own Irish declaration. A unilateral declaration of this kind has to be interpreted as a statement of position by one state which the others do not necessarily agree with. If they did agree to it, it would have been part of the Joint Declaration or the earlier ‘decision’ in the name of all 27 states.

In 1992 the Edinburgh Agreement was sent to the United Nations to register it as an international agreement, giving it a certain legal value under international law, although not necessarily under EU law. It remains to be seen how the planned Brussels agreement from this June’s EU Summit will be archived.

---

Comments on the Draft text of 15 June 2009 (text from the Irish Times, plus introduction not quoted in the Irish Times but existing in the draft ‘Annex l’).

Annex 1

DECISION OF THE HEADS OF STATE OR GOVERNMENT OF THE 27 MEMBER STATES OF THE EU, MEETING WITHIN THE EUROPEAN C0UNCIL, ON THE CONCERNS OF THE IRISH PEOPLE ON THE TREATY OF LISBON.

The Heads of State or Government of the 27 Member States of the European Union, whose Governments are signatories of the Treaty of Lisbon,

Taking note of the outcome of the Irish referendum of 12 June 2008 on the Treaty of Lisbon and of the concerns of the Irish people identified by the Taoiseach,

Desiring to address these concerns in conformity with that Treaty,

Having regard to the Conclusions of the European Council of 11-12 December 2008,

Have agreed on the following Decision:

Section A

Right to Life, Family and Education

Nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon attributing legal status to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, or in the provisions of that Treaty in the area of Freedom, Security and Justice affects in any way the scope and applicability of the protection of the right to life in Article 40.3.1. 40.3.2 and 40.3.3, the protection of the family in Article 41 and the protection of the rights in respect of education in Articles 42 and 44.2.4 and 44.2.5 provided by the Constitution of Ireland.

COMMENT: True, A Treaty does not change the Irish Constitution. However, the above is a misleading statement since the European Court has already taken decisions affecting Irish abortion law. In the so-called SPUC v. Grogan case of 1991, the European Court of Justice decided that abortion is a normal ‘servicve’ under the treaties which can normally be provided everywhere. Then the Court ‘on balance’ established an argument on proportionality where they aceepted the Irish constitutional limits for the time being.

The Court Adovate General wanted to entirely overrule Art. 40.3.1 of the Irish Constiution, but the Court did not go along with that proposal then. The European Parliament has called for legal access to abortion in all member states in a resolution of 2002. The Council of Europe sought similar access to abortion in 2008.

It is unrealistic to expect the Court to take such a decision as long as abortion is forbidden in a big country like Poland. But the example quoted shows the misleading character of the new ‘assurances’. The power to decide will always decide with the Court, even on the most sensitive ethical questions like euthanasia and abortion, which many people believe should be decided at the national level.

Moreover the Lisbon Treaty would make all citizens of the 27 member states into real citizens of the European Union for the first time by conferring on them an ‘additional’ citizenship. Their rights and duties as EU citizens would ultimately be decided by the Court of Justice. It would therefore fall to the Court of Justice to apply the rights set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights for the 500 million or so citizens of the EU.

Section B

Taxation

Nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon makes any change of any kind for any Member State, to the extent or operation of the competence of the European Union in relation to taxation.

COMMENT: True, EU competence on taxation is not changed. The EU already has certain competences as regards taxes. The limiting principle is that all harmonization must be unanimous. The Lisbon Treaty would allow the governments unanimously to change from unanimity to decision by qualified majority (Art. 48 TEU). The treaty also inserts a new sentence on the internal market which would permit the EU to outlaw national tax measures if they can be regarded as disturbing the internal market. (Protocol No.27).

The Lisbon Treaty adds in the avoidance of ‘distortion of competition’ as an aim of the tax paragraph in Art.113 TFEU, thus opening the way for more court cases outlawing distorting tax rules, such as low corporation taxes, different taxation rules for foreign-owned assets, etc.

The Lisbon Treaty also defines the Internal Market as an area without distortions of competition under Protocol No.27 (on the Internal Market and Competition). This should strengthen the hand of the Court in applying the internal market rules, which are decided by qualified majority vote, to get rid of such distortions.

The Commission has proposed a harmonisation of the tax base for corporate taxation based on the article dealing with indirect taxes. This was in the Commission’s annual work programme for 2008, but has been postponed until after the second Irish Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

The Lisbon Treaty also provides for totally new taxes to be imposed by the EU to add to its ‘own resources’ by unanminity (Art.311 TFEU). Where are the new assurances here?

Section C

Security and Defence

The Union’s action on the international scene is guided by theprinciples of democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law.

The Union’s common security and defence policy is an integral part of the common foreign and security policy and provides the Union with an operational capacity to undertake missions outside the Union forpeace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. It does not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of Ireland.

The Lisbon Treaty does not affect or prejudice Ireland’s traditionalpolicy of military neutrality.

It will be for Ireland, acting in a spirit of solidarity and without prejudice to its traditional policy of military neutrality, to determine the nature of aid or assistance to be provided to a Member State which is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of armed aggression on its territory. Any decision to move to a common defence will require a unanimous decision of the European Council. It would be a matter for the Member States, including Ireland, to decide, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon and with their respective constitutional requirements, whether or not to adopt acommon defence.

COMMENT: A common defence may be established by unanimity for all, or for those participating in ‘structured cooperation’ by a sub-group of member states. Ireland decides its own position. The content is true, but again misleading since Ireland has already opted in favour of participating in the common European Defence Agency and all other military structures and activities of the EU. Denmark has a derogation from these in a Treaty Protocol and does not partake in EU defence matters even though it is a NATO country. The Treaty also provides for a ‘mutual’ defence obligation among all member states.

Nothing in this Section affects or prejudices the position or policy of any other Member State on security and defence.

It is also a matter for each Member State to decide, in accordance with the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty and any domestic legal requirements, whether to participate in permanent structured co-operation or the European Defence Agency. The Treaty of Lisbon does not provide for the creation of a European army or for conscription to any military formation.

COMMENT: The first European battle groups have already been established,. They have decided upon a joint military force of 60,000 troops. No new treaty is required to increase this number to 600,000 or 6 million EU soldiers. Where is the new assurance?

It does not affect the right of Ireland or any other Member State to determine the nature and volume of its defence and security expenditure and the nature of its defence capabilities.

It will be a matter for Ireland or any other Member State to decide, in accordance with any domestic legal requirement, whether or not to participate in any military operation.

Section D

Final Provisions

Annex 2

Solemn Declaration on Workers’ Rights and Social Policy

The European Council confirms the high importance which the Union attaches to:

• Social progress and the protection of workers’ rights;

COMMENT: Yet the 2007 Laval case has already permitted foreign workers to be employed for much lower salaries than the normal rates in Ireland. The Trade Unions in the European TUC proposed that a social protocol be added to the Lisbon Treaty to set this judgement aside. This protocol was fairly weak in its provisions, but even this was not accepted.

• Public services, as an indispensable instrument of social and regional cohesion;
• The responsibility of Member States for the delivery of education and health services;

COMMENT: Yes, they may still be responsible. But the Court has already made rulings on requiring free competition for important areas of education and health. A patients’ directive currently being prepared will bring more detailed EU rules. Where are the new assurances?

• The essential role and wide discretion of national, regional and local authorities in providing, commissioning and organising services of general economic interest.

In doing so, it underlines the importance of respecting the overall framework and provisions of the EU Treaties.

It recalls that the Treaties as modified by the Treaty of Lisbon:

• Aim at establishing an internal market and working for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment;

• Will give expression to the Union’s values and, through Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, recognise the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

• Aim to combat social exclusion and discrimination, and to promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child;

• Oblige the Union, when defining and implementing its policies and activities, to take into account requirements linked to the promotion of a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection, the fight against social exclusion, and a high level of education, training and protection of human health;

• Include, as a shared value of the Union, the essential role and the wide discretion of national, regional and local authorities in providing, commissioning and organising services of general economic interest as closely as possible to the needs of the users;

• Do not affect in any way the competence of Member States to provide, commission and organise non-economic service of general interest;

COMMENT: This is the case as long as all treaty princples relating to free competition, non-discrimination, etc. are respected. In reality there is not a single non-economic service which cannot be affected by judgements of the Court.

• Provide that the Council, when acting in the area of common commercial policy, must act unanimously when negotiating and concluding international agreements in the field of trade in social, education and health services, where those agreements risk seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of Member States to deliver them; and

COMMENT: But who decides what is ‘seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services’? It is the EU Commission, not Ireland. Again no new assurance. The phrases above hide the fact that new trade agreements will be adopted by majority votes as a general rule. Even the weak derogations mentioned can easily be changed from unanimity to qualified majority by the governments.

• Provide that the Union recognises and promotes the role of the social partners at the level of the European Union, and facilitates dialogue between them, taking account of the diversity of national systems and respecting the autonomy of social partners.

---

IRISH DECLARATION ( text only partly available)

It reiterates that the participation of contingents of the Irish Defence Forces in overseas operations, including those carried out under the European common security and defence policy requires (a) the authorisation of the operation by the Security Council of the General Assembly of the United Nations, (b) the agreement of the Irish Government, and (c) the approval of Dáil Éireann, in accordance with Irish law.

COMMENT: The Lisbon Treaty allows the EU to participate in wars without the authorization of the UN. Ireland decides for itself whether it will participate in such wars with Irish soldiers. This is true but again it gives no new assurance.

Ireland notes that nothing obliges it to participate in permanent structured co-operation as provided for in the Treaty on European Union. Any decision enabling Ireland to participate will require the approval of Dáil Éireann in accordance with Irish law.

Ireland notes also that nothing obliges it to participate in the European Defence Agency, or in specific projects or programmes initiated under its auspices. Any decision to participate in such projects or programmes will be subject to national decision-making and the approval of Dáil Éireann in accordance with Irish law. Ireland declares that it will participate only in those projects and programmes that contribute to enhancing the capabilities required for participation in UN-mandated missions for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security, in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter.

COMMENT: But Ireland is already a member of the European Defence Agency. Here there may be something new. How will Ireland both at the same time participate in, and remain apart from, some of its activities?

The situation set out in this Declaration would be unaffected by the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. In the event of Ireland’s ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon, this Declaration will be associated with Ireland’s instrument of ratification.

COMMENT: This is of no legal significance. It simply means new wrapping paper around the same Lisbon Treaty and the same legal obligaitons. Nothing in the Lisbon Treaty will changed.

---

GENERAL COMMENTS

- The vast majority of European laws will still be decided by civil servants behind closed doors under the Commission and Council instead of being adopted by elected representatives of the peoples.

- The non-elected Commission will still retain its monopoly of proposing all European laws instead of these being decided by elected representatives in nastional parliaments or directly by the voters.

- EU meetings and documents will generally remain private instead of being governed by new rules requiring all meetings and documents to be open and transparent, unless special exception are approved by elected representatives.

- Ireland and the other member states will lose their right to propose and decide their own Commissioner under Lisbon. Instead the Irish Commission and other national commissioners wil be decided by the new Commission President, in whose appointment the big states will have a decisive say.

- Ireland will halve its voting strength in the Council of Ministers under Lisbon while Germany will double its voting strength, and France, Britain and Italy will increase theirs by 50% each.

- When Ireland joined the European Community in 1973, Germany, France, Italy and the UK had 3.3 times more votes than Ireland. Now Germany will have 20 times more votes than Ireland and Britain and France and Italy 15 times.

- The Irish ‘assurances’ do not explain how having half as much influence in the EU than Ireland has today would help fight unemployment and resolve its economic crisis in the interests of Irish companies farmers and workers.

---

For further sources and information on the above comments, see the euabc.com under the headings workers’ rights, taxation, abortion, Lisbon Treaty etc.

Former MEP and chairperson of the People’s Movement, Patricia McKenna, has accused the government of engaging in a cynical exercise of political manipulation. Speaking on behalf of the People’s Movement, which successfully campaigned against ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in last year’s referendum, McKenna said “these so-called ‘legal guarantees’ on the Lisbon Treaty are nothing more than an exercise in creative manipulation designed to mislead the public.” This fact was even recognised by the minister for foreign affairs, Micheál Martin, who after EU foreign ministers met in Luxembourg yesterday said: “The impetus from other member states is to be helpful, creative and try to resolve these issues … We are quietly confident and hopeful.”

Spanish EU Minister: It is necessary to prevent the growth of “eurosceptic contamination”

El Mundo reports that Spain has called on conservatives and socialists in the European Parliament to form a large coalition. Spanish EU Minister Diego López Garrido said “more than ever a large coalition is necessary”, to prevent the growth of “eurosceptic contamination”. He indicated that this would be a priority for the Spanish Presidency of the EU, as well as implementing the Lisbon Treaty, assuming the Irish vote ‘Yes’ in the second referendum, as polls indicate. Garrido said Lisbon is an “urgent” matter to counteract the “erosion” the EU has suffered since the failure of the European Constitution.

And now enjoy:

Dear Friends,

We are the Peace and Neutrality Alliance in Ireland (PANA). We believe we have similar aims. We are holding a conference at Shannon Airport in Ireland. Shannon has significance since it is widely believed to have been used for rendition flights.

It would be fantastic if you could support our conference in any way, especially if you could attend. Please look at our website and email us (pana@eircom.net) for further information.

Peace Conference on War NATO and the Lisbon Treaty
Park Inn, Shannon
Saturday 5th of September 2009

for more information contact Roger Cole Tel: 00 353 87-2611597

Press release from The People’s Movement against the EU, Denmark

EU-opposition strengthened

The cross party opposition to the EU, The People’s Movement against the EU, was strengthened at the European parliamentary election and regained its seat with 7,2% of the votes.

The People’s Movement continues its work in the European Parliament from a strengthened position. This became clear when all votes had been counted after the election on June 7th. The voter turnout was 59,5% (more than 4 million votes).This means that about 170.000 people voted for The People’s Movement. The 7,2% is an impressive increase compared with the 2004 election where The People’s Movement received 5,2% of the votes.

• We are pleased with this result that gives our campaign against the Euro a much stronger starting point, when Prime minister Løkke Rasmussen calls for a new referendum - as he promised the European Commission to do, says re-elected MEP for The People’s Movement Søren Søndergaard.

• In spite of our joy at this good result, we regret that our EU-sceptical electoral alliance with the June Movement did not succeed in keeping a second seat.

Declan Ganley, the leader of Libertas who has led a campaign against the Lisbon treaty, has bowed out of politics having failed to win a seat in the European Parliament in Ireland. He said he would not campaign against the treaty in a second referendum later this year and that “the future of Libertas is a matter for others”.

Libertas, which fielded more than 600 candidates in 14 member states, had an abysmal election with only one candidate officially elected – Philippe de Villiers, a French MEP.

source

From June Movement there came an announcement: “In 2009 the movement lost its representation in the European Parliament and is planning to disband.”

source

TEAM members from Denmark can only add that “the People’s Movement obtained a good result, so the democratic cross-political EU-opposition in Denmark is alive and all right!”*

Skøl, Søren! Skøl, Denmark!

After another resounding NO from the abstinent voters from all EU member states against the EU politics in general its PR minister continues with the plan.

Ireland is supposed to say yes in second attempt. Here are some of the preparations:

Den tværpolitiske EU-modstand - Folkebevægelsen mod EU - gik frem og genvandt mandatet med 7,2 pct. af stemmerne. Omkring 170.000 danskere satte kryds ved liste N

In short Søren Søndergaard from Danish People’s Movement against EU is now freshly re-elected MEP with People’s Movement gaining 7,2% votes while in 2004 they got 5,2% votes.

Things can only get better.

European Parliament, Strasbourg - 6th of May 2009.

It is the last plenary session before the European elections, 4-7 June 2009, and UKIP leader Nigel Farage MEP gives another lesson in Democracy. The parliament’s president, Hans-Gert Pöttering reacts by pointing out that the fact Mr Farage “can give such a speech shows that this is a free and democratic European Parliament.”

Apparently voters listened this time. Things can only get better.

The EU bureaucrats face a tough five years as whistleblower Marta Andreasen returns to Brussels with a mandate from Britain to sort them out.

The former chief accountant of the EU, Ms Andreasen won a seat from South East region alongside UKIP Leader Nigel Farage.

The pair came second to the Tories in the country’s most populous region and Labour came an abysmal fifth, behind the Lib Dems and Green Party.

Manipulation starts at the beginning - these are not “European” elections but elections for the “EU Parliament”. However - here are the results.

Turnout has been lowest ever: 43,24%

25 MEPs from 7 countries make a political group in EP (i.e. finances).