The day when the Lisbon-Treaty enters into force:

A black day for Democracy in Europe

Statement by TEAM – The European Alliance of EU-critical Movements
(TEAM is an umbrella organization for 49 organizations from 18 European countries)

The undemocratic Treaty
On December 1st 2009 the Lisbon Treaty enters into force.
With the Lisbon Treaty the EU gets a President and a Minister of foreign Affairs (Articles 15 and 18).
In more than 50 areas powers are transferred from the member states to Brussels, and the Treaty states directly that EU-laws have precedence over national laws (Declaration 17).
The member states bind themselves to increase their military capacity permanently (Article 42,3), and the EU is recognized as a Legal Personality (Article 47).
On these and countless other areas the Lisbon Treaty is a huge step towards the United States of Europe, and undermines national sovereignty and the democratically elected national Parliaments of the individual member states.
The Alternative to this development is an extensive, open and democratic cooperation between sovereign states - in Europe and globally.

The undemocratic procedure
The procedure by which the Lisbon Treaty was finally carried through is as undemocratic as its content: The Lisbon Treaty is almost identical with the EU-Constitution that was rejected by the French and Dutch voters in 2005 – a fact emphasized by the former French President Giscard D´Estaing, the main architect behind the EU-Constitution. Ignoring the democratic decision of the French and Dutch voters, the renamed Constitution was signed by the EU-leaders in 2007, and then again rejected, now by the Irish voters, the Irish being the only people who were allowed a referendum this time. With yet another display of their arrogant contempt for Democracy, the EU-leaders forced the Irish to vote again, and only after a scare-mongering of unheard-of dimensions succeeded in obtaining a yes-majority. But the fact remains that the Lisbon Treaty has no democratic legitimacy whatsoever.

The undemocratic development
EU calls itself a “peace-project”; a postulate contradicted by the manifest demand for militarization in the Lisbon Treaty. EEC, the forerunner of the EU, was created in 1957 as a product and a part of the Cold War. In this situation it was accepted by the founding member countries that parts of their democratic rights were transferred to an unelected “High Authority”, outside democratic control. After the end of the Cold War in 1989 the EEC had the possibility to change this undemocratic structure and contribute to the establishment of a broad Europe-wide cooperation between sovereign states. But instead EEC went in the totally opposite direction: With the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 centralization took a huge leap forward and the EEC changed into the European Union. No wonder therefore that the Maastricht Treaty was rejected by the Danish voters.
Since then each new EU treaty has continued the development towards an ever more undemocratic and centralized Union – and the popular opposition has grown accordingly. EU has to use more and more undemocratic methods in order to continue its march towards a centralized and militarized United States of Europe. How long can this continue? What forms will the disregard for elementary democratic principles take next time?

TEAM works for Democracy
In this situation the debate about democratic alternatives to the present-day EU is more necessary than ever. TEAM is a network of democratic organizations from 18 European countries. With information, cooperation among our popular organizations and with visions, TEAM will further this vital debate. And expose the shortcomings of the EU. We shall continue to fight for the survival of democracy in Europe in spite of the set-back that it suffers on December 1st 2009.

For further information please contact:
TEAM Coordinator Mrs. Luise Hemmer Pihl, skrodhoj@mail.dk or
TEAM Secretary General Mr. Blaž Babič, blaz.babic@amis.net

DEMOCRACY MOVEMENT PRESS RELEASE

OCTOBER 22 2009

WHO ARE THE REAL AUTHORITARIANS TODAY IN EUROPE, MR MILIBAND?

Foreign Secretary and opponents of a Lisbon Referendum accused of being the new, real authoritarians in British and European politics. As the imposition of ‘President Blair’ becomes ever more likely, David Miliband is challenged to debate in public ‘anti-democratic politics in the EU today’.

David Miliband, the foreign secretary, has launched a typically New Labour, McCarthyite attack on the Conservative party for teaming up with some east European political parties in the European parliament who are alleged to hold anti-semitic, homophobic and ‘neo-Nazi’ views. However, since the European Parliament is clearly not where significant power lies in Brussels, the decision of the Tories to team up with East European centre-right parties is of little legislative consequence, regardless of whether or not the claims made against their new allies have been spun in some typically New Labour way by the foreign secretary.

New Labour, throughout its Peter Mandelson-orchestrated history, has frequently employed a McCarthyite ‘xenophobes under the bed’ tactic against political opponents - whether of the traditional left or right - in order to distract attention from the actual substance of the inconvenient political position or claim being advanced. The foreign secretary in making the attacks he has is merely continuing a long, disreputable tradition, characterised in relation to the European issue principally by former Europe minister Denis MacShane. David Miliband’s intention now is to draw attention away from his government’s anti-democratic breaking of its promise at the 2005 general election to let the British people vote on the Lisbon treaty (the cynically re-named European Constitution rejected by a large majority of French and Dutch voters in 2005). Nor does he want us to focus on the fundamentally undemocratic nature of the system of EU governance that citizens from all the member countries are being increasingly placed under the control of without their consent.

Since Mr Miliband has attempted to create this McCarthyite smokescreen, he should perhaps reflect that, as Dr Laughland’s book The Tainted Source: The undemocratic origins of the European idea (Little Brown & Company, 2000) demonstrates, the original project of creating a Pan-European political system was actually enthusiastically supported by fascist movements. The National Alliance in Italy, the successors to Mussolini’s party and partners in the Berlusconi coalition government, are firm supporters of greater European political union today. The British fascist leader, Oswald Mosley, campaigned post-war on the slogan of ‘Europe a nation’. The original plans for a single currency were drawn up by the Nazis. Former French presidents and drivers for European centralisation, Francois Mitterand, Giscard d’Estaing and Jacques Delors were all active for the Vichy government in various capacities. Mitterand even received the Francisc medal from Marshall Petain for his service to the fascist regime. Robert Schuman, one of the EU’s founding fathers, voted as a member of the French national assembly to give Petain dictatorial power, and then went on to serve as a Vichy minister. Paul-Henri Spaak, whose Spaak report laid the foundations for the creation of the European community, had been a member of the Belgium Nazi party. Fascists were attracted to the idea of a politically unified and regulated continent with a non-elected elite at its heart.

The Democracy Movement believes that the peoples of Europe today are confronted by a new and dangerous post-democratic elitism - Euro-Authoritarianism - of which New Labour and David Miliband are classic manifestations. Euro-Authoritarianism is self-evidently more subtle than Twentieth Century fascism, and it is not motivated by anti-semitism and racism. The Euro-Authoritarians do not seek to end multi-party elections, but rather to greatly restrict the parameters within which electorates can make meaningful collective choices by transferring ever more law-powers to appointed, non-accountable institutions in Brussels. The new Euro-Authoritarians are driven by a post-modernist, Third Way ideology. This represents a direct threat to the liberal, anti-colonialist legacy of the European Enlightenment and the idea that sovereignty should reside with national communities of people rather than unaccountable elites.

Mr Miliband and his associates in New Labour today are working to create a political system based in Brussels that does not accord with the rule of law and can by-pass parliamentary and public accountability. The Euro-Authoritarians fear the concept of popular democracy, hence their hysterical denunciations of the idea that voters should be allowed to directly determine important issues.

The New Euro-Authoritarians support…

1. …preventing the peoples of the EU member states having a direct democratic say regarding whether or not new law-making powers should be centralised in Brussels. When the French and Dutch voters overwhelmingly rejected the Lisbon treaty (then named the European Constitution) their wishes were ignored. When the Irish rejected both the Nice and Lisbon treaties they were forced to vote again within a year in rigged referenda so that these treaties could be forced through.

2. …the centralisation of more law-making powers in Brussels. Once directives are passed, no national elected government or parliament can opt to reject or reverse them as the unelected Commission retains the monopoly right to initiate new legislation. Because of the volume of laws emanating from Brussels, most of the measures are passed in Britain through the use of statutory instruments. MPs do not even get the chance to debate them, let alone vote to block them.

3. …the introduction of a raft of measures designed to increase state surveillance and control. Lisbon will lead to the creation of the Committee on Internal Security (COSI) which will share DNA, fingerprint, CCTV footage and internet surveillance material between security organisations. In May, the EU Data Retention Directive was passed. This enables state agencies to find out what all citizens - not just those suspected of committing criminal offences - have been downloading and who they have been contacting electronically. The Commission is already funding Project Indect which is a mass surveillance project dedicated to identifying “abnormal behaviour” through CCTV footage and a “continuous monitoring of websites, discussion forums, usernet groups… and individual computer systems”. The EU now has an embryonic police force, Europol, whose officers, like senior EU officials, enjoy, revealingly, immunity from prosecution in member states (Statutory Instrument 1997 No.2973). This body will gain powers of “implementation”of operational powers within the member states as a consequence of Lisbon. EU citizens can now under the European Arrest Warrant be deported automatically to another member country without any hard evidence having been provided by prosecuting authorities. The Commission has been for many years financing various projects designed to result in the introduction of ID cards, though their formal implementation is still a matter of national law.

4. …the current undemocratic structure of the EU. In addition to the unelected Commission’s monopoly right to introduce new legislation, the Council of Ministers meets in secret and votes are not recorded. In reality, the vast majority of its decisions are taken by civil servants representing the ministers from the member states in COREPER. European voters cannot hold these bodies collectively responsible through the ballot box. The executive and the key legislative body, therefore, are beyond democratic account. It is illegal under article 108 of the current treaty for elected representatives from the member states to in any way try to influence the deliberations of the European Central Bank. Under Lisbon, the political leaders, meeting behind closed doors in the European Council, will be able to appoint a full-time president and foreign minister to represent the Union on the World stage.

5. … an elitist, corporatist system of politics. The mindset of the EU political class is to concentrate power in the hands of elite bodies representing big business and the major trades unions. Hence, the Committee of the Social Partners which affords elite access to the European Round Table of Industrialists. The EU model of corporatist politics cuts out ordinary voters and gives a massive advantage to lobbyists from big financial interests, as was seen in the decision to outlaw 300 alternative health treatments following extensive lobbying by Pfizer, Boots and other big companies. Democracy Movement director Stuart Coster has written to the foreign secretary to challenge him to publicly debate the question of ‘anti-democratic politics in the EU today’ in the wake of Mr Miliband’s accusations that William Hague and the Tory party have consorted with ‘neo-Nazis’. In addition to discussing this question, Stuart Coster wants to investigate to what extent Mr Miliband’s government is helping to advance a fundamentally illiberal, non-democratic politics through its adherence to the Euro-Authoritarian characteristics identified above.

Stuart Coster comments: “New Labour have shown themselves to be notoriously cowardly in terms of openly debating the EU issue, as well as virtually every other issue. They prefer, as good authoritarians, to speak only at controlled, all-ticket party events with no or only planted questions from the floor. Hopefully, Mr Miliband will take me and a lot of other people hugely by surprise and agree to debate Dr Laughland. I gather the foreign secretary claims to be an intellectual so it might just be that he will relish the opportunity to justify, in a contested environment, his European political stance and his recent comments”.

CONTACT: Stuart Coster 020 7603 7796 mail@democracymovement.org.uk

Hands off from the Czech President
German human rights activist condemns diplomatical and pseudo-journalist excesses
(Presseerklärung vom 15.10.2008)

On October, the 11th of 2009, the British Sunday Times has exposed, that the German and French diplomats have intervened towards the Czech government, in order to reach either the start of an impeachment procedure against the Czech President Vaclav Klaus, or a change of Czech Constitution in order to to take away his veto right against laws consenting to international treaties like the Lisbon Treaty.

According to the Sunday Times, however, under the Czech constitution a president can be impeached only if he commits high treason against the country’s independence or its territorial integrity and democratic order.

Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing, a German human rights activist, who had filed a de-facto in large parts successful constitutional complaint (file number 2 BvR 1958/08), against the German law consenting to the Lisbon Treaty, comments:

“The Czech President is doing exactly the opposite of what would allow an impeachment procedure. With the refusal to ratify the Lisbon Treaty, he preserves the independence of Czechya, because art. 2 of prot. 26 on services of general interest would oblige Czechya, to commission nearly all sovereign tasks to private corporations. With the Lisbon Treaty, europe-wide acting private corporations would subjugate the administration, most of the courts, the drafting of laws, and with erosion mechanism of art. 18 TFEU, even the national security (military, secret service, production of passports and banknotes) and law and order (police, jails). With this fast erosion mechanism, the organs especially of the small and medium-sized member states would be degraded to a façade. They would loose the control over the state, most of which would be run be private firms with private profit and power interests. Like the German company Arvato, which is already running the district administration at East Riding (Yorkshire, Great Britain), and which is interested to run much more municipal administrations all over Europe - possibly also at Prague. Behind Arvato stands the media giant Bertelsmann, which can strongly influence the public opinion. And the Bertelsmann Foundation is counselling countless politicians in Germany and Europe. Strangely enough, the above-mentioned diplomats are lobbying for their own privatization, possibly without knowing this.

The functional privatization of all EU member states, which the Lisbon Treaty would prescribe, would a change of the type of state toward the ‘Gewährleistungsstaat’ (guaranteeing state) - a mass experiment, the consent to which could only be achieved by giving massively incomplete information to the parliamentarians - a case of error or fraud (art. 48 resp. art. 49 Vienna Treaty Law Convention). Most of the theory the ‘Gewährleistungsstaat’ comes from German jurists and has found support, i. a., by the EU Commission, and by interested corporations.”

On the 10.10.2009, an even worse incident has happened at Prague. Mrs. Christina Janssen, a journalist, who is working at the Prague studio of the public German radio ARD, has published a comment on the Czech President.

In her comment, she has explicitly warned, that he should not lean too far through the window, because he might fall. She has mentioned three historical defenestrations in the history of Czechya, one of which had caused the Thirty Years’ War. She has warned: “Was die Tschechen daraus lernen könnten, wäre vielleicht, die Fenster lieber geschlossen zu halten.” (“What the Czechs possibly could learn from it, might be to keep the windows closed.”)

Her comment ends with the words: “Die Fenster stehen offen - und Klaus lehnt sich weit hinaus. Aber es müsste ja nicht gleich wieder ein Fenstersturz werden: Er könnte einfach zurücktreten.” (“The windows are open - and Klaus leans out far. But it does not have to become another defenestration: He could simply resign.”)

A clear threat, that the President of Czech Republic might be defenestrated - illustrated in violent fantasies of a German journalist.

The civic and human rights activist Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing comments:

“Mrs. Janssen acts in this way, because President Vaclav Klaus refuses to ratify the Lisbon Treaty. She uses many expressions, which might be regarded as a disparagement of the Czech President. If someone in Germany disparages the German President, the result can be a jail sentence between three months and five years (§90 of the German criminal code), if the German the German President agrees to the criminal prosecution. She has called the Czech President a ‘populist’, a ‘nationalist’, and an ‘egomaniac’. She regards him as “angezählt” (as having been given the count). She supposes, that the Czech President is leading a war in his mind against the EU and the EU Reform Treaty. She states, that Czechya is regarded as the ‘Tollhaus Europas’ (madhouse of Europe), just because the President refuses to sign the Lisbon Treaty.

The text of Mrs. Janssen contains many violations of the human dignity (art. 1 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UDHR). This is especially grave, because it is directed against an elected President of a sovereign state, so that it might also touch the dignity of the Czech people, and shows a large amount of disrespect to the human right to vote (art. 25 UN Civil Pact).

Further, Mrs. Janssen’s text disregards the human right of the Czech people to self-determination (art. 1 UN Civil Pact, art. 1 UN Social Pact), because he has been elected into office, and she belongs to the German people, not to the Czech people.

The violent words in Mrs. Janssen’s text show a grave lack of consciousness with regard to the human right to safety (art. 9 par. 1 UN Civil Pact).

The freedom of speech certainly contains the right to tell one’s opinion about Presidents of other states, but it has limits, where the human rights and the reputation of other persons are at stake (ar. 19 par. 3 lit. a UN Civil Pact).

The aggressive formulations in Mrs. Janssen’s text look rather like intelligence service - like than news media - like. The ARD should, with respect to the international understanding (art. 9 par. 2 Basic Law (German constitution)), consider dismissing Mr. Janssen soon and should consider an excuse towards the President of Czechya.”

The human rights activist concludes with a further legal consideration: “I do not see a sound legal basis for the above-mentioned interventions of German diplomats and of a German journalist. Czechya is a sovereign state (art. 2 par. 1 UN Charter). The German Constitutional Court has, in the first Lisbon judgement prohibited the supra-nationalization (no. 255 + 342 of the judgement) of the common foreign and safety policy of the EU, so that the rank of the CSFP stays below the national constitutions of the member states and below the UN Charter. So also the CSFP can contain no sufficient legal basis to overrule sovereignty of a state.”

V.i.S.d.P.:
Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing
Thorner Str. 7, 42283 Wuppertal (Germany)
+49/202/2502621
human rights activist under the protection of UN resolution 53/144

Sources:
Times Online
Tagesschau

Lawyers Against Lisbon (Press Release)

We, the undersigned, have decided to vote “No” on Friday and recommend that our fellow voters do so as well.

The EU’s Constitution (for that is what the Treaties culminating in Lisbon amount to) has been developed, and continues to develop, without adequate democratic participation. Most regrettably, Lisbon was deliberately written to further preclude this. “The Economist”, whose Europhile credentials are impeccable, had the integrity to note this as drafting proceeded. The titles of the relevant articles - Hee-hee Voters Fooled Again and Journalists for a Cover-up - must make any genuine democrat’s blood run cold.

Public opinion in the EU states has not been able to arrive at an informed view on the merits of the Treaty because of the way in which it was written. Even to us, as lawyers accustomed to dealing with abstruse documents, the Treaty as signed is well-nigh unreadable.

We acknowledge some good things in the Treaty, but cannot support further extension of Union competences while the ethos of democratic exclusion continues to hold sway. The Union leadership has now developed the habit of discarding democratic methods reflexively, if they do not produce the right answer.

Indeed, we fear that the Union may already have gone further than is inherently possible while remaining politically legitimate. The choice now is either to go fully federal or to revert to a community of more or less equal states. Lisbon is an unsatisfactory mish-mash from this perspective.

These arguments and more can be read here and here.

Brendan Nix S.C.
Joe Noonan, Solicitor
Fergus O’Rourke B.L.
John McGuiggan B.L.

We need voting strength and respect - not mercy

23rd Sept 2009

say Farmers for No in their Press statement

Speaking at the Ploughing Championships, Farmers for No spokesman, David Thompson today said:

‘THE IFA arguments in favour of Lisbon are totally bogus. If we vote No, Ireland remains a full and active member of the EU, with full access to the EU market and ECB credit etc. Padraig Walsh and Minister Brendan Smith know this of course, but try to hoodwink people with this because they know there are no benefits in the Lisbon Treaty for Ireland.‘

‘At the key Council of Ministers, under Lisbon our voting strength will half. We need more than goodwill or mercy when negotiating on behalf of Ireland; we need to keep our voting strength and get respect for our position.‘

‘Because we voted NO, at the moment, Ireland is at the political centre of Europe. However, if we vote Yes, eaten bread is quickly forgotten and we become an irrelevance overnight.‘

‘Article 207 of Lisbon is clear that we lose our World Trade Organisation veto if we vote Yes. This would be a terminal mistake for Ireland and something the Irish people could never forgive the Yes advocates for.‘

‘Oh yes, the IFA sponsored poll is completely bogus, it is popcorn and propaganda. According to the Millward Brown study after Lisbon, 48 per cent of farmers voted no, in our experience of talking to farmers, the percentage will be even higher this time. Why is it higher? Because farmers notice a bad deal for agriculture and rural Ireland when they see it.’

Human rights activists condemn interference of former soldier firm
(press declaration from the 27.09.2009)

On the occasion of the eight anniversary of the assassinations of the 11.09.2001, the former safety firm al-Qaeda has, in the form of a certain Aiman al-Sawahiri, threatened Germany in case, that the Germans do not use the elections to the Bundestag for a change (“Umkehr”). At the weekend before the 21.09.2009, Bekkay Harrach, who also is regarded as belonging to the management level of al-Qaeda, put this more precise, that, if Germany did not withdraw its troops from Afghanistan, a rude awakening after the national elections would be imminent (1).

Now, at the first glance, it looks as if al-Qaeda interfered into the German election campaign for the Bundestag, in order to do an illegal kind of advertisement for parties or politicians, who demand the withdrawal of the German soldiers. This seems, however, psychologically regarded, absurd, because such threatening videos rather increase the willingness of the population to make sacrifices for military interventions in the name of the fight against the terror.

At the 25.09.2009, eventually, an audio message of a certain Osama Bin Laden has been published, who is regarded as the boss of al-Qaeda. In that message, he threatens even the whole of Europe, if the Europeans did not withdraw from Afghanistan (2).

For the investigation of the suspected motive, the time of the publishing seems to be even much more relevant than the content of the criminal and strange threatening messages. According to the point of view of German human rights activists, it looks like the mercenary network al-Qaeda wants to attract the public attention, in order to distract the attention from something else, which is happening at the same time, namely the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.

Therefore, it is important to know, that al-Qaeda is former Saudi Arabian security firm, which has, in the 1980ies, supported the integration of mercenaries into the local Mujahideens in Afghanistan (3).

For the insurgence in the 1980ies in Afghanistan, at least 13.770 private soldiers have been deployed. They’ve been rather criminals, which have been disliked in their home countries, then they became islamists (4).

al-Qaeda has, at that time, operated in that milieu as an ally at least of the American and of the Pakistani secret services (3).

Already during the Afghanistan war in the 1980ies, a part of the mercenaries have gone into the drug business. As a result, the number of drug addicted persons at Pakistan has risen from 5.000 (1980) to 70.000 (1983) and finally to about 1.3 millions (1986) (5). These enormous numbers raise the question, if the al-Qaeda network itself is, besides in the mercenary business, also involved in the drug business. The former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds has explained to the US Congress, that al-Qaeda is at 95% financed by drug money (6).

This thesis is supported by the fact, that al-Qaeda has trained and supported the UCK in Kosovo/Kosova (6), which is of immense importance for the distribution of drugs in Europe, which have been cultivated in Afghanistan (3).

al-Qaeda is a mercenary company, which has slipped into the organized crime.

The Islamic façade has, primarily, two functions. Firstly, they can recruit suicide assassins for less money this way, then if they had to motivate them with money alone. Secondly, this camouflage helps them, to veil the identities of changing clients. Security firms are fighting for nothing else than for economical profit. And, by far, not every of them adheres to law and order. Money determines for whom or against whom they fight. This is shown very clearly by the assassinations of the 11.09.2001, which give the impression, that possibly someone else has been able to pay better than the US government at that time. This seems not to have hindered the same firm al-Qaeda, to stay working in Kosovo/Kosova (3).

Already in 1994, al-Qaeda has been active in Albania and on the route (in the region, which is the main distribution centre for the selling of Afghan heroin to Europe) with a market value of 400 billion $ per year (3). A military commander of Bin Laden has fought in the Kosovo conflict on the side of the UCK, which is deeply involved into the drug traffic (3), (6).

According to a statement of John Kasich, a member of the US House of Representatives, from the 05.10.1999, Osama Bin Laden has also appeared, when the USA have built up their relations to the UCK in 1998 and 1999 (3).

Mercenary firms, western ones as well as islamist-camouflaged ones, have been under contract in the Bosnia war, in the Kosovo war, and even in 2001 in the attack of parts of the UCK against Macedonia (3).

On the 10.09.2001, the then US minister of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, has, in a speech of principles, tried to get support for partial functional privatization (“transformation”) of the US troops (8). The crime of the
11.09.2001 has led to such a fear and confusion at the USA, that there has taken place no sufficient debate with regard to his speech of principles of the 10.09.2001, before in the time following the US army has been reduced by 15%, and before even so sensitive tasks like fighting services and interrogations have been commissioned to private companies (9). Completely in the interest of al-Qaeda, because this has made the market for mercenary firms in the USA and, according to their example, much further, increase dramatically. According to the US example, Great Britain has even privatized the guarding of embassies and even a part of its fighting services in Afghanistan (10).

If now an assassination by al-Qaeda or by whomsoever took place at Europe, the demand in Europe also for private security services would be immensely increased. Just in the interest of the mercenary sector.

The “Treaty of Lisbon” (11) would be the next step for the growth of the market for soldier firms of any couleur. So there is a motive for mercenary firms like al-Qaeda, and for their suspected clients, to covertly support the “Lisbon Treaty”. Because this treaty would basically oblige the member states to commission private companies with their non-sovereign tasks (“services of general economical interest”, art. 14 TFEU) and with their sovereign tasks (“non-economical services of general interest”, art. 2 of protocol no. 26 to the “Treaty of Lisbon” on “services of general interest”).

At the first glance, it looks, as if the “Lisbon Treaty” would at least omit inner and outer security and the most fundamental structures of the state from the commissioning (art. 4 TEU). There is, however, an erosion mechanism contained on the basis of the prohibition of economical discrimination (art. 18 TFEU), by means of which one could claim at the European Court of Justice (ECJ), that any task, which has been commissioned to private companies in at least one member state, would have to be commissioned to private firms in all EU member states 12.

This way, already with the enactment of the Lisbon Treaty, an erosion mechanism would be started, that by means of law suits to the ECJ a part of the fighting services and the jails (like in Great Britain) would have to be commissioned EU-wide.

Very much in the interest of mercenary companies like al-Qaeda would be the solidarity clause (art. 222 TFEU) of the “Lisbon Treaty”, according to which the EU member states would have to deploy military in the interior for the prevention of terrorist attacks. al-Qaida could, already by threatening, cause an obligation for military interventions in the interior. And more and more of this military would have to be commissioned, because of the erosion mechanism described above, to private security firms.

A draft resolution of the Council of Europe (doc. 11787) shows the dangers of the growth of the mercenary sector world-wide (13). It depicts the danger of the violation of universal human rights, of the humanitarian international law, of civil law and criminal law, of increasing influence of private firms and political elites on governmental decisions with regard to foreign, safety, interior, and defence policy whilst violating democracy, and even of threatening the peaceful coexistence of the states. At 2008, the mercenary sector world-wide has already had about 1 million employed people in over 1.000 firms with a turnover of more than 200 billion $.

The time of the threats by al-Qaeda is of special importance. On the 17.09.2009 and on the 18.09. 2009, four new constitutional complaints against the laws accompanying the “Lisbon Treaty”, have been filed at the German Constitutional Court. Three of them (file number 2 BvR 2167/09) have had mainly the goal, to prevent the change of the type of state to the functionally privatized state mentioned above (14). On the 22.09.2009, the four constitutional complaints have not been admitted for decision by the Constitutional Court. On the 25.09.2009, the German President has ratified the Lisbon Treaty.

The atrocious threats of al-Qaeda against Germany have had the effect, that significant parts of the German population and of the German media have been distracted from the constitutional complaints, which are so uncomfortable for the mercenary sector.

The threat of the 25.09.2009 against Europe, however, seems to refer more to the Irish referendum, with the suspected motive to abuse, of all things, the need of the Irish people to more safety, in order to put through mercenary interests, which are threatening their safety.

The following questions need to be investigated urgently:

• Who are today the clients of al-Qaeda? Commissioned by whom are these criminals working today?
• From which sources does the private ”Intel-Center” (15), run by former US secret agents, have their findings on al-Qaeda?
• Which further mercenary firms, besides al-Qaeda, are involved in the drug trade?

Footnotes:

The sources referred to in the footnotes only serves the explanation of this press declaration. One cannot conclude from this, that the authors of those texts would share the conclusions of this press declaration or vice-versa.

(1) - on al-Sawahiri TAZ article of the 24.09.2009 “Terrorvideo zum Jahrestag des 11. September Al-Qaida droht Deutschen und Obama”
- on Bekkay Harrach TAZ article of the 21.09.2009 “Al-Qaida gegen Deutschland neues Terrorvideo aufgetaucht” and TAZ article from the 22.09.2009 “Ein gefährlicher Mann”

(2) - on Osama Bin Laden TAZ article of the 26./27.09.2009 “Al-Qaida-Botschaft II Bin Laden droht Europäern”

(3) “Der inszenierte Terrorismus – die CIA und Al Quaida” (von Michel Chossudovsky)

(4) Dr. Andreas von Bülow, Im Namen des Staates , Piper publishing house, p. 418

(5) Dr. Andreas von Bülow, Im Namen des Staates, , Piper publishing house, p. 210-211

(6) “Amerikanische Tiefenereignisse und das weltweite Drogennetzwerk der CIA” (von Peter Dale Scott)

(7) documenary of arte “Kolumbien - Privatarmeen des Staates”
(Part 1)
(Part 2)
(Part 3)

(8) DOD Acquisition and Logistics Excellence Week Kickoff—Bureaucracy to Battlefield

(9) “The Shock Doctrine. The Rise of Disaster Capitalism”, Naomi Klein, Metropolitan Books (New York) and Knopf Canada (Toronto)

(10)
”Die Privatisierung des Krieges - Armee der Söldner”
Privatisierung des Krieges 1/2
Privatisierung des Krieges 2/2
Söldner im Irak - Die private Armee

(11)
“readable” version of the “Lisbon Treaty”

(12)
on the erosion mechanism, which is postulated already today by the EU Commission from sovereign to non-sovereign, see message from the 20.11.2007 (file number KOM (2007) 725)

(13) Private military and security firms and the erosion of the state monopoly on the use of force

(14) New constitutional complaint = Neu Verfassungsbeschwerde

(15) “Die Medien und ihre Fährtenleser des Terrors” (Ekkehard Sieker)

V.i.S.d.P. (authors of this press declaration):

Volker Reusing + Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing
Thorner Str. 7, 42283 Wuppertal (Germany)
human rights activists according to UN resolution 53/144

Constitutional Court ignores anti-constitutional change of the type of state towards the “guaranteeing state” for the second time and publishes incorrect information; situation of peaceful resistance (art. 20 par. 4 Basic Law) enacted?

press declaration from 24.09.2009

On the 22.09.2009, the Constitutional Court of Germany has not admitted for decision four constitutional complaints, each of which have contained applications for interim injunction. One constitutional complaint has been filed at the 17.09.2009 by Prof. Dr. Kerber (file number 2 BvR 2136/09) and three at the 18.09.2009 by the internationally well-known citizens and human rights activist Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing (file number 2 BvR 2167/ 09). You find her complaints here.

The Constitutional Court has published misleading press statement in which it gives the impression, as if at the 22.09.2009 only one constitutional complaint had not been admitted for decision!

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

Tel.: 00-353-1-8305792
Web-site: nationalplatform.org

Sunday 23 August 2009

Brussels Commission involves itself in Irish Lisbon referendum re-run:

Below for your information is the rebuff delivered yesterday by the European Commission on its Dublin web-site to the recently launched “Farmers for a No Vote” group in Ireland.

Whatever about the statements by the new farmers’ group which the Commission criticises, the issue here is that the Brussels Commission is behaving as a political party and engaging directly in the Irish referendum campaign!

The Commission is using EU taxpayers’ money, partly financed by Irish taxpayers, through the medium of its web-site to help support the Yes campaign in Ireland.

The excerpts from its web-site given below are clear proof of this.

The Commission is acting quite “ultra vires” here. It has absolutely no legal function in relation to the ratification of new European Treaties. It only acquires functions in relation to these Treaties once they have been ratified and become part of European law. That is not - or at least not yet - the position with the Lisbon Treaty.

At the same time, the Commission is a highly self-interested party in relation to Lisbon. If ratified, Lisbon would give the Commission major new powers, including the monopoly of proposing EU laws in the 30 or so new policy areas that the Treaty would transfer from the EU Member States to the supranational EU institutions.

A civil service is not supposed to engage in political activity. This is a direct confrontation by the Commission with the Irish Farmers for a No Vote, a campaigning body in Ireland’s referendum re-run.

The Commission’s use of its web-site in this fashion is an interference with Ireland’s referendum process and the right of Ireland to ratify or not ratify Lisbon “in accordance with its own constitutional requirements ” and without interference from outside bodies such as this.

Mr Martin Territt and his fellow officers in the Commission Office in Molesworth Street, Dublin, should be restrained from this abuse by their superiors in Brussels.

The Commission as guardian of the existing Treaties, but not yet the guardian of the Lisbon Treaty - for it has not been ratified - has a legal duty under European law to respect the ratification rules set down by Irish electoral law and the Irish Supreme Court. It has the duty also to abide by EU law relating to the ratification of Treaties.

The Commission’s 1.5 million “information campaign” in Ireland:

Apart from this latest direct involvement in an Irish referendum controversy, the Commission is currently spending some ¤1.5 million euros on a campaign of information in Ireland, ostensibly aimed at giving Irish people more information on the EU, but in fact seeking to influence their vote in the Lisbon referendum re-run on Friday 2 October.

It is doing this by means of massive bill-board advertising all across Ireland, cinema advertising that is directed especially at Irish women and young voters, the holding of meetings and seminars and the use of web-sites. This “information campaign”, which is currently in full swing, is to go on into 2010, but its launch in Ireland in recent weeks is clearly geared to influencing the outcome of the Lisbon referendum in six weeks time.

Never before has the European Commission interfered so blatantly in an Irish referendum in an attempt to influence the result, and it looks as if this interference is only just beginning.

Legal mistakes by the Commission:

As regards points on the Commission’s web-site below in response to the Farmers for a No Vote statement, the Commission is factually incorrect in what it says or implies about how Ireland’s voting weight in making EU laws would be affected by the Lisbon Treaty.

The Commission, like Irish Foreign Minister Micheal Martin writing in last Wednesday’s Irish Independent, seems to be under the mistaken impression that a “double majority” of number of Member States + a qualified majority of votes does not exist already for making EC/EU laws, when of course it does.

The statement that a double majority of Member States + Population size is new aims to disguise the big diminution of Ireland’s voting weight in making EU laws which would occur with the Lisbon Treaty. For Lisbon would put EU law-making on a primarily population-size basis, just as in any unitary or federal State.

This would have the effect of greatly advantaging the four Big Member States at the expense of smaller EU States such as Ireland.

The Commission is also incorrect in suggesting that human rights matters such as inheritance rights would or could not be affected in a post-Lisbon European Union.

Once 500 million Europeans are made into real rather than just symbolical citizens of the constitutionally new European Union which Lisbon would establish, with their rights as set out in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights being made legally binding for EU citizens, ALL human rights issues would in principle come within the purview of the EU Court of Justice in the years and decades to come - for EU citizens.

If Lisbon is ratified, it is therefore perfectly conceivable that in some future court case on human rights issues the ECJ would be asked to lay down what are EU citizens’ rights to inheritance, on the basis that such rights should be uniform for the 500 million EU citizens across the Union.

In these circumstances any lawyer worth his salt will be able to contend that, for example, the right to equality for EU citizens should be reflected in uniform fashion in inheritance and property laws across the post-Lisbon EU.

And if the EU Court of Justice should agree in some future court case, this could well impinge radically on different national laws and practice in this area.

The point is that the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty would give the 27 judges of the EU Court of Justice the power to decide such sensitive matters for the first time, as a consequence of the establishment of a real EU citizenship, entailing EU citizens’ rights and duties vis-a-vis the constitutionally new post-Lisbon Union.

(Signed)

Anthony Coughlan
Director

Statement by the European Commission on Ireland’s “Farmers for a No Vote”, issued on 21 August 2009

The statements of the Irish farm lobby group (Farmers for No) on the Lisbon Treaty and on EU policies, quoted in today’s press, are factually incorrect and misleading. They represent a totally distorted picture of the reality.

The European Commission wishes to make the following points.
* Claims that succession rights will be affected by EU proposals
There is no threat from the EU to farm succession rights. This is a matter that will continue to be governed by national rules and traditions. The issue of succession rights are not a European competence.
* Continued need for unanimous approval by EU Member States
The Lisbon Treaty brings no change. Trade agreements such as the Doha round of world trade talks will still need unanimous approval by EU Member States.
* Ireland’s voting weight in the Council remains as strong as ever
This claim about a decrease in voting strength is untrue and shows a misunderstanding of the changes of the voting procedure in the Council of ministers under Lisbon. The new ‘double voting’ system is more logical and places countries like Ireland on a fairer footing with the larger Member States. It does not reduce Irish influence, but it makes qualified majority voting more transparent, as it is based on two clear elements: a 65% majority of the EU’s population and a 55% majority of EU Member states. The second part of the new voting mechanism is one country, one vote, and giving Ireland one vote out of 27.
* On Turkish membership of the European Union
The Lisbon Treaty does not promote Turkey’s application for EU membership in any way. The accession of any new country to the EU will continue to be subject to the approval by all Member State of the European Union, as it is the case today.
* On the drive to reduce bureaucracy with respect to farming
Thanks to recent reforms, the Common Agricultural Policy has become simpler and this is continuing. The goal to reduce the administrative burden in agriculture by 25% by 2012 is in on course.

As ever the press office of the European Commission Representation in Ireland is glad to provide information on any of these points.

Here’s press statement by the THE CHURCH OF IRELAND GAZETTE from the previous article in full:

THE CHURCH OF IRELAND GAZETTE
3 Wallace Avenue, Lisburn BT27 4AA
www.gazette.ireland.anglican.org

Sunday 23 AUGUST 2009

Press Release

NO EMBARGO

The following is a statement by the Church of Ireland Gazette editor, Canon Ian Ellis, on the Lisbon Treaty referendum debate.

I hope that there will be a ‘clean’ debate on the Lisbon Treaty in the run-up to the 2nd October referendum. Both sides must avoid character attacks and unjustified accusations of lying. If either side makes an incorrect statement, that is not necessarily a lie. Lies are deliberate and deceptive statements made in the full knowledge that they are wrong.

The Churches have a role in this debate in terms of encouraging people to participate, to engage in ‘fair play’ and, on 2nd October, to exercise their democratic right to vote. There are serious arguments on both sides of the Lisbon discussion and everyone has the right to be heard and respected. However, the Churches themselves, as institutions, should remain neutral. The fact that the people are being asked to vote again on the treaty indicates the seriousness of the situation. On the other hand, it is not fair to suggest that the Lisbon vote is about being at the heart of Europe or about being good Europeans. That kind of moral blackmail is not ‘fair play’. The referendum is only about the Lisbon Treaty and its provisions for the EU. Is this how the EU should be? That is the question for voters and they should feel entirely free to express their wishes.

I was surprised that the European Commission entered the Irish debate on Saturday, commenting on the Farmers For No group’s understanding of the treaty. Challenges made to whatever groups in the referendum run-up should be made by the Irish parties involved and should not eminate from the European institutions. Inevitably, there will be differences over the interpretation of the treaty, but it is not for the EU itself, or any of its institutions, to enter into what must now be an Irish discussion. Because the debate is about the nature of the EU, the EU must ‘leave the room’. [ENDS]

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
Canon Ian Ellis, Editor
Tel. from NI: 07930-256564
Tel. from Republic of Ireland 0044-7930-256564
Email: cofigaz.editor@btinternet.com

The Church of Ireland Gazette is editorially independent.

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

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.

PRESS RELEASE (03.06.2009)

„Treaty of Lisbon“ - constitutional complaint of prominent human rights activist (file numer 2 BvR 1958/08) including application to check grounds of suspected bias, simply having been left behind - ignoring of valid complaint would obviously violate the law

On 24.09.2008, a constitutional complaint (file number 2 BvR 1958/08) against the law consenting to the “Treaty of Lisbon” (file number 16/8300) has been filed by the internationally well-known human rights activist Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing. This constitutional complaint fulfils exemplary all formal preconditions.

It is explaining in details every basic right and every structure principle of the Basic Law (German constitution) and for every single human right of the United Nations, whose alienation is reprimanded, how this would happen by means of the degradation of the respective rights and by the inclusion of contents into the TEC and the TEU, which are incompatible with these rights.

The right of the trade unions to take strike/blockade actions against a foreign company, which occasionally have workers posted in Sweden should be constrained. This is one of the proposals in the Laval inquiry set up by the Swedish government. Last year in December the European Court of Justice in a judgment concluded that the Swedish Construction and Electrician trade unions were wrong, when they by a blockade in the town of Vaxholm in 2004 would enforce the Latvian construction company Laval to sign a Swedish collective agreement.

The government investigator, Cleas Stråht, also the director of the Labour Arbitration Institute, presented 12 December his proposal of legislation changes, which need to be addressed after the Laval judgement. The government had asked for a solution which fully respects the EU legislation, but at the same time would imply that the Swedish labour market model should be possible to apply on posted workers, who work occasionally in Sweden.

The Stråth proposal means that the trade unions chances to take strike/blockade actions against a foreign company posted in Sweden will be heavily constrained. The unions are only allowed to claim minimum wage and minimum conditions from foreign companies, and no other benefits negotiated in Swedish collective agreements. If the posted workers have any form of agreement from the country of origin, which are comparable with the conditions in Sweden, then a Swedish trade union has no right to enforce the foreign company to sign a Swedish collective agreement by using strike actions.

“The constraint of the right to take industrial actions is when the employees have provisions which are as good or better than the provisions which are approved in the country of origin”, says Claes Stråth.

Press Statement by
People’s Movement - Gluaiseacht an Phobail
post@people.ie
www.people.ie

11/12/2008

Today’s announcement following the European Council meeting has confirmed to the Irish public that since the Lisbon referendum last summer the Irish Government has been conspiring in secret with the EU Commission and Europe’s political elite to subvert the sovereign democratic will of the Irish people rather than represent it. The subversion of the democratic will of the Irish people has resulted in Ireland becoming a post - democratic state and the EU entering a post-democratic era.

Press Statement by
People’s Movement - Gluaiseacht an Phobail
post@people.ie
www.people.ie

11/12/2008

Frank Keoghan, Secretary of People’s Movement – Gluaiseacht an Phobail, a group that campaigned for rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, has said that, ‘When the people of France and the Netherlands voted to reject the EU Constitution, their governments requested that ratification should stop because of the unanimity requirement for treaties to come into force. But the Irish government chose to ignore the democratic decision of the Irish people and immediately began conniving with other EU leaders in order to find a way of circumventing the referendum result’.

Speaking at a People’s Movement vigil outside the EU Commission building at Place Schumann in Brussels, where People’s Movement delivered a letter to Council President Sarkozy, he pointed out that, ‘This process has culminated in the Taoiseach travelling to Brussels today to be told by EU leaders how to solve the ‘Irish question’. It is plain, that irrespective of the rules of the EU, there is one rule for the big member states and another for the smaller ones and that all the EU leaders are now guilty of corrupting democracy in an increasingly post – democratic era for the European Union’.

ADDITIONAL NOTE by
Anthony Coughlan
The National Platform EU Research and Information Centre
24 Crawford Avenue
Dublin 9

Tel.: 00-353-1-8305792
Web-site: nationalplatform.org

Thursday 11 December 2008

Under the current Nice Treaty arrangements (Treaty Establishing the European Community, Article 214.2) Member States have the right to “propose” a Commissioner every five years. This is effectively a right to decide, because while the others can ask the Member State in question to give them some other proposal if they do not like the person proposed, if that Member State declines to change its mind, its proposal will prevail, for otherwise it can refuse to accept the proposals of the others.

Article 214.2 TEC reads: “The Council, acting by a qualified majority and by common accord with the nominee for the President shall adopt the list of other persons whom it intends to appoint as Members of the Commission, drawn up in accordance with the proposals made by each Member State.”

STATEMENT by
Anthony Coughlan
The National Platform EU Research and Information Centre
24 Crawford Avenue
Dublin 9

Tel.: 00-353-1-8305792
Web-site: nationalplatform.org

Thursday 11 December 2008

Taoiseach Brian Cowen’s hypocrisy in pretending to “respect” the people’s referendum vote on Lisbon is now evident, for not a jot or tittle of Lisbon will be altered when he forces the people to vote on it a second time next year.

Political Declarations or promises regarding future Treaties that are not yet even drafted will not alter a comma of the Lisbon Treaty.

If people vote Yes in Lisbon Two to exactly the same Treaty which they voted No to last June they will be changing the Irish Constitution so as to recognise the supremacy of the law of the new Union which Lisbon would establish over anything contrary, whether in the Irish Constitution or in political Declarations and promises that might be tacked on to Lisbon.

Comment by DECLAN GANLEY AND JENS-PETER BONDE
Today , Thursday 11 December 2008 @ 09:13 CET

EUOBSERVER / COMMENT - The French president yesterday told the group leaders of the European parliament that he has made a deal with the Irish government to hold a second referendum in Ireland to ratify the Lisbon treaty first rejected on 12 June by 53 percent of Irish voters.

None of the representatives of the Irish people who voted No to the Lisbon Treaty were consulted by the Irish government before they struck a deal with the French Presidency. The Irish government has simply ignored the result of the referendum and betrayed those people who voted No in the majority.

Statement from TEAM AGM ‘08 made in Copenhagen, 9th of March 2008:

October 19th 2007

LET THE PEOPLES VOTE ON THE RENAMED EU-CONSTITUTION

The Renamed EU-Constitution that the EU-leaders have agreed upon in Lisbon is to a very large extent identical with the Constitutional Treaty that was rejected by the French and Dutch voters two years ago: it creates to all intents and purposes a federal European state. Even the father of the rejected Constitutional Treaty, former President Valery Giscard d´Estaing, has confirmed this.

The need to discuss alternatives

“The so called ‘period for reflection’ will be used to find ways and means to overturn the referendum results in France and the Netherlands, and to introduce parts of the Constitution in addition to those already being put in place… It is clear the time has come when alternatives to the European Union need to be discussed with, and by, all the peoples of the continent based on democracy, respect and co-operation between nation-states,” says John Boyd, TEAM Co-ordinator in a press release.

“The EU is hypocritical in making comments about the Presidential election in the Ukraine, especiall as it wants the Ukraine as a potential EU member state. If the EU is really interested in democracy for the people it would press the fourteen member states who are not holding a referendum on the EU State Constitution to do so”, says John Boyd, Co-ordinator of TEAM, in a press statement.

“The signing ceremony on 29 October of the EU Constitution in Rome is no coincidence. It marks a symbolic change of the EU from the Treaty of Rome, signed in 1957, to the Constitution of Rome, signed almost half a century later. This is the symbol of a new EU State in the making”, says John Boyd, TEAM Co-ordinator, in a comment.

This bulletin is a collection of EU-related news from European media, press comments and campaign news from TEAM’s affiliates and other groups from across Europe. If you would like to get the bulletin by e-mail, please send an e-mail to TEAM’s Secretary General Henrik Dahlsson on hdahlsson@europarl.eu.int

Download it in pdf-format (846.34 KB)

TEAM Briefing Paper, No 1, 2004. Download in pdf-version here:

Update on EU Constitution negotiations - 27 April 2004

The EU Summit in Brussels on March 25-26 agreed to restart the negotiations on the EU Constitution after the collaps of the talks in December last year. The Heads of Governments have agreed to reach a compromise on the Constitution at the next Summit in Brussels on June 17-18. According to media reports, around 20 to 30 topics remain to be solved before the Summit in June. Here is an attempt to make a general outline of the main topics, its consequences, and the current positions in the negotiation process.