Two polls made in July show an ever increasing majority against Norwegian EU membership.

The polls made by Sentio for newspapers Nationen and Klassekampen showed these figures (per cent) for June and July:

Yes No  Don’t  know

June 2010 26.7 62.5 11.8 July 2010 25.3 66.1 8.6

Only one party, Høyre (Cons.) can muster a small majority for Yes (47 per cent as against 44).

Source: Nationen 19.07.2010: http://www.nationen.no/2010/07/19/politikk/eu/meningsmaling/6069601/

According to another July poll, however, the Yes majority in Høyre has also vanished. The poll made by Nordstat for NRK (the public service TV and radio) only 42 per cent are positive, while 50 per cent are negative. This is the first time ever that Høyre is unable to muster a majority for EU membership among its members.

Source: Nationen 26.07.2010: http://www.nationen.no/2010/07/26/politikk/eu/meningsmaling/hoyre/6079267/.

Luise Hemmer Pihl, Team Board member

Polls in UK, Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Estonia show a clear No to the Euro

21st of July 2010

In at least five EU countries there is a majority against the Euro. In referendums you can’t vote “unsure” – only Yes or No count. Therefore below “unsure” has been taken out of results.

In June 2010 polls have been carried out in Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Estonia all showing a clear No.

In Denmark, Danmarks Statistik made the poll for Danske Bank, showing that 56 per cent would vote No if there where a referendum today.
In Sweden, Statistiska centralbyrån SCB made it, showing that 68 per cent would vote No.
In Germany it was Ipsos who made it, showing that 63 per cent would vote No.
In Estonia, TNS Emor made it, showing that 56 per cent would vote No.
In the United Kingdom, the latest poll is from April 2010, made by YouGov, showed that 76 would vote No.

Out of these five EU countries only Germany has the Euro today. The German government has no intention of calling a referendum on the Euro. The EU has said finally Yes to admitting Estonia to the eurozone from January 2011, and the Estonian government has no intention of having any referendum. In Denmark, it is still the official goal of the government to call a referendum with the view of securing a Yes. The governments of the United Kingdom and Sweden have chosen the opposite position, shelving all plans of a referendum on this issue.

French think euro exacerbates crisis

So far we do not have any polls on Yes or No to the Euro from other EU countries. If anyone knows about recent polls, please send us a link about it to ib (at) folkebevaegelsen.dk. However we have found an interesting poll from France made in June 2010 by TNS Sofres for Europa 1, itélé and Le Monde. It shows that 68 per cent of the French think that euro will exacerbate the consequences of the crisis (read more in Le Figaro)

Source: Folkebevaegelsen mod EU, Denmark

TEAM - The European Alliance of EU-Critical Movements

February 2010

Dear EU-critical organizations of TEAM

This is the first call for the TEAM AGM 2010, which will take place in Stockholm on May 7th-9th. Details will be forthcoming, but please reserve the weekend.

The year 2009 has been a dramatic one in the European Union, and after the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty there is more need for TEAM than ever.

The Yes to the Lisbon Treaty was a Pyrrhic victory for the EU elites. They gained the Lisbon Treaty but lost the hearts of the peoples because of the bullying that led to their victory.

With Lisbon the EU’s political centralization has reached new levels, making the struggle for democracy and true European cooperation more challenging than ever.

TEAM – our umbrella network of more than 40 EU-critical organizations in 18 countries – can challenge the new centralized EU. But only if the member organizations want to put it to use. And this is what the TEAM Board will aim to do. Four issues are high on the list of challenges to be met in the coming year:

1. Assistance to Iceland’s campaign to remain outside the EU
2. Assistance to Denmark’s campaign to keep the opt-outs from the euro, the EU military, the supranational EU justice policy and the EU citizenship.
3. Reaching out to groups that resist the adoption of the Euro in Eastern and central Europe.
4. Giving a close scrutiny to the ”citizens initiative” in the Lisbon Treaty. This institution is vaguely described as an opportunity for one million people from several countries to make a proposal to the EU Commission for a change of laws.

If your organization wants to assist TEAM in this work or has ideas for the TEAM’s Action Program 2010, please send us an e-mail to TEAM coordinator Luise Hemmer Pihl, (e-mail skrodhoj@mail.dk), or TEAM Secretary General (Blaž Babič, e-mail blaz.babic@amis.net).

Do not hesitate, we are looking forward to hearing from you!

Best,

TEAM Board members
Luise Hemmer Pihl, Lea Launokari, Eli van den Eynden, Patricia McKenna, Alain Bournazel, Stuart Coster and Urs Schürch

From (Labour Movement) CAEF - Campaign against Euro-federalism (in Britain)

To our trade union colleagues in Greece. We express solidarity with the actions taken by trade unions in Greece against the draconian criteria of the EU’s Growth and Stability Pact, and the dictats of the European Central Bank.

It is clear that cuts in Public Expenditure are part of an EU wide onslaught by big capital, the European Round Table of Industrialists, European Commission and Germany in particular.

These interests want the working class to “tighten their belts” and pay for and resolve the ills of the fiscal and economic crisis. At the same time it is an attempt to hand everything to the private sector and remove democratic accountability without any regard for the social consequences.

It is clear that for Greece and other EU Member States, including Britain, in a similar situation that the only rational course is to fully recover the right to self-determination and national independence and democracy.

We wish you every strength in your actions in this crucial period.

John Boyd
Secretary

CAEF is a member of TEAM

From 1 December you are a citizen of the European Union super-state. All of us in Britain will be ruled by a centralised Euro-federalist government in Brussels. Already four out of five laws emanate from Brussels rubber stamped by the elected government in Westminster. EU legislation is decided behind closed doors by unaccountable and unelected Commissioners -all done in conjunction with the various Councils of Ministers from the 27 Member States. They are now the Euro-federalist government who are responsible for and to the EU and no longer primarily to their national governments.

The Lisbon Treaty, or more properly the EU Constitution, has ditched the inter-governmental arrangements which have been in force since the Common Market was set up in 1957 and has turned the EU into a super-state. This qualitative change has been brought about by stealth over half a century and without changing the name European Union. Totally absent was any democratic procedure, agreement or consultation over the Lisbon Treaty by and amongst 500 million people across the 27 nation-states within the EU bar one, Ireland. The electorates of France and the Netherlands threw out the EU Constitution and then Ireland rejected the deliberately scrambled Lisbon Treaty. This rejection was unacceptable to the political elites so Ireland was according to Irish and EU law illegally made to vote again. Money without limit was poured in to the Yes! camp to set up unrelated arguments which were crafted to frighten and mislead the electorate. With the misinformation and saturated one sided media put before them they understandably voted for the Lisbon Treaty and sacrificed what national independence and democracy they still held and had literally fought for over the centuries.

No other member state was given the opportunity to fully discuss and voice opposition to the Lisbon Treaty. All three major political parties in Britain fell into line and reneged on promises to hold a referendum on Lisbon. The EU Constitution has been imposed from the top downwards and does not have any support from the will of the peoples across the EU. It is a serious blow to democracy and the right to self-determination of nation-states. In historical terms it undoes both the American and French revolutions.

All the EU’s institutions have been strengthened by the Treaty to consolidate this centralised government and the neo-liberal free market initiated by the Thatcher Government. Sixty new areas normally dealt with by national governments have passed to the centralised government. Not one area has been passed back down from Brussels to national capitals. An unelected EU President and de facto EU Foreign Secretary, misnamed High Representative, are part of this Union’s government.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg is the supreme court of the EU which overrides the courts and Parliament in Britain. That includes the recently formed Supreme Court which sits in the Middlesex Guildhall in Parliament Square. The ECJ has made rulings on four important cases which affect the labour and trade union movements and all those who work for their living within the EU. The Viking, Laval, Ruffert and Luxembourg cases have sought to turn the clock back to the 19th Century by undermining trade union rights. This includes collective bargaining, using the free movement of labour around the EU to the detriment of wages, conditions and welfare protection. These impinge on the right to strike and other fundamental trade union and workers’ rights in what has been aptly coined the “race to the bottom”.* A major purpose of the ECJ is to see the objectives of the “free movement of capital, services, goods and labour” of the Single European Market are strictly adhered to. In other words to give big capital free reign and damn the social consequences. The EU Constitution has specified that capitalism shall be the economic system of the Union. This is contrary to every other constitution across the world and specifically blocks the right to legislate for socialist measures let alone a socialist economic system.

Big capital is no longer prepared to tolerate national democracy or be inhibited by the powers of the nation-state. The only institution in existence able to curb the ever growing transnational corporations and banks, and movement of big capital are the governments of nation-states. Just because we have elected governments who do not exercise that power but instead hang on to the coat tails and cow tow to big capital does not negate such powers. However, what does remove the powers of nation-states is the formation of the EU superstate where the real government, the Euro-federalist government, cannot be kicked out and policies and legislation is put in place.

We are all now both subjects in the monarchy of the United Kingdom and citizens of the EU super-state. We have responsibilities and duties to obey the laws and pay heed to all the EU institutions in addition to institutions in Britain. If we wish to resist this new arrangement then first we have to understand the qualitative change that has taken place without notice. Above all we have to understand this remains part of the class struggle between labour and big capital and that well tested and hard won rights have to be defended and used. The longer we dally the worse it will be to untangle this huge reactionary backward step which undermines all forms of democracy.

*Further details can be found on the websites of CAEF and TUAEUC and past reports in the Morning Star.

written by John Boyd, secretary of the CAEF (Campaign against Euro-federalism and editor of The Democrat.

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

Le blog d’Alain Bournazel

~ Quand se lève la vérité ~

En quelques jours le paysage européen vient de subir une transformation brutale. Elle ne procède pas d’un miracle mais de la prise de conscience d’une réalité que l’on avait cherché à cacher.

Depuis des années, les responsables politiques de tous bords, droite et gauche confondues, de Paris, de Berlin, de Bruxelles et d’ailleurs serinent les peuples que l’Union européenne doit être dotée d’institutions lui permettant de fonctionner efficacement. Tous les moyens ont été utilisés pour imposer ces institutions : projet de Constitution Giscard, rebaptisée mini-traité par Nicolas Sarkozy, propagande à outrance, dérogations accordées (en parfaite violation du droit des traités) à la Pologne, l’Irlande, au Royaume-Uni, à la République Tchèque, etc., suffrage universel bafoué aux Pays-Bas et en France. Et que constatons-nous, après ce laborieux parcours ? Ces nouvelles institutions imposées plus qu’adoptées, subies plus qu’acceptées, non seulement n’apportent aucune simplification au fonctionnement de l’Union mais compliquent encore une machinerie d’une effroyable complexité.

Comme l’ont noté les observateurs politiques, en désignant comme président du conseil européen, M. Van Rompuy, Premier ministre d’une Belgique en voie de désintégration et la baronne travailliste, Catherine Ashton comme Haut représentant pour les Affaires étrangères, les chefs d’Etat et de gouvernement ont choisi des personnages qui ne leur feraient pas d’ombre. D’une certaine manière, ils reconnaissent que le pouvoir légitime est celui qui émane des Etats. C’est d’ailleurs ce que nous pensons. Mais on peut s’interroger sur les raisons qui ont poussé les dirigeants européens à mettre en place un système qui aujourd’hui les effraie. Constatons simplement – une fois de plus – que les plus belles sottises viennent souvent des gens intelligents et instruits.

Sottise institutionnelle certes, mais également lourde charge financière. M. Van Rompuy va recevoir à compter du 1er décembre 22.000€ nets par mois. Il aura droit à 22 collaborateurs permanents et à 10 agents de sécurité. Mme Ashton bénéficiera de 275.000 euros par an. Un service de 5000 personne est en cours de constitution pour assurer la représentation de l’Union dans tous les pays du monde, représentation qui doublera celle des Etats membres.

A Bruxelles comme à Paris, on dilapide les deniers publics, alors que la pauvreté progresse dans tous les pays européens.

With the EU’s drive for power over our democracy and everyday life continuing unabated the Bruges Group held this conference to oppose the surrendering of our freedoms to Brussels.

Speakers: Peter Davies, Christopher Booker, Richard Conquest, Professor Kenneth Minogue, Bruno Waterfield, John Mills, Ian Milne, Gerard Batten MEP, Dr Lee Rotherham.

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

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.

Report: Icelandic government to apply for EU membership

by Hjörtur J. Guðmundsson

Yesterday was a black day in Iceland when the Icelandic parliament narrowly voted in favour of a proposal allowing the government to apply for membership of the European Union. The vote was very close and the issue had been debated heavily for a number of days in the parliament. 33 MPs said yes, 28 said no, and two did not vote. A proposal from the opposition that the decision to apply would be a subject to a special referendum was rejected narrowly with 32 votes against 30. The government (backed by most of its MPs) opposed that proposal strongly which suggests it simply does not believe that the people are in favour of this step.

Five government MPs rejected the proposal, all from the junior coalition partner The Left Green Movement (Vinstrihreyfingin - grænt framboð) which is according to its policy strongly opposed to EU membership. Eight of the party’s MPs voted in favour and one did not vote. Seven of these eight are nevertheless opposed to membership but voted in favour in order to secure a continued coalition government with the pro-EU Social Democratic Alliance (Samfylkingin). A number of them gave a short speech in the parliament before voting where they claimed their strong opposition to EU membership while drawing up a very negative picture of the union.

The voting in the parliament:

• The Social Democratic Alliance (social democrats): Yes 20, No 0, Abstain 0.
• The Independence Party (conservatives/liberals): Yes 1, No 14, Abstain 1.
• The Left Green Movement (socialists/greens): Yes 8, No 5, Abstain 1.
• The Progressive Party (centrists/agrarians): Yes 3, No 6, Abstain 0.
• The Civilian Movement: Yes 1, No 3, Abstain 0.

Total: Yes 33, No 28, Abstain 2.

Much of the debate prior to the vote, both in the parliament and among the people, were about the fact that the Left Greent Movement was according to its policy strongly opposed to EU membership which meant that it did not have any permission from its voters to take part in applying for EU membership. Last general elections in Iceland took place on April 25 this year. Many associations within the party from various parts of the country prior to the vote protested the party leadership’s support along with many of the party’s ordinary members and voters. Political speculators in Iceland have been suggesting this could lead to some serious internal problems within the party.

The government had to count on the support from few MPs in the oppostion to get its proposal through. One of the government minister even said no, the minister for agriculture and fisheries, who comes from the Left Green Movement. In addition the leader of the Left Green Movement even said yesterday to the Icelandic media that his party assumed every right to stop the accession talks at any time if it believes the EU is not meeting its demands. According to the government’s proposal the Left Green Movement has also assumed the right to oppose a possible final accession treaty. Whether or not the party will actually do either this is yet another token of how half-heartedly it is on the issue to say the very least. This all simply means the government is very broken on this issue.

The government intends to apply for EU membership on July 27 at the meeting of EU foreign ministers. Accession talks are expected to begin in February 2010 and a possible date of accession according to the government is January 1, 2013 which means a referendum could take place in 2012. However, this all could natuarally take place somewhat sooner depending on the speed and progress of the accession talks.

The plans of Heimssýn, the No movement in Iceland, now are quite simply to do everything we can with all the help we can get to keep the polls in our favour until the initial referendum whenever it will take place - if it will take place. According to the last poll there was a 50/50 situation regarding the question if people wanted to join the EU or not.

Best wishes from Iceland,

Hjörtur J. Guðmundsson
hjortur@heimssyn.is

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

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.

On 20th of November demonstration against the passing of the Services Directive took place in front of the Norwegian Parliament. The Labour Party decided last week that they don’t want to use the right of reservation in the EEA agreement against the Services Directive. The other two government parties, the Centre Party and the Socialist Left party, voted against the passing of this directive. The Norwegian labour union (LO) demanded several guarantees from the government to support the passing of the directive, for instance that existing and future measures to prevent social dumping would be protected. The prime minister claimed this can be guaranteed, but as we all know the future content of the services directive will be decided by the ECJ.

Almost 900 Labour Party members and labour union members have signed a social democratic petition against the passing of the directive.

250 people outside the Norwegian parliament, several political parties represented, Youth against the EU hosted it. Central board member of the Norwegian Social Democrat Youth party (AUF), Stine Renate Håheim, and Boye Ullmann from one of our labour unions, made short speeches. There were other demonstrations in eight cities around Norway. We asked the government not to pass the directive after all, and a man dressed as a priest followed by a mock funeral possession buried Norwegian labour rights.

International press release
www.nejtilleu.se
2008-11-21

After a 24-hour debate the members of the Swedish Parliament said yes to the Lisbon Treaty in the late evening of 20 November. 243 members voted yes to the Treaty, 39 voted against, 13 did not vote and 54 were not present. According to the Swedish constitutional legislation a vote of 1/6 of the members present could have blocked and postponed the ratification for a year, which means at least 49 votes. Thus if the 8 social democrats (among them two former ministers Morgan Johansson and Leif Pagrotsky and a newspaper editor Bo Bernardsson) and two of the five members from the government parties had voted with the Left Party and Green Party members, the ratification would have been postponed. The only real democrat from the establishment parties in the voting was Sven Bergström from the centrist party, who voted no together with the Left and Green members.

In fact the social democrat party had the power to stop the ratification. The Fredrik Reinfeld rightwing-government were dependent of the 130 social democrats votes in the Parliament to get the ratification through. After party banning in the final vote the “opposition” social democrat sadly put down their votes or were not present.

READ MORE !!

European political elite is trying to overtake the legitimate results from Ireland. Observers of political life can see “young and restless” politicians like the Finnish Foreign Minister Mr. Stubb who have to exercise the same repetitious subliminal messages in line with “Lisbon is not dead”and similar.

“The treaty is not dead. The EU is in constant crisis management - we go from one crisis to another and finally we find a solution,” Finnish Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb told reporters, noting the bloc had dealt with past voter setbacks.

However Europeans defending democracy already respond to such attempts or provocations. In Facebook there are notable shifts to the groups like “Respect the Irish NO: stop ratification of the Lisbon Treaty” with already over 1.200 members.

In such Facebook groups one can find many useful hints on what to do and where to click - for example if you are British citizen your most efficient action for beginning would be to sign the petition…

“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Respect the result of the Irish referendum and abandon the attempt to ratify the Lisbon Treaty.”

Europe in action!

…and Margot in turmoil:

Also do check other related videos e.g. “Reaction”.

Statement from TEAM, The European Alliance of EU-critical Movements

14.06.2008

The result of the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty is a triumph for democracy. The Irish voters have rejected a treaty that is undemocratic and militaristic. They have thereby rendered all Europeans an enormous service, opening new possibilities for a cooperation among the European peoples that is democratic, equal and peaceful and respects the sovereignty of each member state.

TEAM, The European Alliance of EU-critical Movements, a cross-political network of more than 50 organisations from over 20 countries, notes that the Lisbon Treaty has fallen and that the ratification process in other EU-member states should be called off immediately.

The German chancellor and the French president claim in their first reaction to the result of the Irish referendum that the Lisbon Treaty is necessary “in order to make the European Union more democratic and efficient”. In other words - in order to make the EU more democratic it is necessary to ignore the result of a truly democratic referendum. This statement reveals the degree of hypocricy in the EU-elite!

The EU-constitutional project has thrice failed to pass its democratic test: in France and The Netherlands in 2005 and, in a slightly made-up version, in Ireland in 2008. The EU-elite should realize by now that the peoples of Europe want a different form of community, based on other values. Its unwillingness to do so, however, makes it the more important that all committed citizens and organisations initiate discussions, create visions and forward-looking proposals pointing out the many possibilities for a truly democratic and peaceful European cooperation.

TEAM shall gladly contribute to this process, and expresses its warmest gratitude to the Irish people for giving all Europeans the possibility of doing so.

Thank you Ireland!
Congratulations Europe!

TEAM is a cross-political network of more than 50 organisations from over 20 countries in and outside the EU.

For further information please contact: coordinator Jesper Morville, jespermorville@mail.dk, or secretaries Blaž Babič, blaz.babic@amis.net or Argo Loo, looargo@yahoo.com.

Dublin

Friday morning, 13 June 2008 - 10.40 a.m. Irish time

It now looks as if the NOs may be heading for a referendum win in Ireland!
This is based on estimates of the early “tallies”,which are rough impressions of the size of Yes and No votes, but before the count proper begins.
This is great news and looks like being a victory for democracy in Ireland and for Europe.
The counting proper is only now beginning and the final result should be available this afternoon.

All good wishes,

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

Tel.: 01-8305792 ;

FEW MEDIA INDICATORS:
Early Lisbon tallies lean toward No vote
‘No’ camp appears to have edge in Lisbon count
No vote gaining ground in Galway
No camp has edge in Lisbon count
‘Strong show’ for Irish No vote
Ireland Rejects Euro Treaty
Dublin Set to Reject EU Treaty-Senior Politician
French PM Says ´No Lisbon Treaty´ if Irish Vote No
Europe holds its breath for result of Ireland’s vote

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

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

                 Media statement  

Thursday 12 June 2008

                            TODAY'S LISBON TREATY VOTE  

Whether people vote Yes or No to the Lisbon Treaty today, Ireland’s national interest and the best interests of future generations here and across Europe undoubtedly call for a No vote, for the reasons set out in the article below.

The Lisbon Treaty would endow the legally new European Union which it would establish with a revamped version of the EU Constitution that was rejected by the French and Dutch peoples in 2005.

This post-Lisbon EU would, inter alia, have the constitutional form of a supranational EU Federation, in which Ireland would be reduced to the status of a provincial state from being a sovereign one hitherto. Irish citizens in turn would be constitutionally transformed into real rather than symbolical citizens of a Federal European Union, rather as American citizens are citizens also of their local American states, or Federal Germany’s citizens are citizens of Germany’s Länder. Regrettably, this constitutional revolution which Lisbon would bring about in the EU itself, its Member States and in the civic status of four million Irish and nearly 500 million Europeans has scarcely been referred to in Ireland’s referendum debate.

The main reason for this is the failure of the statutory Referendum Commission to carry out its function of explaining the “subject matter of the proposal” in the Constitutional Amendment, “and its text”, which is what people have been voting on today.

from the Irish People’s Movement press release:

Reacting to the news that the Referendum Commission has been receiving its legal advice from a law firm that provides services to an industry lobby group which is campaigning for a YES vote, while the public information campaign is being run by consultants who were appointed by a tender offered by the Department of Foreign Affairs, Patricia McKenna former Green Party MEP and chairperson of the People’s Movement said:

“I am deeply shocked and disturbed to hear where the Referendum Commission’s legal advice and marketing of this important voter information is originating from. As someone who called for the early establishment of the Referendum Commission to provide independent information to voters, and as someone who was instrumental in its original establishment because of a court action I took to safeguard democracy during referendums some years ago, this is very disturbing. This evening there are serious questions hanging over the credibility, role and so-called ‘independence’ of the Referendum Commission to date.”

Our comment: Referendum Commission has been established and tested just before Nice I. referendum. Since this referendum resulted in a NO, political rulers changed and diminished it’s role which resulted in a YES at Nice II. referendum. Apparently political elites are quite capable to destroy or by-pass good, affirmative and democratic attempts.

ADDITION: An attempt to motivate Irish to vote looked like this: Youtube with Keith Barry.

On the eve of Ireland’s referendum on the EU treaty, the Irish “no” camp has accused France of trying to hide its intentions to push for beefing up EU military capabilities and creating an EU army commanded by Brussels.

According to Kathy Sinnott, independent MEP and fervent opponent of the Lisbon treaty, the French government is keeping a promised blueprint on European defence and security secret until after the crucial vote on Thursday (12 June).

“The French white paper on EU defence has been ready for release since May, but the French government are withholding it until after the Irish referendum,” the MEP said, demanding that the text be released immediately.

The rest of the article at the EUobserver.