Women Say NO to the Lisbon Treaty

by Stuart Fri Jun 06, 2008 11:43

How on Earth will the Lisbon Treaty "accelerate the opening up of essential social services such as health and education to privatisation, with disastrous consequences for the welfare of families, and for women who are at the frontline as both users and workers"?

Mary Harney is already fighting the EU Commissioner (ironically Charlie MacCreevy) to preserve the privatised status quo of access for the wealthy, the hospitals have been forced into PPP landsales for greater onsite private care and now schools are being sucked into the PPP blackhole in hoc to the multinationals on overpriced 45-year service leases which the government will bail out in any crisis. The Irish model is a direct copy of the UK's disastrous experiment in PPP which has been almost twice as expensive as the public infrastructural development it replaced.

The Lisbon Treaty adds at least two additional layers of public scrutiny and appeal which Ireland has consistently fought against - past environmental directives and employee rights being two examples where Europe has enforced protections and rights the Irish government has attempted to negate.

If you want to claim that "Lisbon is bad for women" then please accurately cite some aspect of the treaty to back up that claim, otherwise it is simply another absurd sidetrack in this debate.

by Just_me Fri Jun 06, 2008 13:09 archigod_99 at yahoo dot fr

Hi, I checked my email today and fell onto a short post on yahoo news telling what was happening in Ireland as the Referendum approaches.
Then I just found your website. I am a French guy of 29 and 3 years ago I voted No -and No won - when we had the right to express ourself in France. Forgive my approximate english, but since had no right to express ourselves about this treaty, i'm glad to find somewhere i can.

3 years ago , the situation in France was not so different as the one you experience nowadays: every political party, most Unions, most media said "we had to do it, it will be good for everyone, if you don't you 'll be breaking our european dream of peace and brotherhood". But the treaty was free to access, even if difficult to read, and many people axpressed their fear against a 'free-market oriented treaty". The purpose of the Lisboa treaty (and i quote representatives from French Parties or EU officials) was to make european Constitution impossible to understand by every non law expert or technocrat. In France, the treaty was ratified by congress last december, of course by the right wing majority, but also by moderate left wing parties who where just so happy not to have to show their true inner agreement. the government, after their 2005 failure had chosen to deny people their right of voting such an important text, which will have considerable effects on the kind of laws or social orientations governments can enforce and in the end on our everyday's life.

I'm not some kind of anti european , conservative and traditionalisty folk.. i find it great to know i can go travel and live everywhere i want in europe, to have the same currency... but a dream like europe should remind its original prupose was to preserve peace and create a positive environment for its citizen's living. Moreover, i must say id'ont agree with every social aspects of everycountry, for instance i completly disagree every pro life and anti abortion movement, and i'm an atheist and i don't think religion has to take place in political considerations. Many people in ireland, Italia or Portugal would disagree with my opinions. BUt i do believe Europe has to remain a place where people are free of their choices, and thus by their vote, can decide what kind of country they want to live in. Europe should just increase solidarity between country, enabling projects that can't be financialy borne by one country or region, and by easying trade and exchanges between people - and not only companies - make everyone's life better. Europe is the richest area in the world and this should provide us, good education, health coverage, work, and give us the responsability to help 3rd World countries development. This seems to me like a fair and honorable dream of power. Power is not how you can hurt or exploit a country, or make a few people rich beyond imagination. Political strucxtures are just here to make things work for the biggest number, and according to their common will, ...this is, if i remind well, what democraty's supposed to be.

To conclude, voting no is not a goal. it's just a signal. The most difficult remains to be the rest, unite people beyong borders and create a political structureable to respect differences, but sharing the same goals.

Well it's a long message but I just want to say i support your fight, even if you feel isolated, and criticized by mass medias, many people - even if silent - share your opinions. Keep the faith. Many european brother's are with you.

by Stuart Fri Jun 06, 2008 21:38

Fool I may be, but not a troll. The Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Workers), Protection of Employees (Part-Time Workers) and Protection of Employees (Agency Workers) Acts are the most progressive employment legislation since the marriage bar was thrown out. Many people have put and are continuing (e.g. the Impact ECJ case) to put immense effort into ensuring that Ireland complies with the letter and spirit of progressive legislation that springs from Europe, opposed every step by Irish business and government. The Lisbon Treaty will strengthen these processes and extend individual equalities, dignity and fundamental rights into the less progressive members of the Union because the EU itself accede to the European Convention on Human Rights.

by Juliet Sat Jun 07, 2008 11:34

Republic of Ireland voters who wish to avoid being ruled by bullies and despots (and their lackeys) might do well to watch the Christopher Story video clip at the "youtube" address provided below: before they cast their "Lisbon Treaty" vote this coming Thursday. (Video clip duration: 5minutes 55 seconds)

For those who may not know, Christopher Story is a British writer, publisher and government adviser specialising in intelligence and economic affairs, who is best known for his collaboration with KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn on the 1995 book The Perestroika Deception. (For some more information relating to Mr Story please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Story )

A few quotes from the above mentioned video clip:

1) "Democratism: The creation and maintenance of the illusion of democracy ... this pattern is being implemented in the European Union."

2) On the subject of "different" political parties and personalities (e.g. Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, Labour, Democrat, Republican, etcetera): "This business of controlling all the political parties and allowing them to adapt different names."

The Christopher Story video clip can be viewed at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFA4B1rCKvg

As the immortal bard himself once observed: "What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" -- and similarly of course with rotten eggs!!

It's the greed-ridden despots and plutocrats (and their very well looked-after puppets) -- by whatever name/s they might call themselves -- that now pose a truly enormous global threat to genuine democracy: i.e. "government of the people, by the people, for the people".

As always, "We'll get what we vote for" on Thursday - it's a very old Irish custom.

by Galway woman Sat Jun 07, 2008 15:25

A few relevant parts of the Lisbon Treaty:

Article 98 of the Lisbon Treaty states that "The Member States and the Union will act in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition."

Article 87 of the Treaty states: "Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain goods, shall insofar as it affects trade between Member States be incompatible with the internal market".

The business employers group IBEC, which is calling for a yes vote, is looking on privatisation as a good business opportunity. They have said about the Lisbon Treaty "A yes vote for the Lisbon Treaty creates the potential for increased opportunities for Irish business particularly in areas subject to increasing liberalisation [i.e. privatisation] such as Health, Education, Transport, Energy and the Environment."

Article 188 of the Treaty gives the EU Commission power to negotiate with agencies such as the World Trade Organisation [which is promoting "free-trade" economics] and negotiate a common commercial policy. Countries will not be able to veto the results of these negotiations in most cases.

Article 188d states the EU's negotiating stance will be based on "the achievement of uniformity in measures of liberalisation" ["liberalisation" means pro-free market, and pro-privatisation].

Another piece that shows the commitment of the Lisbon Treaty to neo-liberalism. Article 105 states that "the primary objective of the European System of Central Banks shall be to maintain price stability" and it is to "act in accordance with the principle of an open market with free competition".

This is in contrast to the system in the US, for example, where the US the Federal Reserve System operates according to a 3 fold mandate "maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates".

For more detailed comment on the privatisation of public services see http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/8 and http://www.caeuc.org/files/HealthLib.pdf

by Galway Woman Sat Jun 07, 2008 18:04

In Sweden an employer hired workers from another EU state to work in Sweden, but refused to give them Swedish working condition. This case ended up in the European Court of Justice (!), which declared that it was illegal to strike against a company who imported workers, and refused to adhere to registered agreements on conditions in that country in which they were to be employed!

This was because the Court claimed that the action the Swedish Trade Union took, to force the employer into an agreement, was likely to make it more difficult for the company to carry out construction work, so that the Union action constituted a restriction on the company's freedom to provide services.

So in other words the "free market" and "right" of a company to make money by exploitation, was put above the workers rights of collective bargaining and trying to defend standards.

This means hard-won gains in working standards and rights could be eroded rapidly. This could also lead to employers deliberately pitting workers in one country against workers in another, in order to further reduce standards and rights. If this happens, this could also lead to the displacement of frustration on to "foreign" workers, rather than on those who may seek to exploit them in the first place.

The Lisbon Treaty will give its support to this anti-worker and anti-union ruling through its rules on "undistorted" competition and pro free market economy stance.

There is a short leaflet here that mentions some isses to do with the EU and workers rights (or lack of them) http://www.no2lisbon.ie/media/LisbonWorkersRightsLeaflet1.pdf

by Stuart Sun Jun 08, 2008 09:37

The facts about the Swedish building contract are that a Latvian company, Laval & Partneri, won a Swedish public tender and completed a school construction project using labour engaged in Latvia, at Latvian rates of pay and in contravention of Swedish government-union agreed rates and working conditions (http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2005/01/feature/lv0501101f.htm). The ECJ upheld the Latvian employers right to engage labour according to Latvian law and upheld the workers free right of engagement anywhere in the EU (http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/3264). It is widely unreported that the dual judgement of the ECJ also required compliance with all Swedish legislation (i.e. the law, not government-union agreement) and required full rights for all employees recruited within the country of employment.

This certainly undermines the local pay of Swedish employees. Internal labour transfers will continue to provide employers with the cheapest workers for as long as there are large inequalities in national incomes within the Union, and for as long as non-union labour benefits from pay inequalities. But that is something we signed up to in expanding the Union and Lisbon does not alter it. The case is nothing like that of Gama Construction or Irish Ferries in which artificial agency employers have been created in the Turkey and the Phillipines (outside the Union and actually outside ANY national legislation - Turkish law was breached), to bring labour into the EU without conforming to EU workers' rights. Some of those workers were effectively deported in debt after the cost of tools, safety clothing and lodgings were deducted from their sub-minimum wage income. Salvacion Orge, the Philippina hairdresser on Irish Ferries (reflagged outside the EU - http://struggle.ws/wsm/ws/2005/87/ferries.html) was paid approximately 1 euro per hour.

Lisbon streamlines the ability of workers to enforce their rights through the Protection of Employees acts that implement EU Directives on minimum (which surprisingly rarely means worse than Irish) rights. Ireland signed the Fixed-Term Workers Directive in 1999, delayed the implementation of the Act until censured by the Commission and has lost cases at Rights Commissioner and ECJ hearings - so nearly ten years on the Impact case is probably being appealed through the Irish courts (http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87189). Lisbon also strengthens the Transfer of Undertakings acts that prevent the summary dismissal of existing staff when outsourcing services - such as the expulsion of ancilliary workers by a company controlled by a member of parliament (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JQP/is_295/ai_30126384 - my local hospital at the time).

The Lisbon Treaty also adopts the European Convention on Human Rights, dispensing with the nonsensical situation where a member state can implement the Convention in a domestic act whilst simultaneously declaring homosexuality (or whatever other prejudice) a crime, barring free association and running security services that intrude on every aspect of personal and family privacy.

I do agree with your points on the creeping privatisation of medicine, but Ireland is doing a fine job of running a tiered system and adopting the very worst (and demonstrably failed) of British public-private-partnership developments - just see how the private partner walks off with 45 million of public money at the Cork School of Music whilst the staff are cut and the students strike in order to fund the excesses of "partnership".

by Martha Mon Jun 09, 2008 11:22

Article 29.2 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads as follows:

"In the exercise of his (and her) rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a DEMOCRATIC society."

How can the European Union claim be a genuine "democratic society" when the vast majority of its population is being prevented from voting on an issue so important as the Lisbon Treaty?

Democracy is a core part of human rights law (as set out by the United Nations in 1948), and many would argue that it provides the basic platform on which all human rights law is structured. Take away that platform, and there can be no human rights law? -- which is exactly what a certain group of people are extremely anxious to achieve apparently.

The Lisbon Treaty, and the way "they" are going about implementing it (force-feeding I should say perhaps), simply has to be extremely bad news for the general welfare of human society all over the world?

I know which way I'll be voting.

by Stuart Mon Jun 09, 2008 15:28

Most of Europe adopted the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights after the year 2000 - Ireland in 2003. The US, China, Russia, India etc have not implemented it and it remains an aspirational document for their citizens, without legal force. Ireland has still failed to implement the enabling legislation for a large range of fundamental freedoms, such as unionisation and collective bargaining.

In ratifying the Lisbon Treaty the EU will adopt the European Convention on Human Rights, constituting the single largest population adopting the principles of the UN Declaration and allowing citizens the direct effect of the EU's convention even where their own government has failed to implement enabling legislation.

by Sceptic Mon Jun 09, 2008 16:44

"How can the European Union claim be a genuine "democratic society" when the vast majority of its population is being prevented from voting on an issue so important as the Lisbon Treaty?" – Martha

Simple because not everything needs to be voted on directly in a referendum. It is just that we are used to them because we have a very inflexible constitution. In fact they are regarded elsewhere with suspicion rightly so as demagogic and despotic leaders can manipulate referenda to suit themselves. It’s no coincidence that Hitler and Pinochet were both fans of referenda. Too much direct democracy without safeguards can be dangerous. Note that there is a popular majority in most countries for the death penalty - if one is an opponent of same one must welcome the fact that it is the parliaments that make the decision not a popular poll.

It’s perfectly legitimate to have ones parliament make decisions on these matters. That’s what they are for - to make decisions by powers delegated to them. There are many ways to have a democracy– referenda are not essential to them.

One of the requirements for a State seeking membership of the union is that it be a democracy. That’s where the union derives its democratic legitimacy from as well as its own representative organs such as the Council and the Parliament.

by Voter Mon Jun 09, 2008 18:54

I would agree that -- in the past -- voters could easily be hoodwinked into voting for things that were very bad for them, and frequently were.

However, I believe that 15 years plus of having the Internet has removed that danger, so that now all, or almost all voters (who choose to) can be very well informed.

"Participation is the key to harmony" it is often said, and to deny the vast majority of European voters the chance to participate in this extremely important decision is unhealthy in the extreme for several reasons (I believe). Not only that, I believe it is deeply insulting and disrespectful to all concerned.

Also, a well informed electorate has always been essential for a healthy democracy to function - and now that we have it, the politicians still want to do everybody's thinking for them.

People have minds of their own; is there any good reason (in 2008) why they should be prevented from using them? -- in the way that they are regarding the extremely important matter of the Lisbon Treaty?

by Juliet Wed Jun 11, 2008 14:53

"The timing of this report, however, is related to the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty taking place this Thursday (June 12th 2008)."

"We now turn to the Irish Question. It is bound up with the global crisis in several ways, of which the most immediate is the possibility that the Irish electorate, if it has any sense which we know from past observations that it has, will vote NO to ratification of the subversive, anti-nation state Lisbon Treaty, which provides for the further usurpation of national sovereignty since the European Union is the enemy of its nation states ..."

The above two excerpts have been copied from an article (dated June 10th 2008) by Christopher Story FRSA (Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts). The full text of this very recent article by Mr Story, which some will find "truly amazing" in places (I suspect), can be viewed at:
http://www.sovietanalyst.com/news/139_ireland_has_been_enronised_may_therefore__vote_no

Among those mentioned in the report at the above address are Prime Minister Brian Cowen TD (Republic of Ireland), and former EU Commissioner and Attorney General (Republic of Ireland) Peter Sutherland, who is now Chairman of BP and Goldman Sachs International.

by Juliet Sat Jun 14, 2008 10:53

"Our remedies oft in ourselves do lie,
Which we ascribe to Heaven."