How the Other Half Campaigns
international |
rights and
freedoms | feature
Wednesday April 16, 2008 23:33
by liz c - CAEUC
Report from Dublin Castle- Merkel on Monday.
Don't look too closely...
A through the
looking glass encounter into how campaigns are run by people with money,
political machinery, suits and plush red carpeting. There were very few
members of the public but It's well worth going along. The food is great.
Posh sandwiches and raspberry chocolates.
I found the whole thing
very interesting though many of our representatives ambled off before
Angela answered their questions. Maybe they knew the answers
already.
It's possible to reserve a seat on www.forumoneurope.ie
Manuel Barosso Eu Commissioner is speaking this thurs. At 11am I
think.
When Angela Merkel addressed the National Forum on Europe on
Mon April 14th every party except Fianna Fail, expressed reservations
about the Lisbon Treaty. Interestingly none of the coverage on RTE that I
saw showed a single question that she was asked.
Related Links:Campaign Against The EU Constitution Indy
Lisbon Coverage
It looks like the parties who are pushing for a yes vote very
semi-publicly aired their doubts to cover themselves if the treaty is
passed knowing that people would be unhapppy with the consequences. All of
them appeared fairly well informed on the downsides of the treaty
considering their assurances to the public that this is an 'enabling'
treaty that does nothing but make the running of the EU
smoother.
Bottom line is the questions were generally
confrontational exploring issues of workers rights, neutrality, loss of
sovereignty, climate change, neo-liberal policies, erosion of democracy
and privatization of services. To all of this there is one answer that to
the heads of the EU trumps everythng else : China. Merkel made it explicit
that a strong EU entity with 500 million people is needed to stand up to
China. People have asked why would all of the heads of state of Europe
enter into a treaty that is a nightmare in terms of job security, the
environment, and public services and will cause a massive backlash? The
answer is an unwavering commitment to growth at all costs and a commercial
race with China, kind of like the Cold War. Angela says Europe needs to be
a world power. But what kind of world power do the Eu leaders have in
mind? So far it looks very much like a US model and that is not a route
that most people in the EU who have had basic services, free healthcare
and free education, were likely to vote for, economically, socially or
politically. Therefore it needed to be legislated for them. For their own
good.
Bertie told Angela she's wonderful and had no questions for
her. He did say 'the public hungers for clarity' on the treaty but didn't
claim they'd get that from him. He also said 'Everyone recognises the need
for climate change.' Potential EU President in-waiting if he can only get
a yes vote...
This is a paraphrase but is as close as I can get to
what she said. Angela gave a short speech about the wonderful shared
values of tolerance and democracy that the Eu has and how much better that
is than the DDR, former East Germany, where she was from and how good it
is that the Berlin Wall fell and doesn't that mean the EU and democracy
are inextricably linked and isn't the fall of the wall a powerful symbol.
Most importantly she twice compared 'European political unification' with
the re-unification of Germany. Only Germany is a federal state and a post
Lisbon Treaty EU would be .. a federal state.
The PDs bizarrely
said that people in Ireland 'don'w want to be part of a federal Europe'
despite voting for a federal Europe.
Angela clarified this point by
saying 'Irish people don't need to worry about a superstate because all of
the underpinnings of a supertstate were removed from the EU Constitution!'
Interesting admission that they were ever there .She also said 'The people
of Europe want strong institutions including in times of conflict.' This
is from the leader who has publicly called for a European army.
Interestingly none of these statements nor any of the comments made by
treaty opponents seem to have made it into commercial news
coverage.
A speaker from the 'special observation pillar' of
organizations that can speak but not decide anything, I don't know the
name of his organization) pointed out that setting land aside for biofuels
is causing spiralling food prices, especially grain. ( there are currently
food riots in Haiti and elsewhere. Grain prices have recently increased
about fourfold). Angela said that this is partly due to investor interest
in commodities, read soeculation and even better blamed the rising food
prices on the fact that people in developing countries like India who only
used to be able to afford 1 meal a day are now eating 2 thereby doubling
demand! The selfishness of it!
Fine Gael and the PDs asked about
tax harmonization. 1 level of corporation tax across Europe would lose
Ireland jobs, as a 12% tax rate is one of our chief attractions. Angela
said tax harmonization would have to be unanimous though there's a lot of
dispute about this. This is the main economic argument aginst the treaty.
Fine Gael asked about the effects on Ireland of losing our EU Commissioner
for 2 out of every 3 years. She said something about smaller countries
getting into groups to block larger countries decisions, so I guess this
would make us the equivalent of the developing countries at the WTO,
except they all technically have voting rights.Alan Dukes has clearly been
reading Indymedia as he claimed that the Treaty would bring 'more
bottom-up democracy, with no obvious sense of irony.
Labour's Joe
Costello and PANA's Roger Cole asked about Irish neutrality in the context
of enhanced EU security co-operation and how the Lisbon Agenda (
neo-liberal economic growth) might conflict with lowering carbon emissions
and how did Angela see the Euro contributing to financial stability.
(globally, I think). The answers were don't worry about it it would have
to be unanimous, yes it conflicts but hey these things are hard to balance
and yes, respectively.
Mary-Lou McDonald of Sinn Fein pointed out
that the treaty has no democratic value after a period of reflection we
got a re-packaged EU Constitution which ignores the previous French and
Dutch No votes on the EU Constitution. Merkel admits the 2 documents are
substantially the same. She talked about the undemining of public services
and weakening of workers' rights. She said Ireland needs to keep an
independent foreign policy for neutrality, not an EU common foreign policy
and pointed out the EUs failure to act on Palestine as a sign of what an
EU common foreign policy would look like. Angela didn't answer any of
these points as far as my notes say.
The Greens pointed out that
the treaty allows for competencies to be either centralized or devolved
downwards. they didn't suggest that downward devolution was likely. they
said a simple document with public input would be nice. Angela made no
reply.
Joe Higgins talked abut the race to the bottom that the
treaty facilitates pointing out the recent European Court of Justice
judgements disallowing collective bargaining and allowing the undercutting
of national minimum wages. Angela is opposed to a national minimum wage in
Germany and can't hold a referendum there despite 70% of Germans wanting
one because Germany is not familiar with referendums and the federal
system with weighted voting makes referenda difficult cos no mechanism for
deciding if the 2 chambers cast different votes.. No direct voice for the
people then. As for minimum wage the federal states decide for themselves
and when they decide 2.80 an hour that's up to them. He more or less
called Angela 'a headbanger.'
The ICTU speaker ( I didn't catch his
name) gave Angela an easier ride than the PDs. He said he has some
questions around recent European Court judgements but that he'd leave them
to Barroso this Thurs. He then asked nothing and talked about how
wonderful the values of the EU are. Trade unions are looking at virtual
annihilation of influence as it is, made easier if this treaty goes
though. Can someone from ICTU explain this one? I don't know much about
ICTU but if this is what social partnership does you guys need to get out
fast.
Patricia McKenna, Green rebel, said there is nothing new in
the treaty to combat climate change The treaty undermines German and
national sovereignty and it is subject to a constitutional challenge in
Germany including by a member of Angela's part. No response to
these.
So there you have it. A fine afternoon of debate in a
bubble, entirely uncovered by the attendant press, that will have to
struggle to get to the public in time for a referendum on a treaty almost
nobody understands. In the meantime there's good debate on the treaty on
local stations like Dublin City Fm and Near FM. The info will get out
regardless.
printable
version
make this your indymedia front page
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (17 of 17)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17Thank you for this report, and please IMC folks keep the updates and the news coming.
All the other media appears rather stupefied by the text and jargon of this treaty; and so in-depth analysis and comment seems to be lacking in most of the other reports.
I assume you are reporting from watching from the television? I was there sitting behind Richard Bruton so I'm just correct the several mistakes you've made.
"The PDs bizarrely said that people in Ireland 'don'w want to be part of a federal Europe' despite voting for a federal Europe."
Thats just not true. We wont be having a federal state. if we did, I would be taking the treaty more seriously.
"Fine Gael and the PDs asked about tax harmonization. 1 level of corporation tax across Europe would lose Ireland jobs, as a 12% tax rate is one of our chief attractions. Angela said tax harmonization would have to be unanimous though there's a lot of dispute about this. This is the main economic argument aginst the treaty. Fine Gael asked about the effects on Ireland of losing our EU Commissioner for 2 out of every 3 years. She said something about smaller countries getting into groups to block larger countries decisions, so I guess this would make us the equivalent of the developing countries at the WTO, except they all technically have voting rights.Alan Dukes has clearly been reading Indymedia as he claimed that the Treaty would bring 'more bottom-up democracy, with no obvious sense of irony."
Angela Merkel, Enda Kenny and the PM of Belgum have met and have declare they will be blocking Sarkozy's attempt at tax harmonising. Richard bruton asked Merkel about the effect it will have on Germany since they'll have the same amount of commissioners as the small countries, say Ireland. Which is one every 2 out of 3 years. She also said the advantage would be that EU commissioners will have yearly breaks to think of new directives for thier next term. Also Alan Dukes did not speak at the forum.
"She said Ireland needs to keep an independent foreign policy for neutrality, not an EU common foreign policy and pointed out the EUs failure to act on Palestine as a sign of what an EU common foreign policy would look like. Angela didn't answer any of these points as far as my notes say."
She probably didnt answer because Mary Lou McDonald is old enough to read the treaty and shouldnt be making silly comments like this. After Lisbon, if Irelands foreign policy changes, the EU policy also changes. EU policy has to be unanamous.
"Joe Higgins talked abut the race to the bottom that the treaty facilitates pointing out the recent European Court of Justice judgements disallowing collective bargaining and allowing the undercutting of national minimum wages. Angela is opposed to a national minimum wage in Germany and can't hold a referendum there despite 70% of Germans wanting one because Germany is not familiar with referendums and the federal system with weighted voting makes referenda difficult cos no mechanism for deciding if the 2 chambers cast different votes.. No direct voice for the people then. As for minimum wage the federal states decide for themselves and when they decide 2.80 an hour that's up to them. He more or less called Angela 'a headbanger.'"
Its odd that you claim that EU will become a federal state but yet you think every European country should have the same laws. I dont and I would even consider myself to be a European federalist. Germany cant have a ferendum unles the Germans vote in party that makes that change. Direct democracy isnt for everyone. Joe didnt call Angela a "headbanger". He was refering to a comment made by a FF TD that the no side are bringing "headbangers" from Europe. He was joking saying that he was sure the TD didnt think she was a hadbanger. Everyone laughed.
Do have a link to any footage of the talk? It was very enjoyable. I got to shake her hand.
Don, if it had been on tv more people would know what the 2 sides of the debate are saying and what the alternative visions of Europe are. It's competition or co-operation. We can opt for a U.S. model of unregulated competition and privatized healthcare or we can protect workers rights and the environment, invest in education and research and provide structural funds to the EU states that need them. You seem to be focusing on details while ignoring the massive implications of this treaty. what exactly do you think is in it for the people of Europe? Do you have a good reason for supporting the treaty cos i'd really like to know what it is. Do you know that the current EU budget for social projects is 2.1% of each countries’ GDP? Do you know that even the U.S. spends 11% of its GDP on this? There is no concrete commitment to social services, employment or job protection in the Lisbon treaty. There is, however, a guarantee of a free market. I suggest you read Susan George's book 'We the peoples of Europe' for a good account of the history of this treaty, who wrote it and what for. The Lisbon Treaty is designed to facilitate the free movement of capital to the benefit of elites and it is well designed for that purpose. All proposals for social protections were ignored.
there is no mention of public services in this treaty they are called 'services of general economic interest' and are explicitly open to competition like any commercial sector. state subsidies for basic services like health, education and transport could be challenged under competition rules and the state could be challenged if it rejects the lowest bidder for a service, regardless of workers' rights or environmental or safety concerns.
'Undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest shall be subject to the provisions..., in particular to the rules on competition.'
'any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings...shall...be incompatible with the internal market.'
Government procurement willl be up for grabs and there wil be no limit on foreign direct investment. What is currently happening in agriculture is that Peter Mandelson has unilaterally offered to cut 20% more subsidies and tariffs on imports than the farmers agreed to. Yes the subsidies need to go but he's not doing this to help out the developing countries' farmers and he's none too concerned about job losses in Ireland. Agriculture is a bargaining chip. there is nothing to stop the EU trade commissioner from offering to open up basic services in Europe to the global market in exchange for whatever EU business would like from developing countries and we would have absolutely no say in that. and no way of regulating standards. the treaty would make the EU a legal person for the first time, like a corporation. this is what would allow the EU to sign treaties and trade agreements on behalf of 500 million citizens without asking us.
Not a federal state? Did you miss the part where Merkel talked about the political unification of the EU being like the re-unification of Germany? The Lisbon Treaty, if passed, according to the annexe, supersedes all national laws including national constitutions. that's what international treaties do. we would have an EU president, an EU foreign minister, a common foreign policy and all they left out of what Angela called 'the underpinnings of a superstate' in the EU constitution was the word constitution and an EU anthem, because apparently people might have a problem with that. the rest is intact.
do you really not get this? This treaty benefits the same people that unfettered free trade always benefits, corporations, industrialists, banks, wealthy elites. it is bad for virtually everyone else: farmers, trade unions, workers and anyone who wants guaranteed public services.
to guarantee that the neo-liberal project won't be circumvented the treaty can't be amended once passed except by unanimous vote of all member states which won't happen. the treaty guarantees unfetttered competition, promotes social equality and aims for full employment, do you see any difference in the strength of those verbs? there is no commitment whatsoever to social equality. the right to establish a business is the core value and everything else is a trade distorting non-tariff barrier like environmental legislation or workers' rights.
so who was the fine gael speaker? couldnt see him to well from where i was sitting. thanks i got that joe higgins was joking. patricia mckenna too when she said dick roche might attack angela. joe was also the only speaker to both getr a round of applause and cause angela to slump into her desk.
Keep up the good work!
Are you aginst Irelands "loss of sovernty" or do you think the EU wont be meddling in oue affairs? Because that what you are saying when you talk abut the making us spend more of social things. I would be personally infavour of a European policy on education as a right, but thats for another treaty for another day.
I would, as many others would, seeopening up our health service to more(but not full) privatisation, as our country will going into a recession. At e end of the year we may be seeing the biggest deficit since Fine Gael took the reigns from Fianna Fail in 94'. But still theres nothing in the treaty stoping us from providing state care if needed. Also anyone earning over 30k a year or is a smoker, should have private health care, which is most people. The more people on private health care, less stress on public health care, and those whom cant provide thier own health recieve better treatment. Opening up our health care to more privitisation and competition would be far better then the current moronic policies of co-location, benchmarking and social partnership. To put it simply, we cant afford to fix our health care problem on our own.
The Fine Gael spokesperson was Richard Bruton.
Can anyone clarify the water charges issue ? Philip Boucher Hayes on RTE radio this week cited the case of a man from the west who had his water cut off and had to pay a 500 euro re-connection charge in addition to a fine... PB Hayes said this was because of the privatised nature of the water 'provider' Any clarity please. He may have been a businessman, hence this scenario, only got end of report , but PB H sounded like it was a new departure. ??
Phillip, I don't have any info on that case yet hopefully someone else does. Water comes under 'services of general economic interest' so privatization is certainly possible ,as has happened elsewhere. Below is a summary of the most disturbing parts of the Lisbon Treaty, These passages are from the National Forum On Europe Summary, a government founded group.
Main Contentious Points of the Lisbon Treaty.
www.forumoneurope.ie has a Lisbon Treaty summary from which I cut and pasted the following excerpts. I haven’t changed a word. I‘ve only taken the passages that seems particularly important and put explanations as I see them in brackets. These are all direct quotes and are not taken out of context, although they are not all in the same order as in the text. Where 2 sentences appeared contradictory I took the more worrying one. The forum is made up of representatives from all the political parties with elected representatives which means that only one party, Sinn Fein, are on the No side. There is also a ‘Special Observation Pillar’ made up of civil society groups such as NGOs, Trade Unions, peace groups, an Irish Farmers Rep etc. This summary is designed to be neutral, although it’s worth keeping in mind that the input is largely from yes groups I have picked out only what worries me in the areas of economic policy, common defence policy and decision making powers. It’s clear that free trade, competition, curbing inflation and avoiding budget deficits are mandatory while social provisions are promoted, aimed at or wholly aspirational. As far as I can see it is an unashamedly straight-up neo-liberal, Thatcherite free trade economic blueprint with the odd nod towards social concerns, as long as they are non- trade distorting. See what you think.
Background:
Before Ireland proceeded with its referendum on the European Constitution, referendums in France (May 2005) and in the Netherlands (June 2005) resulted in “No” votes. In response, the European Council called for a “period of reflection”, during which a broad debate would take place in each Member State, involving citizens, civil society, social partners, national Parliaments and political parties. The IGC mandate, The Inter-Governmental Convention… made up of 205 members headed by its President, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, former President of France, mandate provided that the new Treaty would be based upon the existing Treaties and it would not have “constitutional characteristics”. The mandate specified a number of ways in which the new Treaty would differ from the Constitution but, otherwise, the new Treaty would incorporate almost all the other innovations proposed in the European Constitution.
Main Points:
1. (The treaty sets up a single legal entity, similar to a state or corporation)
Under the new Treaty, the European Union replaces the European Community and the existing European Union with a single legal personality which has treaty-making powers.
( these treaties can include trade, defence and aid and would be made by the commission without having to go through national governments.)
2. The EU can only take action if it has a legal base in the Treaty. The Treaty of Lisbon provides new legal bases which would allow the EU to take action on:• public health, such as disease prevention, in response to wider concerns affecting the safety of the general public;
• energy security; ( what kind of actions can the EU take to ensure energy supplies?)
• dealing with natural or man-made disasters;• sport;• space policy.
3. ( common defence policy)
It ( the treaty) mandates Member States to increase their own military capabilities with a view to increasing the capabilities available for the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy; ( mandates. Not asks or suggests.)
4. ( privatization of public services)
* A Protocol is added on services of general interest, including economic services of general interest; ( services of general interest include any services which are paid for or already have an element of competition. IIf private healthcare or education already exist in a state they come under this.)
5. ( the power of the commission)
The Commission:
is the only EU institution with the power to initiate the laws on which the European Parliament and Council have to take a decision;
• administers the budget and manages the Community programmes;
• seeks to ensure that EU treaties, laws, rules and decisions are complied with;
• negotiates for the EU in the international trade and aid areas;
• is independent from and does not seek instruction from any government or other body.
( I didn’t realize this but all of the new EU laws are made by 27 people. These are appointed, not elected, by each member state. The EU Parliament does not have the power to propose laws The Commission also controls the budget and treaties. So what do we have a European Parliament for?)
All this would continue but there will be important changes to the Commission’s membership.
( member states will have rotating commissioners instead of permanent ones. Ireland will not have a commissioner for 2 out of every 3 years. This means no input into the laws that are proposed and only a limited ability to reject them.)
The European Council, which does not have power to make laws, normally makes its decisions by unanimity.
( the Commission works on majority. Unanimous decisions are much more difficult to achieve among political parties Easy to block.)
5..:Areas the EU controls exclusively: Only the EU Commission can legislate.
The EU has exclusive competence in some areas (i.e. only the EU may legislate; Member States can only do so if empowered by the EU or to implement EU legislation). The EU has exclusive competence for:
• customs union;
• competition rules necessary for the internal market;
• monetary policy (for the Member States whose currency is the euro)
• conservation under the common fisheries policy;
• common commercial policy;
• conclusion of certain international agreements.
6.(Safeguards?)
The use of EU powers is governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. Under the principle of subsidiarity, the EU acts only where its objectives could not be sufficiently achieved by the MemberStates, whether at central, regional or local level, but could be
better achieved at EU level. Clearly, this principle relates to cases where either the EU or the Member States could act – and not to areas where the EU has exclusive powers. National Parliaments can vote to issue a ‘reasoned opinion’ on whether or not a Commission proposal respects the principle of subsidiarity. If at least one-third, currently 18, of such votes are issued,
the Commission’s draft must be reviewed. However the Commission is not obliged to amend or reject the proposal.
7. The EU will have a specific coordinating role on Member States’ actions for: ( what co-coordinating role?)
• economic policies;
• employment policies;
• social policies.
8. ( common economic policies)
Treaty requires the conditions of eligibility agreed upon by the European Council to be taken into account. This refers to the “Copenhagen criteria” which are:• stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy,the rule of law, human rights and respect for and,protection of minorities;• the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive
pressure and market forces within the Union;
( the French socialists campaigned to have the wording ‘ social market economy’ for all the good that would have done.)
8. (reference to climate change)
* New challenges, such as climate change and energy solidarity, are recognised;
( there are no binding resolutions or time limits on combating climate change.)
9.( the power of the European Central Bank)
The Treaty of Lisbon formalises the position of the ECB ( European Central Bank. Its only mandate is maintaining ‘price stability, which means curbing inflation.In other words employment or any social issues cannot be part of its objectives. It is not subject to any political contro which is unique among central banks worldwide.)) by making it an institution of the European Union. TheTreaty also gives the ECB wider power to adopt measures concerning international aspects of monetary union.
Decision making:
The general rule will be that European legislation will be decided by the Council and the European Parliament interacting on an equal footing, on the basis of proposals made by the Commission. In the great majority of areas, only the Commission could put forward proposals.
Provision is also made for a “Citizens’ Initiative” where at least one million citizens from a number of Member States can invite the Commission to submit a proposal on any matter where citizens want legislation to implement the Treaties. The Commission is obliged to consider the proposal. (Consider. Not act upon.)
Common Defence Policies:
The Common Foreign and Security Policy would enable the EU to draw on civil and military resources provided by the Member States to take part in missions outside its borders.These would be
• joint disarmament operations;
• humanitarian and rescue tasks;
• military advice and assistance tasks;
• conflict prevention;
• peace-keeping;
• tasks of combat forces in crisis management including peacemaking and post-conflict stabilisation
Under the new Treaty, the previous ban on enhanced cooperation being used in the security and defence area nolonger applies. • to strengthen international security, in line with the principles of the United Nations Charter.Such missions would only be authorised by a unanimous vote of the Council on a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy or a Member State.The Treaty will, however, allow for those Member States with bigger military capabilities to commit to taking part togetherin the most demanding missions within the external taskslisted above. This will be called “Structured Co-operation”.Only Ministers of those Member States taking part in this arrangement would be allowed to debate and vote in the Council on any action proposed under this pact.
Member States would be bound to support the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy and not to impede its implementation. They would also have to consult each other or major foreign and security policy issues, especially before undertaking any actions or commitments that could affect the common interests of the EU. In regard to defence within EU borders, the new Treaty also
explicitly states that the security and defence policy will include the progressive framing of a common defence policy and that this “will lead to a common defence” when the European Council unanimously so decides.
Any such decision would have to be ratified constitutionally– which, should Ireland wish to participate in such a common defence, would require a ‘yes’ in a referendum. This Treaty does not amend the “Seville Declaration” on Irish neutrality made at the European Council in 2002.
( Bertie has suggested that this could be ratified by the Oireachtais rather than by referendum.)
the Treaty provides for “Closer co-operation” between willing Member States on mutual defence – this would oblige those States to go to the aid of a fellow EU country which was a participant in such co-operation and came under armed aggression.
The new Treaty introduces a new area of solidarity that would be expected of all EU members. The Solidarity Clause says that the EU and its Member States would act jointly ina spirit of solidarity if a Member State were the victim of a terrorist attack or a natural or man-made disaster. The EU would mobilise all its resources, civil and military, to:• prevent the terrorist threat in the territory of the Member States;
Policing:
The new Treaty sets out to do this by including provisions that would:
• give the EU more powers in the Justice and Home Affairs area;
• enhance the EU’s effectiveness in fields where it has already been active – external border control, visas,asylum and immigration, judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation;
• extend the EU’s field of action in the fight againstserious cross-border crime, police co-operation,
mutual recognition of decisions by courts and judges and the creation of a EU public prosecutor,
with functions in defined areas.The opt-out arrangement includes a provision which allows Ireland (and the UK) to opt into future measures on a case-by-case basis.In a separate Declaration on these arrangements, Ireland has indicated its intention to opt-in to all such measures to the maximum extent it deems possible.
Procedure for future Amendments
The decision as to whether to examine any proposed amendments would be taken by the European Council, by a simple majority, after consulting the European Parliament. If the European Council says “no”, that would be the end for the proposed amendment. If its answer were “yes”, its President would have to convene a Convention, with membership as inclusive as in the Convention on the Future of Europe as described above. However, if they decided, again by a simple majority, that the proposed amendments were not important enough to warrant calling a Convention, it would be for an IGC to do his work.
( Inter-Governmental Convention- where the Lisbon Treaty was written.)
Where a Convention was held, it would adopt a consensus recommendation on the proposed amendments. This would then be considered by an IGC, which would, as now, have to reach a unanimous decision. Before any amendments could enter into force, they would have to be ratified by all Member States in accordance with their constitutional requirements.
( If amendments become hard to make whatever provisions are in the treaty will be pretty much set in stone for the future.)
Might it not be healthier at this stage to end all the mind-fucking analysis of the corruption-ridden -- and corruption-promoting -- Lisbon Treaty, and just simply vote "No" on June 12th (referendum day)?
Why spend any more time looking into all the "ins-and-outs" of a corrupt duck's arse?
The ongoing and wholly avoidable destruction of our priceless cultural inheritance in the Hill of Tara area tells us all we need to know about the thinking behind the Lisbon Treaty.
Q.E.D.
What has Tara got to do with the Lisbon Treaty? Infact the EU has stated that they want Ireland to protect Tara hill.
The EU can "talk the talk" about protecting Tara, but they can't "walk the walk":
CAN THEY?
That's what happens with politicians are saddled and severely weighted down with corruption, and hell bent on indulging themselves in yet more corruption.
Don't be fooled.
Q.E.D.
On referendum day remember all of the many, many millions of European voters who are not being given a chance to have their say on the Lisbon Treaty, and remember also the information sent to politicians regarding the issues raised via the following link:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Tara,+Turoe,+Ahern,+Barroso&spell=1
The world will be watching.
"The EU can "talk the talk" about protecting Tara, but they can't "walk the walk":"
Logically you are really saying that European bodies should have more power since there is no legislative machinery at the moment left which would enable these bodies to change this routing. It’s a question of acting ultra vires not a lack of will. It’s hard to see how rejecting Lisbon will change this - you should really support Lisbon and the look for enhanced community legislation on the protection of historical sites and their environs.
To Sceptic:
The European Union and Republic of Ireland bodies should be able to act non-corruptly, which they very clearly are unable to do at the present time.
Corruption has taken on a life of its own in the Republic of Ireland, and in the European Union, and it is completely out of control at the present time.
More legislation, with yet bigger choices for corrupt individuals and bodies to corruptly cherry-pick from (in regard to enforcement in given situations), will only make matters worse.
Rejecting the Lisbon Treaty will draw attention to this extremely important corruption issue, in a very potent way; and, it is in fact the only instrument of real substance that Republic of Ireland voters have to do so for the foreseeable future. Also, their present position of extreme strength (thanks to Bunreact na hEireann) is uniquely magnified by the fact that they are the only voters in Europe in a position to say "Yes" or "No" to the whole Lisbon Treaty business.
If the Republic of Ireland voters blunder, regarding this "once-in-a-blue-moon" opportunity to very firmly confront all of the socially cancerous political, legal, and corporate corruption at present in progress, neither they, nor any other group of voters in Europe, may ever get another chance to do so.
Rampant corruption and democracy cannot possibly live together; and, if there is no genuine democracy (i.e. "government of the people, by the people, for the people"), either despotism and tyranny, or anarchy and chaos will establish themselves in place of genuine democracy.
Also, this unique opportunity to powerfully challenge corruption is greatly helped by the fact that Prime Minister Ahern has recently had to set a date for his departure (from his present job) entirely because of his perceived involvement with corruption over a period of many years - since before he became Prime Minister in fact, which is some 10 years or so ago now please note.
Q.E.D.
Lugh I don’t follow you. The people can vote out the known corrupt pols in Ireland if they wish. It’s up to them if having been exposed by the press or tribunals some of them still get back. Notably Lawlor and Bourke did not but Lowry did. But what this has to do with the EU is not clear. The EU farm programmes are often victimized by fraudsters but the organisation itself is not corrupt. Indeed a case of nepotism fairly minor in 1999 resulted in the departure of the entire Commission in one fell swoop. There was zero tolerance of it. Moreover Ireland would be a lot more corrupt if the procurement, state aid and industrial policy system was not bound by rules from Brussels. That reduces the scope for corruption hugely. It is the planning system, which has nothing to do with the EU, that most revealed corruption took place in.
Quite honestly it’s glib and inaccurate to argue that to reject Lisbon is to somehow reject corruption at home. It won’t and it just does not follow.
Sceptic,
Some information regarding corruption in the European Union can be found through the following links:
EU Corruption, Nigel Farage MEP
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=EU+Corruption%2C+Nigel+Farage+MEP&btnG=Google+Search
EU Corruption, Ashley Mote MEP
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=EU+Corruption%2C+Ashley+Mote+MEP&btnG=Search
EU Whistleblowers, Neil Kinnock MEP
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=EU+Whistleblowers%2C+Neil+Kinnock&btnG=Google+Search
EU Corruption, Christopher Story
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=EU+Corruption%2C+Christopher+Story&btnG=Search
European Union, Illuminati global slush fund (estimated at $65 Trillion)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=European+Union%2C+Illuminati+global+slush+fund&btnG=Google+Search
TARA
EU Corruption, Commissioner Barroso, Tara
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=EU+Corruption%2C+Commissioner+Barroso%2C+Tara&btnG=Search
EU Corruption, Prime Minister Ahern, Tara
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=EU+Corruption%2C+Prime+Minister+Ahern%2C+Tara&btnG=Google+Search
Q.E.D.
"Mr President, I wish to draw your attention to the Global Security Fund, set up in the early 1990s under the auspices of Jacob Rothschild. This is a Brussels-based fund and it is no ordinary fund: it does not trade, it is not listed and it has a totally different purpose. It is being used for geopolitical engineering purposes, apparently under the guidance of the intelligence services."
http://www.rense.com/general70/cash.htm