'A more democratic, not a less democratic Europe, a Europe of peoples'

by jmstipe20 - Republican Sinn Féin Wed May 14, 2008 20:31 saoirse at iol dot ie Republican Sinn Féin, 223 Parnell St, Dublin 1 8729747

Leaflet published by Republican Sinn Féin
The Lisbon Treaty lays the basis for the creation of a European super state; already 80% of 26-County domestic law is subservient to EU laws and directives.

• The Lisbon Treaty introduces a clause which gives the EU Council of ministers the right to extend its powers without the need for a further treaty

• The Lisbon Treaty will remove the requirement for any further extension of EU power to be voted on by the Irish people in referenda

• The Lisbon Treaty paves the way for the creation of an EU army. Already EU military staffs EU 'Battle groups' have been set up which can operate 2,500 miles outside the borders of the EU. The Lisbon Treaty/EU Constitution will militarise the EU even, committing the 26-County State to a 'mutual - defence' commitment and removing the need for a referendum in the future on any new commitments to EU defence.

• Whilst health services such as cancer care in the 26 Counties face huge cuts in essential funding provision is being made for increased military spending to meet EU military commitments under the Lisbon Treaty/EU Constitution.

•The presence of 26-County troops in Chad, supporting a French colonial proxy war with China - who are propping up the regime in neighbouring Sudan- over oil reserves, highlights the nature of the military "tasks" that the 26-County state will be expected to perform.Almost 100 years after the First World War, is yet another generation of Irish people to be sacrificed on foreign battlefields in the interests of European capitalism and imperialism?

• The Lisbon Treaty represents an attack on both political and economic
democracy.

• This leads to a society where the needs of the 'market' are placed over all others, including the right to a job and a decent wage, where the best public services only go to those who can pay the most

•The 'Laval ruling' of the European Court of Justice set the "free movement of goods and services" as superior to the right of workers to strike. Again the Lisbon Treaty will further this agenda, placing competition above the rights of working people.

• By voting NO to the Lisbon Treaty you are opposing the creation of an
undemocratic superstate, increased militarisation, the erosion of neutrality, the privatisation of public services and unfettered capitalism.

Republican Sinn Féin, 223 Parnell St, Dublin 1
Tel: 8729747; e-mail: [email protected]; web: rsf.ie

by Howard Holby Fri May 16, 2008 09:53

The aspect of international law concerning the Lisbon Treaty unfolds a serious international conflict even at the pre-Lisbon stage, and, as a basis for an international litigation case may even invalidate a "yes" outcome of the referendum. (In my view the 'yes' outcome is not impossible under the ongoing uniquely overwhelming mass-media/government propaganda of blatantly false statements about the treaty.)

Similarly to the unconstitutional practices of the national parliaments in most of the member states to adjust the domestic law to serve the interests of the EU-federalism, rather than obeying the national laws, the very same deviation from the extant basis of the law can be captured on an international level. The Lisbon Treaty itself, specifically, Declaration 17. reveals this:
"At the time of the first judgment of this established case law … there was no mention of primacy in the treaty. It is still the case today. The fact that the principle of primacy will not be included in the future treaty shall not in any way change the existence of the principle and the existing case-law of the Court of Justice." (FINAL ACT (2007/C 306/02): 17. Declaration concerning primacy)

According to this declaration it is not necessary to stipulate the primacy of the Union law in the present and the future EU-treaties, because the primacy of the Union law is already in effect (!) .

First, this reasoning is a profoundly dishonest way to make a legally binding statement by avoiding including such statement in the treaty in a straightforward fashion.
Second, the primacy of the Union law determines the overall primacy of the Union over the member states, because the legislative and legal function is the very basis of all other state functions, and it is the primacy of the law that will ultimately determine the control of one political unit over another in every possible aspect: the political, financial, economical, social, etc.
Third, this declaration clearly claims that the EU has been following and will follow the practice of placing the Union law above national laws without existing contractual basis. By such a statement, however, the EU has admitted that it has been continually breaching international laws by positioning itself with a sovereign legislative function above other sovereign countries without any prior international agreements. In essence, this declaration attempts to legalise what is illegal by retrospectively legalising former illegal acts of arbitrarily overriding existing international agreements, and it is an attempt to maintain legality of the current illegal status quo, claiming that this practice will remain in place, despite the fact that the lack of contractual basis is still the case.

Urging the ratification – either with or without referendums – of an international treaty that contains such provision is itself the abolition of the very basis of the international law. Abolition of the guiding principles of international laws on constitutional and sovereignty-related terms, such as arbitrarily overruling the laws and citizens' rights of sovereign countries, entails a serious international conflict and is already a valid basis for an international litigation case.

by Mac Fri May 16, 2008 13:18

Why is it there seems to be no mention so far in any of the Lisbon Treaty debates about the Global Security Fund?

According to Ashley Mote MEP, this very large "slush fund", which is allegedly operated from Brussels, and created by Lord Rothschild, is being used for "geopolitical engineering purposes". (See Mr Mote asking his question at http://www.ashleymote.co.uk/viewvideo.php?sec=view&vide...id=43 )

I'm wondering if such "geopolitical engineering purposes" might include a "YES" result in the June12th Referendum -- by ANY means?

That's what slush funds are for surely?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Global+Security+Fu...earch

by Howard Holby Fri May 16, 2008 18:11

It is among the headline news today that Cowen and his government enjoys a rapidly increasing popularity.

The first question that comes to mind is:
Isn't it time for the government to provide proper and full information on the new constitution of Ireland and of Europe (Lisbon Treaty), which will determine the future of Ireland and of ca 500 million citizens, rather than for testing the efficiency in reaching popularity by keeping the voters in ignorance?

The propaganda recently launched by the government in support of the new federal EU constitution nicknamed as “Lisbon Treaty”, has failed to actually attach the text of the Treaty to its claims. The voters will be called to submit their votes on a constitutional treaty that is not available for reading as of today, less than a month before the referendum.

The 272 pages on the widely advertised website (www.lisbontreaty2008.ie) include ONLY the amendments of the existing EU treaties; however the website does not offer the text base modified by these amendments, and does not offer a consolidated presentation of these texts. How can the voters be expected to make a decision on a treaty that they we will never even see in full, only scattered fragments of it?

On the other hand, a consolidated -readable and full- version of the Treaty has been made available by a "NO to Lisbon" organisation, Libertas:
http://www.libertas.org/content/view/233/128/

The second inevitable question is this:

What would be the result of the poll if the voters would be informed that the pro-Lisbon Cowen-government is ready to give up Ireland's neutrality under Lisbon?

CHAPTER 1, GENERAL PROVISIONS ON THE UNION'S EXTERNAL ACTION
Article 24 (After the modifications and renumberings of the TEU articles):

1. The Union’s competence in matters of common foreign and security policy shall cover all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union’s security, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence.
The common foreign and security policy is subject to specific rules and procedures. It shall be defined and implemented by the European Council and the Council acting unanimously, except where the Treaties provide otherwise.
The adoption of legislative acts shall be excluded. The common foreign and security policy shall be put into effect by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and by Member States, in accordance with the Treaties. The specific role of the European Parliament and of the Commission in this area is defined by the Treaties. The Court of Justice of the European Union shall not have jurisdiction with respect to these provisions, with the exception of its jurisdiction to monitor compliance with Article 40 of this Treaty and to review the legality of certain decisions as provided for by the second paragraph of Article 275 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

2. Within the framework of the principles and objectives of its external action, the Union shall conduct, define and implement a common foreign and security policy, based on the development of mutual political solidarity among Member States, the identification of questions of general interest and the achievement of an ever-increasing degree of convergence of Member States’ actions.

3. The Member States shall support the Union’s external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union’s action in this area.
The Member States shall work together to enhance and develop their mutual political solidarity. They shall refrain from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union or likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations.
The Council and the High Representative shall ensure compliance with these principles.

The third question:

How can we trust a government that after reading the above still claims that the Lisbon Treaty will not affect Ireland's neutrality?

The fourth:
Has anyone from the government and/or from the 'yes' side ever opened and actually attempted to read the treaty?

.

by Trustless Fri May 16, 2008 18:57

"How can we trust this government?"

We can't -- absolutely 100% not. Keep in mind why Bertie Ahern was forced to quit his job as prime minister just a few weeks ago. It was not for being trustworthy was it?

And neither can we trust the main opposition parties either.

All the vast majority of our elected "public servants" now want to do is make themselves more secure in their overpaid "jobs" (as the puppets and lapdogs of the tin-gods they kowtow to), and to get themselves yet more cosy in parliament with bigger expenses and so on.

Once they get what they want, then it's to hell with the voters they con into voting "Yes" for Lisbon, and who they just see as stupid gobshites that fully deserve to be conned.

The really freightening thing is that might actually have a point?

by Sceptic Sat May 17, 2008 16:06

"How can we trust a government that after reading the above still claims that the Lisbon Treaty will not affect Ireland's neutrality?"

You are quite wrong. Ireland's neutrality refers to non-membership of military organisations only. It does not mean we are constrained in adopting common positions on foreign policy issues with other EU Member States. There is nothing in the text you quoted which impinges on neutrality as it has operated since 1939 nor that substantially breaks new ground on practice in relation to community external policy since accession in 1973. To assert otherwise is groundless scaremongering.

by Howard Holby Sat May 17, 2008 17:27

- reply to "Sceptic"

Losing neutrality by sharing foreign policy with other states which are NOT neutral, is the very same in effect as losing neutrality by being the member of any military organisation. Note: under Lisbon the EU would be established as an organisation with high military ambitions and with such a military-centered mind that even its constitution, the Lisbon Treaty, is heavily preoccupied with organising the EU's armed forces.

Ireland under Lisbon would be obliged to support the Union’s external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and to comply with the Union’s action in this area. And this is not possible without Ireland's giving up its current status of neutrality.

"The Member States shall support the Union’s external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union’s action in this area."

by Howard Holby Sat May 17, 2008 17:41

For a meaningful referendum we would need much wider publicity of the excellent works of Sinn Féin, the National Platform, Libertas and the other NO groups.

by Doubtful Sun May 18, 2008 22:00

Friendly dogs can be trusted because there's no deceit in dogs and no hidden agendas - but very few people can match the dog's standard of honesty, and many fewer still of those who are politicians.

From their viewpoint, politicians spin their lies (and sustain them) as a normal and "healthy" part of their trade.

Many, including the most senior, will admit (in private) -- and even boast sometimes -- that they simply have to lie, and that there's no way out of it for them.

Poor things. How awful that such heavy sacrifices should be demanded of anybody "in the line of duty" towards their fellows.

The Lisbon Treaty Referendum provides voters in the Republic of Ireland with a "once in a lifetime" opportunity to give this present set of corrupt parasites - as crooked and twisted as ivy growing up an oak - an "all-merciful" kick up the arse.

Now's the time to start showing the politicians and other "public servants" who's really in charge, and that there's still such a thing as "government of the people, by the people, for the people".

Genuine democracy in other words -- which is something entirely different to the "wolf in sheep's clothing" type of "elected dictatorship" and associated tyranny we now have, and which will be greatly boosted by anybody crazy enough to vote for the "Lisbon Treaty" piece of verbal rubbish.

by Sceptic Sun May 18, 2008 22:08

Where are you getting your understanding of the actual meaning and reality of the policy of neutrality (as opposed perhaps to what you think it should be). The neutrality policy adopted does NOT prevent the adoption of common EU positions. If you insist that it does then neutrality must not have been real since accession in 1973 and the Lisbon Treaty will not alter anything substantial.

Where is it written or declared officially or enshrined in law or treaty or anywhere that Ireland cannot adopt common positions on foreign policy with its EU partners? Give a source for this contention of yours.

by Too Late Tue May 20, 2008 14:19

To Howard Holby (see at Sat May 17, 2008 17:27 above)

Ireland has already lost its neutrality under Bertie Ahern, has it not? -- thanks to the arrangements at Shannon Airport regarding US military aircraft facilities he has provided?

by Sceptic Tue May 20, 2008 14:56

Only joining one of the belligerent blocks of nations in the second world war would materially have constituted a breach of the neutrality policy adopted in 1939 and that could have been changed by Government Decision plus Dáil decision if there was an actual decision to declare war. (Assuming we had not been attacked first.)

Post 1949 and codified in the Nice 2 constitutional amendment neutrality means not joining a military alliance like NATO or the Warsaw pact. But that does not preclude refuelling stopovers being approved.

The policy of neutrality refers to military neutrality only and even then it is confined to mutual defence pacts such as NATO. It does not apply to other military matters nor to taking political positions whether jointly with other nations or not.

As such there is nothing whatever in the Lisbon Treaty that affects the policy or neutrality.

by Roger Cole - Peace & Neutrality Alliance Tue May 20, 2008 16:33 pana at eircom dot net 17 Castle Street, Dalkey 01-2351512

In reply to Secptic.

There is no such thing in law as military neutrality. This is only a silly concept developed by people who are in favour of destroying the policy of Irish neutrality, a policy which has already been terminated by the decision of the Ahern Government to allow over one million US troops use Shannon Airport on their way to and from their Imperialist war in Iraq in contravention of the 1907 Hague Convention which defines in international law the rights and responsibilities of a neutral state.
The Defence and Solidarity Clauses in the Renamed EU Constitution(the Lisbon Treaty) on their own only deepen the process by which this state is being integrated into the EU/US/NATO military structures, let alone all the other military provisions.
For more information go to the PANA web site: www.pana.ie

by Sceptic Tue May 20, 2008 19:25

“The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 1.2 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7 of this section where that common defence would include the State.”

There is such a thing as forms of military neutrality and this is the article in the constitution (29.4.9) which expresses it. There is no other legal expression of neutrality in Irish law that exists and it is quite clear that neither the provision of stopover facilities nor the adoption of common EU positions (excepting common defence pacts) whether before or after the Lisbon Treaty will make the slightest difference to the substance of this neutrality.

Where is the statutory or other legal base for your rather expansive conception of neutrality? There isn't any.

by Sceptic Thu May 22, 2008 16:45

I am open to correction but it never seemed to me that the Irish policy of neutrality has any present connection with the Hague Convention provisions on the responsibilities of neutral states which refer to the obligations of declared neutrals in specific conflicts. It would only have been applicable in World War II which was the only time it was invoked.

It is wrong and deceptive to be trying to link the Hague Convention to either the Shannon stopover issue or the Lisbon Treaty. Neither have anything to do with the reality of Irish neutrality.

by Howard Holby Fri May 23, 2008 15:40

To those who are still wondering why and how Ireland would give up neutrality under Lisbon:

The quoted parts of the Lisbon Treaty are the very evidence that the member states would be obliged to follow the military policies of the EU. By ratifying the treaty Ireland would revoke its chance to even have a say on its own neutral level.
Beyond this consideration on a more general level: by a 'yes' referendum outcome Ireland would NOT only give up military neutrality but would give up its independent country status altogether, which includes giving up neutrality in all aspects of a political state.

Further readings on this:

Our future under a ratified Lisbon Treaty – I.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87683

What does the government hide by hiding the Lisbon Treaty?
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87595