Summary of the main arguments against Lisbon

by Jens Petersen - guess... Mon Jun 09, 2008 23:22

Well said Howard! Can I try to illustrate how important your point 5 is?

The Court of Justice has no “judicial code” , i.e. no legislation, voted by the people and/or its parliament, that tells the judges how lawsuits have to be organised. The scandalous relevant provisions in the treaties allow and even oblige the CoJ to lay down its own rules. The resulting three very thin booklets (one for each sub-Court of the CoJ) have hardly any content (things such as how to calculate deadlines, and nice procedures that exist in theory, to create an impression of a rule of law, but that are never used because the judges refuse to apply them), and if the content is too embarrassing for some lawsuit in which the judges would have to condemn their “friends” in the other institutions, they can simply change the rules and go on afterwards. They have fixed only a minimum of deadlines for themselves, so they can do what they want. So the judges largely are their own legislative power.

The judges have no minister of Justice. They are their own executive power. But parliament cannot tell a Judge to step down when the CoJ does not function.

And it does not. We would have more legal security with a lottery, in which there would be 50% chances that the right one wins.

The Treaty of Lisbon has been entirely tailored to the case law of the Court of Justice. Wherever the case law has to be maintained, the provisions on which it was based, or which it explains, have been kept in the text. Elsewhere, either beautiful promises are made, as the EU lawyers who wrote them knew that after interpretation according to existing case law, nothing would be left of the promises made. Or very dangerous enhancements of the institutions´ powers have not been hidden, or only partially. Unfortunately, the NO-side only criticise what they understand. There is four times more to criticise, but even the cleverest and most respectable, hard working critic, Jens Peter Bonde, fails to grasp well enough how devilish it all is, because he has not studied enough of the case law.

That reveals another weakness of the Treaties: as parliament is a law-taking rather than a law-making body, the discussions there usually have the relevance of disputes on the sex of the angels, and even the very best people there, like Bonde or the Austrian Hans-Peter Martin, sometimes talk about EU law as if it were the kind of law they were used to at home. I have discussed with some of the most competent and trustworthy MEPs, and they don´t understand EU law. Simply because EU law was not designed by EU Parliament! They cannot see the tricks in it. Lisbon gives more power to parliament, but that does not make the EU more democratic, because it also takes all power away from the people. And it is always shared power, i.e. the council will do the work for the MEPs, who don´t understand it all, and the Commission will whisper in the Council´s ears, as it has always done. Not the commissioners, but the corrupt civil servants who tell them what to do. Parliament will, even less than now, listen to us. It will, however, listen to the Court of Justice, that has the right to dismiss MEP´s (on parliament´s proposal, that means: the majority there can simply fire the eurosceptics chosen by the people, and if Lisbon is voted, very soon, they will).

The lawyers in the Member States who read the Lisbon Treaty for the heads of state or government, did not tell their bosses they did not understand it. But the EU lawyers who wrote it, fooled them. They wrote provisions that would have a totally different meaning in all of the 27 MS. The EU lawyers know how to mislead their colleagues in Prague, Dublin, Madrid, Athens and Stockholm, because they were specialised in their own law before studying EU law. The opposite is not true. Therefore, the 27 who smiled on the picture in Lisbon did not have the faintest idea what they had done. And therefore, they still find no arguments in the contents of the Treaty to defend it. They cannot tell you they were fooled (and promised good jobs in the EU when at home people would no longer want them: the EU simply bribed those 27 idiots)

Finally, something about the signature itself: the first idiot who signed it was Belgium´s prime minister Verhofstadt. His was an outgoing government that was allowed to deal only with current affairs. Belgian law recognises three kinds of current affairs: 1. daily administration (the schools and police stations are not closed) 2. respecting contracts signed 3. emergencies (when the dikes break, it is not necessary to swim on until there is a new government). Changing the constitution is not among these 3 things. That means that the 26 who signed after Verhofstadt signed an illegal text…unless the EU Court of Justice, relying on the primacy of EU-law, and hence of its own case law, that it decided to create itself, without our consent, were to decide otherwise. DON´T GIVE THEM THAT CHANCE. A Vote against Lisbon is a vote for the rule of law, a vote for it is a vote for an illegal document that can be declared legal… on the bases of the document itself? Such circular reasoning is what EU case law abounds with! Dear Irish friends, one day Europe will realise you saved us all if you vote no. I cannot vote, please vote for me and for my children, vote for my country, vote for Europe, vote for Ireland. Vote NO!

Ireland, save Europe, vote NO!

by Hans Ceustermans Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:48

Who controls the media, controls emotions like joy and happiness, but also fear and anxiety.
The current anti-gyspy emotions in Italy were carefully prepared already since one year by an organised media campaign.
Both the election results in Rome and Londen were based on irrational fear...
Who or better WHAT controls the European media?

In the media I read that Berlusconi's company mediaset has taken over the dutch media concern of Endemol.
Endemol was already owner of the Spanish telefonica.
Do we have to worry in Europe?
The victory of Berlusconi has nothing to do with the 'exotic' nature of Italians, or with political left or right but everything with mediaconcentrations that can fall in the wrong hands.

I follow the Italian political situation since 16 years and have seen how far it can come.
This is a slow poison that penetrates...
Gradually headlines start to change, the society gets divided and polarised, critical journalists get fewer and fewer.
In Rome but also in Londen the election victory was based on irrational fear.
There is no political answer to this kind of manipulation.
This can happen in any European country...

If you read the following article which are all statements of Mr Berlusconi himself one week before the elections(I was in Italy), you'll get an idea of who or better WHAT won and why...
Read and shiver..
http://www.indymedia.org/en/2008/04/904792.shtml

Do we want to follow in Europe the roadmap of Berlusconi and Putin?
Isn't it urgently time to act?
Maybe it's not yet too late...

*********************************************************************************************************
More info and references

Silvio Berlusconi: A threath for European democracy?
http://www.wikio.com/article/54654672

Help Europe: Silvio Berlusconi is taking over the European media
http://www.wikio.com/article/56367203

Italian crystal nights:first the gypsies,what's next... is this Europe 1938?
http://www.wikio.com/article/57683499

Silvio Berlusconi and the 'democratic' 2008 election campaign
http://www.wikio.com/article/57159079

Elected senator and member of Berlusconi's party 'people of freedom'

by mr L Tue Jun 10, 2008 13:18

Hans,
I suggest you monitor RTE as well because it is under the control of the Irish Government and restricted in what it broadcasts.

Strangely it is the BBC on the other island that is far more liberal than our own,

by Howard Holby Tue Jun 10, 2008 14:43

Jens, many thanks for your brilliant and informative comment: you have added new insights to the core issues of Lisbon.

Lisbon creates a new kind of totalitarian regime with self-granted rights to exercise uncontrollable powers on even higher levels in practice than it appears from the Treaty. Although the Treaty by itself is enough to be rejected on the basis of the system designed by its provisions, your insights added one more level above this:
When an "independent" court is free to exercise the three essential state power-branches normally separated in democratic systems: legislative, executive and judiciary, such a system is a totalitarian regime, period.
Even without any further arguments, considerations, quotes from the treaty, this is a strong enough basis to turn away from Lisbon and start reorganising the entire EU.

Exactly as you have said: the Lisbon process is a process of bending fundamental laws in order to legalise what's illegal, and if that's not enough, they descend into the layers of philosophy in order to redefine objective concepts and political principles into their opposite meaning.

If we look at the differences between the former EU Constitution and its new tricky version, the "Lisbon Treaty" what we find is that those 'details' which had made it necessary to hold referendums on the former EU Constitution are missing from the Lisbon Treaty, simply because these 'details' are kept anyway :
1) because they are already in use, like the EU-state symbols, and/or
2) the authors simply declared it "unnecessary" to put these in the treaty, because, as in the case of EU-law, the primacy of Union law over national laws is the practice anyway.

Parts of one of my former articles from chapter 2. "The collapse of democracy through the collapse of domestic and international laws: Our future under a ratified Lisbon Treaty – I.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87683"

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)

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 law making (legislative) and law enforcing functions are 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, 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. 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 the EU has admitted that it has been continually breaching international laws by positioning itself with sovereign legal functions 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 by itself the abolition of the very basis of the international law. Elimination of the guiding principles of international laws on constitutional and sovereignty-related terms, such as arbitrarily overruling the laws of sovereign countries, entails a serious international conflict and is already a valid basis for an international litigation case against the evidently unjust and unlawful practices of the Court of Justice.

by Sceptic Tue Jun 10, 2008 15:58

Much of what is written on this thread is completely off the wall. A totalitarian system has no private or non-state sphere whatever. The EU is the opposite of such a system. If you spent some time in a real totalitarian system – eg the former eastern block states, North Korea today or Saddam’s Iraq you might not abuse the term so much.

“The predefined one-size-fits-all figures to be applied for all economic cases” - there is no such macroeconomic policy or EU wide economic plan. There are some coordinated economic measures and there is the euro which is a another matter and one which was dealt with in previous treaties.

“The rude intervention of the Union into its member state's economy is an utter violation against a country's sovereignty” –There is no such intervention. There is a degree of shared sovereignty in certain areas for which there are common rules which are negotiated between the Ministers. Pre EU practice which stressed absolute national sovereignty and non cooperation between states were not successful economically and led to catastrophe in wars between the States of Europe.

“It proves that the Union determination to perform total harmonisation of all rules and regulations within the EU, therefore the harmonisation of corporate taxes will be inevitable.” Not true. Only certain types of legalisation are harmonized and even then not to the maximum degree except in a smaller number of cases. Corporate tax rates are explicitly protected by the text of Lisbon Treaty from harmonization. The position is therefore the exact opposite of the one portrayed.

“It proves that the Union law enjoys primacy over national laws without any authorisation” Community law has enjoyed primacy in certain areas of community competence since 1973. There is nothing either new or sinister in it. You could not run an international organisation of states any other way.

"The acts of throwing away former referendum results (the French and Dutch)," - these were not thrown away – the constitution in question was never implemented as a result.

“The Court of Justice has no “judicial code”” – this is absurd. The ECJ is there to interpret the Treaties and the body of community legislation. A minister for Justice has nothing to do with the judiciary in the sense it is presented here and the Court has no executive function whatever. None. The separation of powers is intact and strict.

“the parliament is a law-taking rather than a law-making body” – nonsense – all community legislation must be passed by the Parliament. The laws are drafted in co-operation with the Council of Ministers.

The point about the Belgian PM not being entitled to sign the Treaty is sheer fantasy.

Write a long critique of the Treaty if you wish but don’t invent thing! Every assertion in this thread is wrong and I have only dealt with a few.

by Frantz Blackrock Tue Jun 10, 2008 16:02

Handelsblatt.com, a sort of German Financial Times, has these recent remarks on the Irish referendum. It notes recent opinion polls that indicate a large swing to the No position among the Irish publicum:-

< Die Umfragen überraschen, weil Irland ein grundsätzlich EU-freundliches Land ist. Alle relevanten politischen Parteien bis auf den ehemaligen politischen Arm der Terrorgruppe IRA, Sinn Feín, stehen hinter dem EU-Vertrag. Auch Wirtschaftsverbände, Gewerkschaftsbund und zuletzt sogar eine große Bauernvereinigung haben empfohlen, mit "Ja" zu stimmen. Dem "Nein"-Lager gehören kleinere linke Gruppen, einige Gewerkschaften, ein anderer Bauernverband und von diverse Einzelkämpfer an. Ihnen ist es gelungen, Unsicherheit über die Folgen des Vertrags für die irische Neutralität, auf die Lage der Bauern und Fischer sowie auf die niedrigen Steuern zu erzeugen. >

{This turnaround in opinion is a surprise because Ireland is basically an EU-friendly country and all relevant polictical parties.. except Sinn Fein stay behind the Lisbon Treaty. Even major business organisations, trade unions and even a big farmers organisation have recommended a Yes voting. To the No camp belong minuscule left groups, certain trade unions, another farmers group and diverse individual campaigners. These have succeeded in creating uncertainty about the consequences of the treaty for Irish neutrality, the standing of farmers and fishermen and taxation levels.}

The report goes on to state the konsequens if there is No result -

< Sollte eine Mehrheit der Iren mit "No" stimmen, würde dies die EU erneut in eine Krise stürzen. Der EU-Gipfel am 19. und 20. Juni in Brüssel müsste sich dann um eine Lösung bemühen. Der Europaabgeordnete Jo Leinen (SPD), der den Verfassungsausschuss des Parlaments leitet, sieht jedoch einen möglichen Ausweg. Es sei denkbar, die irische Regierung zu einer Stellungnahme zu den Gründen des Scheiterns aufzufordern, sagte er. >

{..this would plunge the EU into a new crisis. The EU Summit meeting on 19/20 Juni then would have to consider a solution. Commissioner Jo Leinen (SPD - German social democratic party)... sees a possible way out however. It is thought possible that the Irish Government would be asked for a statement of opinion on the reasons for the [referendum] failure, he said.}

See at this link: http://www.handelsblatt.com/News/Politik/International/....html

by Howard Holby Tue Jun 10, 2008 17:52

[Much of what is written on this thread is completely off the wall. ]

Only what you have written is.

[A totalitarian system has no private or non-state sphere whatever. The EU is the opposite of such a system. ]

Read my articles on the subject (see references) It has been proven from all aspects that the EU is a totalitarian system. Your arguments on the other hand are without substance.

[If you spent some time in a real totalitarian system – eg the former eastern block states, North Korea today or Saddam’s Iraq you might not abuse the term so much. ]

How about studying political theory and economics, including studying the former Soviet Union? That's more than enough to fully understand that the EU is a totalitarian system.
It is only your realm of delusion to operate with what's on the surface, it is corrupt politics to exploit what appears to be on the surface and it is science to discover what there is.

[“The predefined one-size-fits-all figures to be applied for all economic cases” - there is no such macroeconomic policy or EU wide economic plan.]

The referred BBC news (have you bothered to read it?) has just proven that there is such a macroeconomic policy of the EU. Isn't it time to give up the endless chain of your lies, even denying what's in front to our eyes?
Those who studied economics (apparently you haven't) know that tax rates are part of a government's budgetary policies.
Rigid, pre-defined tax figures are parts of a rigid, pre-written set of rules of a centrally controlled economy, like that of the former Soviet Union. No matter how much you state the opposite, the facts remain facts.

["The acts of throwing away former referendum results (the French and Dutch)," - these were not thrown away – the constitution in question was never implemented as a result.]

The acts of throwing away former referendum results - the French and Dutch - are carried out by implementing the Lisbon Treaty - which is the same as the former EU Constitution. When a constitution that has been dismissed by two referendums, yet is being enforced, is an act of throwing away former referendum results (the French and Dutch) on constitutional matters, which is a most profound violation against the fundamental principles of democracy.

The rest - as the whole - of your post is an unsubstantiated empty charade; a desperate attempt to discredit the truth and argue with facts.

by Howard Holby Tue Jun 10, 2008 18:06

No, it is not too late for Italy - and it is not too late for Europe.

Your contribution is, has been and will be very important - please keep it up!

The more we can share and can read from authentic sources - rather than from virtual world of the mainstream media - the more chance we have to step out of this Orwellian world - and we will.

- My deepest gratitude and appreciation to Indymedia for being one of the last free media of the world. -

We need international solidarity and need all honest thinkers and informed citizens of all member states to make a difference.The trend of solidarity among the pro-democracy forces of the EU-states is getting stronger but this is just the beginning.

by Darragh Wed Jun 11, 2008 02:08

This point is academic, but important: the plural of referedum is referenda. Making such an elementary error, particularly in published literature (as many organizations have done) does not reflect well on the attention to detail the writer is paying to his/her work.
Don't bring yourself down with such minor details.

by Howard Holby Wed Jun 11, 2008 06:08

Darragh: "This point is academic, but important: the plural of referedum is referenda. Making such an elementary error, particularly in published literature (as many organizations have done) does not reflect well on the attention to detail the writer is paying to his/her work.
Don't bring yourself down with such minor details."

However:
The plural of "referendum" can be either "referenda" or "referendums".

Encyclopædia Britannica: "referendum":
n, pl -da or -dums [NL, fr. L, neut. of referendus, gerundive of referre to refer] (1847)

(For your information: "n" stands for noun and "pl" means plural.)

by Sceptic Wed Jun 11, 2008 15:57

Howard Holby you seem to confuse the fact that there might be cross reference for some assertion or other as "proof" of the truth of this or that assertion. This is not proof of anything. It’s not necessary to engage with every reference you give if the premise is so manifestly off the wall that to argue is pointless.

Each of the premises you put forward our groundless. The States which comprise the European Union, to take the most glaring example, have representative democracy, independent judiciaries, a free press, a private civil sphere and space for non - State economic activity. The contrast with totalitarianism is total in every sphere - ruling party permanently in power, no free press, no private permissible economic activity, a large surveillance operation run by a secret police, jailing or worse for political activity not sanctioned by the party and a coercive system in general for the maintenance of the party in power. With the ultimate threat of Soviet tanks on the streets if things went badly out of line.

The institutions of the EU were set up to counter totalitarianism - between the vanquished nations which had been governed by totalitarianism and those which had fought it. The recent eastward expansion is to assist nation states recovering from Soviet totalitarianism.

In the eastern block pre 1989 the two things impoverishment and oppression went together in the eastern block hand in glove. The west was both free and prosperous. It was the success of the west that eventually overcame and overtook the eastern block and it withered away quickly. You cannot just fly in the face of facts.

If you really are concerned about totalitarianism it is not the EU which you should be complaining about - it is an antidote to it and by inter State cooperation guarantees liberal democracy by a complementary set of institutions. . You might be confusing centralisation with totalitarianism but that is an entirely different phenomena and is not sinister.

I note you accuse me of vacuity but I gave you a detailed rebuttal of your assertions which you have not engaged on because they are not defensible presumably. You cannot to be let get away with dishonest comments to the point which they are the exact opposite of any true representation of reality.

PS
“It is the responsibility of the Court of Justice to ensure that the law is observed in the interpretation and application of the Treaties of the European Union and of the provisions laid down by the competent Community institutions.” From wiki on the ECJ which directly contradicts your assertion that the ECJ does not operate to a legal code.

by Pierre Fairview Thu Jun 12, 2008 03:25

The posh daily Le Monde today publishes on its front page a report on the Lisbon Treaty campaignings and vote in Ireland. There is also a think piece entitule : "Supposing the Non vote wins? "

Here are three possible scenarios that might follow, according to the opinion journalist Thomas Ferenczi -

"La première, la moins probable, est celle d'une renégociation. Les Vingt-Sept, comme ils l'ont fait après le "non" des Français et des Néerlandais, remettraient le texte en chantier pour tenter de trouver une formule qui donne satisfaction aux plus réfractaires...
[First, and least likely, is renegotiation. The 27 state, like they did after the French and Dutch Nons, would get the text set up to try to find a formula which would satisfy the most refractory critics...] The journo sees impossibilities about such a course.

Deuxième hypothèse : les Européens arrêtent les frais, ils constatent qu'un accord est décidément impossible sur un nouveau traité et choisissent d'en rester au traité de Nice actuellement en vigueur. Ils savent qu'il n'est pas satisfaisant et qu'il ne fournit pas à l'Union les instruments dont elle a besoin pour peser davantage sur la scène internationale, mais ils se disent qu'il ne sert à rien de s'obstiner et que d'autres urgences requièrent leur attention.

[Second possibility: The Europeans would stop the venture and would admit that a new treaty was impossible and would choose to stay with the Nice Treaty currently being applied. They know Nice isn't satisfactory...but would say other matters need their urgent attention.]

La troisième hypothèse serait de demander aux Irlandais de revoter. .. Mais peut-on vraiment exiger d'eux qu'ils se déjugent une seconde fois ? Il appartiendra éventuellement à la France, qui prend la présidence tournante de l'Union, le 1er juillet, pour six mois, de gérer ce moment difficile. Nicolas Sarkozy, en préparant cette présidence européenne, ne s'attendait sans doute pas à cette épreuve.

[A third situation would be to ask Ireland to 'revote' (revoter)...but could [Brussels] really demand the Irish vote twice again? France takes over the presidency of the EU on 1st July and has to manage this difficult moment. Nicholas Sarkozy...wouldn't relish such a difficult task.]

If you can read French here's the article link http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2008/06/11/et-si-l....html

Bonne chance et votez No-Nil-Non!