Campaign for a No vote in the upcoming referendum on the Lisbon Treaty

by correction Tue Feb 05, 2008 00:25

"a broad spectrum of left wing groups" and the Green Party

by correcting correction Tue Feb 05, 2008 00:30

The honourable and principled Patricia McKenna is not representing the Green Party. Individuals of the Green Party may canvass how they wish as individuals. One of the best activists and members of the Green Party who also served as an MEP and cannot be construed as anti EU, but opposed to the proposed Lisbon Treaty has far better left wing credentials than some who deign to describe themselves as left wing.

by C.Lalor Tue Feb 05, 2008 03:31

Joe Higgins opposes the Lisbon treaty because it promotes neo-liberal economics.

And yet Declan Ganley/Libertas oppose the treaty because it impedes neo-liberalism.

How can the Lisbon treaty both impede and promote neo-liberalism?

by citizen Tue Feb 05, 2008 08:06

Rev. Ian Paisley used to describe the EEC as a romish plot among other things, although it would be interesting to know how he feels about the EU today. (He hasn't changed his views about romanism.) Certainly he earned a salary and got an extra platform for his robust views by serving as an MEP.

Left- and Right-leaning individuals are emotionally uncertain about deepening EU membership, but for the sake of reasoned public debate they use quasi-rational debating points to do with economics, national sovereignty, democratic accountability and the like. That's how individuals on opposite sides of the political spectrum can offer contradictory arguments in support of similar aims.

Let the debate and leafleting campaign continue. This campaign needs to be fought at the doorstep, where we can speak to the Don't Knows.

by MichaelY - Campaign Against the Lisbon Treaty Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:41

Dear C.Lalor

Below please find a summary of our views on the issue of neo-liberalism and the Lisbon Treaty. A whole number of us have, over the past couple of months, been through the 400-odd pages of the Treaty as carefully as we can and we stand by our conclusions. What Ganley and Libertas, as much as the YES cabal, say is THEIR business.

The EU has sought to create conditions that help big business to operate in an unrestricted Europe-wide market. This is the aim of the oft-repeated EU policy: “an open market economy with free competition” in Art 105 . Protocol 6 of the new treaty states: “The internal market as set out in Article [1-3] ... includes a system ensuring that competition is not distorted.” Article 1-3 is about the objectives of the EU. Competition is one of the EU’s organising principles and is the framework for all other policies. And pushing competition everywhere and always (see Harney and her friends in IBEC for example) is the very foundation of neo-liberal politics.

Since the 1980s the EU has also moved to restructure essential public services such as water and sanitation, public transport, energy, post and telecoms as private businesses. And now, through the Treaty, health, education and social care systems are in focus. Neo-liberalism is EU policy, and it is pushed further by this renamed constitution.

The CAEUC believes that Lisbon would make privatisation of our health service easier. For users of the public system, equal access would become even more remote than it is today. Reinforcing competition, via the treaty, would do little for the unemployed and poor, here or in eastern Europe. The EU is forcing people in wealthier regions to compete with the poor and jobless in a race to the bottom.

This is where we stand. This is why we are going to fight for a NO vote
For more info and meaningful discussion come to our first Public Meeting next Thursday Feb 7th, 19.30, in Dublin's Central Hotel (Exchequer Street).

by don't be fooled Tue Feb 05, 2008 13:32

Patricia McKenna is a member of the Green Party.

The Green Party is not, by any stretch of the imagination, left-wing.

So to label the picture as being of representatives of left-wings groups is wrong. Maybe Patricia McKenna was there in a personal capacity. However, I doubt she would have been invited if she wasn't an ex-MEP, and that was in her capacity as a Green Party Member. Presumably she wants to be an MEP again

In any case, the picture caption is wrong. At best it should be changed to
-Representatives of a broad spectrum of left-wing groups and Patricia McKenna, representing herself.

by MichaelY - Campaign Against the Lisbon Treaty Tue Feb 05, 2008 14:42

As the CAEUC grows and more organisations affiliate and individuals join, I think it is time to put an end to the McKenna debate. While an analysis of the past and present position of the Green Party, be it at the leadeship or membership level, may be of interest, it doesn'rt belong to this thread and is not of DIRECT concern to our campaign. If Gormley and Co argue for a YES vote, they will be debated against and criticised the very same way we will with DeRossa, Gilmore or the rest of the YES crowd.

Patricia represents the Peoples Movement in the CAEUC, one of the three founding organisations of the Campaign Against the EU Constitution set up in 2005 - when it looked that there may be a referendum here - before the Dutch and French people killed that shibboleth.
There are members of a variety of parties in the CAEUC - including the Labour Party, the Greens a couple of FFs and one FG member that I know of. Even a couple of PD members turned up to a meeting or two, though they haven't surfaced recently.
Patricia's continuing membership of the Greens, therefore, is not an issue for the CAEUC. She doesn't speak for the Green majority or minority, she stands on her position on Europe and the Lisbon Treaty and she is very very welcome. She's one of us - lol.
The CAEUC is not led by Ganley, nor by RBB or Patricia. It has a Steering Group of 12, transparent to all, and is a very broad front of left wing and progressive activists united in one objective:

VOTE NO TO THE LISBON TREATY.

So, let us debate the issues arising from Lisbon and leave sectarian and holier-than-thou attitudes to the YES cabal.

by 1-man sovereignty movement Tue Feb 05, 2008 20:25

The best analysis is by Professor Steve Peers, showing the evolution from 2002.
http://www.statewatch.org/euconstitution.htm

Who needs NATO when we have to act in 'solidarity' on security matters? Not much about Europol, the EU copy of Interpol:
http://www.europol.europa.eu/

Or about ENFSI, its forensic science body? We're paying for them.
http://www.enfsi.org/aboutenfsi/

by C.Lalor Tue Feb 05, 2008 20:45

If 'pushing competition everywhere and always is the very foundation of neo-liberal politics' (Michael Y,above) then Ganley is the biggest hypocrite to come on the scene in some time.

The board of his company, Rivada, is full of re-treads from the U.S. military industrial complex and from Homeland security. The merchants of death are not noted for their commitment to the virtues of competition. Ganley is a neo-liberal ideologue but his business practices are something else.

http://www.rivada.com/about/keypersonnel/declanjganley.htm

by redjade Wed Feb 06, 2008 01:42

quote:
Bad omens loom over Irish referendum
1. The public may use the poll to punish the Irish government under Taoiseach Bertie Ahern for its domestic record, with Ahern facing tough questions about his finances before an investigative tribunal.

2. Support for the EU has fallen among the business community - traditionally strongly in favour of EU membership - amid fears that EU tax harmonisation would threaten Ireland's low corporate tax rates. Meanwhile, a new interest group called 'Libertas' is running a door-to-door campaign arguing that the so-called 'passerelle' clause in the treaty will allow the EU to accrue radical new powers without future referendums.
/quote:
more at
http://www.euractiv.com/en/future-eu/bad-omens-loom-iri...70118

Passerelle clause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passerelle_Clause

by MichaelY - Campaign Against the Lisbon Treaty Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:04

Dear C.Lalor

We understand well and note what you're saying re: Ganley and, by extension, Libertas.

For info purposes, however, our collective position in CAEUC, broad front as we are, with members from a variety of organisations and parties, is that we will keep a strict autonomy and independence as a progressive and left wing alliance and will not, repeat NOT, take positions be they positive or negative of other components of the NO camp.

I am sure all of us who will be involved in the Referendum Campaign will have tjhe opportunity in many instances to express our personal, or organisational position. To that extent, good friend, your positions are welcome as elements of a debate that must take place if the situation of almost 70% of our people stating that they know little about and uinderstand even less the ins and outs of the Lisbon Treaty is to be reversed.

by MichaelY - Campaign Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:11

Dear redjade,

Please find a pdf and and an rtf version of our CAEUC pamphlet in the link below:
http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/2

where there is an extensive analysis of the passarelle

The pamphlet will be publicly launched at our meeting tomorrow, Thursday 7t 19.30, in Dublin's Central Hotel (Exchequer Street).

by redjade Wed Feb 06, 2008 13:40

Thanks MichaelY

But there is no mention of the 'passarelle clause' in the CAEUC pamphlet - at least by name.

It is a good pamphlet for EUro poli-nerds like myself but eeegaads! I wouldn't give it to a voter trying to decide which way to vote! Far too dense!

read this - which i think is refering to the 'passarelle clause':
'The main provisions for changing the treaty are in Art 48. To give new competences to the EU requires unanimous agreement by the European Council (the heads of state), an Inter-Governmental Conference and national ratification. This would probably involve a referendum in Ireland. But if all the heads of state, meeting in the European Council, agree to change policies within the EU’s competences, or to changes from unanimity to QMV, the national parliaments need only be notified. There is no requirement to ratify – so no referendum.'

whew! - that's pretty clear, no?

But thanks I will give it a closer look when i have some time.

btw, dont confuse http://www.libertas.org with http://www.libertas.co.uk

by MichaelY - Campaign Against the Lisbon Treaty Wed Feb 06, 2008 15:22

Hi redjade,

The pamphlet in question is the result of 7-8 CAEUC members trying, over the last few weeks, to come to terms with the Lisbon Treaty text - running to nearly 400 pages and innumerable Articles and Protocols- and make some political sense of it.
When Giscard d'Estaing said “Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly ... All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way", he wasn't joking - for once he was telling the truth. The Treaty is turgid, unreadable and every proposal hidden underneath references upon sub references to Nice, to Maastricht and the Treaty of Rome..

I agree with you that this is not a pamphlet that would go to 100,000 or so households in the few weeks before the Referendum. It has been planned as a political guide for political activists and tradeunionists who want to understand the implications of the Treaty and the main political / ideological reasons for our call to vote NO!!
The group that worked on this pamphlet will now have to look at the issues again and come up with specific short and direct little publications/leaflets which take the issues of democracy, of neo-liberalism, of militarisation and of the so-called Charter of Fundamental Rights and argue them succintly and in plain English.
Would love to have your more specific comments when you had time to look at the pamhlet in detail.

In solidarity

by MichaelY - Campaign Against the Lisbon Treaty Wed Feb 06, 2008 16:38

Dont know if the 'don't be fooled' poster yesterday and the 'greenwash' post above emanate from the same PC, the same house but they are certainly part of the same disturrbed thinking.
This attempt to divide the CAEUC won't work.....there is over a dozen organisations affiliated to our Campaign and it's not logical to even conceive that all of us, without exception, have been either fooled, conned or mystified by Patricia and the role of the Green Party.
I suggest that there may be another answer to this riddle: activists of all organisations are slowly developing a feeling of what a broad front actually means and what it implies in practice..... everybody in the CAEUC will operate autonomously and will be criticised/judged or praised and congratulated on the basis of what they do over the next few weeks.......unity nwill be our main force.
The Socialist Party, for example, having affiliated to the CAEUC, decided to cancel a meeting on the Lisbon Treaty they had planned for tonight and will work with the CAEUC supporting tomorrow night's meeting. What does that decision show?
Methinks it shows non-sectarian maturity and wisdom........these are, I believe, rare qualities in some sections of our Left but it's good to see signs of this trend developing.
So 'greenwash' prey tell us why you oppose the Lisbon Treaty, if you do, why you will vote No, if you will, and come and join us tomorrow evening.
All of us, along with Patricia, will be there. And you can speak face to face with a few members of the Peoples Movement. You may not have heard of them but I suspect they will also be there.

by El Sinsé - 29mai.eu Wed Feb 06, 2008 17:30 art.ataoo at free dot fr

Hello Ireland,
While democracy is dying in France ( vote for the ratification by parliment this evening and tomorrow) and having no other choice but to lodge a complaint with the European court on human rights against the French State for the non respect of democracy (see http://29mai.eu ).

Communiqué in English:

http://www.29mai.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=v...d=123

You the Irish citizens can still stop the application of this so called 'mini treaty', named of Lisbon.
It seems to me that the explanations in the pamphlet are very clear. If you are interested I recommend you to listen to the explanations of a frenchie (Raoul Marc Jenar) and add subtitles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsTvxb7wIgo&feature=related ( 15 clips )

Best regards

El Sinsé ( http://ninfosinter.over-blog.com/ )

by MichaelY - Campaign Against the Lisbon Treaty Wed Feb 06, 2008 18:04

Dear friend,

Thanks for your support . You can contact our campaign through the link:
www.caeuc.org
where you can download a .pdf or an .rtf version of our pamphlet and find out news and info about our VOTE NO campaign
The attached poster will give you an idea of how important we consider the lessons to learn from your successful 2005 campaign.

Solidarity

Meeting poster Thursday Feb 7th

by MichaelY - Campaign Against the Lisbon Treaty Thu Feb 07, 2008 13:47

Former Labour Health Secretary Frank Dobson warned in yesterday's Westminster debate on the Single Market aspects of the Lisbon Treaty that it will reduce the UK Government's control over the NHS and could create a two-tier system that "gives a leg up to the well-off". He said "neo-liberals" in the European Court and European Commission were increasingly exposing healthcare to "internal market forces".

Dobson criticised the planned new EU health services directive that would allow patients to travel to Europe for health treatment and claim back the costs on the NHS. Dobson said "It would appear that our National Health Service is and will remain the exclusive responsibility of the British Government - but it isn't and under the Lisbon Treaty - it won't. All that apparent protection for our sovereignty, provided in both the old and new treaties, simply isn't there because it turns out some parts of the treaties are more equal than others. (It) would clearly give a leg up to the well-off and the well-informed to the disadvantage of everyone else. The well-off will be able to pay in advance and wait to be reimbursed, they will be able to pay top-up costs if they need it and they will be able to afford the costs of travel. Badly off people will not be able to do any of those things."

Labour MP John Trickett, who tabled a rebel amendment to exclude any move towards an internal market in healthcare, said he was concerned about extending free market principles to health. He warned: "To imagine that the NHS's founding principles should be subverted in this particular way, I would have thought all members on all sides of the House would agree is an undemocratic and inappropriate way to change health service provision."

Echoes of what we in the CAEUC have been saying for a while.

See you all in the Central Hotel tonight.