Lisbon - So What’s It All About Then?

national | anti-capitalism | news report

Tuesday April 29, 2008 17:51

by WSM - Workers Solidarity Movement

The anarchist call for a no vote

Over recent months, there’s been endless talk about the Lisbon Treaty. Most political parties advise us that we’ll be embarrassed and economically ruined if we don’t vote ‘Yes’. Groups advocating a ‘No’ vote tell us that we will lose our democracy and sovereignty if we do vote ‘Yes’.

We as Anarchists think they have both missed the point. People in Ireland can do a lot better than a choice between the clowns in the Dáil or those in Brussels. We oppose the EU but don’t insult people’s intelligence by saying that our current society in Ireland with its ludicrously high house prices, diabolical public services and corruption is anything better.

A ‘No’ vote will not ruin us. The treaty doesn’t commit us to any major new economic agreements. A ‘Yes’ vote will not ruin us. Let’s not forget that sovereignty as it is currently discussed is meaningless. The major lack of democracy in our lives is not between us and the EU but between the Irish government and us. The Irish elite are happy to have a debate focused on Europe because it deflects attention from the real struggle which is here in Ireland.

Anarchists believe the problem is not the treaty alone but the EU as an institution. The treaty, no matter what it contained, wouldn’t give us more control of our lives. This can only happen when we have democracy in our communities and workplaces.

>> They’re Stealing Our Public Services

Over the years, trade unions and social movements across Europe have improved our quality of life by winning increased public services. Today, we are seeing the European elite, including the Irish elite, attempting to overturn these victories. We are seeing an attack on working people through the process called “liberalisation” which means the handing over of public services to private owners so they can make profits from services that are essential to us all.

We’ve already seen this when the Irish government brought in the ‘Bin Tax’. Over the past few years this tax has risen and risen. Now the county councils are “outsourcing” waste collection. Essentially they have given our taxes to private companies to profiteer on what is an essential service.

If our leaders have their way things will get worse. We’ve already seen attempts to re-introduce a water tax in the 1990’s. This will follow the same process as the ‘Bin Tax’. Water charges, once introduced, will steadily increase before being privatised. A ‘No’ vote won’t stop this “liberalisation” by itself, but it will send a clear message that we will not allow this to happen and that the fight starts here.

>> A Treaty for Elites

This treaty also asks us to support changes in the structure of the EU. These changes will not affect our lives on a daily basis. Much is being made of the fact that we are losing our commissioner, but for us as Anarchists this question is irrelevant to the daily lives of people in Ireland - Charlie McCreevy has been a Commissioner for two years - is he really making a difference? Do you trust him or any politician to act in your interests?

We see issues like the democratic deficit in the EU as merely a symptom of the real problem. The real problem is in how we live our own lives. We work all day and have absolutely no control over our lives in our workplace; we are asked to vote every 5 years to chose who we would like to make our decisions for us. This is not democracy in any meaningful sense of the word. There are people who do have control however; the politicians and business elites. They make money off our work everyday. A quick look over the past ten years in this country has seen the fact they couldn’t care less about us. A massive amount of wealth has been created by workers in this country during the Celtic Tiger. Our bosses have hoarded this wealth while we had to take out huge mortgages to buy homes.
Now things are not looking so rosy and this has left many of us looking into an uncertain future. The elites do not face these problems. Many have become millionaires, even billionaires. Now are they willing to give a bit back to relieve our uncertain futures? Of course not. This is capitalism - they make money in the good times and then live off it while we are going through the bad times.

These problems exist for a reason. There is no democracy in our workplaces and until this happens the money will always end up in the coffers of the elite. This treaty asks us to support changes in the EU to make money transfers and trade relations between them easier. Why should we give them the thumbs up when they couldn’t care less about us? Vote ‘No’ to their restructuring. But a vote ‘No’ is worth little on its own if things are not changed at home. The EU must change but so too must Irish society.

>> So, What’s the Solution?

Through its commitment to liberalisation, this treaty is endorsing the passing of more of our public services in to private hands. This is robbery. It is maintaining, reinforcing, and expanding the undemocratic structures of Ireland today on to a European level. There are quite clear reasons for this – as we have argued above, the EU and the Irish State are designed to benefit a minority; those who control the wealth in our society.

This is nothing new. It has being going on to some degree or another for thousands of years. Is this the best we can do? For us the answer is simply no. How can Ireland, a country with vast amounts of wealth, allow 25% of the population to either live in poverty or at risk from poverty? It simply isn’t good enough. We don’t believe the problem lies in a bad government or corruption. The problem is the structure of society we live in.

We, as Anarchists, believe that only a radical change in the democratic and economic structure of our society can change things so that the majority of people benefit from the resources of this country. The wealth, held now by the minority, must be used to benefit everyone.

We believe control is the key. Firstly we must have control over our workplaces. If we cannot control our workplaces we will not have any control over where the resources of our country end up. The health service is a good example. The people who do the work - doctors, nurses, cleaners, technicians, cooks, etc. should be the people who run the health service on a daily basis. Our current system puts a politician and businessmen in the HSE in control of the system when clearly those who work in the industry know it best. The same can be said for private industries: the people who do the work never see the wealth created; it always ends up in the hands of one individual or a small minority.
We must have control over our communities – the innumerable planning disasters we live with and see around us show the disastrous effect on communities that entrusting planning to politicians has. Many of us in this country live in housing estates with few green areas, little space for kids to play and inadequate access to proper services. Politicians simply allow their developer friends to build as cheaply as possible with no regard for the communities who have to live with the effects of poor planning. This is just another symptom of a world where the lives of people are entrusted to a political system that has no interest in representing anything other than the interests of the rich and powerful. We want a world where our communities can control themselves, not act as testing grounds for feckless developers.

>> What do we mean by control?

Control is not about you controlling anyone else or anyone else controlling you; it means that you and your work mates and your neighbours should run your lives together. We don’t believe that a government, a party or a religious institution knows what is best for you – you can only decide that with those you live and work with. For you to have control over your day-to-day decisions direct democracy is essential. Direct democracy is where you have a direct say over the issues that affect your life, including in your workplace.

>> Is this Socialism?

Yes. The means of producing wealth should be in common ownership. Anarchists believe that everyone should contribute to society according to their abilities and receive according to their needs. We also see freedom as essential, we want to end the division of people into rulers and ruled. As one of anarchism’s early advocates, Michael Bakunin, said, “Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice...Socialism without Freedom is slavery and brutality”. How can this be achieved? We are not so naïve as to think that the likes of the property developers, the businessmen or the politicians are going to give up their power and wealth easily – we must be organised. Organisation is our strength - in your workplace this can mean joining a Trade Union or perhaps in your area joining a campaigning group. Together, as organised workers and neighbours, we can build a new society of equality, prosperity and liberty for all.

>> Who’s Running this Campaign?

This campaign is organised by the Workers Solidarity Movement.

We hold that there should no limits on human liberty other than respect for the liberty of others. We believe in democracy, in direct democracy. This means everyone being able to have a say in making the decisions that will effect them.

We operate along the same lines as the type of society we would like to see. There are no leaders in the Workers Solidarity Movement. Our members in Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Limerick, Derry and Ballina are all equal. We all make decisions together and all contribute in terms of our time and money. We promote anarchism in our trade unions, in community campaigns and in our workplaces.

Want to find out more about anarchism? Email or write to us for a free copy of our newspaper, ‘Workers Solidarity’.

save preference

Comments (29 of 29)

Jump To Comment:

Another alternative: genuine parliamentary democracy

by Howard Holby

Fri May 09, 2008 09:42

The article contains several excellent ideas. What I find debatable is to identify the overall solution to the key problems of our society as a system of "anarchism".

The EU's undemocratic methods in presenting and enforcing the Lisbon Treaty and the fact that the current political system in most European countries performed a radical shift towards parliamentary dictatorship disguised as "parliamentary democracy", have created the illusion that the only alternative of the current system - and to the system the EU intends to implement by the Lisbon Treaty - is something else than parliamentary democracy. According to this article anarchism is seen as the optimal alternative. (The definition of "anarchism": "political theory holding all forms of government authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups.")

In reality however, those who oppose the federal government in Brussels under the Lisbon Treaty and/or the current political system in Ireland, do not necessarily oppose all forms of government. Some may oppose only the totalitarian or oligarchic forms of governments, which exercise their absolute power either in an open form of totalitarianism or disguised as "parliamentarian democracy".

When trying to prevent the transfer of our national sovereignty - the powers currently exercised by our parliament - to a distant, unaccountable and unelected group of officials in Brussels, the desirable alternative is not necessarily to eliminate the state and its functions, but to rebuild a truly democratic system with the constitutional controls of the elected representatives and other key elements of parliamentary democracy. These elements indeed include the methods of direct democracy, such as the citizens' effective control over the activities of those in whom the people vested their power. (Note: the literal meaning of democracy (etymology: ancient Greek) is "demos" (people) "kratos" (power, control).

However, these requirements do not necessarily imply the need to organise a society without a government. The notion of a society without government remains an utopia anyway, for the reason that the very act of organising a society and maintaining constitutional order of rule of law, will always require structures and institutional mechanisms that will end up having to perform the functions of a government, parliament, and other state offices.

False dilemma about the Lisbon Treaty

Thu May 08, 2008 19:17

The fact that the current political system in most European countries performed a radical shift towards parliamentary dictatorship disguised as "democracy" has created the illusion that the only alternative of the current system is something else than parliamentary democracy. The purpose of this article is to explain that this is not the case and to demonstrate an example of the false dilemma presented in
"Lisbon - So What's It All About Then? - the anarchist call for a no vote" - (https://www.indymedia.ie/article/87364)
The definition of "anarchism" is:
"Political theory holding all forms of government authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups."

The referred article has been suggesting that the philosophy of anarchism would be the only alternative of the totalitarian state of Brussels founded by the Lisbon Treaty. In reality however, those who oppose the Lisbon Treaty do not necessarily oppose all forms of government. They oppose the totalitarian or oligarchic forms of governments, which exercise their absolute power either in an open form of totalitarianism or disguised as "parliamentarian democracy".

The referred article emphasises the need for control of our lives, which is true, however this can be realised by parliamentary democracy under a truly democratic constitutional system, which guarantees the ability of the voters to control the political, legal and economical performance of the elected state officials. In fact Ireland's current system is probably one of the rare examples of political systems in which the independent court still performs its tasks according to the objective requirements of democracy and constitutionalism. In the other EU-states, and on the level of the Union, however, where parliamentary ratification of the constitutional Lisbon Treaty has been carried out, such act of overthrowing the national constitutions has not been contested by the independent courts, which is a major warning sign indicating the rapid collapse of the elementary pillars of democracy in Europe.

As Maravall and Przeworski suggest, political officials must have the incentives to honor law. Diamond (1999:70) puts it this way with respect to democracy: "Only when citizen commitment to police the behaviour of the state is powerfully credible...does a ruling party, president, or sovereign develop a self-interest in adhereing to the rules of the game, which makes these constitutional rules self-enforcing. Citizens must have the ability to defend principal institutions of the rule of law." (Adam Przeworski, JosÃ© MarÃa Maravall: "Democracy and the Rule of Law", Cambridge University Press; 1 edition (Jul 21 2003)

According to Helen Desfosses, Abdo I. Baaklini: "Designs for Democratic Stability: Studies in Viable Constitutionalism" (M.E. Sharpe, February 1997) the key elements of parliamentary democracy are control, accountability, responsiveness and performance.
Also note: the literal meaning of democracy (etymology: ancient Greek) is "demos" (people) "kratos" (power, control).

Fact is that when opposing the transfer of national sovereignty - the powers currently exercised by the national parliament - to a distant, unaccountable and unelected group of officials in Brussels, the desirable alternative is to retain a truly democratic system in which the constitutional control of the voters over their own governments is preserved, or, in the countries where it is lost, regained.

Rather than aiming for the above, claiming that an alternative of Lisbon Treaty would require a system of anarchism does not only stand on a false premise, but would cast a negative shadow over the NO campaigns in general.

Correction - the Independent link

by MichaelY - CAEUC/iawm

Tue May 06, 2008 15:06

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/blow-for-lisbon...Print

"Blow for Lisbon as union joins No side"

Tue May 06, 2008 15:01

More coverage on the decision in CAEUC's website www.sayno.ie

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/blow-for-lisbon...ins-n...

The TEEU Website :

www.teeu.ie

And if you're free this evening (Tuesday 6th) you may wish to go and listen to Tony Benn speaking on the Lisbon Treaty.

The meeting will take place in the Ui Chadhain Theatre on the Ground floor of the Arts Block in Trinity College Dublin at 7pm.

The CAEUC is having a full general meeting open to all supporters of the NO campaign tomorrow Wednesday 7th at 20.00 hours in the Teachers Club

TEEU

by CK

Tue May 06, 2008 13:59

As a member of the TEEU consider it done.

Craft Union Calls for NO vote in Lisbon Treaty

by Libertarian

Tue May 06, 2008 11:58

The State's largest craft union, the Technical Engineering and Electrical Union, has urged its 45,000 members to vote "No" in next month's Lisbon Treaty referendum.

TEEU general secretary designate Eamon Devoy said recent judgments by the European Court of Justice demonstrated that the pendulum had swung against workers' rights and in favour of big business.

In these circumstances, it would be "foolish" to give more power to EU institutions.

The decision by the TEEU, which represents middle-income workers in manufacturing, construction, energy, engineering and electrical contracting, will come as a serious blow for the "Yes" side in the treaty debate, which is increasingly worried about the breadth of sectional interests showing hostility to the treaty.

The TEEU is the first major union to take a public stance on the referendum; a number of other unions have said they would like to see concessions from the Government on agency workers in the national pay talks before pledging their support.

The national executive of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (Ictu) will decide on its stance when it meets on May 18th.

The pro-treaty group, the Irish Alliance for Europe, last night described the TEEU's decision as premature because, it claimed, the issues the union wanted addressed would be dealt with in the treaty.

Its chairman, former Labour party leader Ruairí Quinn, said it was "very much" in the interests of ordinary workers that the treaty be passed. "By voting 'Yes' we will be giving unprecedented protection to Irish workers by enshrining the Charter of Fundamental Rights into EU law," he said.

He predicted other unions would support the treaty.

Explaining the decision of his union's national executive, Mr Devoy said that while recent European court judgments accepted workers' right to organise in unions, they negated this by saying industrial action could not be taken where it conflicted with the provision of goods and services, regardless of the social consequences.

He cited the Laval case, where the court found against Swedish workers who were preventing lower-wage Latvian workers from accessing a building site, and the Viking case, involving a Finnish company which crewed its boats with cheaper Estonian workers.

A third case, known as Ruffert, struck a particular chord with TEEU members, he said. Here, the court found that a Polish subcontractor operating in Germany was entitled to pay workers less than half the agreed minimum wage for the construction sector, because the right to provide unrestricted services took priority over collective wage agreements.

"Twice in recent times we have found Polish workers at Moneypoint being grossly exploited by German contractors and paid as little as €5 an hour. In another instance we discovered Serbian electricians being paid as little as $3.81 an hour. We were only able to ensure proper rates were paid to these workers after strong pressure, including the prospect of industrial action, was exerted on the companies concerned."

The Ruffert judgment raised the spectre of similar abuses of vulnerable migrant workers in future, he said, and would make it "all but impossible" for Irish workers and companies to compete for tenders. Mr Devoy said that until EU states were prepared to recognise the right of workers to take industrial action in defence of living standards", the TEEU would not support "reforms that only strengthen big business".

Copyleft Irish Times

patronising?

by Andrew

Sat May 03, 2008 18:18

Your keep repeating this 'patronising' thing but you seem to be the one arguing in the conversation that the leaflet is trying to put across too much and that it should just be restricted to facts about the treaty. For me this seems a more 'patronising' position, but perhaps 'patronising' isn't the best word to express what your trying to say.

I'm sorry you got so defensive in relation to the axe grinding comment but if you look at the pattern of your comments on indymedia you'll see a lot of them are not only in relation to WSM posts but also pretty much making the same point over and over. It also doesn't make a lot of sense to act insulted given the tone of your first comment here which set the standard for the debate that followed. Using words and phrases like "Propaganda" "reminiscense of patronising Trotskyite organisational tactics." "misleading propoganda" "patronised with ideological assumptions. " is probably going to draw a reaction in particular when you seem unwilling to discuss the response to your basic argument. Axe grinding is a rather modest response.

Once more - I see a limited value in 'pure' arguments against the treaty because we already know that the process will not be stopped by a no vote. Defeat of the 'Lisbon agenda' is not a question of how we vote in this referendum and if anything it is pretty 'patronising' to assume that 'ordinary working people' are somehow incapable of reading an argument that goes beyond this. In any case even if you don't agree with this argument you should recognise that it is the reason for the arguments made in the leaflet rather than the rather insulting string of suggested motivations you opened with. Generally in these discussion, especially when they are online, it is more productive to assume good faith and avoid this sort of thing.

Capacity for critique ??

Sat May 03, 2008 11:26

Firstly, I do not have an axe to grind with the WSM Andrew. Thats just fucking juvenile. I have some friends and many acquaintances in the WSM. Whilst I disagree with a lot of their politics I am fairly confident they don't take it personally. And if they do, then they are not going to last very long in politics, and certainly shouldn't call themselves libertarian.

I have many friends in the Labour party, do you think every time I criticise the Labour party they feel I have a personal 'axe to grind'?. Of course not, they are politically mature enough to recognise it as an objective critique.

Now, on the point of why I did not 'make the effort to download' the leaflet. Why would I download the leaflet when it is cut & pasted into an article on Indymedia. If an article on Indymedia states "The above is the text of the WSM leaflet", I don't really feel the need to download the leaflet and read it again.

So, I think it is hardly a worldly mistake to take for granted that the title of the article on Indymedia 'Lisbon whats it all about' would be the same as on the leaflet. So, its a bit of a straw argument to state that i am complaining about something that I have not read. What I have not read is the two different titles. I imagine the text is the very same?

And if the text is the very same, then I think my initial criticisms are still valid. That is, there are no quotes from the treaty, not a single reference to one article in the treaty nor a reference to how the actual EU is structured.

Therefore I still think it is patronising to ordinary working people in this country.

wsmmmmmmmmmm

by Ciaron - Catholic Worker/Ploughshares

Sat May 03, 2008 09:44

I think WSM do great work, and I use them as a reference point in terms of anarchist ideology and philosophy, utopianism ( in the best sense of the word - what the future might look like), general analysis of politics in ireland and I also find them generally personable.

My concern is that with an (understandable) emphasis on building their organisation that might be missing a broader perspective of nourishing a general anarchist movement in Ireland. I think their absence from the later stages of the Anti-Authoritarian Assemblies (in terms of sending delegates) and the decline of that AAA face to face interface amongst anarchists in Dublin every 6 weeks or so was unfortunate (not to say both developments were totally related).

In the past few months we have kicked off a similar phenomenon to AAA (and radical Preston in Hackney the Hackney Solidairty Network...at a recent meeting of anarchists at Ramparts it was discussed as a workable model to reinvigorate the movement in London.

I'm also concerned about the sensitiivity to criticism that seems to be expressed on this thread (yeah i know with my track record on this site that's a bi like the pot calling the kettle hot?!!?

Both the issues I've raised here are of course directed at the church community as well
-over sensitivity from outside criticsm
-over emphasis on building it s organisation vis a vis the coming of the kingdom or the revolution etc

All the best
good luck wtih the good work you do

Have your looked at it?

Fri May 02, 2008 19:20

Err Libertarian you seem to be grinding away at some WSM related axe here rather than reacting to the leaflet. In fact as you've now got the title of the leaflet wrong (clue its not actually the same as the title of this article) you seem to have created a detailed critique of it without actually looking at it. Doing this and complaining of others being ideological is more than a little silly, but as usual I suppose when that scare word is used 'ideology' is something other people have.

The actual title (I suggest you download the leaflet) is 'Vote No: Against a capitalist Europe: Against a Bosses Ireland: Organise for real social change' which IMHO is a pretty fair warning that what is to come is wider than just the Lisbon treaty.

Finally I've outlined the reasons why I think campaigning on the grounds of a pure No vote makes no sense already, you didn't actually address these points, just repeated your opposition to other peoples ideology.

Leaflet is at http://www.wsm.ie/attachments/apr2008/wsm_lisbon_leafle...t.pdf

The actual leaflet title

Abstract abstractions

Fri May 02, 2008 16:45

Our friend w from the wsm says : "So, we ought not take this opportunity to put forward our alternative to (at least) 50,000 people in our leaflet? Instead we should just line up behind the rest of the No groups and discuss national sovereignty and other abstracts which have nothing to do with our lives as lived".
I am looking at the CAEUC leaflet, 150,000 copies of which are being printed as these lines are written. I will try to focus on 5 (five) of these "abstracts":

1. Lisbon would further militarise the EU.....it would allow a small group of well-armed states to form a military alliance within the EU in co-operation with...NATO! It would shred the remaining bits of irish neutrality (think of Shannon) into the gutter.
2. Lisbon puts big business before people.....it would give the EU new powers to say how governments should manage their budgets....whatever the effects on jobs, wages and public services.
3. Lisbon means less democracy....already 80% of our laws come from the EU....Lisbon would giove law-making power to the EU in another seventy-two (72) policy areas!!
4. Lisbon offers nothing on climate change
5. Lisbon would undermine trade justice!

And I am thinking - seriously considering - whether these 5 abstracts have (any)(no) a thing or two to do with (my) our lives as lived!!
Ove the past couple of months we have been accustomed from the YES side, theGvt elites, IBEC , from FG and Labour, arguing empty rhetoric and wishful thinking......but our comrades from the wsm? What a pity!

For more info on the CAEUC pls go to
www.sayno.ie

Still missing the point W

Fri May 02, 2008 15:45

You are completely missing the point......

You are completely free to promote your political programme through 50, 000 leaflets but just dont pretend to be giving out leaflets about the Lisbon Treaty.

The leaflet is NOTHING to do with the Lisbon treaty so dont claim that it is. It doesnt make a single reference to the treaty. Be honest enough to state 'we dont give a fuck about the Lisbon Treaty - we are here to tell you about Anarchism'.

For example: If I give out a leaflet in work stating 'The new contract - whats it all about' all workers will expect that when they read the leaflet they will be informed about the new managment contract.

However, if all I wrote in the leaflet was to tell union members about the need to take control of our workplace and put forth a revolutionary political programme I would be accused of being a) a trotskyite and b) absolutely unconcerned about the issue at hand. And they would be absolutely right.

Promoting your ideology under when you are pretending to give forth information IS propaganda and it IS a typical tactic of the authoritarian left that has no place in Libertarian politics.

But of course, this 'truthfullness' is just liberal silliness. Another authoritarian left accusation when one puts forth something they perceive to be 'reformist'.

Easy Come, So Easy Go.....

by A NO supporter

Fri May 02, 2008 14:14

Lisbon Treaty Song

liberal sillyness

by w. - wsm

Fri May 02, 2008 13:03

"If we use every opportunity as a platform to promote a particular ideology then we are no different to the authoritarian left. Democratic Libertarians should always aim to respect the autonomy of the individual and propaganda does not do this"

So, we ought not take this opportunity to put forward our alternative to (at least) 50,000 people in our leaflet? Instead we should just line up behind the rest of the No groups and discuss national sovereignty and other abstracts which have nothing to do with our lives as lived.

As anarchists our task is to build confidence in working people to fight to improve their lives. We dont do this by defeating a European treaty and we should not sow illusions that this can be done. We are perfectly honest about this in the leaflet - we state, as we believe, that the only solution we see to capitalist Europe is for workers to organise for a free society. I think it would be dishonest and a waste of our time to push anything less in our propaganda.

As for respecting the autonomy of the individual, what a bizarre statement. We are not bombarding people with our message at every moment - we are putting a leaflet through doors. A leaflet which people will be capable of reading critically and deciding whether they agree with us or not. Promoting your ideology isnt authoritarian and it isnt the problem with the 'authoritarian left', in fact its been one of their strong points. In Britain for fear of 'acting like the SWP' organised anarchists are a fairly marginalised voice on the left who shy away from recruiting interested people and intervening in campaigns.

Lisbon, why Libertarians say no.

by .

Fri May 02, 2008 11:22

"Lisbon, why Libertarians say no."
or
"Lisbon: why Anarchists say no".

either one would be a more accurate title.

Relevance??

Thu May 01, 2008 21:19

'Andrew',

I am at odds to the relevance of your post about the Nice Treaty. if you read my post it states that my problem with the leaflet was that it was propaganda not information, misleading not truthful.

Again, if i got a leaflet in the door stating 'LISBON- WHATS IT ALL ABOUT', i would presume the leaflet will tell me what it is all about not that the solution to the Lisbon Treaty is anarcho communism.

Now, I am fairly confident that if the SWP put out a leaflet stating 'Lisbon: whats it all about' and then used the leaflet to tell people that the solution is to join the SWP you would turn around and say that it is bullshit propaganda. That is, you would accuse them of taking an issue and using it as a Platform to promote some nonsensical ideology. You would also say it was anti democratic.

Now, as Libertarians we should avoid traditional authoritarian left tactics when promoting our agenda. It is hypocritical to promote a 'democratic' end goal, i.e. a direct democratic society whilst adopting anti democratic means to achieve that goal.

We should also respect the autonomy of ordinary people by providing factual, empirical reasons to vote no, not just promoting ideological assumptions. It would be like me (as a Union official in my workplace) turning around to a member when discussing their concerns about taking on extra work load without extra benefits that they should not worry about such things, as what we really need is workers revolution.

If we use every opportunity as a platform to promote a particular ideology then we are no different to the authoritarian left. Democratic Libertarians should always aim to respect the autonomy of the individual and propaganda does not do this.

Short memory

Thu May 01, 2008 19:23

'Libetarian' perhaps you have forgotten what happened when there was a resounding No vote to the Nice treaty? The government has another referendum a few months later and told us to get the vote right the second time around.

Opposition to the treaty cannot be restricted to whatever arguments we think will be most likely to get a no vote on the day. Firstly because of Nice1 + 2 which illustrated that there is only one permitted answer if we restrict ourself to the tight boundaries of the question asked. And secondly because the No vote it also advocated by agencies with a right wing agenda. The EU neoliberal process will not be halted by a particular vote alone but only by the building of a movement willing to go well beyond the vote. With that understanding it is necessary to campaign on a much wider basis that a simple 'vote no' and in particular it is important to talk about the alternatives. I feel like your allowing your (legitimate but IMHO wrong) questions about the most effective terminology to use cross over into an opposition to putting the alternative in any terms whatsoever;.

Re: Tone of leaflet

Thu May 01, 2008 16:14

Hi Andrew

My concern was not with the core of libertarian politics at all. I respect the WSM, and in essence share a lot of their political views (albeit I would express them in a radically different manner).

My concern was the misleading nature of the leaflet. The leaflet is not about the Lisbon Treaty and therefore it should not claim that it is.

If the leaflet stated 'An Intro to Anarchism and the WSM' then the leaflet would be fine.

If i get a leaflet through the door that states 'Lisbon: whats it all about' and then subsequently read it only to find out that it was propoganda for some Pro Life group I would bin the leaflet, and feel pretty hostile to whoever produced it. I sense the same could happen to this leaflet when it lands on the doorstep of many houses around the North Inner City.

I would rewrite the leaflet, concentrate on the content of the Lisbon treaty, provide real valid reasons to vote NO, and if the reader agrees they will respect and support the producer of the leaflet regardless. Hence 95 % should be information re Lisbon, and 5 % about the organisation who produced it.

just in from IBEC

by liz c - caeuc-personal capacity

Wed Apr 30, 2008 20:07

Great IBEC quote. ICTU and the Labour Party now tell us you didn't know public services would be up for grabs if we voted yes?

Here is a great quote from IBEC's submission to the NFOE yesterday. The full
submission is available on the NFOE website...

"Through our membership of the EU many markets have been subject to
liberalisation and through this process new business opportunities have been
created for Irish companies. The Lisbon Reform Treaty creates the legal
basis for the liberalisation of services of general economic interest (Art.
106). A yes vote for the Lisbon Treaty creates the potential for increased
opportunities for Irish business particularly in areas subject to increasing
liberalisation such as Health, Education, Transport, Energy and the
Environment. "

Yes and No arguments

Wed Apr 30, 2008 19:41

In response to the question about reasons given for voting No or Yes by the various sides. These are the Yes and No arguments taken from the European Referendum Campaign site. www.erc2.org. The Campaign wants referendums throughout the EU and so wants to get the main arguments out there. Hope this helps!

(To me the Yes arguments seem to come down to a strong EU is a good thing and we should have faith that its power will be used wisely based on its track record. The No is we are being asked to vote on a legal document that is not being adequately explained or debated which attempts to do far more than streamline the EU and instead steps closer to military integration, forms common foreign, trade and aid policies and enhances economic liberalization and competition, including in basic services like health and education, and therefore undermines workers protections.Depends on what direction you want to go in. For me this is a chance to debate economic, political and social policies and talk about liberalization and competition or co-operation and cutting back on resource use as a much more positive vision.)

1.Rejecting the Lisbon Treaty will isolate a country from the rest of the EU. Voting no is equal to turning your back on Europe.

Rejecting the treaty would not isolate a country. After the French and Dutch voters rejected the European Constitution they did not become isolated from EU politics nor were they left behind.

2.The Lisbon Treaty is essentially a reforming treaty which sets out to make the EU institutions in an enlarged EU more efficient, transparent and accountable.

The Lisbon Treaty is a revised copy of the European Constitution. 96% is the same. The EU is currently functioning and able to function under the terms of the Nice Treaty with all 27 member states.

3.Representative democracy and parliamentary ratification are just as democratic as direct democracy and referendum.

Representative democracy is as good as direct democracy, however citizens have the right to decide whether or not to adopt - what is essentially - a Constitution for Europe.
( A left view on this is that representative democracy is never as good as direct democracy and that there is a huge and clear divide between the people and heads of states throughout the EU).

4.This treaty is too complex to be put to a referendum. Most people have neither the time nor the expertise to properly analyse the Treaty, therefore it should be ratified by political specialists.

Stating that the treaty is too complex to be put to referendum is a denial of democracy. If the people are unable to decide if their country should adopt a European Constitution, then how are they able to decide on which policies they prefer and therefore the party they should vote for in a general election? Therefore, should “specialists” then not decide who governs a country rather than the people? To deny people the right to vote on this constitution is to deny democracy. Additionally most MPs themselves are not fully equipped to properly understand the complexity of the Treaty, nor do they have the time to properly analyse it. Many MPs have not even read the Treaty.
( A further argument is that the Treaty is deliberately unreadable to discourage close examination.)

Arguments on Democracy
Yes Arguments No Arguments
1.National Parliaments will have an enhanced role within EU legislative proposals, as the Commission has to inform national parliaments immediately of any of its new legislative proposals.

If directly elected national parliaments state that a proposal strays outside the competence of the EU, the non-elected Commission can then choose whether or not to maintain, amend or withdraw the proposal. This is a devaluation of national parliaments as the views of elected representatives, should be more important.

2.National Parliaments can give their opinion as to whether the proposal strays outside the competence of the EU, and can seek an amendment or outright rejection of the proposal. As a last resort they can also appeal to the European Court of Justice.

The Lisbon Treaty only changes the period of scrutinising legislation from six weeks to only eight, which is not nearly enough, to do the job properly. The majority of new laws in all member states come from the EU. In most member states there are only a small number of people from within the national parliament who scrutinise EU legislation. These people receive huge amounts of legislation which many are unable to fully analyse.

3.The concept of EU citizenship is developed within the Lisbon Treaty. For example the right of citizens to approach the European Court of Justice is broader.

The Lisbon Treaty would give more power to the EU institutions in more policy areas. The European Commission is the only body who has the right to initiate policy and there is no link between it and the citizens. The Lisbon Treaty does nothing to change this.

4.The European Citizens’ Initiative which has been placed in the treaty allows one million people representing 15 EU member states to initiate policy, through the right of initiative.

The European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) although a step in the right direction only gives citizens the right to ask the Commission to consider a policy proposal for initiation. The Commission does not have to accept the proposal. In addition, the petitions can only relate to the proper implementation of the treaties, and not to something citizens object to in the treaties. Furthermore why is a treaty needed to implement the ECI? If the EU really wanted to incorporate the initiative they could do so without the Lisbon Treaty.

5.The Lisbon Treaty is not self-amending. Article 48 is only intended to cover cases where minor adjustments are necessary and where all national parliaments are in agreement. Any proposed future change which confers new powers on the union will need to be ratified by all member states in accordance with the constitutional requirements of individual countries. In those areas where the treaty provides for, moving some policy areas from unanimity to majority voting or for extending the powers of the European Parliament to participate in the legislative process, there are effective veto rights for member states and national parliaments. Therefore there is an effective “double-lock” in place.

Various articles including Article 48 and Article 308 make the treaty self-amending i.e. they allow the European Council to extend the areas in which the EU can legislate and make major changes to the functioning of the EU by a qualified majority vote, and without the need for a new Treaty, and in the case of Ireland, without a referendum.

6.More policy areas will now fall under the co-decision procedure. This means that legislation must be approved by the European Parliament as well as the Council, for it to be adopted.

Arguments on the Environment
Yes Arguments No Arguments

1.More power needs to be transferred to the EU for problems which cannot be solved on the national level, for example environmental issues such as climate change.

Environment has been added as another competence for the EU; however the amendment to Article 174 does not empower the EU to do more for the environment than it already does at present.

Arguments on the
Charter of Fundamental Rights
Yes Arguments No Arguments

1.The Charter of Fundamental Rights adds a new level of protection to the rights of EU citizens. The charter includes a range of economic and social rights. This means that if a citizen feels that their rights are not being provided for by their country they can turn to the European Court of Justice for assistance.

The rights accorded by this charter are either weak or vague. The European Court of Justice will apply the Charter and is able to actually put limits on it in order to meet “objectives of general interest recognised by the union”. Therefore limits can be put on fundamental rights to uphold other freedoms in the treaties, as long as those limits are “proportional” to balance competing right. In the recent Vaxholm case the ECJ favoured the right to establish a profitable cross-border business (another “freedom” from the treaties) over the right to protect workers’ interests (a freedom set out by the Charter of Fundamental Rights). This shows that the way the Charter would be interpreted by the ECJ is conditional rather than fundamental.

European Court of Human Rights makes ruling based on the European Convention on Human Rights alone, and does not have to take into consideration other rights and freedoms of the EU treaties like the European Court of Justice. The ECHR is therefore stronger in its defence of human rights. The problem also lies in the fact that it is unclear which court would take precedence on human rights in the EU. The ECJ has legal rights but the ECHR does not.

Despite having legal force the charter does not make provisions for the monitoring of the application of human rights. Nor does it have any measures to impose sanctions where these rights are breached. This is in sharp contrast to EU powers to punish breaches of competition law.

Arguments on Institutional Reform
Yes Arguments No Arguments

The Lisbon Treaty gets rid of the one commissioner per country rule. Instead each country would only have a commissioner for five years every fifteen years. The Commission holds a monopoly on proposing EU law and a country’s influence would be decreased during the ten year gap.

The Treaty shall create the position of European Council President which can be held for a period of thirty months. This will finally give the EU a single figure within the international arena for countries, institutions and people to identify as the face of the EU. The position has no decision-making powers.
A clear definition of the position of the European Council President will only be drawn up after all countries have ratified the treaty. Therefore the exact powers of the position are actually unknown.

The position of High Representative for Foreign Affairs (created by the Treaty) will give the EU a strong and single voice in world affairs, unlike the predicament running up to the Iraq invasion which led to the US dominating the situation and major divisions within the EU. Foreign policy is now implemented by the Representative for foreign Affairs and Security Policy but the budget is controlled by the Commissioner for External Affairs. These roles will now be merged creating greater coherence and unity.

The Lisbon Treaty will make decision-making in the EU faster, through the introduction of greater qualified majority voting.

The new procedure for qualified majority voting will ensure that the bigger countries cannot dominate the process or force smaller countries to accept policies they do not want. In order to obtain a majority there needs to be a majority of states representing a majority of the EU population. Unanimity is still required for decisions in sensitive areas.
The new procedure for qualified majority voting is similar to the old in that you need a majority of member states representing a majority of the EU’s population. Under the current system however the “big four” Germany, France, Italy and the UK get 8.4 percent each of the vote and Ireland has 2 percent. Under the Lisbon Treaty Germany would have 16.7 percent, France 12.8 percent, Italy 12 percent, the UK 12.3 per cent and Ireland would only get 0.8 percent of the vote.

(These exclude a debate on the neo-liberal nature of the economic policies of the EU currently even without this Treaty. They also exclude some of the other reasons i've heard such as I'm pro-Europe, I'm voting Yes if Sinn Fein are voting No, they'll just make us vote tagain anyway, they're going to do all this anyway and the EU is going to legalize abortion, prostitution and hard drugs. The best so far is a woman who said she heard the EU is going to limit our families. It's nice to see people talking about politics at least) .

Real problem?

Wed Apr 30, 2008 19:05

From what you say above 'libertarian' its pretty clear your problem is not with the tone of the leaflet (ie it supposidely being patronising) but rather with the core of libertarian politics. Which is fair enough but its not very helpful to use buzzwords instead of political arguments.

Precisely

Wed Apr 30, 2008 16:10

The previous comment summed it up perfectly Tom.

It is the same old repetitive story; Problem A can be solved by workers control, problem B can be solved by workers control, problem C can be solved by workers control. etc etc etc etc

It is the same old monotonous soundbites premised upon the same old ideological assumptions and its patronising.

maybe

by more ice?

Wed Apr 30, 2008 15:20

I think what is meant is that it would remind you of SWP and SP pamphlets telling us that the only way to deal with problem X was the setting up of workers councils.

Libertarian explain

by Tom

Wed Apr 30, 2008 14:49

This is reminiscense of patronising Trotskyite organisational tactics."

How so? What is trotskyite about advancing your ideas through a leaflet?

Propaganda over Empirical Research does nothing for Democracy

Wed Apr 30, 2008 14:41

The leaflet is a defence of Anarchism not a concrete empirical explanation as to the implications of voting YES to the treaty.

This leaflet has nothing about the actual Lisbon Treaty in it. Thus, it suffers the same fault as most arguments put across by both Yes & No voters. That is, not dealing with the ACTUAL content of the Treaty. There are no quotes from the treaty, not a single reference to one article in the treaty nor a reference to how the actual EU is structured.

The solution to opposing the treaty is not to get behind the WSM and advocate the need for an anarcho communist society. This is reminiscense of patronising Trotskyite organisational tactics.

The title of the leaflet is 'Lisbon - whats it all about' . After reading the leaflet one knows nothing about 'what it is all about' but informed in quite some detail about the WSM and Bakuninism.

Seriously, this misleading propoganda does nothing for the cause of direct democracy or the NO campaign for a Democratic Social Europe.

The Lisbon Treaty is a model of failed neo-liberal economic nostrums and misplaced confidence in the market and competition as universal panaceas.

So, whats the Lisbon Treaty actually about:

The European Central Bank gets an iron-clad statute of independence from political supervision; its mandate remains control of inflation but nothing to do with working conditions or employment. The "market" (63 mentions in the text) remains the supreme good and "competition" (25 mentions) the overarching rule. Public services are specifically subjected to competition: government subsidies or other forms of support will become more precarious.

Common security and defence policy places Europe firmly under the tutelage of Nato "which remains the foundation of the collective defence of its members". A Yes vote means being blindfolded for whatever Nato's future policies may be - we only know for sure the US will remain in command. The treaty also obliges members to "progressively increase their military capacities".

The new treaty gives the European Parliament, the only elected body, marginally more power to co-decide on legislation, although it still cannot initiate legislation.

The unelected European Commission remains all-powerful, particularly in crucial areas such as trade. A new article (i cant remember what number) specifies the European goal of "integration of all countries into the world economy through the suppression of barriers to international trade". Already trade commissioner Peter Mandelson is pushing for European corporate penetration in even the poorest countries, defining "barriers" as any "government measure regulating foreign investment, public procurement, environmental or consumer protection".

These are valid reasons to vote NO to the Lisbon Treaty.

Ordinary working people deserve to hear valid EMPIRICAL REASONS to vote NO not patronised with ideological assumptions.

sale

by eden

Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:56

You would expect the Yes camp to try to sell the Lisbon Treaty, but they don't.
They just tell us how well we've done out of Europe and how bad it will be if we vote No. They tell us that
we should buy another pig in a poke because the others weren't all duds. What fool would conduct his business like that.

At least the No side is prepared to debate the various aspects of the Treaty. The Yes side just gives us various shades of fear.

Still confused

by Shop Steward

Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:52

While remaining sceptical about anarchism as the one and only solution to society's needs, I agree that any attempt to analyse the Lisbon treaty must look at how it meets the needs of ordinary workers and citizens. And while I commend the pamphlet, and I intuitively agree (without much evidence!) that neither a yes nor a no vote is a "disaster", I am still at a loss as what the treaty is all about.

can ANYONE sum up exactly what Lisbon will change? Preferably in a neutral manner so that the real debate can then analyse whether those changes are are marginally beneficial or marginally detrimental to workers? There is a need for a strictly neutral technical analysis of the treaty and then a no-holds-barred partisan debate on its merits. The problem I have is that the analysis of the treaty is highly partisan and biased towards towards presenting it in the light most favourable to either supporters or opponents of the treaty. And its not helped by the presence (ON BOTH SIDES!) of characters that I hold in high regard and other characters I wouldn't trust an inch.

an opinion on your leaflet.

by Sue Denham

Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:35

Fair pay to you for producing it.

I do think you've gone for too much text, and two small text as a result, and too much about what is anarchism, and too little about 'what is the Lisbon treaty about' which is your headline after all.

You have to include something about anarchism, and of course, you're open about being anti the EU in the first place, but that seems to get more attention than the question at hand.

I think it's a good leaflet for people who are already open to alternative politics, but for the average person on the street, busy with everything else, they are looking for quick answers. If they see a headline, "What's the Lisbon Treaty All about" and then the text quickly meanders off into anarchism, they will probably stop reading before you come back on topic (from their point of view, the topic is what was on the headline, which is why they read the first paragraph)

Getting copies of this

by JB

Tue Apr 29, 2008 22:35

The above is the text of the WSM leaflet for the Lisbon campaign, 50,000 of these have been printed. If you want to help distribute them you can contact voteno@wsm.ie

Its also online as a PDF file at http://www.wsm.ie/attachments/apr2008/wsm_lisbon_leafle...t.pdf

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

Human Rights in Ireland

Lockdown Skeptics

Voltaire Network

Lisbon - So What’s It All About Then?

Comments (29 of 29)