September 30, 2008 20:32 | by
Anthony Coughlan
Anthony Coughlan outlines how he believes the Irish prime minister,
the Taoiseach, should respond to the referendum result and subsequent
events.
There
will be a UK general election in the next 18 months which will return
a Conservative Government that is committed to holding a referendum
on the Lisbon Treaty in Britain and Northern Ireland and recomending
a No vote to it so long as the Republic's voters have not reversed
their rejection of Lisbon in the meantime, which would enable that
Treaty to come into force for all 27 EU States before that election.
This change of government in Britain will enable our fellow countrymen
in Northern Ireland, as well as the British people, to give their
view on the undemocratic Federal EU Constitution which Lisbon embodies,
so that they can reject it as French, Dutch and Irish voters have
already done.
As William Hague, Conservative Shadow Foreign Secretary, wrote
in the Irish Times on 27 July: "If Lisbon remains unratified
by all EU members, a Conservative government will put Britain's
ratification of the treaty on ice and hold a referendum, recommending
a No vote to a document that we believe represents an outdated centralising
approach to the EU. So the chances are growing that Ireland' voters
will not be alone in saying No to Lisbon for long."
Irish Taoiseach Brian Cowen should now tell his EU partners that
he thinks the wisest course in relation to Lisbon is to wait until
the British people and the people of Northern Ireland can have their
say on this profoundly important treaty.
He should resist the bullying of France's President Sarkozy, Germany's
Chancellor Angela Merkel and Commission President Barroso, who wish
to force the Irish people to hold a Lisbon Two referendum on what
legally would be exactly the same Treaty so as to reverse their
No vote of last June.
Lisbon cannot come into force without Ireland. Sarkozy, Merkel
and Barroso want to reverse the Irish people's No vote even though
the French and Dutch Governments respected the decision of their
voters when they rejected the EU Constitution in 2005. They did
not put the same Treaty to their peoples again.
By failing to tell his EU partners that Ireland could not ratify
Lisbon after its June's No referendum, Taoiseach Brian Cowen encouraged
them to continue with their ratifications. They now seek his connivance
in imposing a Federal Constitution on Europe and turning 500 million
Europeans into real citizens of a Federal EU without permitting
them any say on such a constitutional revolution by means of referendums.
Article 6 of the Irish Constitution states that it is the right
of the people "in final appeal, to decide all questions of
national policy". The Irish people have decided to reject Lisbon.
Respecting that decision, which the Taoiseach says he does, means
not attempting to overturn it. Any attempt to put the same Lisbon
Treaty to the Irish people again would almost certainly be in breach
of the Irish Constitution and should be challenged in the Courts.
It is outrageous of British Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown
to have junked the commitment of Tony Blair to hold a referendum
on the EU Constitution in the UK, when this was a Labour Party Manifesto
commitment in the last general election. Gordon Brown's government
has acted profoundly undemocratically in refusing the British people
their say in this matter.
Just as Charles Stewart Parnell in the late 19th century urged the
people of Ireland and Britain to support now the Liberals, now the
Tories, in order to advance Ireland's interests, Irish democrats,
nationalists and republicans, as well as all consistent British
democrats, should now look to the British Labour Government being
ejected from office at the earliest possible opportunity, so that
Labour can rediscover its soul in opposition and enable the British
people have their say on Lisbon just as Irish voters have done.
The practical alternative to the Lisbon Treaty/EU Constitution
is to go back to the 2003 Laeken Declaration on a more democratic,
more transparent and less centralised EU, whose laws would be made
in proper democratic fashion by people who are elected directly
to make them, and not by bureaucrats, judges and bankers.
What is now needed after Ireland's No is not a "period of
reflection", as after the rejection of the 2004 Constitutional
Treaty, but a "period of consultation" with the citizens
of the Member States on what kind of EU people really want, as the
Laeken Declaration envisaged.
The Laeken Convention from which Lisbon came was hijacked from
the start by the Eurofederalists, out to give the EU the constitutional
form of a Federation. This the peoples of the EU Member States emphatically
do not want, although many of their political elites do want it
because it gives them more power personally at their expense of
their own peoples.
The Irish people did the EU a good turn by voting No on 12 June
last. Lisbon and the EU Constutution which it embodies has now been
rejected in France, Holland and Ireland because it is a thoroughly
bad treaty - bad for these countries and bad for the EU.
Recall some of the bad things which Lisbon proposes to do:
1.Lisbon would abolish the European Community which we have been
members of since 1973 (Art.1 TEU) and would replace the existing
EU with a legally new Union in the constitutional form of a supranational
EU Federation with its own legal personality distinct from its Member
States. Instead of being sovereign States in the international community,
Lisbon would reduce Ireland and the other Member States to the constitutional
status of provincial states in a Federation, like Virginia inside
the Federal USA or Bavaria inside Federal Germany. The laws of this
new European Union would thereafter have primacy over national Constitutions
and laws (Arts.1 and 47 TEU; Declaration No.17 concerning Primacy).
2. It would make us all real citizens of this new EU Federation,
owing our prime obedience to its laws and loyalty to its authority
over and above our citizens' duty to our national Constitution and
laws in any case of conflict between the two.
One can only be a citizen of a State and all States must have citizens.
Instead of EU citizenship being "complementary" to national
citizenship and essentially notional and symbolical(Art.17 TEC),
Lisbon would make EU citizenship "additional to" national
citizenship (Art.9 TEU). This would give us all a real dual citizenship,
not of two different States but of the Federal and provincial levels
of one State, as in the USA or German federations.
One example of this change: If Lisbon came into force MEPs, who
at present are "representatives of the peoples of the States
brought together in the Community"(Art.189 TEC), would become
"representatives of the Union's citizens", just as in
any State (Art.14.2 TEU).
3.It would be a power-grab by the Big States, with EU law-making
in the Council of Ministers based henceforth primarily on population
size as in any unified State, thus greatly increasing the power
of the Big EU Members with large populations and reducing the voting
weight of Ireland and the other smaller states. Germany's voting
weight in making EU laws would double as a result, while Ireland's
would halve (Art.16 TEU).
4. It would remove the right of EU Member States to decide who
their national Commissioner would be in the ten years out of every
15 when they would have a Commissioner under Lisbon. It would do
this by replacing each Member State's present right to "propose"
a Commissioner - and to insist if need be on its proposal being
accepted as a condition for it accepting the proposals of others
- by the right to make "suggestions" only for the incoming
Commission President to decide. Who the Commission President is
would be decided mainly by the votes of the Big States (Art.17.7
TEU).
5. It would give the EU Court the power to decide our fundamental
rights as EU citizens, rights which the EU and its Member States
would then have to enforce over and above our rights as Irish citizens
in any case of conflict between the two (Art.6 TEU and the EU Charter
of Fundamental Rights.
6. It would weaken National Parliaments further by abolishing 68
national vetoes and would give the EU power to make European laws
binding on us in some 30 new policy areas, such as crime, justice
and policing, public services, immigration, energy, transport, tourism,
sport, culture, public health and the EU budget.
7. It would give the EU the power to raise its own taxes and impose
any tax, including income tax or sales tax, by consensus amongst
the governments, without the need for further new treaties or referendums
(Art.311 TFEU).
8. It would empower the EU Court of Justice to order the harmonization
of indirect taxes amongst the EU countries if the Court judged that
failure to do so constituted a "distortion of competition"
(Art.113 TFEU).
9. It would militarize the EU further, requiring Member States "progressively
to improve their military capablities" (Art.42.3 TEU ) and
it contains what Commission President Barroso has termed "a
mutual defence clause", requiring Member States to go to the
assistance of other Member States in the event of war (Art.42.7
TEU).
10. It would subvert workers' rights by copperfastening the recent
Laval, Rüffert and Luxembourg judgements of the EU Court of
Justice, which were delivered after Lisbon was signed and which
subordinate employee wage bargaining to the EU's internal market
rules.
11. It would be a self-amending Treaty which would permit EU law-making
to be shifted from unanimity to majority voting without the need
for new Treaties or referendums (Art.48 TEU).
12. It would reintroduce the death penalty "in time of war
or of imminent threat of war" for the European Army it envisages
by providing for the post-Lisbon EU acceding as a corporate entity
to Protocol 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which permits
use of the death penalty on these occasions, instead of to Protocol
13, which bans the death penalty in all circumstances and which
most EU Member States have acceded to (Explanation attached to Art.2
of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights). This item is in a footnote
of a footnote in the Lisbon Treaty and has caused much controversy
in Germany and Austria, although most people in Ireland and Britain
have never heard of it.
13. It would make National Parliaments formally subordinate to
the post-Lisbon EU. Far from increasing the power of National Parliaments,
as pro-Lisbon spokesmen untruthfully assert, Lisbon underlines their
implicitly subordinate role in the institutional structure of the
post-Lisbon Union by providing that "National Parliaments contribute
to the good functioning of the union" by various means set
out in Article 12 TEU. Under Lisbon National Parliaments must be
informed of and may scrutinise draft EU legislative acts, but while
the Commission is required to review the legislation if one-third
of National Parliaments object, the Commission can then decide to
continue with its legislation unamended, with its decision confirmed
by the normal Council of Ministers QMV procedure (Protocol on Subsidiarity
and Proportionality, Art. 7.2). In no sense is this giving "more
control" to National Parliaments, as pro-Lisbon spokesmen continually
assert.
14. It would create a political government of the new Union by
turning the regular summit meetings of EU Prime Ministers and Presidents,
known as the European Council, into a formal legal instititution
of the Union for the first time (Art.13 TEU). This would mean that
its acts and failures to act would become subject to legal review
by the EU Court of Justice (Arts 263-5 TFEU). This would also mean
that individual Prime Ministers and Presidents would be constitutionally
obliged henceforth to represent the Union to their Member States
as well as their Member States to the Union, with the former function
having legal priority in any case of conflict between the two.
Anthony Coughlan is secretary of the National Platform EU
Research and Information Centre in Dublin.
see also http://www.spectrezine.org/weblog/?p=541