Lisbon

I'm beginning to wonder if this is Milan's Taboo subject, but here goes anyway. Have ye all decided what way you'll be voting? I've settled on a No vote and I am looking forward to Thursday, so I can stop thinking about politics.

A few weeks ago I took interest in politics (i.e. The Lisbon Treaty) for the first time and I immediately regretted it. It gets under your skin and much as I find it boring and irritating, I couldn't help but look for more info, more opinions, more arguments.

After Thursday I will never politic again. But until then, what way are the 49£ers voting?

Independence and Democracy

So the Lisbon referendum is approaching really fast, and the "No" side seem to be gaining strength yay! So, why do I think this is good? Last time I posted about the neo-liberal economic direction that the EU is taking and why this is not in the interests of the ordinary people of either Ireland or the rest of Europe; and how the ruling political elite ("the main parties") try to obfuscate and oversimplify the arguments. Finally it seems that people are beginning to realise that if they at least do not understand the whole Lisbon treaty there is enough debate for them to realise that indeed they do not understand it adequately and furthermore that there is a lot at stake. In such circumstances the only logical and intelligent choice one can be expected to make is to vote no.

A major issue of the Lisbon treaty, and indeed of the EU in general, is the immense lack of democracy that is involved. Sinn Fein have put up rather simplistic posters about about people dying for our freedom and that we shouldn't vote it away. Now, I don't support or vote for Sinn Fein at all, but they do have a point about how a yes vote amounts to a voting away of some of our freedoms.

The EU is executive run. This means that the directly elected representative, i.e. the parliament has very little say in how the EU is run. The EU parliament does not elect its executive. Also, the parliament does not even get to propose and decide on legislation by itself. A group of MEPs cannot simply draft a law on minimum standards on health care or workers rights that could be required throughout the EU in a manner that one might expect a national parliament to do. Instead the unelected EU commission submits a proposal to parliament and then the most complicated of procedures are put in place to effectively shunt decision-making off in to a sphere of back-door horsetrading.

The Yes campaign have made the argument about the expanded role for national parliaments in the Lisbon treaty and how this will make Europe more democratic. Let's look at this more closely. There are provisions for national parliaments to be notified of EU impending legislation and then have an eight week window to consider the matter. Great, but can only comment on whether the draft laws breach the 'principle of subsidiarity', i.e. does the proposed legislation delve into areas that are properly the preserve of national or local governments? National parliaments could not veto on anything that the EU claims exclusive competence over such as directive to "open the market" for privatization of water, electricity, post offices et cetera.

In the unlikely event that tone third of EU parliaments all decide in an eight week period to object, Brussels will have to 'review' their draft and then decide either to 'maintain, amend or withdraw' the draft. In the even more unlikely event that half of all parliaments come to the same opinion in the eight week period, Brussels will have to reconsider and if they go ahead, they must get at least 45% of the EU council or parliament to agree that their legislation is not in breach of the principle of subsidiarity. Like that would be difficult for them!!!!!

The Lisbon treaty would not give the EU complete control over any new areas but would give the EU 'joint competence' in areas such as energy and public health. Now decisions in these areas and others will be heavily influence by the ideology of the political elite in Europe. Not that the Irish track record on health is anything to be proud of, but surely we should not be giving over areas that we currently have control over.

Another example is taxation. On a radio show recently, it was proposed that one way to deal with the increasing price of petrol might be to reduce the tax that is applied. The point was made that this would be very difficult as there is a myriad of rules governing how countries tax. Seriously if we as an independent country cannot vary the VAT on petrol without the approval of EU bureaucrats, are we really an independent country? It is estimated that about 80% of the legislation adopted by national parliaments are nothing but adaptations of EU laws.

We are being asked to further erode what little democracy we have left to "simplify decision making" or "increase efficiency" and that we will be paralysed if this referendum does not pass. Rubbish, the EU is not paralysed now and will continue to function it does now, if the referendum is not passed.

Voting no is not a vote "against Europe". It is about saying "No" to the direction that the EU is moving in now, notwithstanding the obvious benefits that membership of the EU has had for Ireland. The Yes campaign are asking us to believe that corporate interests, as represented by the main parties, are more "pro-European". If we are expected to be more "pro-European" isn't it reasonable to ask if this will bring us more democracy or less?


Also, will the treaty give us more rights? The Yes campaign, especially Labour speak of the 'charter of fundamental rights.' A look at the actual text of the treaty reveals the following:

" the provisions of the Charter do not extend in any way the competencies of the Union as defined by the Treaties"
and
"rights, freedoms and principles in the Charter will be interpreted in accordance with the general provision of Title VII of the Charter",
which explicitly states that
"The Charter does not extend the field of application of Union law beyond the powers of the Union or establish any new power or task for the Union, or modify the powers and tasks defined in the Treaties."

In other words, the people of Europe get no extra rights. The much lauded Charter is barely worth the paper it is written on.

Ok guys, gotta go, this post is getting very long, although nowhere near as long as the treaty itself. Hopefully this will go some way to convincing you readers to vote NO to this terrible treaty on the 12th.

A vote "for Europe" ! ?

Hi faithful blog readers, many apologies for the long delay in following up my last post about the upcoming Lisbon Treaty. It is getting really close now, June 12th is the day of the referendum. Isn't it just amazing how many "Yes" posters there are? All the main parties and even ICTU are supporting a Yes vote. Seems overwhelming, they must be right surely? Well, notice how it's never really explained just what the referendum is all about? We are asked to just vote "for Europe", "for a Europe that works better", "good for Ireland, good for Europe" etc... without any explanation of how whatever details are actually in the treaty will benefit the lives of the population if they pass the Treaty.

And there we have a crucial point, the population, the ordinary joe soaps, the "plebs" just like you and me if you will, just what will we benefit? Presumably a yes vote will benefit some, but will it benefit ordinary people? We are told that the treaty contains a sensible number of adjustments designed to enable the EU to function more effectively and provide a better EU, but it is NEVER explained how the treaty would actually be more sensible or more effective for the majority population of Ireland or indeed Europe.

Funny how the arguments tend to hide the details and avoid rational discussion. We are told that it will make things more efficient! Sure it will, but the Nazi's were very efficient! Efficiency means nothing, what precisely the EU is supposed to be doing so efficiently is surely the issue.

It might sound like a silly question but just what does the EU do? Yes we all have these Euro coins in our pockets now but what is the real political purpose behind it that the political elite clearly believe will be furthered by the passing of this referendum?

The EU is primarily about an neo-liberal integration of european economies. Neo-liberalism is a set of ideas that promotes a utopian version of capitalism that believes that if "distortions" to competition are removed, the market will function perfectly without booms and recessions. Within this ideology all barriers that prevent the mobility of capital must be removed and corporations should be able to scour the world at will in order to make maximum profits. High taxes on profits are seen as the worst distortion. Instead of fair taxation to provide social welfare that gives the unemployed a safety net, neoliberalism demands policies of low taxation and meagre welfare benefits that force people into poorly paid jobs and thereby increase corporate profits further.

A clear example of this is the drive toward privatization or the "opening up" of economies. Efficient and well run services that serve a public good are broken up and sold off to private companies that then own the infrastructure and make profits from selling their products or services in the market in typical neoliberal fashion.

Over recent years a series of EU directives were issued to promote the "liberalisation" of whole sectors of the economy. Politicians would typically tell their electorates that "there is nothing that can be done because of an EU directive", without explaining that these directives were formulated behind closed doors often in cohoots with industry lobby groups. Such directives include telecommunications (1990), railways (1991), electricity (1996), postal services (1997) and gas (1998). The full liberalisation of the postal service is supposed to begin in 2009.

It makes sense for many things to be provided as a service and coordinated centrally by the state, clearly benefiting ordinary people. Obviously this included transportation, energy, health and communications to some extent. Many government policies on these issues, in accordance with the direction of the EU, clearly do not benefit ordinary people.

Does anyone remember the absurd situation of schools having to pay water charges that arose last year? It makes no sense at all. Schools don't have enough funding as it is and then they are supposed give some of their state funding back to the very same state which is in turn providing the water in the first place. It just amounts to a massive cut in funding for schools. But how did this situation arise? It arose because of the "EU water framework directive," which states: "Member states shall take account of the principle of recovery of the costs of water services, including environmental and resource costs...Member states shall ensure by 2010 that all water-pricing policies provide adequate incentives for users to use water resources efficiently...[and that there be] an adequate contribution of different water uses, disaggregated into at least industry,households and agriculture, to the recovery of costs of water services."

So member states are instructed to make their populations pay for water directly no matter what their populations think (how democratic) The neoliberal notion that common resources should be dismantled to allow people to "choose" how much water they need or want to pay for is hiding behind a fake concern for the environment.

Funny now its referendum time, you don't hear anything about this at all, just "vote yes for Europe" and we'll all live happily ever flippin' after. Funny how you don't hear anything about the coming privatization of the post offices.

A yes vote will only further transfer powers to an unelected EU commission to make decisions for us on how we deal with our public services.

I could go on and on but this blog post is getting very long so will post again soon:-)