Therefore, I am voting No

pietercleppe

http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=TOM+MCGURK-qqqs=commentandanalysis-qqqid=33513-qqqx=1.asp

How we can once more save Europe from the Dark Ages

08 June 2008 By Tom McGurk</SPAN>

Welcome to the most surreal week in the history of Irish politics.

First, on Thursday, four million Irish citizens resident in the Irish Republic will be asked to ratify a new democratic structure for the European Union and its 500million citizens. Despite the fact that this proposed structure will radically alter the relationship between all the member states and the union, and between all the citizens and the union, it apparently does not require the votes of the other 496million or so citizens. Such is European democracy.

Second, the treaty document that the Irish are required to ratify has proved to be almost unintelligible and, according to opinion polls, remains a total mystery to many ordinary voters. This week, thousands will go to the polls to radically alter the nature of the state they are living in, with no idea of what they are voting for or against. Such is European democracy.

Third, apparently if the four million reject Lisbon, it falls through for all 500 million. But then, on second thoughts, maybe not. After all, the Nice Treaty was rejected, but the question was re-asked until the answer was Yes. The constitutional forerunner of this Lisbon Treaty has already been rejected by previous referendums in France and Denmark. So if the Irish vote down the treaty, will it fall? The problem is that nobody is sure about that; Europe does not easily take No for an answer. Such is European democracy.

Fourth, given that all of this extraordinary political exercise is supposed to be about the establishment of new democratic structures in the European Union, shouldn’t alarm bells be ringing already? How more democratically surreal can you get, I ask? (As they used to say: Chinese and Russian papers please copy.)

Sadly, this is only the beginning of our problems, because even what is intelligible in the treaty is deeply concerning. For a start, the constitutional implications of Lisbon have been almost totally ignored in the debate so far.

The first two sentences of the amendment we are being asked to pass requires serious consideration. They read: ‘‘The state may ratify the Treaty of Lisbon signed at Lisbon on the 13th day of December 2007, and may be a member of the European Union established by virtue of that treaty No provision of this constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the state that are necessitated by membership of the European Union, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the state.”

In other words, Europe pre-Lisbon and Europe post-Lisbon are two entirely different political and judicial jurisdictions. This first sentence of the constitutional amendment states that the state may ratify the Treaty of Lisbon and ‘‘may be a member of the European Union established by virtue of that - Lisbon - Treaty’’.

This post-Lisbon EU would have the same name, but would clearly be a different union from the pre-Lisbon EU, which stems from the 1993 Maastricht Treaty. The second sentence of the amendment would then give the constitution of this post-Lisbon union supremacy over the Irish constitution as regards its ‘‘laws, acts and measures’’, so long as these are provided for in the treaties. So we are not simply restructuring Europe to cater for the logistical demands of the 27 states: rather, we are creating a new European Union superstate based, not on Maastricht, but on Lisbon. I think the European federal state is looming here.

When you then add to these constitutional changes the changes in voting, the elimination of vetoes in some areas, the proposed new community-wide structures in justice, policing and defence, the changes in weighted majority voting, and the new relationship between aggregate population and voting power, the European Union we now live in disappears over the horizon.

Effectively, Lisbon gives the new union a unified constitutional structure so that all areas of government would come within its aegis, either actually or potentially. The only major feature of a fully developed federation the post-Lisbon Union would then lack would be the power to force member states to go to war against their will. Were Lisbon a reasonable and authentic attempt to regulate a 500 million population with 27 states in the union along more efficient and democratic lines, nobody could oppose it. But what is being sold as a mere refurbishment exercise is actually a total restructuring: the relationship between national parliaments and the EU power centre, and the relationship between domestic law and European law, are utterly transformed. And, of course, Lisbon is but another snapshot of the inexorable political progression of the Eurocrats, seizing every opportunity to design a United States of Europe.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to live in a European superstate run by Eurocrats who are unsackable, founded on a treaty that is unintelligible and watching the democratic linkage between citizen and state disappear under oceans of verbiage. I don’t believe the architects of this treaty, people like Valery Giscard D’Estaing or Guiliano Amato. I think they are practised political truth-massagers, - and tax-free ones to boot. As Amato himself said at the LSE last February: ‘‘The good thing about not calling it a constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it.”

The arrogance and dishonesty of the Yes campaign, too, have been deeply depressing, as if somehow the need for workers’ rights, charters of fundamental rights, an end to cross-border sex trafficking, climate change and global warming somehow cannot be dealt with except in the context of Lisbon. Such nonsense is mere camouflage for the fundamental structural change between citizen and state that Lisbon is creating.

Over and beyond all of this, there is the growing tyranny of Europe’s obsession with environmental and gender politics, its secularisation and multicultural agendas, its interference with national immigration policies and, above all, its failure to combat the relentless transformation of our society into a mere marketplace. Imagine a future in a Euro superstate almost entirely at the mercy of free market forces.

Come to think of it, if we defeat this referendum, it won’t be the first time that the Irish rescued Europe from the Dark Ages. I am pro-European, but I also want to remain primarily an Irish citizen, not a mere statistic in a European superstate. Therefore, I am voting No.

sink

Wow, you should have read the rules on posting.

IRLConor

pietercleppe wrote: »

Tom McGurk wrote:

After all, the Nice Treaty was rejected, but the question was re-asked until the answer was Yes.

The second question differed from the first. Ignoring this (and the fact that the turnout was higher) is a case of trying to warp reality to fit your world view.

pietercleppe wrote: »

Tom McGurk wrote:

The constitutional forerunner of this Lisbon Treaty has already been rejected by previous referendums in France and Denmark.

Er, wasn't that the Netherlands?

pietercleppe wrote: »

Tom McGurk wrote:

So if the Irish vote down the treaty, will it fall? The problem is that nobody is sure about that; Europe does not easily take No for an answer. Such is European democracy.

It won't be ratified in that case because it can't be ratified without unanimous decision by the member states.

It could be modified and re-presented to the Irish people.

pietercleppe wrote: »

Tom McGurk wrote:

The first two sentences of the amendment we are being asked to pass requires serious consideration. They read: ‘‘The state may ratify the Treaty of Lisbon signed at Lisbon on the 13th day of December 2007, and may be a member of the European Union established by virtue of that treaty No provision of this constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the state that are necessitated by membership of the European Union, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the state.”

In other words, Europe pre-Lisbon and Europe post-Lisbon are two entirely different political and judicial jurisdictions. This first sentence of the constitutional amendment states that the state may ratify the Treaty of Lisbon and ‘‘may be a member of the European Union established by virtue of that - Lisbon - Treaty’’.

This post-Lisbon EU would have the same name, but would clearly be a different union from the pre-Lisbon EU, which stems from the 1993 Maastricht Treaty. The second sentence of the amendment would then give the constitution of this post-Lisbon union supremacy over the Irish constitution as regards its ‘‘laws, acts and measures’’, so long as these are provided for in the treaties. So we are not simply restructuring Europe to cater for the logistical demands of the 27 states: rather, we are creating a new European Union superstate based, not on Maastricht, but on Lisbon. I think the European federal state is looming here.

That clause has been in our constitution since the 70s. Maybe Tom should read our constitution before voting on an amendment to it?

pietercleppe wrote: »

Tom McGurk wrote:

Effectively, Lisbon gives the new union a unified constitutional structure so that all areas of government would come within its aegis, either actually or potentially.

That's utter bull****. Competences are conferred by the member states on the union. The only things that the EU has control over are those which are explicitly granted to it.

pietercleppe wrote: »

Tom McGurk wrote:

<Snip more arrant nonsense>

pietercleppe: Do you actually believe that rubbish? It's reasonably clear that Tom McGurk hasn't the faintest idea what he's talking about. (Either that or he does and is spreading deliberate lies for a political purpose, but I'd prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt.)

ixtlan

Well, I'll be a bit kinder to Tom McGurk. He seems sincere, but again he is portraying the EU as a growing monster of bureaucracy and unaccountability.

Firstly as IRLConor says, that amendment is pretty close to what has been in the constitution since the 70's. Yes, it does look a bit worrying at face value, and in all honestly I might prefer less of a blanket approach where individual sections were changed as required. The problem with that of course is that our constitution might start resembling the Lisbon treaty in complexity! You have to ask the question whether Tom thinks that such a clause is new. It's isn't and it has not caused any disasters in the past.

Secondly he does seem to think Lisbon massively changes the EU. It does not. In fact this is the most minor change of any of the previous treaties.

molloyjh

Here we go....more rubbish from someone who obviously hasn't put the time or effort into understanding what the EU is currently about and what the Treaty is about. Its getting very tiring repeatedly either correcting these lies/myths/misrepresentations or reading the corrections. Its the same story again and agai. But sure here we go. One more time with feeling:

"it apparently does not require the votes of the other 496million or so citizens"
That is correct, it does not require their votes. That is the way their legal system and their democracy has been set up. They haven't had a problem with it in the past and if they really don't like it then its up to them to do something about it. Making this decision on this treaty is part of their Governments mandates.

"remains a total mystery to many ordinary voters"
Now I'm not stupid, but I'm not a total genius either. I reckon I'm fairly average intelligence wise. How come I can understand it then?

"to radically alter the nature of the state they are living in"
In what way will it be radically atered? I'm sure we'll deal with a few relevant points as we go along, so lets wait an see on this one.

"Europe does not easily take No for an answer"
Heaven forbid we might have to vote again on a different (albeit only slightly amended) version of the EU Constitution. But then that is part and parcel of politics, the whole:
"I don't like this one line here, but the other 200 are ok"
"Ok so, how about we amend that bit and leave the rest the same?"
"Fine with me"
It happens every day in negotiations, its just that normally we don't have to have a referendum on it.

"Fourth....."
I really don't understand what he's getting at here. He's using false conclusions to compare the EU to Communist Russia/China????? :rolleyes:

"The first two sentences of the amendment......"
This is stating nothing that isn't already true. It basically says that our Constitution does not contradict anything in EU law as it stands right now. It doesn't. The reason for this was that we were part of making those laws reality. And if they had conflicted with our Constitution there would have been 1 of 2 outcomes - either we would have voted to change the constitution or voted not to. Had we voted against the law would never have been passed. In future any EU laws that require amendment to the Constitution will still require Referendum and if not passed there will not be passed in Brussels. So there is really no issue here at all.

"the proposed new community-wide structures in justice, policing"
We have opt outs on these areas so no issue here.

"the changes in weighted majority voting, and the new relationship between aggregate population and voting power"
One minute the guy is giving out about the un-democratic EU, now he's saying that the majority voting thing is bad and that small nations with veto ability over everything is better. Either he is for democracy or he is not. This is blatant hypocrasy. Either way we don't give up our veto on any major areas so no issues here really.

"Lisbon gives the new union a unified constitutional structure so that all areas of government would come within its aegis, either actually or potentially"
Totally and utterly untrue! There are numerous areas that do not fall under the EU remit in any way. Suffice it to say that anything that logically is best decided at an EU level will be dealt with there, and anything that logically should be decided at national level will be dealt with there. For example taxation policies will be national but policies regarding travel amongst the EU countries will be decided in Brussels. Nothing at all wrong with that, its completely logical.

"cannot be dealt with except in the context of Lisbon"
I've never heard anyone say that. They did say that the EU would function more efficiently and therefore these issues will be handled better. So no issue here either.

Moriarty

pietercleppe banned for breaking the rules repeatedly after being warned more than once.