Privacy Policy

NeoConOpticon - The EU Security-Industrial Complex
http://www.statewatch.org/analyses/neoconopticon-report.pdf
by Ben Hayes (pdf)

"Despite the often benign intent behind collaborative European ‘research’ into integrated land, air, maritime, space and cyber-surveillance systems, the EU’s security and R&D policy is coalescing around a high-tech blueprint for a new kind of security. It envisages a future world of red zones and green zones; external borders controlled by military force and internally by a sprawling network of physical and virtual security checkpoints; public spaces, micro-states and ‘mega events’ policed by high-tech surveillance systems and rapid reaction forces; ‘peacekeeping’ and ‘crisis management’ missions that make no operational distinction between the suburbs of Basra or the Banlieue; and the increasing integration of defence and national security functions at home and abroad.

It is not just a case of “sleepwalking into” or “waking up to” a “surveillance society”, as the UK’s Information Commissioner famously warned, it feels more like turning a blind eye to the start of a new kind of arms race, one in which all the weapons are pointing inwards. Welcome to the NeoConOpticon."

EU Major new report by Statewatch and the Transnational Institute

3 Aug

Donegal Democrat,
by Edward Longwill

Edward Longwill, a security policy analyst at the University of Ulster, explains exactly what the Lisbon Treaty will or will not do to Irish neutrality.

In June 2008, 53% of Irish voters rejected the Lisbon Treaty. The Irish government believes that guarantees it received last December on neutrality, taxation and abortion will ensure a Yes vote on 2 October when the Irish electorate are asked to vote again on an identical Lisbon Treaty.

Of the 27 EU Member States, citizens within the Republic of Ireland have the second highest perception of EU membership (Eurobarometer Poll, spring 2008). If the Irish people are such committed members of the EU, why did they reject Lisbon?
Immediately after the referendum the European Commission authorised a study to examine the paradox. Most of the No voters were younger, less well educated, and working-class who gave a primary reason for opposing Lisbon because they did not understand it. Interestingly 83% of No voters believed the Irish rejection of Lisbon would protect their country’s neutral status (Flash Eurobarometer Poll, July 2008).

A poll conducted on behalf of the Irish government a number of months after the referendum found that 82% of No voters viewed neutrality as either important or very important (Millward Brown IMS Survey, September 2008). The legal framework of neutrality is defined by the Hague Convention 1907 which summarises how a state must behave in order to maintain neutral status. In short, a state cannot use its military to support another state at war or allow the passage of troops or war supplies through its territory which belong to another state at war. However a neutral state can sell another state war material without breaching the rules of neutrality.

In Ireland neutrality is synonymous with sovereignty and independence. In 1916 republican leaders staged an unsuccessful rebellion and publicised their belief that Irishmen should not serve in the British army and protect British interests. On the contrary they viewed the First World War as an opportunity to end British colonialism in Ireland. The British government’s attempt to impose conscription on Ireland in 1918 led to an electoral revolt and a subsequent war of independence. Even today neutrality is regarded by many Irish voters as an expression of anti-imperialism.

During the First World War the United States supplied Britain with war materials. Technically this did not breach neutrality status. However the German navy received orders to attack merchant ships suspected of carrying war material and the sinking of the Lusitania of the coast of Ireland led to US war entry. This event demonstrated that a state at war may not respect the technical rules of neutrality. Legally, neutrality has only military considerations. However, today a significant proportion of Irish people believe in the totality of neutrality – that it must be universally applied to inter-state relations.

Irish entry to the UN in 1955 and the first peacekeeping mission in 1960 to the Congo set a lasting precedent to authorise the use of Irish troops overseas. An Irish contingent of soldiers cannot serve outside of the Republic of Ireland without a UN mandate for the overall operation, Irish government approval and a positive vote in the Irish parliament. This system has become known as the ‘triple-lock’.

The Irish state has never been totally neutral in the non-legal sense of the concept. Favouritism towards the Allies in the Second World War and towards the Western Bloc when it came to voting within the UN General Assembly created a clear distinction between military neutrality and how a state can adopt a contradictory diplomatic policy. Pursing contradictory political and military policies can bring a state into military conflict. In 1980 the Irish government politically and diplomatically criticised the Israeli government. Some analysts claimed that this resulted in pro-Israeli forces assaulting Irish positions causing the deaths of Irish soldiers serving with the UN in Lebanon. The Irish government and public learned that if the state pursues certain foreign policies then other states may not respect Irish military neutrality.

More recently the neutrality debate arose in Irish politics. The French led EUFOR Chad operation (2007-09) saw the Irish military provide the second largest contingent. Although the mission held a UN mandate, and the Irish government claimed the mission would protect refugees, a number of Irish commentators claimed that EUFOR advanced French neo-colonial interests, Francafrique, by supporting a dictator. In the near future the French government’s true agenda will become evident. Only then can Irish analysts attempt to determine if the Irish government knew, or approved, of this agenda.

There is no doubt that the Irish government is deviating from military neutrality. One of the most controversial debates in Irish politics over recent years was the decision permit the US Air Force to land at Shannon Airport in Ireland. Official reports confirmed that US soldiers stopped at Shannon en route to Iraq. More controversial are rumours which claim that some landings contain prisoners on torture-bound ‘rendition flights’. In 2006 the European Parliament passed a resolution criticising several unnamed Member States’ ‘collusion’ with the US by providing civilian or military airports for this purpose (Resolution 1507 (2006), 10.8).

More importantly a retired Irish army officer, Commandant (Major) Edward Horgan, in March 2003 took a case against the Irish government to the High Court over the fact that the US used Shannon for the Iraq war – viewed by Horgan as an illegal war contrary to international law. Although the Irish constitution implies a respect for international law, the judge dismissed Horgan’s argument and found that the government was not bound by ‘statements of principle or guidelines’. Irish neutrality no longer existed because the Irish government accepted that military troops passed through Shannon – in breach of the Hague Convention 1907 (5,2) ‘belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys… across the territory of a neutral power’.

Most members of the Irish public are not aware of the significance of this decision and believe that Ireland is still a neutral state. In fact during the last Lisbon campaign, scaremongering arose that the treaty would create an EU army, conscription or even result in Irish soldiers serving in Afghanistan. Most voters do not know that senior Irish officers already serve in the EU Military Staff, responsible for coordinating EU Member State’s military policy under Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). Furthermore seven Irish officers serve alongside NATO officers in Afghanistan and Irish government secrecy over their specific role has generated many rumours. However these soldiers are trained in bomb disposal and it is likely they support NATO’s war effort rather than provide humanitarian assistance.

Irish neutrality no longer exists yet many of the ignorant Irish public believed a No vote in Lisbon would protect the state’s ‘neutral’ status. If we accept that Irish neutrality is dead, the question is how the passage of Lisbon will alter the current position. The treaty will end the Irish veto on CFSP initiatives. Article 15(b) will bring CFSP under a Qualified Majority Vote (QMV) in the European Council. Furthermore Article 11 (a) will effectively federalise all areas of ‘common foreign and security policy… all questions relating to the Union's security, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy’ and Article 46 (a) ‘The Union shall have legal personality’ gives the EU federal status at global level.

Most Irish voters are oblivious to all of this. However the No campaign drew voters’ attention to the ‘solidarity clause’, Article 28 (7) of the treaty which states ‘if a Member State is the victim of armed aggression… the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all means in their power’. One of the most important guarantees the Irish government received last December was that this did not constitute a military alliance.

Opponents of the treaty have identified other articles which they believe will deter Irish voters. These include the commitment to improve military capabilities and increase military spending for the European Defence Agency (EDA). Anti-Lisbon campaigners have misleadingly claimed that this will lure Ireland into a pan-European military-industrial complex. On the contrary it is natural for all states to continually modernise and improve their capability and in 2007 Ireland contributed to just over 1% of the EDA’s budget (€283,800 of €20,800,000).

Perhaps the most dramatic claim made by elements of the No campaign is that a conspiracy exists to create an EU super-army. There are no secrets, in fact the EU Institute for Security Studies published a report titled What Ambitions for European Defence in 2020? (2009). This reveals the desire for permanent structures, ‘a formal Council of Defence Ministers’ chaired by the EU ‘Foreign Minister’, ‘a European Security and Defence College… to train all personnel in a common strategic culture… and a European Command to plan and conduct the Union’s military operations’.

Do we need an EU army? If so, should we fear a centrally commanded grand EU army? The authors of the report suggested de-centralising control of the EU military to a ‘European Parliamentary Council for Security and Defence’ which would liaise between EU and national level parliaments. Also the EU will have its own representative at the UN to ‘normally’ but not always develop missions within the UN’s framework.

A federal EU would have a tremendous military capability. If all 27 Member States combined their defence budgets it would total over €200 billion – second only to the US. Would the EU become a global centre of liberty and respect for human rights or an out of control expansionist monster? According to the EDA’s Long Term Vision Report 2020-25 (2006), if current trends continue then by 2025 the EU in its current form will only comprise of 6% of the world’s population.

Centralised defence planning could potentially ensure that the EU acquires the world’s greatest military. The Vision Report explained that presently 50% of collective EU defence spending goes on personnel. The economic burden of the public sector always raises debate yet the re-organisation of national militaries along federal lines would collectively save billions of euros. Currently the collective EU forces have approximately 10,000 battle tanks and 3,000 combat aircraft. Again, re-organisation along federal lines would reduce the quantity of EU defence assets and dramatically increase the future quality of assets.

Unfortunately most Irish voters are unaware of the complex issues associated with Lisbon. An opinion poll taken four weeks before the 2008 referendum placed No voters at only 18% yet the actual result saw 52% of voters saying No. Interestingly a similar poll taken four weeks in advance of the upcoming 2 October referendum has the No vote at 29% (Irish Times/TNS mrbi poll, 3 September). Therefore the No vote has grown since the first referendum and it looks likely that the Irish electorate will once again reject Lisbon. Where will this leave the EU?

Supporters of the European project will be furious that Irish voters have sabotaged Lisbon and delayed years of progress. Those who view Europe with apprehension may welcome a reflective period to inform, educate and debate with their follow Europeans. Nation-states, like Irish neutrality, may be obsolete. Europeans have been responsible for some of the greatest artistic, cultural and scientific achievements in history. However we have also been responsible for some of the worst excesses of savagery and cruelty.

All of us want an EU that brings out the best in us as Europeans with a shared future. The debate we must have now is over what kind of EU we believe will make that happen.

What the Lisbon Treaty will or will not do to Irish neutrality

Morning Star
by Jeremy Corbyn MP

Last Saturday night I walked into the departure lounge at Shannon Airport and it felt like Baghdad.

The whole place was heaving with American soldiers, in battle fatigues, who were relaxing between flights as they transited from the USA to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Ireland has always prided itself on its neutrality, non membership of NATO and as such has enjoyed a uniquely powerful moral position in the world as the least militaristic of any European country.

However, Shannon undermines that. Not only do US troops use the airport in huge numbers there are also mysterious un-marked but apparently US planes with no side windows on the remote runways and extraordinary levels of security surrounding the whole airport.

There has never been any satisfactory explanation in response to concerns that the airport was used for extraordinary rendition flights from Bagram in Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay.

Shannon Watch, a group of peace activists who monitor movements there have suffered harassment and extraordinary pressure in trying to protect Irish neutrality.
The sights at the airport were the culmination of a one day conference on the militarisation of Ireland that was organized as part of the “No to Lisbon” campaign ahead of the referendum on October 2nd.

The European Constitution was famously rejected in France and the Netherlands and all British political parties pledged a referendum on it in the 2005 General Election.

Facing Euro wide rejection of the centralization of powers, marketisation of public services and common EU foreign and defence policies the European leaders deftly re-arranged the paragraphs in the Constitution and re-branded it the Lisbon Treaty. This was easily accepted by all Governments and in Britain the House of Commons voted to reject the referendum (which every single MP had been elected pledging to hold on the Constitution) and endorse the Lisbon treaty.

The Irish famously rejected the Lisbon treaty at the first referendum and were bluntly told to hold another.

To save the blushes of the Irish Government a “protocol” was offered which claimed to respect Irish neutrality and non membership or cooperation with NATO. Whilst this has easily satisfied the Irish Government and most of the political establishment it does not really alter the bald facts of the Lisbon Treaty.

If endorsed Lisbon will establish a common foreign policy, there will be a defence policy based on NATO, there will be an EU President with quite extraordinary powers and the neutrality of any member state will, to say the very least, be compromised.
The Conference, in the Park Airport Hotel in Shannon heard some disturbing information about US military personnel being stationed there, “to assist flights”, and the levels of secrecy surrounding the whole operation. Some of the delegates took the view that there was no operational need to use Shannon but it was an effective way of softening Irish opposition to NATO.

As with all campaigns to do with issues surrounding Europe there is an extraordinary mismatch of information and funding.

The yes campaign deftly assert that Ireland would be worse off without Lisbon and that all the successes of the Irish economy, before the crunch, would be at risk from this vote. They cleverly suggest that a vote against Lisbon is tantamount to leaving the EU altogether, which it is not.

Supporting this view are the Government and the richest and most powerful business people in the Republic. Michael O’Leary, owner of Ryanair has threatened to pump millions of Euros into the Yes campaign and join in the general disinformation that rejecting Lisbon will cost thousands of jobs and the livelihood of all the Irish people.

In reality not just the neutrality of Ireland is put at risk but also job protection and social justice as the whole continent moves assertively towards a free market economy, not in the directyion of a socially just continent.

To emphasise the whole point about the militarization of Europe many speakers including Sinn Fein’s Mary Lou McDonald, former MEP Patricia McKenna and current MEP Joe Higgins pointed out that the references to NATO and C ommon Defence in the Treaty were also backed up by the multi millionEuro subsidy for the European Defence Agency, which supports a growing European Arms industry.

Speakers from around Europe including Harry van Brommel from the Dutch Socialist Party, Tobia Pfluger from Die Linke and Celine Menessez from Parti du Gauche pointed out the uniqueness and importance of the Irish vote.

Lisbon brings in fewer commissioners from smaller states and more qualified majority voting. The Treaty, however, requires the ratification of all member states thus the Irish vote on October 2nd is crucial for the cause of a social and peaceful Europe.

Shannon and Militarism

IMI-Analysis 2009/031en

Verdict of the German Constitutional Court concerning the Lisbon Treaty:Court strenghtens Parliamentery Prerogative

But the Lisbon Treaty was made compliant with the constitution ? now theIrish referendum is decisive

by Tobias Pflüger

On June 30 the German Constitutional Court decided in an exciting verdictwhether the Lisbon Treaty is unconstitutional. But the court used a trick bydeclaring the treaty per se as constitutionally compliant, but at the sametime declaring that part of the accompanying legislation asunconstitutional, which was used by the Bundestag (lower house) andBundesrat (upper house) to ratify the treaty: ?The law about the extensionand strengthening the rights of the Bundestag and Bundesrat regarding theaffairs of the European Union (extension law) is violating article 38 (1) asrelated to article 23 (1) of the constitution insofar as the participatoryrights of the German Bundestag and Bundesrat have not sufficiently beendeveloped."

This pertains to a number of points in the Lisbon Treaty for which theFederal Constitutional Court claims that the Bundestag and Bundesrat triedto disempower themselves. An important aspect is the decision-making processregarding military deployments of the European Union.

In the verdict it says that the appeal of the petitioners is justified inthis regard as far as the applicant claims a violation of thedecision-making power of the German Bundestag concerning the deployment ofGerman military forces. And a similarly distinct borderline is drawn by theconstitution concerning decisions about the deployment of the federal army.Except for the state of defence, a deployment abroad is only allowed withinthe system of mutual collective security (article 24 [2] of theconstitution), while the concrete deployment constitutionally requires theapproval by the Bundestag. The federal army is a Parliamentary Army, andtherefore the representative organ of the people has to decide about itsuse."

The Lisbon Treaty creates vast new military competence for the EU. This isunfortunately confirmed by the Federal Constitutional Court in its verdict.But fortunately the Federal Constitutional Court has corrested the fact thatthe German Bundestag had disempowered itself by its approval of the LisbonTreaty.

The judges clarified: only the German Bundestag is empowered to decide aboutforeign military deployment of the federal army. According to the FederalConstitutional Court, the disempowerment of the Bundestag concerningdecisions about military deployments of the EU as it is stipulated by theLisbon Treaty and the German accompanying legislation is unconstitutional.

One of the questions was, who is going to decide whether the german federalarmy will participate in a military operation of the EU. The judges of theConstitutional Court have now clarified that this is the exclusive authorityof the Bundestag.

The verdict says: ?In this case (the decision about a military deployment bythe European Council, T.P.) the German representative in the council wouldbe constitutionally obliged to refuse his approval of any proposedresolution which would violate or circumvent the constitutional prerogativeof the parliament concerning military issues.

This statement of the verdict becomes particularly interesting with regardto the Permanent Structured Cooperation according to Protocol No. 10 of theLisbon Treaty. The protocoll calls for the military deployment of EU BattleGroups? within five to 30 days. However, after the verdict of Karlsruhe(seat of the German Federal Constitutional Court, translators note), aGerman participation in such rapid deployment will be practicallyimpossible, because it would be necessary for the Bundestag to convene everytime prior to the European Council decision about the deployment of EUBattle Groups with German participation. The Bundestag would first have totake a decision about the foreign mission of German soldiers. Theconstitutional verdict is a kind of parliamentary shackle for the BattleGroups.

The Bundestag will have to pass a new accompanying law for the Lisbon Treatyin two extraordinary sessions scheduled for 26 August and 08 September - themiddle of the parliamentary summer break and the ongoing federal electionscampaign. It is still unclear how the Bundestag will participate in thedecision making about rapid reactionmissions of the EU. In practice e.g.last year's war in Georgia, convening the Bundestag on such a short noticeis highly unrealistic. It might well be that the function of the BattleGroups as rapid intervention troops will be jeopardised or even paralysed bythis procedure. Even the proposed solution of Christian Schmidt, theParliamentary State Secretary to the Federal Minister of Defence, to solvethe constitutional conflict by issuing a permanent (parliamentary) approvalfor the deployment of EU battle groups is incompatible with the verdict ofthe Constitutional Court.

Ireland second round an further tricks

However, the Lisbon Treaty is not prevented by this verdict in Germany.Therefore, everything is now depending on Ireland, where a new referendumwill be held on October 2nd , because in the past the Irish people were sorecalcitrant to clearly say No to the treaty. At the EU summit in June, adeclaration calling for an additional protocol in a future treaty waspassed. To become effective, this declaration has to be ratified by all EUmember states. It is planned that the EU member states will sign thisdeclaration e.g. on the occasion of Croatia's accession to the EU withsubsequent ratification by the national parliaments. This declarationcontains three items: Fiscal policy, legislation on abortion and militarypolicy. The goal is to pacify at least some of those who voted against theLisbon Treaty in the past, hoping to gain a majority for a Yes during thesecond referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland on October 2nd .

Of particular interest is the section about Security and Defence. It isalleged that Ireland's neutrality will not be affected. But this is notcorrect: The collaboration between the EU and the NATO remains a significantelement of the Lisbon Treaty. A number of affirmative references are maderegarding NATO. Protocol No. 10 states: "CONVINCED that a more assertiveUnion role in security and defence matters will contribute to the vitalityof a renewed Atlantic Alliance, in accordance with the Berlin Plusarrangements" This is an open violation of the Irish neutrality.

The additional protocol will not change the fact that the Lisbon Treatywould convert the EU into a military union. All military elements of thetreaty are going to persist: the military solidarity clause (article 222) -more rigid than the solidarity clause of the NATO - converts the EU into amilitary alliance and enables the use of military forces inside the EU.Article 42 obliges the member states to a build-up of arms. The PermanentStructured Cooperation makes a militarized Core Europe possible: Only thosecountries will decide about military deployments which participate in them.For the first time the EU budget can be used for military purposes using theStart-up Fund. Until now this is prohibited by the EU treaties. For thefirst time, the Lisbon Treaty would anchor EU Battle Groups and the ArmamentAgency by primary law, i.e. to abolish them again, a new EU treaty would benecessary.

The so called additional protocol affirms the correctness of our critique ofthe military consequences of the Lisbon Treaty. Now, using trickery, it isintended to finally push through the Lisbon Treaty. The Irish people votedwith a clear No in 2008. Now they are supposed to vote time and again until self-proclaimed EU elite is satisfied with the the result . The concessionsof the new additional protocol are cosmetics without any obligation.

Representatives of the progressive Irish No-campaign have asked to make useof the second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland as quasi an EU-wideballot. They asked for support from progressive NO-activists of other EUcountries. We will comply with this request. We will struggle for a victoryof the NO to this neoliberal and militaristic Lisbon Treaty during thesecond referendum in Ireland too. No means No!

Tobias Pflueger

Informationsstelle Militarisierung (IMI) e.V.
http://www.imi-online.de

Verdict of the German Constitutional Court concerning the Lisbon Treaty: Court strengthens Parliamentary Prerogative

JENS-PETER BONDE

(EUObserver/Comment)

The German Constitutional Court issued a remarkable verdict on 30 June. It was described in the press as the Court's approval of the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.

However, careful reading of the judgement shows that it is a fundamental rejection of the core constitutional content of the Treaty.

The Court judgement modifies the most important principle of the primacy of European law. Member States are said to be the "masters of the Treaties." In the Court's view the EU institutions have no powers of their own. They can only administer delegated competences in prescribed areas. European law is stated to be ultimately based on and limited by the accession law of each Member State.

The German Court implicitly invites any citizen, political party or business firm in Germany to take court cases before the German Constitutional Court if they find that a piece of proposed EU law is outside those delegated competences. Then it is the German Court that will decide - not the EU Court.

This is a rejection of Art. 344 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which provides that Member States undertake not to submit a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the Treaties to any method of settlement other than the European Court of Justice.

The Karlsruhe Court also insists that there must be important areas of law-making and decision-taking left to the EU Member States. This is an invitation to politicians everywhere to ask their governments what competences are left with the Member States after the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty.

I have offered a bottle of top class wine to anyone who can give me just one example of a national law which cannot be touched in some way by the Lisbon Treaty. Legal specialists have tried to find examples; yet they cannot!

If EU governments cannot find room for the exercise of meaningful national parliamentary democracy within the ambit of the EU, then the Lisbon Treaty is unconstitutional, according to the German Court.

The Court does not accept that the European Parliament is a body which can give adequate democratic legitimacy to European Union law. The Court also sets limits to the importance of the new "additional" Union citizenship and states that this can only be supplementary to national citizenship.

The Court insists on national parliamentary participation in all areas where Member States would lose their right of veto.

The judges unanimously insist, by 8 votes to nil, on prior approval by the German Parliament - and implicitly by other National Parliaments - for the use of the so-called "bridge articles" whereby Government Ministers on the Council of Ministers or the European Council can alter EU law-making from unanimity to qualified majority voting.

The judges also require full participation of National Parliaments in the use of the flexibility clause in Art. 352 TFEU, which permits the EU to take action and adopt measures to attain one of the EU's objectives even if the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers.

Finally, the Court forbids the German President from signing the Treaty so as to enable Germany's instrument of ratification to be deposited in Rome until the German Parliament has adopted a law which would safeguard the involvement of the German Bundestag and Bundesrat in future EU decision-making.

The most striking element in the judgement is that the Court implies the need for the involvement of National Parliaments in all aspects of EU law-making. They refer to democracy as being a principle common to all the EU Member States. The involvement of National Parliaments in EU law-making is therefore a necessity. If not, the principle of democracy will have been fundamentally breached.

Recognising the democratic deficit

The Karlsruhe Court effectively finds that the Lisbon Treaty would increase the EU's widely acknowledged democratic deficit if its ratification is not linked to the adoption of internal procedures at Member State level such as to safeguard the involvement of the National Parliaments and voters in each Member State.

The verdict applies only to Germany, of course. But it has significant implications for all Member States, including those which have already approved and ratified the Lisbon Treaty.

With this Court judgement in hand, political parties and groups of citizens in each Member State are implicitly invited to go to their National Parliaments and insist on similar guarantees being given in order to ensure the involvement of elected representatives and voters in EU decision-making in each one.

If Germany's ratification of the Lisbon Treaty is found to be illegal and in contravention of basic democratic principles in the absence of such parliamentary controls, should not the same principle apply in all other Member States that claim to be democracies?

The Karlsruhe judgement should inspire people to call for similar constitutional and parliamentary challenges in other EU countries. This may establish strengthened procedures for national parliamentary control and safeguard areas where national parliamentary democracies can decide things on their own without interference from, for example, the EU Court of Justice.

Such calls may also win time to make people aware of the anti-democratic character of the Lisbon Treaty and ensure that this is not ratified by all EU States before it has been approved by Irish voters in their referendum re-run on 2 October next, and can be put later before British voters in a referendum in the United Kingdom.

The United Kingdom must have a general election before June next year. The Conservative Party, which is likely to win that election, has pledged to withdraw the United Kingdom's ratification of the Lisbon Treaty on its first day in office if the Treaty has not come into force by then for all 27 EU States. It has then pledged to hold a referendum on it and to recommend a No vote to the British people.

There needs to be a democratic review of the Lisbon Treaty in all EU countries before any such encounter with UK voters.

(The author was MEP 1979 - 2008 and served as a member of the Convention on the Future of Europe)
---
Excerpts from the German Constitutional Court judgement in the English version published by the Court, 30 June 2009.

"European unification on the basis of a union of sovereign states under the Treaties may not be realised in such a way that the Member States do not retain sufficient room for the political formation of the economic, cultural and social circumstances of life." (Headnotes to the Judgement, Par. 3)

"It is therefore constitutionally required not to agree dynamic treaty provisions with a blanket character or if they can still be interpreted in a manner that respects national responsibility for integration, to establish, at any rate, suitable national safeguards for the effective exercise of such responsibility." (Par.239)

"European unification on the basis of a union of sovereign states under the Treaties may not be realised in such a way that the Member States do not retain sufficient space for the political formation of the economic, cultural and social circumstances of life. This applies in particular to areas which shape the citizens' circumstances of life, in particular the private space of their own responsibility and of political and social security, which is protected by the fundamental rights, and to political decisions that particularly depend on previous understanding as regards culture, history and language and which unfold in discourses in the space of a political public that is organised by party politics and Parliament. Essential areas of democratic formative action comprise, inter alia, citizenship. the civil and military monopoly on the use of force, revenue and expenditure including external financing and all elements of encroachment that are decisive for the realisation of fundamental rights, above all as regards intensive encroachments on fundamental rights such as the deprivation of liberty in the administration of criminal law or the placement in an institution. These important areas also include cultural issues such as the disposition of language, the shaping of circumstances concerning the family and education, the ordering of the freedom of opinion, of the press and of association and the dealing with the profession of faith or ideology." (Par. 249)

"Consequently, the Treaty of Lisbon does not alter the fact that the Bundestag as the body of representation of the German people is the focal point of an interweaved democratic system." (Par. 277)

"... the European Parliament is not a body of representation of a sovereign European people." (Par.280)

"The deficit of European public authority that exists when measured against requirements on democracy in states cannot be compensated by other provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon and to that extent, it cannot be justified." (Par.289)

"As regards the legal situation according to the Treaty of Lisbon, this consideration confirms that without democratically originating in the Member States, the action of the European Union lacks a sufficient basis of legitimisation." (Par.297)

"Finally, the Treaty of Lisbon does not vest the European Union with provisions that provide the European union of integration (Integrationsverband) with the competence to decide its own competence (Kompetenz-Kompetenz)." (Par.322)

"With Declaration No.17 Concerning Primacy annexed to the Treaty of Lisbon, the Federal Republic of Germany does not recognise an absolute primacy of application of Union law, which would be constitutionally objectionable, but merely confirms the legal situation as it has been interpreted by the Federal Constitutional Court. . ." (Par. 331)

"After the realisation of the principle of the sovereignty of the people in Europe, only the peoples of the Member States can dispose of their respective constituent powers and of the sovereignty of the state. Without the expressly declared will of the peoples, the elected bodies are not competent to create a new subject of legitimisation, or to delegitimise the existing ones, in the constitutional areas of their states." (Par. 347)

German judgement is a call to action against the EU's democratic deficit

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,634506,00.html#ref=rss

Brussels Put Firmly in the Back Seat

By SPIEGEL Staff

Last week's ruling by the German Constitutional Court, coupled with demands by one conservative party for changes to the constitution, may not only jeopardize Berlin's schedule for the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. The Karlsruhe ruling also threatens future steps toward European integration.
When the parliamentary group of the Christian Social Union (CSU) -- the Bavarian sister party to Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservative Christian Democrats -- met in Berlin last Thursday, they had a hero to celebrate. "You have saved our honor," said CSU representative Hans-Peter Friedrich to his party colleague and friend Peter Gauweiler.

Gauweiler, a lawyer from Munich -- and a political maverick who is the enfant terrible of the conservative group in the German parliament or Bundestag -- was largely successful with the legal complaint he filed with the German Constitutional Court against the EU Lisbon Treaty. Now it's official: The ratification by the overwhelming majority of the German parliament -- including the CSU -- was negligent. In essence, the court ruled that by passing the so-called "accompanying law" to the Lisbon Treaty, which determines the rights of German parliament to participate in European legislation, the representatives had relinquished significant monitoring rights to Brussels. According to the judges, this unconstitutionally subjects the people that they represent to the whims of a bureaucracy that lacks sufficient democratic legitimacy.
But the CSU cares little about past errors. Now the idea is to push ahead and "Gauweiler" them! Last Thursday, the politicians from Bavaria decided to follow up their success with a new set of demands. They want the Lisbon Treaty to be ratified only under condition that the new EU law would only be valid in Germany "in accordance with the decision by the German Constitutional Court." They are now demanding a solution that gives "maximum" parliamentary influence over future EU policy.

The CSU parliamentary group aims to approve an entire catalog of demands at a party meeting in the former Benedictine monastery of Kloster Banz in mid-July. The Bavarians even want to push through a number of changes to the German constitution. One of these would oblige the government to adhere to the parliament's position papers on European policy. "Our Constitutional Court demands greater rights of co-determination," says CSU Secretary General Alexander Dobrindt and "we have to comply. It would be good if the decisions of the lower house of parliament, the Bundestag, and Germany's upper legislative chamber, the Bundesrat, on changes to the EU Treaty were complemented in the future by a referendum." "People are going to have to make considerable concessions to us to receive the CSU's support," says Thomas Silberhorn, CSU parliamentary group spokesman on EU affairs.

Not all of this is realistic. But it's a political bombshell that could torpedo the German government's Lisbon rescue concept. If the coalition partners still have to struggle with major stipulations so shortly before the summer break, then there is no chance of doing a quick and quiet fix that would satisfy the Constitutional Court's criticism of the accompanying law's flaws.

Tears of Frustration Ahead

In addition to undermining the effectiveness of Germany's ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, this could tip the scales for the other European countries that have yet to ratify -- namely Ireland, Poland and the Czech Republic. The conditions posed by the court in Karlsruhe will make things "much more difficult than we had imagined," the leaders of the conservative parliamentary group that combines the CDU and CSU admitted late last week.

That's putting it mildly. The Bavarians' "Gauweiler" tactics only provide an inkling of the inner political strife that is in store for Germany. Despite the premature cries of triumph among staunch EU supporters in the ruling coalition and in Brussels, last Tuesday's ruling on the Lisbon Treaty will yet unleash rage and tears of frustration.

Now that the court in Karlsruhe has spelled out Germany's role in European unification, this heralds the end of a policy of increasing integration. According to the judges, Germany's future lies not in "a united Europe" -- but rather in Germany. In the future, the most powerful EU partner will also be the most difficult one, even if -- despite Gauweiler's legal challenge -- it ends up unconditionally ratifying the Lisbon Treaty.

This would be true even without the conditions proposed by the CSU. The German Constitutional Court has found its own unique way of effectively putting the brakes on European policy.

The judges wrote that "if obvious transgressions of boundaries take place when the European Union claims competences," then they will call for a "review" to "preserve the inviolable core content of the Basic Law's constitutional identity."

That is the kind of wording that goes beyond the dreams of Gauweiler and his friends. It simply means that the court assumes the right to single-handedly determine the boundaries of European integration -- in a broad sense and, if necessary, in detail.

Member States Remain 'Masters of the Treaties'

Frank Schorkopf, a former associate of the judge who authored the ruling, Udo Di Fabio, and now a professor of constitutional law in Göttingen, sees this as a "more intelligent version" of a treaty proviso. It is a "supple, dynamic stipulation," which allows the Constitutional Court greater flexibility and sensitivity, but also places great future demands on the judges because "the court has thus taken on the responsibility of fulfilling this monitoring function," says Schorkopf.

The court has prescribed a two-fold approach: The parliamentarians have to add far-reaching monitoring rights to the accompanying law criticized by the judges in Karlsruhe, should it come to the extension of Brussels' competences provided for under the Lisbon Treaty. In addition, the Constitutional Court will ensure that these monitoring rights are appropriately applied.

After all, making additional demands on the accompanying law is "a fine thing," says Lüder Gerken, director of the Freiburg-based Center for European Policy. But "the key aspect," says Gerken, is the court's statements that member states -- including of course Germany -- "still remain the masters of the treaties" and "therefore must see to it that there are no uncontrolled, independent centralization dynamics" within the EU.

Part 2: Declaration of War on the European Court of Justice
Although the Karlsruhe ruling points out that it is initially the job of lawmakers to fulfill this "responsibility for integration," the Constitutional Court ultimately sees this as its own task in the future. By doing so, the German Constitutional Court has essentially declared itself the highest supervisory body in conflicts between Germany and the EU, and thus explicitly placed itself above the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

This borders on a declaration of war on the European Court, which sees itself as the only authority capable of ruling on the validity and applicability of EU law. The judges in Karlsruhe have authoritatively decided that they have won the conflict of competence which has been brewing for years between the two top courts.

Admittedly, the court has included a complicatedly worded supplementary declaration on the Lisbon Treaty that reaffirms the supremacy of the ECJ's judicial authority. But the judges in Karlsruhe did the same thing with this document as they did with a wide range of contentious issues in the Lisbon Treaty text: They interpreted it in a way that makes it compatible with their view of the distribution of power within the EU as an "association of sovereign national states." The judicial supremacy is only valid within the boundaries defined by the court in Karlsruhe, and the Lisbon Treaty is only compatible with the German constitution within the confines of the Karlsruhe interpretation.

For instance, it explicitly states in the Lisbon Treaty that the procedures of the EU are based on representative democracy, and the European Parliament is composed of "representatives of the union's citizens." However, the judges in Karlsruhe argue that contrary to the claim that the Lisbon Treaty "seems to make according to its wording," the EU Parliament is not a "representative body of a sovereign European people."

After all, EU members of parliament were not elected according to the principle of electoral equality, in other words, one man one vote, but rather according to "national contingents," meaning that a Maltese MEP represents 67,000 Maltese, a Swedish MEP has a constituency of 455,000 Swedes, and in Germany the ratio is 1 to 857,000.

'An Association of Sovereign States'

The court says that this stands in contradiction to the remainder of EU law, which is built around the central idea of prohibiting discrimination based on nationality. According to the concluding statements of the court's decision, this contradiction can only be explained by the fact that the EU is not a state but rather an "association of sovereign states" and, consequently, there can be no sovereign citizens' union as well as no completely representative organ in the form of the European Parliament, with the result that the Bundestag must receive substantially more rights. Quod erat demonstrandum.

The Karlsruhe interpretation thus very elegantly demolishes the old European idea that the recognized democratic deficits in the EU would disappear completely of their own accord by enhancing the rights of the European Parliament -- and democracy à la Brussels could one day, as MEP Klaus-Heiner Lehne puts it, "assume the role of the national parliaments."

The European Parliament, as the judges in Karlsruhe clearly state, is terminally undemocratic -- at least when measured against the basic concepts of representative democracy. The "small democratic deficit" of the Union, as Schorkopf puts it, has now been exposed as a "large democratic deficit."

As a result, the German Constitutional Court concludes that even in the future, Brussels cannot be granted greater scope to enact legislation. This means that the plan to grant Brussels the ability to legislate criminal law in a number of EU policy areas will have to be largely dropped due to the risk of it being "without limits." The court says that Brussels' authority to enact legislation on criminal law can only be reconciled with German sovereign rights if jurisdictions are narrowly defined.

A "blanket empowerment" contained in the Lisbon Treaty allows the Council of Ministers to expand the list of criminal offenses "on the basis of developments in crime" and grants the EU the power to enact minimum regulations to combat cross-border crime. However, the Karlsruhe judges contend that the blanket empowerment really only applies to the "cross-border dimension of a specific criminal offense."

Limits to Further Integration

Primarily, however, the judges declared for the first time that it is imperative to maintain the "space for the political formation of the economic, cultural and social living conditions" in the member states. In this national sanctuary, the judges see both "areas which shape the citizens' circumstances of life, in particular their private spaces of personal responsibility and political and social security, as protected by their fundamental rights," as well as "political decisions that particularly depend on a previous understanding of culture, history and language and which discursively unfold in a public political arena organized by party politics and parliament."

According to the judges' ruling, these "essential areas of democratic organization" explicitly comprise "citizenship, the civil and military monopoly on the use of force, revenue and expenditure, including external financing and all elements of encroachment that are decisive for the realization of fundamental rights, above all as regards intensive encroachments on fundamental rights such as the deprivation of liberty in the administration of criminal law or the placement in an institution." These important areas also include "cultural issues such as speaking a language, shaping the circumstances concerning family and education, ensuring freedom of opinion, of the press and of association, and accommodating professions of faith or ideology."

These are the limits that EU member state Germany has to set on future European integration. The "identity" of the German constitutional order may not be damaged by Brussels. Identity takes priority over integration.

Part 3: EU Supporters Are in for a Bumpy Ride
"The European train is no longer headed toward an arbitrary destination with no stops along the way," says former constitutional judge Paul Kirchhof, adding that the court has marked the Lisbon Treaty as a "clear terminus." There will be "no European state under the provisions of the German constitution." And Schorkopf summarizes the ruling in one sentence: "The European Union is a contract-based association of sovereign states, and as such, takes a political back seat."

And with Germany in the front seat, EU supporters are in for a bumpy ride. No matter what the representatives of the Berlin government decide at the Council of Ministers in Brussels, their decisions will be subjected to three possible tests back home. First, the court wants to ensure that the EU does not overstep its contractual competences. Second, the judges intend to enforce the "subsidiary principal" enshrined in EU law, which largely prohibits Brussels from taking action if a member state can handle the issues in question just as effectively on its own. Third, the judges now reserve the right to conduct an "identity check," in other words, to test whether Germany still performs the functions that the Constitutional Court itself has defined as national tasks of government.

In order to ensure that the Lisbon Treaty will be treated in future as the Karlsruhe Treaty, the court has submitted a highly unusual request to the Bundestag to pass a new trial law. This could allow every citizen to file a special EU suit with the German Constitutional Court against unpopular European regulations and standards.

Given the new severity on European issues in Karlsruhe, such a procedure could make it almost impossible for Berlin to pursue its own European policy. No matter what German representatives agree to in Brussels, they will now always run the risk of receiving a phone call from Karlsruhe because a clever lawyer like Gauweiler has filed a complaint. This would create an untenable situation for the other 26 member states on the Council.

Limiting Berlin's Highhandedness

At the same time, however, by more strongly tying the Germans to the political body in Brussels, the court has limited the highhandedness of the German government, which has all too often pushed through political goals that were difficult to achieve back home by going behind the back or against the will of the Bundestag. One example that comes to mind is a statement by the former Economics Minister Wolfgang Clement, a member of the Social Democrats, who voted in favor of an EU software patent guideline in 2005, overriding an explicit decision on the matter by the vast majority of the Bundestag. He said that the will of the German parliament "could not be conveyed internationally." And the latest violation of the constitutional principles of data self-determination, namely data retention, was also pushed through by the German government, via Brussels, and against the will of the Bundestag.

The European Union directive, by which all European member states must oblige their telecommunications companies to retain data on their customers' traffic, will presumably be the first test case for the new Karlsruhe rules. The constitutionally guaranteed protection of private space is one of the areas that the court has placed within the context of national identity. And there would be no need to even file a new lawsuit against the directive. After all, a number of constitutional complaints against data retention have been awaiting a decision from Karlsruhe for quite some time.

The judges have never before openly come out against an EU directive. But there's a first time for everything.

THOMAS DARNSTÄDT, DIETMAR HIPP, RENÉ PFISTER

Translated from the German by Paul Cohen

GERMANY'S LISBON TREATY RULING

Shannon Peace Forum
March 2009

POLITICAL expediency must not be put before principle when it comes to the use of Shannon Airport by the US military, according to Deputy Jan O¹Sullivan, who has reiterated Labour¹s opposition to the arrangement.

Deputy O¹Sullivan was speaking at the Park Inn, Shannon, on Saturday at a daylong forum organised by the Peace and Neutrality Alliance (PANA) to mark the sixth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq.

Deputy O¹Sullivan said there was a perception that politicians and the general public in Shannon were afraid to speak out, in deference to US business interests in the Mid-West but this was not the case.

"There is a feeling that if you are from the Mid-West that you shouldn¹t be involved, that it¹s counterproductive for politicians. But I think there are an awful lot of people in this region who are very concerned about it," she said.

Longstanding opposition to the war and the airport¹s role in it had not prevented Cllr Greg Duff from being elected in Shannon Town itself, Deputy O¹Sullivan pointed out.

Asked if Labour would insist on the ending of the arrangement at Shannon if it formed part of the next Government, she said: "We are not in Government at the moment and I suppose we are not being tested in the way the Greens are being tested presently. But I would be extremely disappointed if, and I would fight vehemently within the party, if there was any question of us having a different position if we happen to be in Government. We have consistently said that the troops should not be using the airport and that is our position."

Meanwhile, Amnesty International¹s Noleen Hartigan said a cabinet subcommittee on international human rights set up in November in part to remove any legal obstacles preventing gardai from searching aircraft owned by or leased to foreign Governments has failed to hold a meeting in five months.

The subcommittee arose out of a promise to the Green Party during negotiations to form the Government. The Greens had long objected to the US military using the airport and also CIA-operated aircraft involved in the rendition programme. But former Green MEP Patricia McKenna told the Shannon seminar she had little confidence in the subcommittee.

"The only thing we got in the Programme for Government has been completely ignored. The cabinet subcommittee, what was it set up for? I think it was to pacify some of us who brought this issue up with the Greens in Government. It's completely unacceptable we are participating in and facilitating something that is illegal," said Ms McKenna.

"Just establishing something isn¹t enough. It hasn't met and as the people from Amnesty said, it's just not good enough to report in six months...it is very disheartening and goes to show why the public are so apathetic about politics and so suspicious about politicians because it seems that with the first smell of power, the first opportunity to get power, the Greens seem to be the same as anyone else. I think it's about time there was a political change in this country where parties have certain political principles they stick to regardless of the idea of power."

A spokesman for Minister John Gormley, while he could not confirm whether the subcommittee had met, told the Limerick Leader it was not true to say no work had been done on the matter since November.

"I know the Minister has been actively advancing this," he said.

Roger Cole, Peace and Neutrality Alliance, warned the Government concern over neutrality would scupper Lisbon II, and by a bigger margin. Neutrality was the single biggest concern according to a post-referendum poll by MRBI and this was an "issue that was not mentioned once by a certain Mr Ganley".

"The one key issue in Lisbon was neutrality no matter how much Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and the national newspapers try to turn us into latter-day Redmondites marching into war," Mr Cole said.

Former army commandant Edward Horgan, Castletroy, noted there were three Omni Air troop carriers on the runway at Shannon while Saturday's seminar was in progress, meaning "at least 500 armed US troops are passing through a civilian airport as we speak".

While he conceded it was "radical", Mr Horgan said the airport should be shut down altogether as long as it continues to be used in the American war effort.

Munitions were frequently allowed pass through Shannon, Mr Horgan said, on chartered aircraft, some of which were "at least 30 years old and in poor repair".

"A military airport has proper protections and fortifications, a civilian airport like Shannon does not. In the event of a plane exploding on the runway, what will happen to the huge wall of glass looking out on the runway at Shannon Airport. That would be catastrophic with glass being blown into the terminal and lacerating and killing people. Shannon Airport should not be used for transporting explosives in particular," he said.

It was Mr Horgan, a former UN peacekeeper, who forced an admission from a representative of Murray Air on RTE¹s Liveline last year that the firm was licensed to transport depleted uranium for the US military. This was a day after a Murray plane forced into an emergency landing at Shannon, flew low over Askeaton, engines ablaze, and rattling windows and shaking houses in the town.

Mr Horgan said Ireland remained in "clear breach" of the Hague Convention on Neutrality and said the current wars were not the first example. He claimed that during the NATO bombing of Belgrade in 1999, two 757s passed through Shannon laden with 90 cruise missiles.

RENDITION as a counterterrorism measure is here to stay under President Barack Obama, according to US envoy Robert Faucher.

Use of Shannon Airport by CIA planes and personnel involved in the rendition programme, where terror suspects are lifted and interrogated in third countries, remains a human rights controversy in the Mid-West.

Anti-war campaigners here say innocent people have been tortured under interrogation and the practice of rendition is itself extrajudicial and illegal.

But Mr Faucher, charge d¹affaires at the US embassy in Dublin, said on a recent two-day visit to the Mid-West that President Obama is happy to allow renditions continue as long as there is no possibility of a detainee being tortured and as long as they have the approval of governments in the countries where the rendition is carried out.

"The idea of rendition, he (Obama) doesn't consider that to be against international law. This is a decision he took I think in just the last week or so, saying that will we will not be involved in certain practices if and when we need to do renditions with the approval of the Governments involved. We will still do that. We do not agree that rendition is illegal under international law although I do know a lot of people disagree with us on that," Mr Faucher said.

The Irish Government has dismissed the concerns of campaigners that detainees may have been transited through Shannon, relying on US "diplomatic assurances" that it has never happened.

Asked if he was personally present when such an assurance was given to the Irish Government, Mr Faucher said the issue had been "handled before I arrived in Ireland" in 2007.

"Part of what I understood was this whole issue of people being transported to Guantanamo and other things of that nature. It is very clear that the President has taken on board a lot of these concerns and one of his very first acts as President was to sign an order to close Guantanamo.

"He said we have to close it, and that, if we ever did, we will no longer engage in torture and that sort of thing, making it clear the US will stand by a clear set of values whereas perhaps people would argue that we weren't standing by our values. You can't argue with that any more," he said.

Asked what assistance Ireland and the use of facilities at Shannon had been to the greater American war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mr Faucher said the US was "extremely appreciative" of the help of the Irish Government.

"After the last Government led by Bertie Ahern was elected into office, they came out and gave a very clear statement that they would continue to support the transit of US troops through Shannon Airport onward and vice versa and back to the States.

"Brian Cowen has also confirmed that that is the policy and they have promised to facilitate that as much as possible. We are and remain very appreciative of that. The protest groups? Fine, they can protest and that is their right to as long as they don't get out of hand and damage property like what happened a while ago. But they do have every right to protest and state their point of view on this," he said.

"I think the administration and the US Government in general greatly appreciates the help the Irish have given us. Because it (Shannon) seems to be a key point. It's a good refuel stop. We see a lot of flights pass through here with US officials, like the Vice-President, Secretary of State and other top officials, coming here to refuel and I hope they won't protest against that too.

"Those tend to be US (Government) planes versus troop planes, which tend to be run by a contractor. They are not an official US plane, it's a contractor flying them through. So there's a real difference there," he said.

A native of Phoenix, Arizona, Mr Faucher served as the acting US ambassador to Ireland between the departure of Thomas Foley in January and the recent appointment of Pittsburgh Steelers owner Dan Rooney.

A CABINET sub-committee on international human rights set up to allow gardai search planes owned by or leased to foreign Governments has still not held its first meeting five months later, according to Amnesty International¹s Noleen Hartigan.

Ms Hartigan was speaking at a peace seminar held in Shannon on Saturday to mark the sixth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq.

Amnesty is but one of many human rights groups who have condemned the Irish Government for "facilitating" the extraordinary rendition of terrorist suspects by allowing CIA aircraft land and refuel Shannon Airport.

The Government has said anti-war campaigners have not proven any suspect was transited through Shannon and that it accepts diplomatic assurances from the United States this has never happened. But Amnesty and local campaigners in Shannon have accumulated a wealth of evidence and flight records showing Shannon is frequently used by CIA-operated aircraft involved in rendition.

The Green Party, in opposition, campaigned to end the use of the airport by the US military and secured a commitment in the programme for Government to enforce the Geneva Convention and the UN Convention against Torture and remove any legal obstacles preventing gardai from searching foreign planes. The Greens were ridiculed by Labour and others for taking the initiative only after Barack Obama, who had already signalled his intentions to close Guantanamo Bay, was elected president.

A cabinet subcommittee comprising Green Ministers John Gormley and Eamon Ryan as well as Foreign Affairs Minister Micheal Martin and Noel Dempsey, Minister for Transport was set up in November to prepare legislative measures.

But Ms Hartigan said the subcommittee had failed to hold a single meeting within that five months.

"The subcommittee set up in November offers some glimmer of hope and gives us the opportunity to review and strengthen legislation on civil and Garda authorities searching rendition flights. Amnesty has been looking for the terms of reference since November as we want to make a submission but we are disappointed with progress. In fact, we have been told the committee hasn¹t even met yet," stated Ms Hartigan.

Amnesty, she said, would publish a report on rendition, which she said was "nothing less than state-sponsored kidnap and torture", by the end of April.

It was not enough to rely on US assurances that no prisoners had been transited through Shannon.

"They can say there were no individuals on the planes but, I¹m sorry, it doesn¹t matter if nobody is on it. If it passes through and they have reason to suspect it is involved in these activities yet do nothing, they are complicit under international law," she said.

Mike Dwane of the Limerick Leader report on the Shannon Peace Forum

Check the two reports agreed by the EU Parliament on accelerating theprocess of the militarisation of the European Union and making the linksbetween the EU and NATO even stronger. While they are non-binding, they showthat majority of the members of the EU Parliament support the militarisationof the EU and stronger EU/NATO links. This is the same Parliament that votednot to respect the decision of the Irish people.

There can be now no doubt whatsoever that the Fianna Fail Party and the restof the Irish political/media elite intends to use its power and wealth tosubvert the Irish Constitution and force the Irish people to vote again onexactly the same Lisbon Treaty/ EU Constitutionthat was rejected by the Irish, Dutch and French people, this year, possiblyas early as April or May and by October at the latest in the context ofthese resolutions having been passed by the EU Parliament.

While there is a strong case that to do so is illegal and in contraventionof Article 6 of the Irish Constitution and while PANA has established aDefend the Constitution Fund to take a legal challenge to the Irish SupremeCourt, since it would mean raising EUR 1 million it is very unlikely PANA coulddo so.

The fact that it would cost such a large amount of money is justanother indication as to how the existing power in the state system favoursthe rich; and there can be no doubt whatsoever that when it comes to largebrown envelopes or suitcases stuffed with cash been given to politicalleaders, the arms dealers have nothing whatsoever to learn from propertydevelopers. The reality is that the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty was amajor defeat for the neo-liberal militarist elite that have brought Ireland,Europe and the rest of the world to the brink of disaster. Another rejectionby the Irish people would be an absolutely massive defeat for them and agreat victory for not just the Irish people but all those throughout Europewho believe in a Democratic, demilitarised and socially just Europe. Thereferendum will be a European battle fought on Irish soil.

It is a battle between an Imperialist Europe and a Democratic Europe. We must win it, not just for Ireland's future, but for the future of all the people's of Europe.

Roger Cole
Chair,Peace & Neutrality Alliance

DOWNLOAD EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT REPORTS (doc file)
-NATOandEU.doc
- ESS-ESDP.doc

The primary finding of this research is that on RTÉ’s leading news programmes from January 1st 2008 to June 14th 2008, 63% of the contributors to news items which focused on the Lisbon Treaty were supporting a Yes vote.

Three television programmes (Six One News, Nine News and Questions & Answers) and three radio programmes (Morning Ireland, News At One and Drivetime News) were analysed over this timeframe via RTÉ’s website.

The following is a summary of the report’s main findings:

RTÉ’s coverage of the Lisbon Treaty campaign was unbalanced with contributors from the Yes side making up 62.75% of speakers in discussions and news items focusing on the Lisbon Treaty. This suggests that perhaps it was RTÉ policy to deliberately limit coverage of the No side’s arguments. It is to be hoped this research may elicit further explanations.

This imbalance needs to be viewed in the light of the relevant legislation. The Lisbon Treaty was a matter of “public controversy”, it was “the subject of current public debate” and by facilitating such a skewed presentation of the debate, it is difficult to see how RTÉ’s duties were discharged “objectively and impartially” .

RTÉ has a legal requirement that its coverage of “matters which are either of public controversy or the subject of current public debate” be presented so as to be “fair to all concerned” . This research finds that was not the case.

RTÉ’s own Charter places a requirement on the broadcaster to “strive to reflect fairly and equally the … political diversity of Ireland and its peoples” . By not facilitating fair, and even reasonably, equal contributor participation the broadcaster has failed its own Charter.

Questions and Answers was the most unbalanced programme with 72.34% of guest panel speakers being for the Yes side. The audience participation was also unbalanced with panellists permitted to interrupt audience No speakers, further skewing the balance in favour of the Yes side.

The most surprising finding was that the coverage remained unbalanced from early in the new year, up to the announcement of the date of the referendum, throughout the thirty days of the referendum campaign and as the results were being discussed.

Coverage of the results was particularly unbalanced, with panels of experts dominated by Lisbon Treaty supporters.

The coverage of the Yes and No sides differed in one very significant way. In many reports RTÉ journalists/presenters would often frame the debate in terms of “How can the Yes side win?”, rather than the more journalistically objective, “Why should the Yes side win?”

There was a distinct difference between the questions put to the Yes and No sides. For example, obvious conflicts over the Treaty’s interpretation by the ICTU and IBEC were not explored. IBEC’s submission to the Forum on Europe contained many claims about the Lisbon treaty which the ICTU would have been opposed to.

There were a small number of cases in which RTÉ journalists/presenters engaged in aggressive interrogation of contributors to Treaty-focused news items. While these incidences were very few, they all happened to speakers from the No side. An example of this are comments referring to speakers on the No side as “failed Dail Candidates”

In complaints made to RTÉ regarding the substantive issue of the numbers of speakers from the Yes and No side during the referendum, RTÉ’s explanation was that it would ensure approximately 50% coverage for both sides. 50-50 coverage cannot compensate for a 63%-37% speaker ratio.

When complaints were made to RTÉ about a single Yes speaker being given airtime without a corresponding No speaker present, the reply from RTÉ was that a No speaker speaking on a different programme was compensation for this. The legal obligation to do this within “two or more related broadcasts” may be applicable to a different edition of the same programme, or between the two main evening television news programmes, but a mid-morning chat show is not “related” to an early morning news programme.

The Audience Council was given inaccurate information about the coverage of the campaign. As illustrated in section 13.2.3.

Three members of the RTÉ Audience Council were from organisations that had taken a specific Yes position. None represented organisations taking a No stance.

The composition of the RTÉ Authority was unbalanced in that it reflected the higher socio-economic sections of Irish society who polling showed were more likely to vote Yes and did vote Yes. Citizens from the lower socio economic groups were more likely to vote No. Membership of the Authority is not reflective of the diversity of Irish society.

There was a failure by all of the structures within RTÉ to monitor and correct the imbalance which developed during the protracted Lisbon debate. This is due to the make-up of the bodies themselves and not due to any particular individual.

Download full report here:
http://www.voteno.ie/archive/html/RTE_Falling_at_The_Feet_of_Power.htm

RTE Falling at The Feet of Power

This statement by Jan Oberg on a UN-NATO document and the questions raised by the TFF board should be taken very seriously. NATO is a nuclear armed military alliance dominated by a few rich and powerful states. The United Nations is an inclusive global organisation. When PANA advocates support for a "Reformed " United Nations this means the exact opposite of supporting collaboration with a nuclear armed alliance, in fact PANA would seek the abolition of NATO. PANA has consistently opposed Ireland's integration into the US/EU/NATO military structures and we therefore oppose the UN/NATO links.

Contact for the press:
Jan Oberg +46 (0)70 - 79 111 25
after December 6: +46 (0)46 - 14 59 09
TFF@transnational.org

BREAKING NEWS...

TFF has obtained a copy, reproduced below, of a UN-NATO document held secret to the general public.It is a Cooperation Declaration signed by the top leaders of the United Nations and NATO.

Here follows the statement of the TFF Board, formulated as 9 questions, for everyone - including the media - to discuss and take action upon:

"The United Nations considers it secret and, thus, hasn¹t published it on its homepage; NATO is pleased to give you a copy upon request; NATO governments know about it; Western mainstream media have hardly mentioned it - - - The Joint Declaration on UN/NATO Secretariat Cooperation that was signed by the Secretary-Generals of the UN and NATO in September this year.

To say the least, this Declaration should have raised a few eyebrows. As a matter of fact, it ought to be impossible for SG Ban Ki-Moon to sign such document with any military alliance, let alone to do so without the consent of the member states of the United Nations.
We judge it to be high time to stimulate a public debate on UN-NATO co-operation. Frankly, it should have begun when, in January 2007, Ban Ki-Moon visited NATO and stated that: 'I am very much assured and encouraged by what NATO has been contributing to peace and security around the world. We have the same goals, we are committed to work very closely together in the future.'
(Source: www.nato.int/docu/update/2007/01-january/e0124a.html)

The UN Charter's preamble states that war shall be abolished. More specifically, Article 1 states that peace shall be brought about by peaceful means. It is to be feared that a UN Secretary-General who believes that the UN and NATO "have the same goals" will be unable to perform his role as defender of that Charter.

Here is the text of the Declaration for you to see what the UN does not want you to see. After it we - the Board of the Transnational Foundation - raise nine questions of substance that reflect our deep concerns about the ways of the UN at this moment in history when, more than ever, the goal of general and complete disarmament and nuclear abolition, should have the highest priority.

[ BEGIN DECLARATION ]
Annex to DSG (2008)0714 (INV)

Joint Declaration on UN/NATO Secretariat Cooperation
The Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, welcoming over a decade of cooperation between the United Nations and NATO in support of the work of the United Nations in maintaining international peace and security, and desiring, in the spirit of the 2005 World Summit Outcome, to provide a framework for expanded consultation and cooperation between their respective Secretariats, have agreed to the following:

1. We, the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Secretary-General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, reaffirm our commitment to the maintenance of international peace and security.

2. Our shared experiences have demonstrated the value of effective and efficient coordination between our Organizations. We have developed operational cooperation, for example, in peacekeeping in the Balkans and Afghanistan, where UN-authorized NATO-led operations work alongside UN peace operations. We have also worked together and collectively with other partners in support of regional and sub-regional organizations. In addition, NATO provided assets and personnel to Pakistan in support of UN disaster relief operations in 2005. Our cooperation is guided by the UN Charter, internationally recognized humanitarian principles and guidelines, and consultation with national authorities.

3. Further cooperation will significantly contribute to addressing the threats and challenges to which the international community is called upon to respond. We therefore underscore the importance of establishing a framework for consultation and dialogue and cooperation, including, as appropriate, through regular exchanges and dialogue at senior and working levels on political and operational issues. We also reaffirm our willingness to provide, within our respective mandates and capabilities, assistance to regional and sub-regional organizations, as requested and as appropriate.

4. Understanding that this framework should be flexible and evolving over time, we agree to further develop the cooperation between our organizations on issues of common interest, in, but not limited to, communication and information-sharing, including on issues pertaining to the protection of civilian populations; capacity-building, training and exercises; lessons learned, planning and support for contingencies; and operational coordination and support.

5. Our cooperation will continue to develop in a practical fashion, taking into account each Organizations specific mandate, expertise, procedures and capabilities, so as to contribute to improving international coordination in response to global challenges.

Done in New York on 23 September 2008
Jaap de Hoop Scheffer BAN Ki-Moon
Secretary General of the Secretary-General
North Atlantic Treaty Oranization of the United Nations

[END DECLARATION]

1. According to the UN Charter, Article 100, the UN Secretary-General is the custodian of the UN's integrity. S/he shall receive no instructions from any state or authority but serve only the UN.
Q: Does this agreement increase the SG's opportunities to do so and does it strengthen the credibility of that provision in the future?

2. NATO is a nuclear-based military alliance upholding the right to use nuclear weapons as the first response even against a conventional attack.
Q: Is the choice of NATO compatible with Article 1 of the Charter which states that peace shall be brought about by peaceful means? Why have other regional organisations that do work with civilian means - like the OSCE or the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) - not been offered a similar cooperative status?

3. NATO's Washington Agreement of 1999 aligns itself closely with the UN Charter. However, it no longer refers to the overarching authority of the UN Security Council; rather it brings into the purview of NATO the right to intervene when faced with what NATO calls new risks such as 'environment', 'insufficient reforms', 'uncontrollable movements of large numbers of people' and, most significantly, 'interruption of vital resources'.
Thus, it can be doubted whether NATO still adheres to its own Article 1 which recognizes the supremacy of Article 51 of the UN Charter on member states' right to self-defence.
This UN-NATO Declaration's list and formulations of areas in which UN-NATO co-operation can take place are quite sweeping and general. It should be seen in the light of the seemingly ever-expanding roles NATO deems legitimate for itself.
Q: Given the special status NATO now acquires through this Agreement, how likely is it that the UN SG and Security Council - where 3 of the 5 permanent seats are held by NATO members - will:
a) Be able to uphold the necessary distinctions between NATO actions and UN actions?
b) Bring up possible future breaches of international law by NATO? and
c) Be able, as UN members, to work credibly for general and complete disarmament and nuclear abolition?

4: The two UN & NATO SGs seem to sign as partners of equal standing. The wording of the agreement is such that NATO would be free to take actions as it wishes, even to adopt measures of aggressive warfare. Statements at recent Munich NATO conferences seem to confirm this.
Q: NATO must be held accountable to the UN Charter and other international law norms. Does this Declaration make that clear? To whom will NATO be accountable?

5. NATO bombed Serbia/Kosovo in 1999 without a UN Security Council mandate.
Q: Independent of the views one may have of that action and given leading NATO members' deficient respect for international law and the UN Charter, is NATO an appropriate organization to be rewarded by the UN with such special status?

6. It is mentioned that the NATO-UN Agreement is rooted in the actions taken during the wars in Bosnia-Hercegovina. If anything, however, that crisis showed that peace-keeping and peace-enforcement cannot be mixed and that UN member states had given the UN far too few resources to succeed with their mandate.
Q: Is this Agreement signaling that the members of the UN and NATO consider the handling of Bosnia a model and will continue with the same mix of roles and unbalanced resource allocations?

7. NATO countries are, these very months, engaged in various very sensitive issues - sensitive also among the Security Council members - such as the Georgia Crisis, the Ballistic Missile Defence bases in Poland and the Czech Republic, further NATO expansion (Georgia & Ukraine) and intensifying problems in Afghanistan, where both organisations are involved.
Q: Is the UN SG's signature an example of good timing and will he, in the light of the above, now submit the Declaration to the Security Council for discussion and approval?

8. The UN has 192 members. NATO has 26 member states but stands for over 70% of the world's military expenditures.
Q: Does the SG expect that the majority of the UN member states will support this agreement between the secretariats of the United Nations and a military alliance?

9. The spirit of the UN is supposed to be dialogue, worldwide consultation and the common good of humankind. Yet this Agreement has been kept secret and not posted on the UN homepage.
Q: Is the Agreement itself and the way it has been concluded between two individuals not likely to give the world the impression that this UN HQ is now a place for deals kept in the dark and, thus, further undermine the hopes shared by citizens around the world for democracy and transparency?"

The Board of the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, TFF:
-Ina Curic
- Jan Oberg
- Vicky Samantha Rossi
- Hans von Sponeck
- Annette Schiffmann
- Gunnar Westberg

TFF Statment on a Cooperation Declaration signed by the top leaders of the United Nations and NATO.

Roger Cole speech to the Peace & Neutrality Alliance Annual Conference,

The decision of the Irish people to reject the Lisbon Treaty was a historic victory for democracy and a defeat for Imperialism. It was a rare breath of sanity in a world dominated by neo-liberal militarists. The Peace & Neutrality Alliance played a key role in achieving that victory, not just in the few months of the debate on the treaty but also in our sustained campaign since our foundation in 1996 against the decision of the Irish political elite to destroy Irish Independence, Irish Democracy and Irish Neutrality and integrate Ireland into the EU/US/NATO military structures in order to ensure Ireland’s full and active participation in the resource wars of the 21st century. The defeat of the EU/US/NATO axis, is the only and absolutely inevitable consequence of these wars.

PANA’s decision to hold a major conference in December 2004 in an effort to bring together all the progress forces to fight the proposed EU Constitution covering the issues of democracy and neo-liberalism as well as militarisation led to the formation of the Campaign Against the EU Constitution within which PANA operated during the Lisbon Treaty campaign. This broad based campaign played a key role in this great victory

One of the more interesting incidents in that campaign was an editorial in the Irish Times which attacked our use of a pamphlet by Theobald Wolfe Tone called, " The Spanish War" which had been written by Tone in 1790 in which he advocated Irish Neutrality in a potential war between the British and the Spanish Empires.

It had in fact been printed in 2006 to mark our 10th anniversary and launched appropriately enough by Jack O’Connor, the President of SIPTU, as the founder of his union, James Connolly, has established the Irish Neutrality League in 1914.

The point being of course, is that PANA did not lick its support for Irish Independence, democracy and neutrality off the stones. There is a long and deeply rooted commitment to these values that stretched back to Wolfe Tone through to James Connolly, to the foundation of the state in 1919 and beyond.

This year, for example marks the 150th anniversary of the foundation of the Fenians, December marks the 90th anniversary of the historic vote when the people voted for Sinn Fein and January next year will mark the establishment of the first Dail of the Irish Republic.

Yet the reality is that while we belong to a tradition that stretches back to Tone, the Irish advocates of the treaty belong to an equally long Imperialist tradition also deeply rooted in our history. It includes people like Isaac Butt and John Redmond. What they sought was Home Rule within a centralised, militarised, neo-liberal Superstate called the British Union.

A recent example of the continuation of this tradition was the decision of the Irish Times and the Royal Irish Academy to publish a book on the 1914-18 Imperialist War entitled: "Our War". Since the Irish Times supported this war using this title accurately reflects their support for Imperialism, continued in their support for this treaty. However the reference to ‘Our War’ was clearly meant to apply to all Irish people and not just the Irish Times. This is a concept that PANA totally rejects. It was not Pearse’s war. It was not Connolly’s war. It was not De Valera’s war. It was not Collins’ war. It was not our war. However now that the British Union is a pale shadow of its former glory, The Irish Times has transferred it allegiance to the new Superpower, the European Union.

What The Irish Times and the advocates of the Lisbon Treaty want is Home Rule within a centralised, militarised, neo-liberal Superstate called the European Union; a European Superstate allied to the US and committed to imperialist resource wars. In an emerging European Superstate dominated by states such as Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Portugal and Spain, that also have even stronger imperialist traditions, this is hardly a surprise.

Unfortunately for them, the warmongering neo-liberal imperialist leaders of Fianna Fail could not get their own supporters to vote for the treaty, as De Valera is their hero. The Fine Gael party could not get their supporters to vote for it because their hero is Michael Collins. The Labour Party could not do so because their hero is James Connolly. Even the Green Party leadership could not get their voters or even their party to agree to a militarised Europe after spending decades advocating a Green Europe. The Irish people, except those in the six counties that were not allowed to vote, voted no, and if they had been allowed to do so, the no vote would have been even greater.

Since the referendum the Irish political elite has sought to cope with their defeat by spending over €160,000 commissioning a research company to find out why people voted no. President Sarkozy visited Ireland after it was widely reported that he had said the Irish will have to vote again, a concept that is continually repeated by the neo-Redmondites despite the fact that a public opinion poll showed that if we were forced to vote again, the no vote could increase to over 60%. A more recent opinion poll suggested they yes side could win. The question asked however while accurate, was misleading, implying the treaty would be modified, that is changed, to take into consideration the concerns of those who voted no. But if it was changed it would be a new treaty. If it changed to take into considerations our perspective, PANA would campaign for a yes vote to such a new treaty.

Another idea being continually floated is that the Dail should simply ignore the sovereign will of the Irish people and vote it, or parts of it through regardless of the consequences. The elite are also appear to be seeking to destroy the McKenna and Coughlan Irish Supreme Court judgements. A Dail committee on Europe had hearings where so far, the vast majority of those invited to address it were yes campaigners and it supported such moves.

But the Lisbon Treaty and the militarisation of the EU is only a small part of a bigger picture. The NATO/US/EU axis continues its Imperialists wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine and its threat of war on Iran. The axis also threatens Russia with its decision to build missile bases in Poland and the Czech Republic and expand the war to Pakistan.

Then there was the decision of Georgia to bomb and invade South Ossetia leading to a war with Russia. The Georgian leadership had invested heavily in military expenditure purchased from the US that wants Georgia and the Ukraine to join NATO. The Georgians appeared to believe that they would have the support of NATO. But the US is already militarily over stretched in Afghanistan and Iraq and was in no position to take part in a proxy war with Russia. The war also showed that apart from some skin deep agreed positions by the EU to support Georgia there was nothing the EU elite could do. The reality is there was no widespread popular support for yet another war, especially with Russia, in the states of the EU, or even the US, and they knew it. The people have had enough of war and militarism. Nevertheless this defeat could turn out to be a turning point in world history.

The election of Obama shows clearly that the opposition to Imperialism has taken root not only in Europe but also in the US because a major component of his coalition was the American Peace Movement which now has to continue the pressure to ensure that the "Change" motif really does mean a rejection of the Imperialist neo-liberal ideology that has dominated the US for decades. It will not be easy and some might say it cannot be done, as another part of his coalition continues to support Imperialism with a "human" face.

PANA has built up some links with the American Peace Movement and in the years ahead we have to continue to deepen those contacts. Their struggle against Imperialism is our struggle, and we have to seek to make these links stronger.

However overshadowing everything has been the massive economic crisis brought about by the dominant neo-liberal economic and militarist ideology.

The Irish Government which has to tell the rest of the EU elite what they intend to do with the Irish people at their meeting in December, have become very unpopular as a result of the massive cuts they have implemented as a consequence of the crisis caused by the neo-liberal economic policies they implemented. They lost the referendum in the first place because the people did not trust them, and if they come back and force the Irish people to vote again on the exactly same treaty they might not have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning and they know it.

Also, immediately after the referendum result was announced, the Labour Party leader, Eamon Gilmore declared that he accepted the decision of the people. While it is true there was overwhelming support for the treaty by virtually the entire party leadership, Labour voters voted no by a decisive majority. Eamon Gilmore’s credibility would be greatly damaged if he changed his mind. While there are factions in the party in favour of Ireland’s integration into the Superstate, after the no vote they will find it very difficult restore their status in the party, so it is very unlikely the Labour Party will campaign for a yes vote in any second referendum.

Fine Gael leaders are the most ideologically committed to the European Empire and in the course of the debate on the treaty its spokespersons made it clear that they would be willing to fight and die for the EU. But Fine Gael is a broad coalition some of whom identify with John Redmond, the Empire Loyalist and others with Michael Collins, the Irish Republican. That so many Fine Gael voters voted no to the treaty, suggests that the Collins tradition is very strong and there would again be a lack of support for a yes vote in any subsequent rerun of the treaty, especially if Fianna Fail were still in power. Fine Gael supporters are in no mood to give Fianna Fail another dig out.

Therefore there is a very strong case to be made that the treaty is dead and will stay dead. When the EU Council of Ministers met on the 11th of December, PANA and CAECU will hold a mock "funeral" to give it a decent burial and all are welcome to give it the send off it deserves.

Nevertheless the Fianna Fail Government is under strong pressure from the rest of the EU elite to hold another referendum and even though they know they might be defeated, it looks like they will agree to hold one in 2009, so we need to ready. We can be absolutely sure that these neo-Redmondite Imperialists will fight the dirtiest most vicious campaign ever. They will make Karl Rove look like a pussycat. So we should be prepared.

They might hold it in March 09 before the EU Parliament elections or they might wait until the autumn. One thing however is clear and obvious. The elections to the EU Parliament or the local elections in June are not, under any circumstances whatsoever, a sort of proxy vote for another Lisbon Treaty. In voting for candidates many people will stay loyal to their party candidate even though they disagree with their party on the treaty.

Part of that preparation for an actual referendum is that PANA has to spell out what it wants as an alternative to the treaty.

PANA’s vision of the future of Europe has been clear and consistent. We seek a Partnership Europe, a Partnership of Independent Democratic States, legal equals, without a military dimension.

PANA, as a founding member of the European Peace & Human Rights Network is, and sees itself as, a pro-European organisation. Since our foundation we have built up links with peace groups all over Europe as well as the United States and throughout the world. Our vision of Europe is a vision of a Democratic Europe and we belong to its democratic tradition.

We have consistently advocated that in any new treaty, a Protocol, which would be a legally binding part of the treaty, similar that that which already applies to Denmark, that would exclude Ireland from involvement with or paying for the militarisation of the EU, would be included.

PANA needs to state again that any new treaty should include such a protocol.

Nevertheless we also want much wider changes to the Lisbon Treaty and we would also seek to ensure that the new treaty containing such changes be approved by way of referendum in all the other EU states as well as Ireland.

The proposed job of a permanent EU President and a Permanent EU Minister for Foreign Affairs and the creation of a EU Diplomatic Corp should be deleted. PANA’s position is that the EU should be a Partnership of Independent Democratic States, legal equals, best expressed by a six-month rotation process by which each state in the EU holds these positions in turn.

The European Defence Agency or more accurately described, the European War Agency should be abolished, and its assets should be transferred to a European Climate Change Agency with its central role being to ensure the technology now committed to military development be transformed into technology committed to the development of green energy production, for example, by helping to build massive solar energy farms in the Sahara and wave energy farms along the Europe’s coastline united in a single grid. The obligation for EU states to build-up their military capacities would be replaced by a commitment to build up its social infrastructure in health provision, transport, education and social housing.

This is a key demand. The US global sales of military hardware increased from $12 billion in 2005, to $32 billion in 2007. In fact the US spends more money on its military than the rest of the world combined, which goes a long way to explain why the "richest" country in the world have 45 million of its people with no health care. Yet the vision statement of the EDA says:

"If Europe is to preserve a broadly based and globally competitive military it must take to heart that the US is outspending Europe"

In short, the EU should also export more weapons, which will encourage more wars. This is the future of Europe supported by the advocates the Lisbon Treaty.

The Petersberg Tasks and the EU Battle Groups provisions would be abolished.

The Structured Cooperation provisions would be abolished. The concept that a number of EU states operating within the EU structures should be able to create their own mini-military alliance is utterly bizarre, as any wars they became involved in would inevitably affect all EU states.

The mutual Solidarity and Mutual Defence clauses should be abolished. A Partnership of Democratic States does not mean or should it mean that there are or should be any mutual defence implications between the states involved. If states wish to do so, they should do so outside the context of the EU.

The EU should terminate all its relations with the nuclear-armed military alliance, NATO.

In the broader context, while Ireland is not a member of NATO, PANA cannot just ignore the continuing survival and growth of NATO. The main advocates of the EU integration process is led by an EU political elite that is also committed to the NATO expansion process, so the expansion of NATO and the militarisation of the EU are just opposite sides of the same coin. PANA has over the years built up strong links with other peace movements throughout the world but particularly with British CND, which is one of the largest and most important peace movements in Europe.

They seek to ensure the abolition of NATO and PANA needs to work closely with them in that process. The reason given for the establishment of NATO was that the Soviet Union was going to invade Western Europe. Far from fading away after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, NATO has rapidly expanded. It is now the greatest danger to world peace. We should fully support calls for the abolition of NATO and support the European wide demonstration against NATO in Strasburg on the 4th of April 2009.

The OSCE as the regional body recognised as such by the UN should call a major conference to negotiate a European Security Treaty to address all the security concerns of the states in the OSCE, a key and inevitable consequence being the abolition of NATO.

PANA has always focused on the United Nations as the institution through which Ireland should pursue its security concerns. The United Nations is the only inclusive global body committed to collective security. It should be the only such body and NATO should be abolished. The United Nations needs to be funded in an effective manner. It’s Security Council needs to be reformed to ensure it reflects the 21st century rather than the mid 20thcentury.

The real issues facing the world are global, whether they are global warming or global poverty. The message of the transformation of swords into ploughshares or missiles into solar farms is more valid today than ever. Those of us involved in PANA are not idealists.

Studies by UMASS-Amherst have shown that while $1 billion creates 8,535 jobs if spent on military production, the same amount of money spent on home weatherisation creates 12,804 jobs or 19,795 jobs if spent on mass transport systems.

We are the realists, we are the people that seek to ensure humanity survives and prospers. All the neo-liberal militarists offer is war and destruction. The fact that they dominate the corporate media and the mainstream political parties needs to end if humanity is to survive into the 22nd century.

PANA only makes sense as an alliance if it is, and sees itself as being part of a global movement. In that context the victory of the Irish people when they defeated the Lisbon Treaty was not just an Irish victory in a battle fought on Irish soil, it is not even just a victory of a European battle fought on Irish soil, it was a victory for humanity. We now need to seek to ensure that the coming 2nd battle of Lisbon is won more decisively than the first. But we can only win if the peace movement in Europe and throughout the world support us, as we need to support them in their struggles for peace and social justice.

The year 2009 marks the 90th anniversary of the establishment of the 1st Dail and its struggle against an earlier centralised, militarised neo-liberal superstate, the British Union. Now at the start of the 21st century the struggle by the forces of Irish Democracy, Irish Independence and Irish Neutrality against Imperialism continues. This time the stakes are even higher. Another victory would be an enormous victory for the global peace movement.

Next year also marks the 6th anniversary of start of the US’s Imperialist war on Iraq. PANA held its first demonstration at Shannon Airport in May 2002, and we have taken part in many such demonstrations since then. We will organise a demonstration at Shannon Airport on Saturday 21st of March. We should also hold a peace conference and invite peace movements in the cities that have a direct flight into Shannon Airport to attend. It would clearly demonstrate that our struggle against war has support throughout Europe and the United States.

The withdrawal of the military forces of the EU/US/NATO forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and the withdrawal of its ally Israel to its 1967 borders would provide a major step towards global peace and allow all of humanity to concentrate on the real threats to the world, hunger, the lack of social justice and global warming. These are the real issues.

Finally let me quote from Padraigh Pearse and his views on the then dominate Irish political elite; "The men who have led Ireland for the last 25 years have done evil, and they are bankrupt. They are bankrupt in policy, bankrupt in credit, bankrupt now even in words. They have nothing to propose to Ireland, no words of wisdom, no counsel of courage. When they speak they speak only untruth and blasphemy. Their utterances are no longer the utterances of men. They are the mumblings and the gibbering of lost souls."

Roger Cole
Chair, Peace & Neutrality Alliance

The Lisbon Treaty No Vote - A Defeat for Imperialism

Speech by Hans van Heijningen, SP general secretary, on the conference of the Peace and Neutrality Alliance, Saturday 29’th of November in Dublin

First of all I would like to thank you for the invitation to address you at this PANA-conference. International exchange, the sharing of views and experiences, has been and is important not only in our joint opposition to the European Constitution, now labelled the European Treaty but also to formulate our alternatives for a social, green and peaceful Europe.

The constitution and the Treaty.
In June, 2005, the French people voted to reject the proposed European Constitutional Treaty. This 'Constitution' was drawn up by an unelected, unrepresentative body under the chairmanship of Giscard d’Estaing a retired French politician of aristocratic background. The French voted No despite the fact that the whole establishment, including the President of the Republic, all three major political parties, almost all newspapers, most trade unions and the national business association supported the Yes campaign. Two days later, under much the same circumstances, the Dutch people did the same. The SP, which at the time had only eight MPs, was the biggest political party, and the only parliamentary party of the left, to oppose the treaty. The feelings of the Dutch people were made clear, moreover, not only by the overwhelming victory of the No campaign. The majority of voters who support our two rivals on the left of the political spectrum, the Labour Party and the Green Left, also voted No, against the advice of their party leadership. And in the next three elections – local, regional and national - we doubled and tripled our vote The 'No' campaign was not the only reason for this, but it certainly played a role in moving the SP from the edges of Dutch politics to its centre. We are now the biggest opposition party in parliament and with 50.000 members the third political force in the Netherlands.

The two No votes, as you know, were greeted by a ruse typical of a political establishment which seems to have come to regard democracy as an irritation. The Constitutional Treaty was withdrawn, albeit reluctantly and with a show of petulance worthy of the infants' school playground. It was then replaced, without this time bothering with the sham of a 'Constituent Assembly', by a virtually identical text. Despite this, the Dutch government, backed by a parliamentary majority, refused to put the new text to a vote (despite the promise of the Labour Party that it would not accept any other option than a new referendum). The same was true for every other member state government, with the exception of your own, which had no choice in the matter.

These are shameful events to occur in purported democracies. Paper-thin excuses and lies about changes in the text cannot hide the fact that the Dutch and French political establishment took this course of action because it knew that a second referendum would mean a second defeat. The British Labour Party reneged on its promise of a referendum for the same reason. They all say the changes are great enough to make a 'Constitution' into an ordinary treaty. The Spanish Prime Minister, curiously, uses exactly the opposite argument. In Spain, a low turn-out approved the Constitutional Treaty in a referendum. So whereas the Irish, Dutch, French and British people are told that changes mean that no referendum is necessary, the Spanish are told that the fact that the text is the same means that no referendum is necessary!

All of this would be very funny if it weren't for what it represents, which is the death by strangulation of the democracy and national sovereignty for which all of our mothers and fathers fought, made sacrifices, and even gave their lives. This is a country and a city which makes one reflect on the true cost of democracy, and yet it is also one where the government may be planning to sell a democratic decision for worthless coin.

Your task will clearly be to demand that whatever 'concessions' are offered to Ireland, the people must be given the chance to approve or disapprove them in a further referendum. In the Netherlands this course has been closed to us. As is the case in France and elsewhere, the No campaigners, and even some people who support the Lisbon Treaty, have explored every avenue to force our governments to do the honest, democratic thing and put the text to a popular vote. But honesty and democracy are rare commodities in Europe's capitals, and we will not get our referenda. The alternative strategy that we have adopted is to make next June's European Parliament elections into an opportunity for the Dutch people to express their opposition to the Lisbon Treaty, or simply their disgust at the undemocratic way in which it is being foisted on us. Our argument will be that while the government denies the voters the right to vote on the Treaty, it cannot deny us the right to vote to send opponents of the Treaty to Brussels and Strasbourg. By voting SP, they will be voting No to a Europe dominated by big business and military superpower ambitions.

The SP is an internationalist party and our reasons for opposing the Lisbon Treaty are both democratic and internationalist. They have nothing to do with nationalism as it is usually understood. We do, however, believe in what the EU calls 'subsidiarity', a principle which it routinely ignores. This principle states that decisions should be taken as close to home as possible. What can be decided by the individual should be left to the individual, what can be decided locally should be left to local councils to decide, and so on up to those matters for which Europe-wide or global cooperation is essential. We also note that whereas the Dutch state, after 150 years of popular struggle, has relatively robust democratic institutions, the EU is run by an unelected Commission, a Council which continues to hold most of its meetings behind closed doors, and a Parliament which has only limited power.

We do believe that there are many things that unite people not only across Europe but across the world. We liked the slogan of the Norwegian campaign against EU entry: 'Europe is too small for us'. We oppose this European Union, then, firstly because it removes power further from the people. Secondly, because it is based on neoliberal principles. The policies of the EU will represent a deepening of the neoliberal structures which have exposed Europe to the ravages of casino capitalism. And don’t accuse us of conspiracy thinking. I’ve read the Lisbon Agenda, which promoted the liberalization of labour markets – causing wage cuts, badly paid flexlabour, lack of social security – which promoted the liberalisation and privatisation of services – the threat that access to health and education will depend on your ability to pay – which promoted tax competition among member states – making working class people pay higher taxes while the rich pay less.

Recession and mass unemployment will be the inevitable results of the deregulation of financial institutions and markets, a game in which the EU has been an enthusiastic player, whatever noises its leaders may now be making about the need for greater surveillance. The SP and others on the left have been urging such a course of action for decades, though I have yet to hear the assorted conservatives, liberals and so-called social democrats who run the politics of this Union and its member states apologise and admit that we were right all along. In truth, the EU has done nothing to address a financial crisis for which it was partly responsible, leaving effective action as has been taken to its member states.

The EU's neoliberalism is not confined to creating a free-for-all for transnational capital. In a succession of legislative measures and European Court of Justice decisions it has shown that in a straight fight between the rights of capital and those of working people it will always take the side of the rich, the powerful, the corporate. ECJ decisions such as those in the Lavall and Viking cases threaten to turn the clock back to a time – a century ago or more in most of our countries – when although trade unions were technically legal, restrictive laws made them ineffective.

In addition to reinforcing its neoliberalism, the Lisbon Treaty will further the militaristic dreams of Europe's elites. The world's impending liberation from the Bush administration surely represents an opportunity for Europe to take the initiative and propose global disarmament negotiations. We should be pursuing a scaling down of the military machines of each of the global powers; ceasing to sell arms to repressive regimes; and reinforcing structures which offer peaceful means of resolving international conflicts.

This would not only make the world a safer place, but would release huge resources. These resources could combat the coming waves of recession and create employment. They could be put at the service of humanity's truly urgent battles. These battles not with each other, but against climate change, to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, and halt the degradation of the world's environment.
Instead, the EU pursues a policy which threatens, along with the US rocket shield in eastern Europe, to provoke a new Cold War, or worse. Defence policy is based not on the real security needs of Europe's peoples, which surely lie in reinforcing friendly relations with neighbours, including Russia. Instead, it is the interests of the biggest, most powerful member states and the biggest, most powerful European corporations which are served by a policy which pursues two related goals: the first, to see an enormous and ongoing increase in defence spending by all of the 27; and the second, to encourage consolidation of European arms manufacturers so that they become more powerful and competitive global actors. This policy is not part of a solution to the problem of security, it is part of the problem, which is that undesirable and dangerous concentrations of power are put into the hands of people, governments and corporations who would have us believe that peace can be achieved through bigger and better weapons.

European cooperation whose goals are a reining in of the unrestrained power of the casino capitalists, a furtherance of the rights and wellbeing of working people, a bolstering of the welfare state and of social provision, an effective approach to urgent environmental problems, has our wholehearted support. We believe that such cooperation will come only from a European unity which grows from the grass roots upwards and in which the interests of the majority, of 'ordinary' men and women, are the priority. Let’s use this new momentum – due to a profound crisis whose implications include serious threats and doom scenarios - to create a new Europe where markets are regulated, where public services function as they should function – economically efficient and effectively – where wellbeing is more important than profits. May this conference generate a modest contribution to these goals.

Thanks you very much.
Hans van Heijningen

Speech by Kieran Allen, National Secretary of the Socialist Workers Party to the Peace & Neutrality Alliance Annual Conference 29/11/08

The vote on Lisbon is already being re-fought. Elite think tanks and senior academics on the Yes are marshalling arguments to undermine the democratic will of the Irish people.

In this report, we draw on the writings of the French sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu, to analyse the strategic games being currently played by these elite groups.

Political activists and media commentators rarely read sociological texts because they are sometimes written in an impenetrable style. But an exception should be made for a short, six page article from the French sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu entitled Neoliberalism as a Conservative Revolution. It was originally delivered as a speech in 1997 – in other words, before the Wall St Crash of 2008 when the neoliberal dogma still seemed to be unassailable.

Read full speech (pdf file): KAllen2008.pdf

The Strategic Game to Undermine the Irish Vote on Lisbon

by Carol Fox, Research Officer, PANA (July 2008)

One of the many surprises thrown up by the Lisbon Treaty debate was that the European arms industry had managed to set up shop within the EU. Not only were we being obliged to spend more on armaments ["Art. 28(3): Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities"], but an entire EU agency dedicated to bolstering the defence sector and the arms trade was being brought into an EU Treaty.

How had this happened? Where had this European Defence Agency (EDA) come from? And what was the attitude of the Irish Government to all of this?

There are a number of excellent reports by the human rights group, Statewatch, and the Transnational Institute outlining how the European arms merchants got into the EU shop: it was via the EU Commission 'kitchen’. There are over 15,000 lobbyists in Brussels, mostly representing business interests, and many of them are invited by the Commission to sit on special policy committees. One such group was the EU Advisory Group on Aerospace. Nearly half its members were aerospace industry chairmen, including those from Europe’s four largest arms companies. Their 'Strategic Aerospace Review for the 21st Century’, published in July 2002, called for the creation of a 'level playing field so Europe’s industry can compete fairly in world markets’. Ultimately, what was required was the establishment of a: "European armaments policy to provide structure for European defence and security equipment markets, and to allow a sustainable and competitive technological and industrial base".

The EU Commission embraced this proposal: good for business, good for EU military ambitions. By the spring of 2003, it had produced 'Towards an EU Defence Equipment Policy", incorporating the Aerospace Review concepts and calling for the creation of an Agency to oversee these developments. The very first draft of the EU Constitution in 2003 contained provisions for a European Armaments, Research and Military Capabilities Agency, (later renamed the European Defence Agency). It was not surprising that such an agency would be part of the new EU Constitution, which was on track to boost the EU’s military dimension. Indeed, during the preparatory work for the Constitution by the EU Convention, 13 'expert’ witnesses were called before the Working Group on Defence including a General, military reps from the EU and member-states, two reps from the arms industry, and President of the European Defence Industries Group. The working group never asked to hear from civil society representatives.

Measures to boost EU military capabilities pre-dated the EU Constitution. Member States in 2003 promised to develop their military capabilities to an agreed state of readiness by 2010 (the so-called Headline Goal), so the EU could 'respond with rapid and decisive action ….to the whole spectrum of crisis management operations’ included in earlier EU Treaties. Under the 2004 Irish Presidency, the European Council gave its final blessings to these Goals, adding that the EU must consider pre-emptive actions and have the 'ability to conduct concurrent operations … simultaneously at different levels of engagement’. This was all underpinned by the European Security Strategy authored by EU Foreign Affairs and Security chief, Javier Solana, in 2003.

The EU Constitution would have leant a helping hand to these military improvements. When it was defeated in 2005, its military provisions were fully incorporated into the Lisbon Treaty.

Lisbon spells out the EDA’s role in ensuring that the EU is fighting fit. Not only will the Agency be responsible for supporting the defence sector and defence R&D, but it will identify operational requirements for the EU’s developing military force, assist in defining a European capabilities and armaments policy, and monitor the improvement of EU military capabilities. It has a special responsibility for the new Permanent Structured Cooperation provision in Lisbon, a mechanism allowing certain member states to form mini-military alliances within the EU’s structures for the EU’s 'more demanding’ missions. The EDA is to ensure that these states are fully equipped to carry out these demanding missions.

The EDA has no misapprehensions about the importance of its role. It shouldn’t have. It already exists. So eager were the EU Powers That Be to have its services, that the EDA didn’t have to wait for the Constitution’s blessings. It was up and running from July 2004, when approved by the EU Foreign Ministers. In other words, with the Constitution defeated and Lisbon knocked down by Ireland, the EDA has still not been placed into the EU Treaties. The EU’s Foreign Affairs Supremo, Javier Solana, is head of the EDA. Its steering group consists of the EU defence ministers and the EU Commission.

The self-assured Agency even produced a Long Term Vision Statement in 2006, outlining some of the tasks it sees before it: "The Headline Goal and European Security Strategy envisage a broad and significantly challenging set of potential missions. These include separation of warring factions by force, on the sort of scale that would have been required had a ground invasion of Kosovo in 1999 turned out to be necessary. They may also encompass stabilising operations in a failed state .... So the demands of today’s European Security and Defence Policy are already potentially deep and comprehensive."..."Future joint forces will need agility at the operational and tactical levels as well as the strategic. Once deployed, EU Member States’ joint forces may need to be able to operate at will within all domains and across the depth and breadth of the operational area, possessing combinations of stealth, speed, information superiority, connectivity, protection, and lethality. They may need to operate in complex terrain and inside cities."

These EU joint forces are already under development, including a 60,000-strong Rapid Reaction Force capable of intervening far beyond the EU’s borders. The French Presidency next month hopes to speed up that process. Meanwhile, the EU is already in action with a number of rapidly deployable Battlegroups, consisting of up to 2500 troops, with capabilities for high intensity operations. NATO has described the Battlegroups as "providing the EU with 'ready to go’ military capability to respond to crises around the world". Ireland has been a member of the Nordic Battlegroup since 2006.

This Vision Statement was also written with the knowledge that the EU’s military tasks had been expanded by the EU Constitution (and now Lisbon). In addition to the humanitarian, peace-keeping/peace-enforcement tasks of previous treaties, there are new provisions for joint disarmament operations, post-conflict stabilization and combating terrorism in countries outside the EU. There are also mutual defence and solidarity clauses, with the latter dealing with joint actions against terrorism, including the need to counter perceived 'threats’ as well as attacks.

Ireland: eager members of the EDA
Ireland joined the EDA immediately, in July 2004. There was no Dail debate and no vote. The decision was taken by the Government. Defence Minister Willie O’Dea stated the EDA was an intergovernmental agency within the framework of the EU’s European Security and Defence Policy and that membership didn’t oblige or commit Ireland to do anything other than contribute to the EDA’s budget. The fact that the EDA would be in the business of promoting armaments and boosting the arms trade didn’t seem to bother the Minister or the Irish Government.

It is within the Lisbon Treaty provisions concerning the EDA that Member States are obliged to improve their military capabilities. EDA Head Javier Solana has made it clear that there is an 'absolute requirement for us to spend more, spend better and spend more together’.

In 2008, Ireland will be making a financial contribution of €327,000 to the EDA. In addition, Ireland has, since 2007, been participating in the Joint Investment Programme on Force Protection. This has a budget of €55 million over 3 years, to which Ireland is committing €700,000. (Research areas include: Stand off detection of Chemical, Biological, radiological, nuclear and high-yield explosives; Defence options for airborne threats; Scope spotting and sniper detection: Research on new materials for force protection).

There are basic questions which must be asked about Ireland’s involvement with the EDA. Historically, Irish Governments – in keeping with popular sentiment -- have not been proponents of the arms industry. Ministers have invariably denied the existence of any indigenous Irish arms sector (despite evidence from Amnesty International and Afri to the contrary). Indeed, for over thirty years, Irish state boards promoting research and enterprise, such as Enterprise Ireland, have been bound by legislation stating they: "shall not engage in or promote any activity of a primarily military relevance without the prior approval of the Government"

The Department of Defence’s Strategy Statement, 2008—2010, extols the EDA as providing "opportunities of interest to Irish-based enterprises and researchers" and states: "We will work closely with Enterprise Ireland to exploit potential research and commercial opportunities arising".

Ireland’s relations with the developing world have prompted concerns about arms spending and the global arms trade. But the EDA is focused on increasing global competitiveness for EU arms industries, particularly in relation to the United States, a direction reinforced by the EU Commission in its 2007 "A Strategy for a Stronger and More Competitive European Defence Industry". Already, EU companies are responsible for over €80 billion a year in arms sales.

The EDA and Lisbon
Since the EDA already exists, one might ask: how has defeating Lisbon affected that organization? There are at least four implications.

Without Lisbon, Member States are not legally obliged to progressively improve their military capabilities;
The EDA has still not been placed into the EU Treaties;
The new expanded military tasks have not been given Treaty status and the EDA should not be promoting capabilities, etc. in these areas;
The provision of Permanent Structured Cooperation -- in which the EDA was to have played a major role -- has not been approved.

How Ireland ever joined the EDA without parliamentary debate or approval is incomprehensible. Maybe now, post-Lisbon, questions will begin to be asked about Ireland’s involvement in this agency and about the entire EU military project.

The European Defence Agency: Arms for War and Profit<br>

Paper for presentation at the meeting of the Oireachtas Sub-Committee on Ireland’s future in the European Union - 4th November 2008

by Andy Storey: Centre for Development Studies, School of Politics and International Relations, University College Dublin; and Action from Ireland (Afri)

Irish campaigning groups, including Afri, have long been concerned about what they see as the growing ‘militarization’ of some Irish foreign policies and actions. This trend is evident in the usage of Shannon airport as a critical staging post for the transit of US troops and supplies involved in the invasion and occupation of Iraq; in the strong prima facie evidence that Irish airports have been used for the US policy of ‘extraordinary rendition’ – the kidnapping and torture of individuals accused of terrorist involvement; and in the growing foothold being established in the Irish economy by companies involved in the commercial arms trade.

While these claims provide an important context against which debates about Irish defence and security policy need to be viewed, it is Ireland’s participation in multilateral (NATO and EU) military structures and actions that is the focus of this present paper. The nature of this Irish participation is outlined with reference to both the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the EU, with case studies (especially of Kosovo, Afghanistan and Chad) used for illustrative purposes.

Download full paper (pdf file, 66KB) oireachtas-Novembe2008.pdf

The Future of Ireland's Military Policies and Practices within the NATO-EU Context

A TNI briefing paper in cooperation with Campagne tegen Wapenhandel - the Dutch Campaign against Arms Trade.

by Frank Slijper, November 2008.

For decades defence policy issues played an insignificant role within the European Union, the focus being almost completely on economic cooperation. But that has changed over the past decade, as political cooperation became increasingly important, including the development of the Union’s so-called second pillar of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), including a Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP).

Since the start of the new century we have witnessed Javier Solana’s – the EU High Representative for CFSP - “A Secure Europe in a Better World”, the blueprint for Europe’s security strategy, which is currently being updated. At the same time the CSDP became an important part of the texts of the original Constitutional Treaty, which was then replaced by the very similar Lisbon Treaty. Though both treaties were rejected in referenda held in France and the Netherlands in 2005, and in Ireland in 2008, the political importance within the EU context of an integrated external and internal security policy continues to grow, though probably not as fast as would otherwise have been the case.

This security and defence profile has evolved from a focus on mostly ‘soft’ tasks- policing and peace keeping - towards the creation of Battle Groups for more robust military interventions. It is characteristic of the changing security agenda in Europe, where a stronger military role is entering the European domain step by step under the veil of ‘security’, rather than using the still controversial ‘military’ label. The EU aims, by 2018, to be able to deploy 60,000 troops with air and naval support within 60 days, who could remain operational for a year, although officials admit the bar may have been set too high. Also the European Defence Agency (EDA) was established in 2004, though its real influence remains limited so far.

As we’ve seen in the previous two TNI papers on EU security and militarisation5, a warm relationship exists between industry and European Commission. The behind–closed-doors, business-dominated policy making processes only confirm what many people in Europe think about the expanding EU. Despite widespread discontent with the way Brussels operates, Eurocrats and industry take a ‘business as usual’ approach. Worse, these crucial developments go unnoticed for most people.

The same is true for military-related developments in the area of the new European space policy that have so far received hardly any public attention, while developments over the past decade have been considerable. Again, mostly under the veil of ‘security’ and intelligence sharing, the emergence of a military role for the formerly purely civilian European Space Agency (ESA) follows a path towards military use, similar to what we’ve seen with the development of repressive policy tools. While still in its infancy, EU financed communication and spy satellites are slowly becoming reality, and in the long term the inclusion of space-based missile defence and other more offensive uses of space are real options for an increasing ambitious EU military space policy.

French president Sarkozy has called the space agenda one of the top priorities during the EU presidency over the second half of 2008, as part of a broader aim to progressively frame common EU defence policy. “I very much hope that the French presidency of the European Union (…) will be the first step in a veritable relaunch of European defence for the coming years”, Sarkozy said just before taking over the presidency.

In November 2008 government ministers are scheduled to meet in the Netherlands to set multi-year programme objectives and budgets for the European Space Agency, which fulfils a key role in slowly incorporating space into Europe’s rising military ambitions.

This paper analyses the state of affairs in military space developments from a critical European perspective. Like the previous publications in this series, it aims to increase awareness of the creeping militarisation of the EU, and raise discussion among European citizens on its undesirability.

Download full paper (pdf file. 2.4MB): From Venus to Mars

Frank Slijper works at the Dutch Campaign against Arms Trade (Campagne tegenWapenhandel) and has been a researcher and campaigner on arms trade issues forover fifteen years.

From Venus to Mars - The European Union’s steps towards the militarisation of space

How the EU ignores Israel’s failure to fulfil its obligations under EU agreements
Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign - Compiled by David Morrison - October 2008

ON 1 SEPTEMBER 2008, the EU decided that meetings with Russia about a newpartnership agreement would be postponed "until [Russian] troops have withdrawn tothe positions held prior to 7 August", that is, until the Russian military occupation ofGeorgia (outside South Ossetia and Abkhazia, at least) had ended.

On 28 November 1995, the EU allowed Israel to become a partner, under Euro-Mediterranean Partnership arrangements with states bordering on the Mediterranean.At the time, Israeli troops were occupying parts of Lebanon and Syria and the OccupiedPalestinian Territories (the West Bank and Gaza) and had been for many years – Lebanonsince 1978, the rest since 1967.

Clearly, the EU has applied very different standards in its relations with Israel and Russia. Had the conditions applied to Russia in September 2008 been applied to Israel in November 1995, the EU would have refused to enter into negotiation with Israel aboutbecoming a partner until all Israeli troops had been withdrawn from Lebanon, Syria andthe Occupied Palestinian Territories.

THERE IS ANOTHER extraordinary aspect to the EU’s relations with Israel – the EU has beenhappy to sign agreements with Israel even though, at the time of signing, Israel has beencontravening obligations contained in the agreements themselves.

For example, the Barcelona Declaration, which established the Euro-MediterraneanPartnership, obliges its signatories to "respect the territorial integrity and unity of each ofthe other partners" and a series of other norms of international law.

Lebanon, Syria and Israel signed the Barcelona Declaration and became EU partners in November 1995. At that time, parts of Lebanon and Syria were under Israeli military occupation and the Golan Heights had been annexed by Israel. Clearly, Israel wasfailing to "respect the territorial integrity and unity" of its Lebanese and Syrian partners in1995, when it signed the Barcelona Declaration containing this obligation. But the EUturned a blind eye to Israel’s breach of the partnership agreement at the time it signedthe partnership agreement – and allowed it to become an EU partner.

And the EU has continued to turn a blind eye ever since and allowed Israel to remain anEU partner, even though today Syrian and Lebanese territory remains under Israeli militaryoccupation and Israeli military aircraft frequently invade Lebanese air space.

THE EU HAS ENTERED into a number of agreements with Israel, beginning with the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership signed in November 1995. These agreements oblige theparties to them, including Israel, to abide by generally recognised principles ofinternational law.

It is our contention that Israel has been, and still is, guilty of contravening generallyrecognised principles of international law in a variety of ways, contrary to its obligations in agreements with the EU. We document some of these contraventions in this submission. But the EU has continuously turned a blind eye to these contraventions and, despitethem, continuously enhanced its relations with Israel, most recently, on 16 June 2008.

As we have said, under the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership Israel is required to "respectthe territorial integrity and unity" of its partners, which Israel has failed to do throughoutthe life of the Partnership in respect of Lebanon and Syria – since it has occupied parts oftheir territory militarily. Under the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership Israel is also required to"act in accordance with the United Nations Charter", which Israel has signally failed todo throughout the life of the Partnership – since it continues to contravene more UNSecurity Council resolutions than any other state in the world. The EU has turned a blindeye to these failures by Israel and been happy to maintain Israel as a partner.

THE ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT with Israel, under the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership,commonly known as the Euro-Med Agreement, gives Israel privileged access to the EUmarket. According to Article 2 of the Agreement, "respect for human rights anddemocratic principles" is an "essential element" – not an optional element, nor adesirable element, but an essential element.

There isn’t the slightest doubt that Israel has continuously failed to live up to theseobligations, the most recent example being its economic strangulation of the people ofGaza in 2007/8, which the EU itself described as "collective punishment", contrary tointernational humanitarian law. But the EU has again turned a blind eye to abuses ofinternational humanitarian law by Israel and refused to contemplate a suspension of theAgreement until such times as Israel meets its obligations.

SINCE 1995, ISRAEL has been an EU partner in the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP).Here again, Israel is supposed to take steps to promote and protect the rights of the Arabminority in Israel and to move towards a comprehensive settlement of the conflict in theMiddle East. Here is the conclusion of a European Commission report on Israeli progresspublished in April 2008.

"Issues raised in the framework of the political dialogue included inter alia: the peaceprocess, the situation in the Middle East, the situation of the Arab minority in Israel,restrictions of movement in West Bank and Gaza Strip, the construction of theseparation barrier, administrative detentions, the dismantling of outposts, theenvisaged expansion of certain Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem, more checkpoints.Little concrete progress has however been achieved on the issues as such."

Once again, the EU turned a blind eye to Israel’s failure to make progress and decidedon 16 June 2008 to "upgrade" its relations with Israel.

Download (pdf file): ipsc_eu_submission_2008.pdf

The European Union’s Blind Eye

by Phyllis Bennis, Institute for Policy Studie

Despite the recent surge of attention to the U.S.-Iraqi negotiations over an agreement to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for years into the future, the resulting agreement or lack of agreement is likely to have little actual impact on the occupation. The negotiations are being conducted by representatives of President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki - neither of whom actually want the U.S. troops to leave. (Maliki's government would not likely survive the withdrawal of U.S. troops, and Bush remains committed to permanent U.S. control of Iraq, its oil, and its strategic location for U.S. military bases). But both Bush and Maliki face political and electoral pressures to posture as if they do want a timetable for troop withdrawal. As a result, most of the negotiations seem to have focused less on substantive disagreements between the two sides, and more on finding language that disguises the reality of continued occupation and U.S. domination, with politically acceptable language extolling Iraqi sovereignty.

The negotiations are officially aimed at producing a bilateral agreement between the U.S. and the U.S. occupation-backed Iraqi government that would set the terms for how U.S. and "coalition" troops would continue to occupy and wage war in Iraq. The urgency surrounding the negotiations is based on the looming expiration of the current United Nations mandate for the so-called "multi-national force" (diplo-speak for the U.S.-led occupation) on December 31, 2008. The goal is to create an agreement between Washington and Baghdad that would replace that mandate. Even the New York Times agrees that if there is no agreement in place after December 31, and the Security Council has not extended the mandate, the U.S. troops occupying Iraq would have no legal basis for their presence; legally, they would have to be pulled back to their bases and quickly withdrawn from the country.

In fact, it is quite unlikely that any new bilateral agreement, or any extension of the UN mandate, will have any real impact on the fighting. The U.S. invaded Iraq illegally; it is unlikely that they would end their occupation because of a technicality like acknowledged illegality. And those forces fighting against the U.S.-led occupation, both the resistance forces targeting the U.S. occupation alone and those extremists also committing terrorist acts against Iraqi civilians, are unlikely to stop fighting because of a new or renewed legal document; they are fighting against a hated foreign occupation, and will likely continue to do so regardless of diplomatic niceties.

It should be noted that so far the actual content of the agreement remains unclear. No version, either Arabic or English, has been released; Arabic drafts have been leaked, and informal English translations are all that are available. So - if the devil is in the details, the devil remains hidden.

Congress, Parliament and the Agreement
The agreement has not been submitted to Iraq's parliament, as its constitution requires, and has not been submitted to the Senate for ratification, as the U.S. constitution requires. In fact, on the Iraqi side, even leaders of Maliki's own party have distanced themselves from the agreement, while other political leaders, most notably Shi'a cleric Moqtada al-Sadr (who called a Baghdad protest of tens of thousands over the weekend) oppose it altogether. It appears that secular, nationalist, and Sunni forces remain largely skeptical; Iran opposes the agreement. Only the main Kurdish parties, Washington's closest allies, have apparently endorsed its terms. And most Iraqis, other than Maliki's supporters, are looking to better possibilities from a new post-Bush U.S. president.

The Bush administration has similarly refused to engage Congress, claiming that the agreement is "merely" an ordinary Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), similar to agreements the U.S. has with Germany or Japan. But of course there is no war being fought by U.S. troops in those countries. In Congress, there is strong opposition to the agreement, but primarily focused on the exclusion of Congressional input and approval, rather than the substance of the terms.

However, if the agreement fails, it would mean official recognition by governments, inter-governmental institutions, and other international diplomatic entities of the illegality of the U.S. occupation. That would constitute a huge advance for global anti-war forces, including here in the U.S. So challenging the legitimacy of any new agreement is a continuing obligation.

Withdrawal of U.S. troops: a Time Horizon
Article 25 of the draft agreement describes "withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq," and the first paragraph states that "The U.S. forces shall withdraw from Iraqi territories no later than December 31st 2011." Later in the same article there are references to "combat troops" being withdrawn from Iraqi cities and regrouped in U.S. bases by June 2009, but the initial commitment to the December 31, 2011 withdrawal does not specify "combat" troops. It appears this was likely one of the demands of the Iraqi government, aware that the Iraqi parliament, let alone the population, would certainly reject the kind of partial withdrawal, of "combat troops" only, that is being defined as ending the war in U.S. electoral discourse.

But the existence of that text does not indicate a serious U.S. commitment to a timetable for full withdrawal of all troops, even by the end of 2011. Paragraph 5 of the same article explicitly authorizes the Iraqi government to request U.S. forces to remain in Iraq - for "the purposes of training and support of the Iraqi security forces." Such "support" of the U.S.-trained, U.S.-armed, and still U.S.-dependent Iraqi military could in practice mean any military action the Pentagon wants to carry out. Paragraph 5 goes on to say that "the Iraqi government might ask for an extension of paragraph 1 of this article" - an extension of the 2011 withdrawal deadline.

So the whole idea of a deadline is a politically-driven fraud. It is not coincidental that when the Bush administration appeared to give in on the once-rejected idea of a timeline, the actual description was that of a "time horizon" - very beautiful, perhaps, but you could never get there.

There are similar wiggle-word descriptions of how U.S. troops would have to get approval from the military Iraqi in a joint coordination committee for military operations. As to the detention of Iraqis, U.S. troops is required to hand over detainees to the Iraqi authorities within 24 hours - unless the detention "was based on an Iraqi decision in accordance with Iraqi law."

Immunity for U.S. Troops Bases
As to the hot-button issue of immunity vs accountability for U.S. troops committing crimes against Iraqis - immunity largely wins the day. There does seem to be a claim of Iraqi sovereign control over U.S. contractors who commit crimes against civilians - according to Article 12 "Iraq has the primary legal jurisdiction over contractors with the U.S. and their employees." We'll see how Blackwater and other mercenary companies deal with that. But as to U.S. troops, the U.S. maintains "primary legal jurisdiction over U.S. armed forces members and civilian members." Iraq's government can now brag to its people that it will have "primary legal jurisdiction over armed forces members and civilian members in cases of major and intentional crimes" that occur outside of U.S. bases and "while troops are off duty." But how convenient - U.S. troops essentially never leave their bases except for military activities, and several paragraphs later the text gives the U.S. the explicit right to determine whether the troops involved were off-duty or not.

U.S. bases also remain unchallenged. The U.S. is to submit a list of all "installations and areas used by the U.S. forces" for the purpose of "being reviewed and agreed upon by both sides" by June 30, 2009. There are references to the U.S. returning to the Iraqi government military bases "that were constructed, remodeled, or modified under this agreement," but no reference to bases that pre-date the agreement or may not be among the "installations and areas agreed upon."

The text is replete with references to Iraq's sovereignty, respect for the Iraqi constitution and laws, etc. But there is no enforcement capacity and given the unequal balance of power between the two sides, there is little doubt that those references are designed to placate Iraq's overwhelmingly anti-occupation population, and even much of the parliament.

Oil
The agreement does nothing to end or even curtail U.S. efforts to control Iraqi oil. It states the U.S. will continue its current role in "protection arrangements" for Iraq's oil and gas production "and their revenue." Given Bush's signing statement two weeks ago rejecting Congress' law requiring an end to U.S. efforts to control Iraq's oil, such continuation remains very dangerous.

So what is likely to happen?
It is very unlikely that the Iraqi parliament, veering between skepticism and outright rejection of the agreement, will come to accept it in the next two months. It is certainly possible that Prime Minister Maliki will simply assert, as he has before, that his government does not need parliamentary approval; but with important provincial elections looming in Iraq early in 2009, that is probably a recipe for political suicide.

In the U.S., Bush faces a similar problem. Rejecting claims that their approval is not required, Congress is beginning to react - primarily by demanding a say in the process. Some members are targeting the idea of U.S. forces ever being held accountable in the Iraqi judicial system, despite the clear reality that the text itself provides a myriad of ways to prevent such an occurrence.

There is already a move in Congress, led by Rep. Bill Delahunt, to challenge the legitimacy of the exclusion of Congress from approval of the agreement, but urging the UN Security Council to extend the UN mandate after Dec. 31 instead. This would mean repeating the common tactic of using the UN to provide political, and in this case legal cover for illegal U.S. actions - potentially even for war crimes that may be committed by U.S. troops following illegal orders. If the December 31 expiration of the UN mandate looms closer, and the U.S.-Iraq agreement is not accepted by both sides, and Bush and Maliki fail to win political support for their claim that congressional/parliamentary approval is not necessary, three possibilities are likely:

an effort to win Security Council agreement for a short-term extension of the mandate;
a Bush-Maliki "handshake" agreement to maintain the status quo for three or six months, perhaps longer, the equivalent of Congress' frequent "continuing resolutions" that maintain current funding and activity levels;
agreement by Congress and the Iraqi Parliament to accept a shorter-term and perhaps stripped-down version of the agreement, essentially endorsing a "handshake" agreement between the governments.

So what do we do?

We oppose any U.S.-Iraq agreement to maintain the U.S. occupation, whether it's for one month or three years.
We oppose any such agreement being negotiated or signed without U.S. Congressional and Iraqi parliamentary approval.
We reject interim measures designed to continue the occupation.
We stand against any Security Council decision to extend the current mandate authorizing the U.S.-led occupation in Iraq; we call on the United Nations to stand with global civil society in defense of international law and its own Charter, to oppose the continuing occupation of Iraq.
We believe that the December 31, 2008 expiration of the UN mandate should lead to an immediate recognition of the illegality of the U.S. occupation. That acknowledged illegality should be seen as an opportunity to implement the clear will of the Iraqi people and a majority of the American people. The result should be immediate steps to return all U.S. troops to their bases, and begin the process of immediate withdrawal of all, not only combat troops, U.S.-paid non-Iraqi contractors, and closure of the U.S. bases.

Phyllis Bennis is a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington and the Transnational Institute in Amsterdam.

The U.S.-Iraq Agreement on Maintaining U.S. Troops in Iraq

Between the Nice 2 Referendum in 2002 and the Lisbon Referendum in 2008 we have seen a change in the Irish media landscape. The principal trends show:

A growth in readership and distribution of Eurosceptic British press
The outsourcing of editorial by indigenous Irish titles to UK and other syndicated news services
The development of a conservative religious press
The proliferation of the internet as a magnet for anti-establishment opinion formers (as well as the introduction of viral communication)
The shift away from state television and radio towards smaller private radio stations that have a greater focus on entertainment than news

The main trend is that newsrooms have become victim to cost pressures and objectivity has been reduced. Print, TV, and Radio have all come under financial pressure, leaving them to invest less time in getting to the heart of the story and editors more inclined to buy content from UK titles.

Download full document (pdf file 179 kb) Media_in_Ireland.pdf

Changing media landscape in Ireland between 2002-2008 and its implications for public opinion about the European Union

by Tobias Pflüger, MEP (July 2008)

An E-Mail by a senior Irish official has been leaked to the press recently. According to this Mail, the government originally preferred to hold the referendum about the Treaty of Lisbon in the autumn of 2008: "But the risk of unhelpful developments during the French presidency - particularly related to EU defence - were just too great", the official is quoted.[1] The French population already noticed that their president Nicolas Sarkozy is good for many bad surprises, not the least because of his dismantling of the welfare state, his approval ratings are on a historical low. Nevertheless, the French President now intends to act on the European level, too. The chances for this are good as France took over the EU-Council Presidency on the 1st of July for the next six months. Especially in the realm of the "European Security and Defence Policy" (ESDP) Sarkozy has ambitious plans.

As is well known, the preponing of the Irish referendum was in vain. On the 12th of June, the Irish population rejected the Treaty of Lisbon. With this "No", the ambitions of the European governments to transform the EU into a military union, has been reined in. But as advancing the EU's military policy is a central project of the Union's elites, they want to proceed without a new treaty, too: "We want to advance the European defence, whatever the future of the Treaty of Lisbon is" Sarkozy said to the online magazine Europolitan on the 18th of June. The French Council Presidency, Sarkozy continued, will "be the first step for the rejuvenation of the European defence in the years to come." The plans of the French Council Presidency are encompassing a significant intensification of the relationship between the European Union and NATO as well as concrete armaments projects. Furthermore, under the term "Global Europe", it intends to start a major offensive in the military and economic realm. Last but not least, the French Presidency will also try to implement the Treaty of Lisbon.

France is besides Germany the major proponent of the "keep-it-up" approach. The ratification process shall go on, regardless of the Irish referendum. Respecting the sovereign – the population – has never been a matter near to the heart of the EU-elites. Originally, it was – and still is - planned that during the French Presidency, parts of the still not ratified treaty will be realized, especially in the area of military policy. In a document, published at the beginning of June, the French Presidency still intended to "bring forward the necessary preparations in order to implement the treaty timely and smoothly and to assure that the treaty can be fully used from the time it is entering into force."[2]

Due to the Irish population and the superb work of CAEUC (Campaign Against the EU Constitution), the French government is now forced to cope with this situation in order to get the treaty into force by one way or the other. For this purpose, various proposals are currently in the discussion – they reach from building a core Europe until throwing the Irish out of the EU. But currently, the most probable option is to let the Irish population simply vote ones again, either with some cosmetic changes or in combination with the question of weather Ireland intends to stay in the European Union. A final decision about how to proceed will be prepared until the next EU summit in October.

Ones again, the EU elites' understanding of democracy is revealing. Instead of respecting the decision of the Irish population they want to let them vote until the results seem to fit the governors of the member states, the EU Commission, the EU Council and the majority in the European Parliament. This procedure has already been practiced at the end of 2002 after the Irish "No" to the Treaty of Nice.

Arming formally correct
The reason for this upholding of the Lisbon Treaty is the fact that several crucial aspects, especially in the military area, cannot be realized without the treaty. But also the intention to change the distribution of power in the EU's most relevant institution, the Council, dramatically in favour of the biggest member states depends on the treaty. Only after the treaty is ratified, the German voting count would skyrocket from currently 8,4 percent to 16,72 percent (but France would also heavily benefit).

Furthermore, currently it is forbidden to build "avant-garde-groups" in the area of military policy which can exclusively decide over policies in this area without having to consider the opinions of other states not taking part. The "Permanent Structured Cooperation" of the Lisbon Treaty will make this possible for the first time thereby annulling the consensus principle currently holding in the area of military policy. The goal of such Permanent Structured Cooperations was revealed when Sarkozy proposed to use this instrument to build a "directorate" in the area of military policy consisting of France, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Spain and Poland.[3] Without a new treaty such proposals simply do not have the necessary legal ground to materialize.

Additionally, the Treaty of Nice explicitly prohibits the establishment of a European military budget (in addition to the budgets of the member states). Therefore ESDP missions have to be funded via other ways – for example by using funds from the European Development Funds or by the juridicially questionable ATHENA mechanism. Hereby, the EU member states are paying into an extra budget which is not part of the European Union. In order to improve this problematic financial situation, the Lisbon Treaty intends to establish an official European military budget, called "start-up fund". That's why the French Council Presidency originally intended to integrate the ATHENA funds into the European Union in order to be able to pursue its militarization projects in a formally correct manner. Finally, the deployment of military troops within the member states will also be prohibited without a new treaty, too.

Notwithstanding these serious difficulties, the French Council Presidency faces due to the Irish referendum, it nevertheless intends to pave the way for ground-breaking novelties in the area of military policy, especially regarding the relationship between the European Union and NATO.

The French return to NATO
Shortly after he took office, Sarkozy announced that France will fully re-integrate itself into NATO's military structures after being absent for more than 40 years. In 1966, then President Charles de Gaulles justified the French withdrawal with his discontent over America's domination of the alliance. Since then, the French military policy aimed to strengthen autonomous European capacities and thereby implicitly and sometimes explicitly tried to weaken the United States and NATO.

In this context, a paradigm shift seems to be in the making: "France had long championed the EU over NATO but President Nicolas Sarkozy changed that. He has ordered his diplomats to stop obstructing NATO’s work and offered to return France to NATO’s military structures."[4] During its Council Presidency, France intends to fully return into NATO's Defence Committee (whether it will also return to the Nuclear Planning Group is unclear, yet). Sarkozy sees this as an important confidence-building measure vis-à-vis the United States which is necessary in order to bring the EU and NATO closer together. This goal is one of the main projects of the French Council Presidency: "Strengthening EU/NATO cooperation, including increasing transparency, will be a priority, both at the strategic and tactical levels. [...] Generally, the transatlantic relations will be intensified regarding political, economic and military questions."[5] Whether France's NATO rapprochement will cause an institutional reorganization of the alliance is not decided, yet. For this purpose a far-reaching proposal has been put forward recently which could change the relationship between the European Union and NATO dramatically.

Not surprisingly, these considerations are made in a time, when NATO is in one of its most difficult phases in its history. The missions in Kosovo and Afghanistan are underscoring that the alliance has transformed itself into a globally acting organization not only waging war around the globe but also engaging into quasi colonial occupations. In light of the bloody escalation in Afghanistan und NATO's huge difficulties to "pacify" this country, the alliance is working on concepts in order to improve their capacities for such occupations. As soldiers are not well suited for the administration of quasi colonies like Afghanistan, more civil capacities (jurists, engineers, humanitarian workers, etc.) are necessary which shall help the military in its mission. Thereby, civil capacities are de facto subordinated under the military. This Civil Military Cooperation (CIMIC), called by NATO the "comprehensive approach", shall be massively expanded in the years to come.

But concerning the civil capacities, neither the United States nor NATO have enough capacities. As France also wants to be rewarded for its full return into NATO's military structures with important posts, the "Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik" a German think tank with very close ties to the government, recently made the following proposal: "France [should] use its EU Presidency for a masterstroke: connecting NATO and the EU by creating an operational civil-military EU planning and conduct capability closely linked to NATO's capacities at SHAPE. […] This would lead to a situation where the EU and NATO were closely connected. [U]under the motto of 'Berlin Plus Reversed' NATO could be granted the opportunity to draw on the EU's civilian capacities."[6] While the Berlin Plus Agreement of March 2003 assures that NATO's military capacities can be used for EU missions, the new arrangement shall go the other way round by providing "civilian" EU occupiers for NATO missions.

Major neoliberal offensive
With the Lisbon strategy issued in 2000, the European Union formulated the ambitious goal to be the world's premium economic power in the year 2010. For this purpose, the neoliberal remodelling within the member states has been forced. In Germany, for example, this resulted in the "Agenda 2010" and the accompanying dismantling of the welfare state.

But it was soon realized that this high-flying goal also requires the aggressive opening of new markets all over the world. Therefore the EU-Commission began under the title "Global Europe" to work on an external dimension of the Lisbon strategy. The result has been published in October 2007 under the title "The European Interest: Succeeding in the age of globalisation". The paper intends to provide the backbone for a European approach to globalisation." In fact, European economic interests have scarcely been expressed in a similar and more aggressive way: "Externally, the EU is prospering from its openness to the rest of the world – in economic terms, but also in terms of cultural and knowledge exchange, and in terms of the recognition given to European values worldwide. As the world's largest exporter of goods and services and its largest importer of goods, the largest importer of energy, the second largest source and the second largest destination of foreign direct investment, the EU is a major beneficiary of an open world economic system. […] It has an obvious stake in defining the rules of global governance in a way that reflects its interests and values. […] Whilst the EU needs to protect its citizens, its interests and its values, protectionism cannot be the solution. As the world's leading trader and investor, our openness allows lower cost inputs for industry, lower prices for consumers, a competitive stimulus for business, and new investment. At the same time, it is important for the EU to use its influence in international negotiations to seek openness from others: the political case for openness can only be sustained if others reciprocate in a positive manner. The EU needs to ensure that third countries offer proportionate levels of openness to EU exporters and investors and to have ground rules which do not impinge on our capacity to protect our interests."[7] The egalitarian terms like "openness" or "equal opportunities" are masquerading naked economic interests as free trade always benefits the stronger actor. So the Commission in fact argues like someone who would claim a car race between a bus and a Ferrari would be fair only because both are using the same road.

Nevertheless, the French Presidency regards the Global Europe approach as the blueprint for its foreign economic policy. It intends to "work on the implementation of the Commission Communication on Global Europe [and to] renew the EU's commitment to Global Europe by asking the Commission for an up-date as a formal and integral part of the Lisbon Strategy."[8] In April 2008, the French government already published a document called "Euroworld 2015". Its core element is also to complement the Lisbon strategy with an aggressive external dimension, a step it regards as ground-breaking: "In effect, the weight given to the external dimension is not insignificant: it signals the fact that European unification is entering a new phase in its history, centred no longer on Europe itself but on its relationship with the rest of the world. This new phase represents a genuine paradigm shift, the implications of which we have attempted to explore. It is now up to the French EU presidency to start carrying through this new strategic vision."[9]

With this strategy, the further impoverishment of the so called Third World is knowingly accepted and even forced. The results are catastrophic; no wonder that the military "pacification" of hunger revolts is growing in importance in military circles. French Defence Minister Hervé Morin hit the nail on the head when he said: "Our military tools have to adapt to globalisation and the new threats."[10]

Expanding the European Army
When the new French military White Book was published in June [11], Sarkozy announced at the same time his intention to heavily expand the European army. In the future, up to 60.000 soldiers should be deployable in the field. Although this army has already been decided in 1999 and declared operational four years later, it mainly existed on paper. The French government also wants to improve the maritime and air support for this army, capacities which had also demanded by the Kuhne-report of the European Parliament. [12]

French secretary of state for European affairs, Jean Pierre Jouyet even envisions "concrete goals" for the next ten years. "He named among others a common air and sea combat troop and a commonly used transport fleet consisting of Airbus A400M."[13] Furthermore, currently the maneuver MILX 09 is being prepared which will be held in the year 2009. In this exercise, the deployment of a maritime component will be trained for the first time without recourse to NATO assets. This also fits in neatly. Notwithstanding his rapprochement towards NATO, Sarkozy always emphasised that he also wants to strengthen the EU's autonomous military structures. Therefore he advocates expanding the existing planning cell for military operations into a full European headquarter. Furthermore, the French military White Book wants to double the funds for the country's military space assets up to 700 million euro per year. This is fully in line with the Wogau-report of the European Parliament on the "contribution of space assets to ESDP" who also pleads for a massive budget increase on the European level.[14]

A further priority of the French Council Presidency is the adoption of a directive prepared by the Commission formally aimed at the "harmonization" of the European armaments sector. In reality, the directive will de facto end export controls for armaments sales within the European Union. As the directive has virtually no control mechanisms whether those arms will be re-exported outside the European Union, this offers the possibility to undermine national export controls and to foster arms trade with problematic conflict ridden regions.[15]

A final but very important point that shall be tackled during the French Council Presidency will be the update of the European Security Strategy from December 2003 which is scheduled for the end of this year. Especially energy security and climate change shall be given a higher priority in the updated version. In April, Javier Solana already published a European climate change strategy which advocated increasing Europe's crises management capacities in order to (militarily) cope with the consequences of climate change.[16]

Thanks to the Irish population, the militarization of the European Union is temporarily slowed down. Although the European elites are currently massively trying to get the Lisbon Treaty passed one way or the other, the Irish example shows that opposition against the undemocratic, neoliberal and militaristic policies of the European Union is not only necessary but that it can also be successful.

Tobias Pflüger ist member of European Parliament for DIE LINKE in the GUE/NGL-Group and member of the board of the Information Center Militarization (IMI).

[1] Irish Memo in Full, URL: http://openeuropeblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/irish-memo-in-full.html

[2] Entwurf des Achtzehnmonatsprogramms des Rates, Brüssel, den 9. Juni 2008.

[3] Howorth, Jolyon: The Future of European Security, EXPO/B/SEDE/2008/16, March 2008.

[4] Valasek, Thomas: France, NATO and European Defence, CER Policy Brief, May 2008, p. 1.

[5] Entwurf des Achtzehnmonatsprogramms des Rates, Brüssel, den 9. Juni 2008, S. 78, 85.

[6] Kempin, Ronja: Could France Bring NATO and the EU Closer Together? SWP Comments 2008/C11, Mai 2008.

[7] EU-Commission: The European Interest: Succeeding in the age of globalisation, COM(2007) 581 final, Brussels, 3.10.2007.

[8] Entwurf des Achtzehnmonatsprogramms des Rates, S. 25.

[9] République Francaise: Euroworld 2015: A European Strategy for Globalisation, 15.4.08.

[10] Frankreich verkleinert Armee, Tagesspiegel, 16.6.08.

[11] An English version of the French White Book can be found at http://tinyurl.com/528j9y

[12] Kuhne, Helmut: Entwurf eines Berichts über die Umsetzung der Europäischen Sicherheitsstrategie und der ESVP (2008/2003(INI)), 31.1.2008.

[13] Frankreich verkleinert Armee, Tagesspiegel, 16.6.08.

[14] DRAFT REPORT on the contribution of space-supported systems to ESDP (2008/2030(INI)), Rapporteur: Karl von Wogau.

[15] Commission of the European Communities, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on simplifying terms and conditions of transfers of defence-related products within the Community, Brussels, COM(2007) 765 final.

[16] Climate Change and International Security, Paper from the High Representative and the European Commission to the European Council, S113/08, 14.03.2008, URL: http://tinyurl.com/6s3qe3

Militarism, Neoliberalism, Elitism: The Agenda of the French EU Council Presidency

by Anthony Coughlan, Secretary
The National Platform EU Research and Information Centre

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." (See full article below)

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.

A Note on all EU Member States keeping their Commissioners under Nice
The Lisbon Treaty's provision that Member States would lose their present right to decide who their national Commissioner would be (Art.17.7 TEU) makes the retention of one Commissioner per Member State instead of their reduction by one-third from 2014 (Art.17.5 TEU) of little value anyway, should this be agreed next December as expected.

A declaration by the EU Prime Ministers and Presidents that if Lisbon is ratified by all Member State including Ireland the European Council will exercise its discretion in 2014 to have one Commissioner for every Member State might have some political but no legal value, for it would not be part of the Treaty. It could only be relied on until such time as no one was paying attention anymore post-Lisbon, when the European Council could use its discretion to cut the number of Commissioners or - perhaps more likely - introduce permanent senior and junior ones.

The Nice Treaty's Protocol on EU Enlargement (Art.4.2) requires the number of EU Commissioners to be less than the number of Member States from 2009, although by an unspecified number to be agreed unanimously. If the European Council is now prepared to accept that the number of Commissioners should continue to be equal to the number of Member States, it would be perfectly possible for it to agree to an amendment to the Nice Treaty to repeal the present Article 4.2, get that approved by the EU Parliament and then ratified by all the Member States. This would not need a referendum in Ireland to approve it.
Art.4.2 of Nice's Protocol on EU Enlargement could also be legally implemented by the Member States agreeing that from 2009 that there would be 26 Commissioners instead of 27 and that each country would lose its Commissioner in alphabetical order every five years, beginning with Belgium. This would mean that Member States would only lose their Commissioner every 135 years (five times 27) and Ireland's turn would not come for 30 years. Former Irish Attorney General David Byrne referred to this as another legal possibility when he was Irish Commissioner during the 2001 and 2002 Nice Treaty referendums.

In practical reality the EU Prime Ministers and Presidents can agree unanimously to keep all 27 Commissioners if they are so inclined, as a political necessity, and it is hard to see anyone objecting or being able to enforce legally a contrary position.

The National Platform EU Research and Information Centre
24 Crawford Avenue, Dublin 9, Ireland
Tel. 00-353-1-8305792
Web-site: www.nationalplatform.org

- top page

* *

Irish Times article by British Conservative Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague ... Saturday 26 July 2008:

NO OUTSIDER HAS ANY RIGHT TO TELL THE IRISH HOW TO HANDLE LISBON
William Hague

The result of the Irish people's verdict on the Lisbon Treaty is still reverberating across Europe - and how could it not? With people in every other European country denied any direct say on the treaty, Irish voters had to speak for every European.

The hope that they would give voice to concerns held across the Continent was felt acutely on the other side of the Irish Sea, where in a breach of an election manifesto promise, the Labour government has denied British voters any say on the Lisbon Treaty at all, either in a referendum or at a general election.

The Irish people not only spoke for those who were not given a voice; they also spoke with courage. It was no surprise to Ireland's well-wishers that threats that Ireland would suffer should the"wrong" answer be given were counterproductive, but it is shocking that in today's Europe senior figures in European governments should seek to influence another nation's democratic decision with bullying language.

It is now incumbent on politicians across Europe to appreciate the meaning of Ireland's vote and to absorb its lessons. The Irish public has, if anything, been inundated with commentary from those outside Ireland who were unhappy at the result. Now that Irish voters have made their choice, it may also be useful if if those outside Ireland who thought the Irish people came to the right decision were to set out their understanding of what has happened and made some suggestions for what Europe should do next. This is one attempt to do that.

First, it is clear that Ireland's No was not a No to Europe, any more than the French and Dutch rejections were; it was a pro-European No. There is no evidence that this vote represented a rejection of the EU or its ideals: a continent united in peace and co-operation.

Second, it has been claimed that the No was simply the result of an inexpert public's inability to see throrugh the treaty's complex legal language to the shining merits of its content.

That so many among Europe's poltical elites' first response has been to dismiss the referendum result as an outrage from a country supposedly ungrateful to its Brussels benefactors and whose voters' decision must shortly be reversed is deeply troubling. It is an extremely patronising view.

Nor does it strike me as a healthy democratic reaction. When voters reject a cherished proposal it is wiser for politicians to ask, not "why have the people got it so wrong", but "how have we got it wrong". If the argument is that treaties are too complicated for voters - in other words that referendums on EU treaties are only justified if the voters say Yes - one might as well argue against elections on the grounds that most voters aren't experts on tax law or the finer points of education policy.

Neither is blaming Lisbon's failure on popular incomprehension a strong point for the treaty's supporters. How good can a treaty be if, after months of national debate, its merits cannot be comprehensibly explained? Would any of us in our normal lives sign up to a document we did not nderstand?

Third, it is apparent that a vast number of people in Ireland, as in many other European countries, do not want the extension of EU power and the weakening of individual countries' voices in Europe, like that of Ireland.

Lisbon would mean exactly that, whether it is the bigger role for the EU in defence, including a mutual defence commitment, its new powers over foreign policy or Ireland's smaller voting share and loss of a guaranteed EU commissioner. On that point it is worth noting that the current treaties require unanimous agreement for any new arrangement on the number of EU commissioners. So talk of Ireland automatically losing a commissioner unless Lisbon goes through is wildly misplaced.

It is equally true that the majority of Irish voters are not alone in rejecting a more federal future for Europe. In Lisbon's earlier guise as the EU constitution it was rejected by the French and Dutch. Polls showed that voters in up to 16 EU member states would have rejected Lisbon had they been given the chance to vote.

This leaves us with the question: what next?

Of course, the straight and simple answer is that No means just that. The EU is a union of democratic sovereign nation states and if the electorate of one EU country rejects a treaty then that should be that. It is a matter for the Irish government whether the Irish people are asked to vote again, and it is a matter for the Irish people what their response to such a move should be. No outsider has any right to tell the Irish how to handle the matter. That being the case, there must be no question of any punishment of Ireland.

Moroever, the rejection of Lisbon does not actually present any real problem for the EU. Contrary to all the froth about an enlarged Europe's desperate need for the EU constitution/Lisbon Treaty to work efficiently, the quiet truth is that the EU is in fact working perfectly well under the current treaties.

Meanwhile, it is looking increasingly likely that at the next British general election, now less than two years away, the British people will choose a new government. If Lisbon remains unratfiied by all EU members states, a Conservative government will put Britain's ratification of the treaty on ice and hold a referendum, recommending a No vote to a document we believe represents an outdated centralising approach to the EU. So the chances are growing that Ireland's voters will not be alone in saying No to Lisbon for long.

William Hague is a former British cabinet minister, who later led the Conservative Party from 1997 to 2001. He is currently Shadow Foreign Secretary.

What Irish Taoiseach Brian Cowen should now do on Lisbon

ANDREW MURRAY looks behind the headlines to discover the root causes of the ongoing crisis in Georgia.

THE conflict now unfolding across Georgia with terrible human consequences is a tipping point in the global "long war" of the last seven years.

Make no mistake, it is a conflict which can only be understood in the context of the same war already causing carnage in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia and menacing Iran.

That is to say, it is a further conflict which has its ultimate cause in the ambitions of the US ruling elite to impose a global hegemony.

It differs from the other fronts in the war in that the aspect of inter-imperialist conflict is the main determining factor in the Georgian crisis.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have borne the stamp of wars of neocolonial aggression. The question of the sovereignty of the people resisting invasion and occupation is the main one, whatever other cross-currents there may be.

Of course, there have been differences between great powers over Iraq, as there were over the Yugoslav war of 1999. But these differences have remained at the diplomatic level.

In the Georgian crisis, this balance is reversed. National independence is an issue, but not in the same way.

The peoples of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the two disputed regions, do not wish to be ruled from Tbilisi, but the idea of full national independence has not been raised and is, particularly in the former case, scarcely practical.

Georgia will, on the other hand, claim to be asserting its national independence from Russia. Yet it is led by a government which has fully dissolved the country's independence into an alliance with the US, turning it into the explicit and avowed instrument of George Bush's global policy.

And it surely had the green light from Washington before embarking on its sudden effort to conquer South Ossetia by force last week, sparking the crisis by shelling civilians whom it regards as its own citizens and Russian peacekeepers into the bargain.

Thus, the confrontation between South Ossetia and Georgia became immediately a confrontation between Russia and the US. "Russia's aggression must not go unanswered," Dick Cheney announced on Monday.

Pausing perhaps from trying to figure out how he can yet get his war with Iran going before leaving office, the US vice-president has returned to the original Project for a New American Century handbook in his response to the crisis.

It has been an explicit aim of the neoconservative faction in the US establishment to prevent any reintegration of the "former Soviet space." The sole superpower aims to stay the sole superpower, which means, among other things, stopping Russia reviving as a rival superpower.

Therefore, those peoples who, like the South Ossetians, have found themselves stranded on the wrong side of what became interstate boundaries overnight with the collapse of the Soviet Union cannot be permitted to reintegrate with Russia even if it is their overwhelming desire to do so.

Conventional wisdom will put the conflict down to "enduringÉ territorial and ethnic hatreds," in the Sunday Telegraph's words, or "historic grudges," in those of The Observer. These are convenient liberal bromides - the real enduring tradition here is great-power rivalry.

In fact, Ossetians and Georgians rubbed along all right in Soviet times, at least in part because neither was in a position to lord it over the other.

South Ossetians could form part of Soviet Georgia while their kin on the other side of the barrier of the Caucasus mountains in North Ossetia could be a constituent element of Soviet Russia because they were all, ultimately, Soviet. And people of all the various nationalities of Georgia intermingled with little friction.

That was before the break-up of the Soviet Union and Georgia attaining first its independence and, more recently, the status of fully fledged US satellite.

The latter development suits not just neoconservative strategy - to avoid the consolidation of any rival power centre by keeping the world a patchwork of diminutive states wherever possible - but also helps Cheney's energy policy.

Georgia sits astride the only pipeline sending oil westward from the Caspian Basin that does not pass through Russian territory. For that reason, Bush has showered special attention on Georgia's government which, like all its post-1991 predecessors, came to office via a coup rather than election.

Despite this and the suppression of opposition political activities last November, the Tbilisi government has been hailed as a "pro-Western democracy," as if the two aspects were inextricable. It is, of course, the "pro-Western" element which is decisive for Washington if one or the other has to be discarded.

Hence President Saakashvilli announcing that the Russian attack on his country was an "attack on the US itself" and one of his spokesmen asserting that, if Russians are allowed into South Ossetia today, they could turn up in any European capital tomorrow.

In seeking to spread the conflict, Cheney has material to work on. The statement by the Ukrainian government, most likely after consultation with the White House, that it would drive the Russian navy out of its historic Crimean base in Sevastopol would certainly provoke a clash if an attempt was made to act on it.

The "pro-Western" Ukrainian government is only able to utter this threat in the first place because the Crimea was moved to Soviet Ukraine from Soviet Russia somewhat arbitrarily by Khrushchov in the 1950s.

This mattered little at the time, but it has become a running sore since 1991, as the population would rather be in Russia again. Indeed, they turned out in vast numbers to protest at a visiting US military "training mission" last year.

There is also a very substantial minority of ethnic Russians in the Ukraine who would probably welcome closer ties with the Russian Federation.

These potential flashpoints highlight the fact that, in many cases, the formerly internal borders between Soviet republics do not work as interstate boundaries. They are a consequence of the indecent haste with which Boris Yeltsin and his cronies liquidated the Soviet Union the better to get their hands on the levers of power in Russia.

Not only are there national minorities, often Russian, now in the "wrong" state, there are also peoples who, having neither the means nor even the aspiration to set up fully fledged nation states of their own, felt much more at ease in a large multinational federation than they do in a smaller nation state dominated by a single national group.

Since one of the undoubted successes of the nationalities policy of the Soviet Union was its promotion of the cultural, linguistic and educational development of each ethnic group, no matter how small or how historically marginalised it had been, all now have both an enhanced awareness of their distinctive rights and the means of articulating them.

This could all be resolved peacefully were the US not hell-bent on using every difficulty and difference as a lever to keep its putative Russian rival weak and "in its box."

This is a recipe for an unending series of escalating conflicts as Russia strengthens itself and seeks to reassert its role - sometimes, no doubt, with right on its side and sometimes not.

Ultimately, the matter of principle is reasonably clear. Ossetians and Abkhazians do not want to be governed from Tbilisi, just as Georgians do not want to be governed from Moscow. Let each define their own future, within or outside the Russian Federation, free from coercion.

But there is absolutely no positive part to be played by a duplicitous and power-hungry US administration stoking up trouble in yet another part of the world.

The anti-war movement has long warned that the conflicts in the Middle East and south Asia, dreadful as they have been and are, would most likely only be the foothills of a still bigger war unless the US drive to world hegemony was decisively challenged.

We are now out of the foothills and progressing towards a situation that more unmistakably bears comparison with 1914. More than ever, the need for Britain to break with Cheney's foreign policy and challenge the slide to ever-widening war is the main imperative.

Cheney, Bush and the Georgia crisis

New poll finds Irish voters are strongly against a second referendum and would vote 'NO' by an even bigger margin than before if one were held.

A new Red C poll commissioned by the think tank Open Europe finds that Irish voters are strongly opposed to being made to vote again on the Lisbon Treaty. The poll also finds that nearly two thirds say they would vote 'no' in a second referendum.

The poll of 1,000 Irish voters was carried out between 21 and 23 July - shortly after Nicolas Sarkozy's visit to the country. It is the first poll to look at a second referendum.

Key findings:

71% oppose a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Only 24% are in favour.
Of those who expressed an opinion, 62% said they would vote 'no' in a second referendum, compared to 38% who would vote 'yes'.
That would mean the 'no' lead would increase from 6 points in the recent referendum to a commanding 24 point lead in a second vote.
17% of those who voted 'yes' in the recent referendum would vote 'no' in a second referendum, while only 6% of those who voted 'no' would now vote 'yes'. Perhaps most significantly of all, those who did not vote last time would vote more than two-to-one against in a second referendum: 57% would vote 'no' and 26% would vote 'yes'.
67% agreed with the statement that 'politicians in Europe do not respect Ireland's no vote'. Only 28% disagreed.
61% disagreed with the statement that 'If all of the other 26 EU countries ratify the Treaty in their parliaments then Ireland has to change its mind and support the Treaty.' Only 32% agreed.
53% said they would be less likely to vote for Brian Cowen at the next election if he called a second referendum. In particular, 43% of Fianna Fail voters said they would be less likely to vote for him.

Full results of the poll are available (.pdf file) at: www.openeurope.org.uk/research/redc.pdf

Open Europe Director Neil O¹Brien said:
'Voters don't feel that Europe's political class have respected Ireland's decision. Their response to the referendum result has obviously appeared arrogant to some voters. By appearing to bully the voters, EU politicians are actually driving lots more people into the no camp.'

'EU leaders who are trying to force Ireland to vote again are playing a very dangerous game, and it looks like Brian Cowen could be putting his political life on the line by calling a second vote.'

'Sadly, Europe's political leaders don't seem to have taken on board the Irish vote - or the French and Dutch votes for that matter. They should drop the Treaty and concentrate on solving the EU's real problems like the lack of openness and accountability.'

Leading pollsters Red C surveyed 1,006 adults aged18+ in Ireland between 21 and 23 July 2008.

New poll finds Irish voters are strongly against a second referendum

ON JUNE 9th, days before the Irish people voted to reject the Lisbon Treaty, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute published its compendium on military spending. Its main findings show that world military spending in 2007 was $1,339 billion, arms sales by the largest 100 arms companies in 2006 increased by 8 per cent in nominal terms over 2005 and many arms control and non-proliferation agreements are faltering or making little progress. The No vote by the Irish people was a major victory not just for the Irish peace movement, including Pana, the Peace and Neutrality Alliance, but also for the European and international peace movement.

The reason is that the issues of Irish independence, the militarisation of the EU and the commitment to Irish neutrality were central to the No vote.

The Irish Times /TSN mrbi polls carried out in the week before the vote where responses were unprompted and respondents were allowed to give more than one answer, showed safeguarding Irish neutrality (between 22 to 25 per cent) and keeping Ireland's power and identity ( between 18 to 24 per cent) were the main reasons for the result.

The alliance had campaigned for Irish independence, democracy and neutrality, which show that our case for a No vote was central to this great victory of the Irish people.

This is especially so as other organisations that campaigned for a No vote, such as Libertas, never mentioned neutrality and their main issue, that of safeguarding Ireland's corporate tax, was given as a reason by only 5-12 per cent. Now Nicolas Sarkozy, France's president and the current president of the European Council, is paying us a visit seven days after celebrating the anniversary of the French Revolution. Since Wolfe Tone, who wrote a pamphlet in favour of Irish neutrality in 1790 is one of our heroes, it would be reasonable to suggest the alliance and Sarkozy are inspired by the same events.

However, the revolution gave birth not just to the traditions of liberty, equality and fraternity, but also to Napoleonic imperialism. There are no prizes for guessing which tradition Sarkozy belongs to.

Indeed, in a leaked diplomatic memo, a senior Irish civil servant. concerned about Sarkozy, said that he did not want the referendum to take place while France held the EU presidency.

As he continues to attack the French social model, his popularity with the French people has declined, probably mirroring his growing popularity among the Yes campaigners in Ireland, the vast majority of whom are enthusiastic supporters of his militaristic, neo-liberal agenda.

He seeks to massively accelerate the process of the militarisation of the EU and to establish a 60,000-strong EU army; to improve the maritime and air support for this army; expand the existing EU planning cell into a full EU military headquarters, double the funds for France's military space assets up to €700 million a year and give a priority via the European War (Defence) Agency to seek the "harmonisation" of the European armaments companies and review the European security and defence policy that already commits the EU states to pre-emptive war in accordance with the Bush doctrine.

Not content with accelerating the militarisation of the EU, Sarkozy also wants to integrate France into the Nato military structures and to intensify the links between the nuclear armed military alliance and EU military structures.

All this drive towards war and more wars is happening at a time when Nato, EU and US military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are under pressure, the wars are spreading into Pakistan and yet another war is threatening to start in Iran. At the same time, the growing cost of all these wars is causing the possible collapse of the western neo-liberal capitalist system.

Faced with this, the Irish people, far from being "out of our minds" in rejecting this horrific vista, have shown to the world a rare glimpse of sanity and reality by voting No to Sarkozy and his treaty. The irony is that it is the global peace movement and the alliance that are the realists. It is our message of inclusive dialogue, negotiations and social justice that will provide the means by which global stability and sustainable growth can be restored.

It is war and the threat of war that is creating the economic crisis: "disaster capitalism" as Naomi Klein calls it. The Irish No vote was a tremendous decision that echoes the historic vote 90 years ago when the Irish people's vote in favour of the Irish Republic marked the beginning of the end of the British Empire. Far from examining why people voted No, the Irish media's time would be better spent asking why people voted Yes.

Let there be no doubt whatsoever, if the Irish people are forced to vote again over this imperialist charter, the No vote will reach 64 per cent. A real Irish taoiseach, a republican taoiseach, would tell Sarkozy that on July 21st.

Roger Cole is chairman of the Peace and Neutrality Alliance

War and the Lisbon Treaty

issue 11 - May/June 2008
A Publication of the Independence / Democracy Group

Letter from the Editors
As the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty comes closer, some Irish citizens might be asking about the Treaty’s impact on the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), in particular with regard to the specific interest of the neutral, so called “non-aligned” Member States of the Union.

Through new “armament”, “solidarity” and “mutual assistance” clauses, “permanent structured cooperation” among Member States, and enlarged socalled “Petersberg tasks”, among others, the Treaty of Lisbon may give a “massive boost to the EU’s defence ambitions” (Geoffrey van Orden) and have “a dramatic impact in the field of common foreign and security policy” (Andrew Duff).

Our contributions analyse the Lisbon Treaty’s respective provisions and their possible impact on the ESDP, also highlighting the sensitive positions of the non-aligned Member States.

Current problems of the ESDP and its relations to other defence alliances are critically analysed, outlining possible solutions for the establishment of a genuine European defence alliance.

Further to these and as a follow-up to the previous issue, the principle of primacy of EU law with particular regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights is subject of a detailed scrutiny.

Hoping that you will enjoy reading our contributions and looking forward to receiving your feedback.

Klaus Heeger and Karoly Lorant

- download PDF file (1.4 MB) EUWatch_May-June2008.pdf

by Roger Cole - Chair Peace & Neutrality Alliance.
After the French voted no, I wrote this letter to the Irish Times..

"The EU Constitution is dead. It will not make any difference if it is dragged around the states of the EU like some 21 st century Dracula. A stake has been driven through its heart by the French people, and the Dutch will do the same".

I was right about the Dutch and wrong about the EU Constitution, it has returned like a bad movie sequel. On average 75% of the people in the EU want the right to vote on it, but only we are allowed. Showing solidarity with the people of France, Holland and those denied a vote, provides enough justification on its own, to vote no.

You'd get a great welcome if you went on holiday to France or Holland after voting no. The same applies for England. New Labour broke their word and refused their people the right to vote and had their worst result in 40 years.

If you want to venture further, try Saxony. The European Court of Justice ( the EU Supreme Court) decided that a Lower Saxony law obliging public building contractors to respect local collective agreements was incompatible with EU law when a Polish company paid workers the Polish minimum wage, only 46.5% that of Lower Saxony. The case was similar to that of the Laval and the Viking Judgement, so add Finland and Sweden to your holiday destination list.

The ECJ decisions are sustained attacks on the wages and working conditions of workers throughout the EU. Social Europe is dead and gone; it's with the well heeled right wing Irish social democrats in the grave. A trade unionist voting yes would be like a turkey voting for Christmas.

If the major corporations plan to increase their profits by ensuring workers incomes are drastically reduced, then what better way of getting away with it than by engendering fear of "terrorism" and enriching the arms industry corporations? For PANA, the militarisation of the EU is one of the cornerstones of the treaty and a continuation of the "war on terrorism".

Irish neutrality is already destroyed. The main parties advocating a yes vote have already supported the invasion, conquest and occupation of Iraq by the US because it wanted to consolidate US/Israeli military domination of the Middle East. Over a million US troops have used Shannon Airport on their way to the war. Ireland is a US aircraft carrier in total contravention of the 1907 Hague Convention. The militarisation of the EU can only be understood in the context of the Iraq war and of the integration of Ireland into the US/EU/NATO military structures to ensure Ireland's full and active participation in the resource wars of the 21 st century, wars in which the defeat of the US/EU/NATO axis is the only inevitable outcome. These wars have already cost the US and its vassal states, well over $3 trillion and have caused a massive global economic crisis, the responsibility for which is shared by the yes campaigners. Not content with supporting President Bush, they now want to drag us even deeper into the "war on terrorism" via this treaty.

Ireland has already signed up to the EU's Security Strategy in 2003 with it's codification of preventive war in tandem with Bush's policy. The EU Parliament voted 414 to 117 in November 2006 to approve a report highlighting the links with NATO stating that the, "EU is on the way to developing into a Security and Defence Union." It also voted not to respect the decision of the Irish people. The EU Council in 2004 agreed to; "enhance the operational capability of the EU and provide the framework for the strategic partnership between the EU and NATO".

The Lisbon treaty continues and legalises the process of the militarisation of the EU and strengthening EU/NATO links.

Ireland "shall undertake to improve their military capabilities". The European Defence Agency the function of which is to expand and improve EU military expenditure is part of the treaty. In December 07 the EU Commission made it clear that the emerging EDA will mean even more arms exports and a boost to the global arms trade. If you want to support the arms trade make sure you vote yes.

Up to now the concept of the EU as a Partnership of Independent States was expressed by the fact that the position of EU President was rotated between all the states. That now ends with the appointment of an EU President and Minister for Foreign Affairs with an EU Diplomatic Service, for a de facto 5 year period.

We would have to, "support the Union's external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity". When President Barosso said the EU had the, "dimensions of Empire", he was not joking.

The mutual defence and solidarity clauses, the military Structured Cooperation clauses that allow a group of states within the EU to create their own armed force to take part in more "demanding" military expeditions and the EU Battlegroups leave no room for doubt about the militarisation of the EU. The French have already called for the six largest EU states to establish a 60,000 strong expeditionary army. No wonder the leaked memo said the referendum should not be held later this year because, "the risk of unhelpful developments during the French Presidency- particularly relating to EU defence- were just too great".

When people vote the key question is: what kind of Europe do they want? If the want a centralised, militarised, neo-liberal superstate allied to the US engaged in wars all over the world, then they should vote yes. If they want a Partnership Europe, a partnership of Independent, Democratic States, legal equals, without a military dimension, then they should vote no. The referendum is not just an Irish battle, it is a European battle fought on Irish soil, and is one PANA needs to win.

What kind of Europe do you want?

This commentary is offered to the public by the People's Movement and the National Platform, organisations that form part of the Special Observer Pillar of the National Forum on Europe.

It has been compiled in consultation with individuals belonging to a number of other organisations in the same "Pillar".

Enquiries should be made to Patricia McKenna, Frank Keoghan or Anthony Coughlan.

Anthony Coughlan is solely responsible for the specific comments made. See also the web-sites: www.peoplesmovement.org and www.nationalplatform.org

A SUMMARY GUIDE TO THE TREATY OF LISBON
- EU Reform Treaty -
National Forum on Europe - January 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

FOREWORD

BACKGROUND TO THE TREATY

SUMMARY GUIDE
- Introduction
- Structure of the Treaty
- Values and Objectives
- EU institutions
- EU Powers and Decisionmaking
- Decisionmaking
- Enhanced Cooperation
- Common Foreign and Security Policy
- Freedom, Security and Justice
- Charter of Fundamental Rights
- Changes in Economic Governance Field
- Procedure for Future Amendments
- Clauses of General Application
- Adoption, Ratification and Entry into Force of of the Treaty of Lisbon

GLOSSARY OF TREATY TERMS

SUMMARY LIST OF NEW AREAS FOR QUALIFIED MAJORITY VOTING (QMV)

COMPARISION WITH THE EUROPEAN CONSTITUTION

EARLIER EU TREATIES

EU TREATY AND ENLARGEMENT HISTORY (TIMELINE)

A Critical Commentary on the National Forum on Europe's "Summary Guide to the Treaty of Lisbon"

Written and researched by Mark Doris
- May 2008

This paper shows that Ireland's commitment to international peace, justice and disarmament has been progressively rolled back over the past decade. The record of recent governments and, to a lesser extent, of opposition parties and independents, in the area of Ireland‘s foreign and defence policy is set out in three parts.

The first part focuses on the controversial use of Shannon airport, in particular its use as a staging post or refuelling stop for troops and/or munitions en route to a war in Afghanistan of dubious legality and an illegal war in Iraq, and its use by agents of the United States as a stopover point in secret abduction and torture operations.

The second part outlines the extent to which Ireland has become involved in various military structures outside the remit of traditional United Nations peacekeeping missions. These include NATO and the newly-formed EU Battlegroups. The third part summarises the Government‘s response to Ireland‘s participation in the international arms trade. Afri intends this paper to be a resource that will assist ongoing monitoring and debate in this important area of Irish policy.

We also wish to suggest what the current government – elected by the 30th Dáil – must do to reverse the process of militarisation we have witnessed over the last decade, and how Ireland's foreign and defence policy might be demilitarised and renewed in the future.

Download document (pdf file 530 kb): militarisation-irl.pdf

The Militarisation of Ireland’s Foreign and Defence Policy: A Decade of Betrayal, and the Challenge of Renewal

Sinn Féin believes Ireland’s place is in Europe. Co-operation with our European partners is valuable and must continue. Sinn Féin has supported EU measures that are in Ireland’s interests in relation to Irish agriculture, the environment and equality. We welcome EU support for the peace process in Ireland and for the development of infrastructure. However, not everything has been good and this Treaty is a step too far and is a bad deal for Ireland.

Contrary to what the government has claimed no matter how people vote in the referendum Ireland’s place in the EU will be secure.

You can support the EU and be against the Lisbon Treaty. You can support the EU and still want to see democracy and accountability. You can support the EU and still believe that our government should use their position positively and not go along with what suits the larger countries.

The Lisbon Treaty referendum will have huge consequences for this country and it is important that there is a mature debate. In January the National Forum on Europe produced a summary guide to the Lisbon Treaty. Unfortunately despite detailed discussions with them we felt that the final document was biased and so have produced our own an alternative guide to the Lisbon Treaty.

I want to commend the National Forum on Europe for their work and for agreeing to circulate this alternative guide to the Lisbon Treaty alongside their own document. I would encourage as many people as possible to read the Lisbon Treaty which can be accessed at www.no2lisbon.ie

Download Guide (pdf file 2,300 kb): LisbonAlternativeGuide.pdf

Sinn Féin Alternative Guide to the Lisbon Treaty

I would like to thank the Forum on Europe for the invitation to speak here today. On June 12 th the people of this state will take a decision of immense importance. Whatever side of the debate you are presently on, and particularly for those who have yet to make up their minds, it is important that the debate on the Lisbon Treaty is open, honest and frank. Sinn Féin is committed to such a debate and we welcome the opportunity to discuss these important issues today and in the coming weeks.

It is disappointing that we will not have a referendum in the North. Despite the fact that the Lisbon Treaty will affect all of us on this island, those of us who live in the North are being denied the right to a referendum.

I am particularly pleased to be addressing the Forum on May 1 st , international labour day. Workers rights have been a central focus of Sinn Féin's political efforts. At a time of increasing economic uncertainty, rising prices, rising unemployment and recession, the issue of workers rights is more important than ever. The issue of workers rights is also central to our party's analysis of the Lisbon Treaty, I will return to this later.

Republicanism and Europe
At the core of my approach to politics is a deep belief in the republican ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity. These ideas emerged from one of the foundational moments of modern Europe, the French Revolution. Every generation of Irish republican political thinkers has sought inspiration from the progressive currents of European political thought. Republicanism, from its origin to the present day is a European political movement, committed to creating a society based on popular sovereignty, personal liberty and social, economic and cultural equality

These values form the benchmark against which Sinn Féin assesses the Lisbon Treaty not only in establishing the impact of the treaty on Ireland, but also on the European Union and the wider world.

Ireland's place is in Europe
Sinn Féin's believes that Irelands place is within the EU. Irish membership has brought social and economic benefits to Ireland, north and south. We are also aware that not everything has been good news, and often proposals that emerge from within the EU institutions have negative effects on Ireland. So we believe that the best approach to the EU is to critically assess each proposal on its merits. When something is in Irelands interests, or indeed the interests of the European Union as a whole, we support it. However when something is clearly not in our interests or that of the wider EU, we oppose it and campaign to change it. Our MEPs have demonstrated the value of this approach by supporting progressive proposals on the floor of the European Parliament aimed at combating poverty, inequality and social exclusion, promoting human rights and tackling climate change, while opposing attempts to undermine public services, workers rights and environmental sustainability.

Today in Ireland and within the European Union institutions Sinn Féin is playing an active role in the ongoing movement to build a European Union, which deepens meaningful democracy and meets the highest standards of accountability and;

Protects and promotes civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights
Assists member states in building prosperity and equality
C ombats poverty, inequality, discrimination and social injustice
Pursues environmentally responsible and sustainable development policies
Promotes conflict resolution, peace building and global stability internationally
Protects neutrality, opposes militarisation and the arms trade

And which assists the developing world overcome global poverty, inequality and disease

These are the positive policies that we stand for and which any proposal must contain if it is to secure our support.

Lisbon Treaty
It is in this context that we come to the Lisbon Treaty. Does it advance the interests of the Irish people, the European Union and the wider world? Does it promote equality and sustainable economic development? Does it promote greater democracy and transparency within the EU institutions? Does it seek to play a constructive role in ending conflict and building a more peaceful world?

We also look to how if affects this states position within the EU. Does it strengthen or weaken our influence in the EU?

After serious analysis and internal debate, Sinn Féin has taken the view that the Lisbon Treaty represents a bad deal for Ireland, for the EU and for the developing world.

Democracy
There is little doubt that the European Union is currently suffering from a crisis of confidence across the member states. Turnouts for European Parliamentary elections are at an all time low. In the 2004 the average turnout across the EU was 45%. In the Netherlands it was 39%. In Britain it was 38%. Similar figures were recorded in Portugal, Spain, France, Denmark, Germany, Austria and Finland. A significant number of newer member states recorded turnouts less than 28%. While this states turnout is marginally better at 55%, it is still significantly lower than turnouts for Leinster House.

By comparison, when the peoples of France and the Netherlands rejected the EU Constitution in 2005, turnouts were significantly higher. In France 70% of voters went to the polls rejecting the Constitution by 55%. In the Netherlands turnout was 62% of which 61% said no.

Across the EU voters no longer understand or have confidence in what the EU stands for, where it is going, and how it takes its most important decisions.

The Lisbon Treaty was an opportunity to rectify this situation. Unfortunately it does the very opposite. It further centralises decision making in the EU institutions and gives the EU more than 100 new powers across a wide range of policy areas. This figure includes more than 30 new legal competencies, the loss of more than 60 vetoes for individual member states, a range of new roles and offices and self-amending article including Article 48. This is a significant increase in the powers of the EU and to date no argument has been made to explain or justify such changes.

The Treaty also significantly undermines the role of small states within the EU's decision-making process. In addition to losing the right to an Irish Commissioner for 5 out of every 15 years the Treaty also proposes to reduce this states voting strength on the Council of ministers by 50%. While the loss of a Commission affects all states, larger states like Britain, France and Germany increase their voting strength at Council by 50%. Indeed the Irish delegation to the Convention on the Future of Europe resisted the loss of a Commissioner, only to cave in at the end. And while privately they are admitting that the loss is a real negative in public they are suggesting that it is a good deal. Combined, these changes mean that Ireland will have less influence in the design of future proposals, less weight in key decisions, and a reduced capacity to block decisions that are not in Irelands interests.

The self-amending clauses are important to mention here. These article allow the Council, acting by unanimity, to transfer decisions to Qualified Majority Voting and, under article 48 to amend existing treaties. While any application of Article 48 would be subject to ratification by member state parliaments, there is no guarantee of a referendum. Indeed anyone reading UCD law lecturer Rossa Fanning's article in the Irish Times on April 22 would conclude that Article 48 could be applied to a large range of policy areas without any recourse to a referendum.

Supporters of the Treaty tell us that it will make the EU more democratic by giving more powers to the European parliament, member state parliaments and citizens. However when you look at the detail of these new powers they are found to be wanting. And the government's suggestion that the Lisbon treaty involves the greatest transfer of power to the member states is complete and utter nonsense.

While the increase in co-decision within the European Parliament is significant, it continues to play a secondary role to the European Commission. The Treaty also does nothing to address the gap between the work of the Parliament and citizens in member states.

With regard to member state parliaments, the proposed measures are minimalist. Member states will be given an extra two weeks to scrutinise proposals coming from the Commission and if a third of member states believe the proposal breaches the principle of subsidiarity they can object. Of course the Commission is not obliged to do anything other than "consider" the objection.

The orange card, which has a somewhat different connotation in Ireland, is an even less effective tool, as its application requires the support of half the member state parliaments and either the European Parliament or Council. Eight weeks is too short a period for effective scrutinising of detailed EU proposals, as anyone involved in the Oireachtas European Affairs Committee or European Parliament will admit. The limitation of these measures to the issue of subsidarity is extremely restrictive. And the requirements to secure support of other member state parliaments or the European Parliament or Council constitute extremely high barriers to their application.

I wonder if either of these tools would ever be successfully applied if this Treaty is ratified.

The citizens initiative is similarly weak. While as a lobbying tool it has merit, and is already being used, once again there would be no obligation on the Commission to do anything other than "consider" any proposal. It also sets a dangerous precedent, whereby the minimum number of signatures required to have a proposal even considered by the commission would have to be 1 million.

On balance, when one weighs up the increased centralisation of powers, the self amending article, the loss of influence of smaller member states and the weak measures offered to member state parliaments and citizens, there is no doubt that the Lisbon Treaty is a bad deal both for Irish and EU democracy, and if ratified will deepen the existing democratic deficit.

Neutrality and Militarisation
Sinn Féin has long advocated a policy of active neutrality, rejecting participation in any military alliance and supporting an enhanced role for the United Nations in resolving conflicts around the world. We have also been for a greater focus on solving the causes of conflict, such as political and economic inequality and instability and the absence of democracy. Our own experience of conflict and conflict resolution has taught us that the path to peace is not to be found in increasing military capabilities but in dialogue, inclusivity and equality.

After Nice 1, the Irish government assured the people that there would be no erosion of neutrality or participation in a common defence without a referendum. However actions by this Irish governments and the impact of the Nice Treaty continue to undermine neutrality. The use of Shannon airport by US troops on route to Iraq; financial contributions to the European Defence Agency; membership of Partnership for Peace and the new EU Battle groups are all in breach of clear international definitions of neutrality.

At the same time there is a growing desire among many of the more powerful Governments at the heart of the EU project, to see the Union develop its own military capability, independent of the United Nations and in concert with NATO.

This state is playing an increasingly significant role in both NATO and the evolving EU military structures. Irish troops serve at NATO HQ in Brussels under the NATO-led 'Partnership for Peace' initiative. Irish troops have served in NATO-led missions, including Afghanistan. There is a full-time EU Military Staff headquartered in Brussels which is responsible for ''command and control' of EU military capabilities - this reports to an EU Military Committee, which in turn reports to the EU Political and Security Committee and from thence upwards to the EU Council of Ministers. Irish army officers serve with the EU Military Staff, and this state is represented at all other levels of this network. In terms of actual military operations, the EU can call upon a number of Battlegroups - groups of 1,500-2,500 soldiers capable of being deployed within 15 days of agreement by the EU Council of Ministers. The first EU Battlegroup deployment - to Chad- is under the command of an Irish Lieutenant General.

The Lisbon Treaty undermines neutrality further. Its makes clear that the EU will have common foreign and common defence policies and that such a policy must be compatible with NATO. While the exact detail of such policies is left to a future date, and the Irish government retains its veto, there is no doubt that the end goal is clearly defined. Do we want a common foreign or defence policy with countries such as France, Britain or Germany. Are the strategic and international interests of this state best served within such a context? In my view they are not.

Article 28 of the Lisbon Treaty contains three separate clauses that will result in increased member state spending on domestic and EU military capabilities. The article states clearly that member states must progressively improve their military capabilities, as directed by the European Defence Agency. The same article also establishes a start up fund for foreign or defence interventions as yet undefined and a mechanism for rapid access to appropriations again for interventions as yet unspecificied.

While this state will retain the right to opt out of any future military interventions, a new procedure contained in Lisbon, called "structured cooperation" would allow a smaller number of member states to agree a foreign policy or military intervention to be carried out with the imprimatur, finance and logistical resources provided through the EU.

More troubling is the expansion of the list of approved military actions, known as the Petersberg Tasks. To date these tasks have been primarily focused on peace building and humanitarian intervention. However under Lisbon this list is expanded to include disarmament missions and provision of military assistance.

As a consequence of the Lisbon Treaty, this state will be drawn even further into the emerging EU military capacity.

The Economy
The Irish economy is changing. Recession, unemployment, loss of tax revenues have all hit the headlines in recent months. There is a consensus that the boom is over and a new approach to the future of the Irish economy is urgently required. The challenge is to tackle the existing levels of Celtic Tiger inequality while delivering the next generation of jobs in the Irish economy. This means supporting indigenous business and the farming community and ensuring that we remain an attractive location for investment. This means investing in infrastructure, education, public services and workers rights. The Lisbon Treaty hinders efforts to ensure that Ireland is economically successful.

The Lisbon Treaty hands powers to the European Commission to complete the internal market in services as envisaged under the widely opposed Services Directive, accelerating the race to the bottom in terms of pay and conditions.

Public services, defined as Services of General Economic Interests, will be subject under article 16 to new "economic and financial conditions", meaning that services like health care and education, would be subject to the rules of competition.

Indeed in their recent written submission to the National Forum on Europe IBEC argued that the Lisbon Treaty " ...creates the legal basis for the liberalisation of services of general economic interest...[including]...Health, Education, Transport, Energy and the Environment."

This will inevitably result in further privatisation and in turn greater levels of inequality.

The Treaty Protocol on the Internal Market and Competition provides the EU with a mandate to remove "distortions" to service provision - which are likely to include important protective workers' rights regulations

Contrary to claims made by the Labour Party The Charter of Fundamental Rights does not guarantee workers rights.

The negative implications of the Lisbon Treaty for workers is part of a continuing trend. David Begg, General Secretary of ICTU summed up this trend saying, "While business rights are being codified and strengthened, workers can only expect loose frameworks and vague approaches to enforcement."

There has been dismay at the recent European Court of Justice judgement in the Laval case which upheld the right of a Latvian company operating in Sweden to import Latvian workers to do the job at Latvian rates rather than compelling them to pay Swedish rates. The recent Rueffert ruling bans public authorities from putting conditions respecting collective agreements on the award of public contracts.

These ECJ judgements followed on from other negative developments such as the Services Directive and the Green Paper on "flexicurity". They indicate the direction of current EU policy and how the new provisions in the Lisbon Treaty will be employed.

Workers and trade unionists should note the governments failure to protect pay and conditions and enforce labour law when our labour market was opened to workers from the accession states.

In the past much progressive social legislation has had its origins in the EU and on this basis it has been supported by trade unionist and others. Unfortunately in the last decade these gains have been undermined by developments that have sought to sacrifice a progressive social agenda in favour of a narrowly defined focus on competitiveness.

In recent weeks we have seen a significant level of concern from within our farming community about the current round of World Trade Organisation trade talks. Irish farmers and development NGOs are rightly concerned at the agenda being pursued by European Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson, an agenda that is bad for Irish farmers and the developing world. The approach of the current Trade Commissioner is part of a pattern that emerged under his predecessors Pascal Lammy and Leon Brittan and will continue after he is gone. It is an agenda that aggressively promotes free trade irrespective of the costs to European family farms and rural communities, or the world poorest communities and countries.

The Lisbon Treaty contains new provisions that will considerably strengthen the Commission in its pursuit of free trade over fair trade.

Article 2 (b) gives the EU exclusive competence over commercial policy, including the negotiating of international trade agreements. Article 188 gives the Commission power to initiate and conclude negotiations including international trade agreements at the same time as transferring the final decisions on such agreements from unanimity to Qualified Majority Voting at the Council, thus ending this states veto. Article 10(a) mandates the "progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade" to be one of the EUs guiding principles in its interaction with non-EU member states. Restrictions would include agricultural subsidies, preferential treatment for developing world companies in government procurement contracts or environmental and workers protections.

Last week Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny, addressing this very Forum urged the Irish government to use its veto at the Council if the outcome of the WTO trade talks is bad for Irish farming. We agree with Fine Gael on that. The Irish government should use its veto but the question is why does Fine Gael - why does the government, want to give up this veto.

If the Lisbon Treaty is passed, that veto will be gone. What will we do then in future rounds of WTO talks? This treaty, like the Mandelson proposals are clearly not in the interest of Irish farmers. They are going to do with the farming industry exactly what they have done with the fishing industry if we let them.

The situation for the Irish business community is just as serious. Moves towards tax harmonization rightly worry most Irish people. If we take a step back and take a cold look at the political realities we see that the European Commission is committed to bringing forward a proposal to bring in a common corporate tax base this year. We know that a majority of Member States including France, one of the biggest, and the next holders of the Presidency are in favour. Fine Gael and Labour MEPs have also voted in support of measures on EU Tax harmonisation. The Irish people should consider very carefully the implications of accepting Lisbon when to do so will empower these forces to create a common corporate tax base with or without Ireland.

Article 48's new procedure for amending aspects of the Treaty (the self-amending article) maps out another new way around the Irish veto. At present the Government can't drop the veto without a referendum. If Lisbon Treaty goes through a referendum is not required. A citizen's right to a vote on this matter will be removed. Why should any state ask its citizen's to give up the right to vote? Why on earth would any Government or political party campaign to remove this right?

All Irish political parties say they are committed to maintaining tax sovereignty. The Treaty makes it easier to bring in tax harmonisation. Anybody who is serious about defending our ability to define our own tax policy must say NO to Lisbon.

I would now like to take a few minutes to respond to some of the arguments raised by supporters of the Treaty over the last few months at the Forum.

Charter of Fundamental Rights
Sinn Féin strongly supports any measures that enhance the protection and promotion of human rights and equality at home, in the EU and in the wider world. We support the Charter of Fundamental Rights. We have called for its incorporation into EU law, and for its inclusion in a non-Constitutional Treaty.

However, the claim that the EU Charter is somehow a major step forward in human rights is an illusion. Even its advocates acknowledge that it is little more than a restatement of existing human rights law. Indeed, in its analysis of the Charter the Institute for European Affairs argues that it 'does not create any new rights' and moreover that the social and economic rights in the Charter 'do not give rise to direct claims for positive action'

Social Clause
Much has been made in some quarters of the Social Clause contained in Article 9 of the Treaty. It is agued that this paragraph constitutes a significant advance in the struggle for a more equitable EU. I wish this was the case. Unfortunately the Clause will go the same way as the commitments to social cohesion and environmental sustainability in the Lisbon Strategy and the Social Chapter before it. As former European Roundtable of Industrialists General Secretary Keith Richardson said of the Social Chapter, it is, "a large waste of time...If politicians feel it is important to get a chapter referring to the desirability of full employment, and if they think it will help with public opinion we don't really object...provided of course that it remains in general terms, related to aspiration." And so it will be with the Social Clause, a worthy aspirational statement, used to secure support for the Treaty and quickly forgotten by the Commission and Council once it has served its purpose.

Contrary to claims by some supporters of Lisbon that it is the most social Treaty to date, it signals the final death of Social Europe with little thought for social or environmental consequences.

Vote no for a Better deal for Europe
Supporters of Lisbon say that to challenge or to reject this Treaty is an anti-European act. They have argued that rejection of Lisbon will bring economic devastation, political isolation and international ridicule.

All of these claims are false. They are the stuff of scaremongering and blackmail.

The threat to our economy is not in a rejection of Lisbon. It is in the ongoing privatisation policies of the government and the failure to properly invest in education, health, childcare, research and development, and broadband. Rectifying these failure will be all the more difficult if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified.

Like the vast majority of people on this island I believe that Ireland's place is in Europe. Benefits have come as a result of our membership of the EU and continued co-operation with our European partners is essential if we are to meet the challenges facing us in the time ahead. And one thing is certain. Regardless of the outcome of the referendum Ireland's place in the EU will be secure. The question now facing the Irish people is - is the Lisbon Treaty a good deal for Ireland, is it a good deal for the rest of Europe. The answer, I believe is a resounding no.

However rejecting the Lisbon Treaty is not enough. We need to argue for a better deal for Ireland and a better future for Europe. If Sinn Féin were involved in such a negotiation our objectives would be to secure:

A permanent EU Commissioner and reform of the Commission itself
A greater equality in voting procedure at the Council
A meaningful mechanism for member state involvement in the legislative process
The abolition of all self amending article
A specific article recognising and protecting neutrality
Opt outs ending financial support for nuclear power, the European Defence Agency, the start up fund and all other areas of military expenditure
Protocols reserving this state's right to continue making its own decisions on taxation
Specific measures promoting and protecting public services such as health and education
A greater emphasis on promoting fair trade over free trade and a significant increase in the importance of the development and aid agendas
Concrete protections for workers rights

160 years ago, revolution swept across the continent of Europe as ordinary people demanded their right to political liberty, social and economic equality and national solidarity. 1848 was known for decades as the Spring of Nations, and brought the ideas of the French Revolution into also every country on the continent. Ten years later James Stevenson founded the Fenians, and mobilised the marginalised and dispossessed of this country to the cause of Irish independence and social and economic equality. Today 150 years on Irish republicans continue to be part of that European wide movement for a more democratic and more equal world.

In the spirit of the French Revolution and the Spring of Nations, Sinn Féin is calling on the citizens of this state to reject the Lisbon Treaty, to reclaim the future of Europe and in doing so secure a better deal for Ireland and our European neighbours.

Gerry Adams MP address to NFOE

by Roger Cole - Chair Peace & Neutrality Alliance.
National Forum on Europe debate on the Renamed EU Constitution (The Lisbon Treaty), Plaza Hotel, Tallaght, Dublin - 24 April 2008.

In June 2008 the Irish people living in the Republic of Ireland will have the right to vote on whether they accept or reject the Renamed EU Constitution, now called the Lisbon Treaty. It certainly will not happen in October. According to a leaked memo, by then the French Government, whose Presidency of the EU commences in July will be substantially progressing its plan to accelerate the militarisation of the European Union. The last thing the Irish political elite wants is for the people to vote on the Lisbon Treaty in full knowledge of its facts and implications. The attitude of the Irish political elite towards the people is clear an unambiguous. It is one of keeping them in the dark, and feed them full of manure.

PANA therefore now make the clear demand that the referendum be postponed until October, so that when they vote, the people will be fully informed of the contents and reality of this Imperial Charter. In fact, the polls show that a massive number of people do not know enough about the treaty, so even on a democratic basis, to ensure the people make a decision in on informed basis, the referendum should be postponed until October.

Irish people living in the six counties have been denied their right to vote in this referendum, as have all the other peoples in all the other states of the EU, even though public opinion polls have shown that on average 75% of the people want to have one. The reason behind why they are not being allowed to vote is simple, the French, the Dutch, and many of the other peoples in the EU, would vote no.

Therefore if the Irish people in this state vote no, far from becoming the laughing stock of Europe, we will be welcome everywhere, especially in France and Holland be the ordinary people. They do not want this treaty. So, if you do go on your holidays to virtually any of the states of the EU your going to have a great holiday if you vote no.

The only group that want this treaty is the political elite of the EU because it transfers power away from the people and their national democratic institutions, to the elite and their institutions that is, the EU Council of Ministers, the EU Parliament, the EU Commission and the EU Court of Justice. They are creating a European Superstate, a European Empire ruled by an elite, not by the people. By refusing to hold referendums they are making it crystal clear that they wish to rule without the consent of the people.

To quote Jose Barroso, President of the EU Commission speaking on the treaty on the 10/7/07: "Sometimes I like to compare the EU as a creation to the organisation of Empire. We have the dimensions of Empire".

Indeed we recently had the bizarre sight of a German Chancellor and a Portuguese politician coming to Ireland telling us how to vote in a referendum. When there is no referendum in their own countries.

Of course Ireland was part of a militarised, centralised, neo-liberal Superstate before, it was called the British Union and Empire. Leaders like Isaac Butt and John Redmond actively encouraged Irish participation in the Battle Groups of the British Union as they took part in Imperialist wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, the Sudan and many other parts of the world.

The only difference now, is that their successors, the advocates of a of a yes vote in Ireland, now support the Battle Groups of the European Union. The Irish Remondite Imperialist tradition is being restored.

They have already destroyed Irish Neutrality by turning Ireland into a US aircraft carrier, as over 1 million US troops have landed in Shannon Airport on their way to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Planes that carry prisoners to torture chambers are not searched. All they now offer is more wars and, in particular, and maybe very soon, a war on Iran. The EU/US/NATO axis is building missile bases in Poland and the Czech Republic to defend Europe against Iran, a State that's GDP is substantially less than Holland's.

These Imperialist wars have cost the US over $3 trillion and it has account liabilities of $53,000 billion. The UK cost alone is at least Euro 6 billion, so the cost to all the EU states is much greater. These wars have led a major crisis in the global capitalist system. Its supporters are committed to totally supporting them and the so-called Washington Consensus neo-liberal economics that underpins them.

Now, with their hands covered in the blood of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people they have helped kill, the Irish elite now want to drag us even deeper into more wars by supporting a treaty that further transforms the EU into a militarised, centralised, neo-liberal superstate.

When groups like the Peace and Neutrality Alliance organised massive demonstrations against these wars and Ireland's involvement with them, we were right. The only step that will restore global economic stability is the withdrawal of the EU/US/NATO armies from Afghanistan and Iraq, and their Zionists allies go back to their 1967 borders.

A no vote to this Imperial Charter will be not be just a rejection of militarisation of the EU, it will be a rejection of the US/EU/NATO military agenda long advocated by the US neo-cons and their Irish supporters that has brought so much death, destruction and economic chaos to the world.

In 1948, the Western European Union, a nuclear-armed military alliance was established. In the last few EU treaties the assets and competences of the WEU have been transferred to the EU, leaving only that of collective self-defence. Andrew Duff, MEP and Rapporteur of the Foreign Affairs Committee on the Lisbon Treaty believe that the WEU should now be terminated completely because the Mutual Defence clause 28A (7) provides for mutual self-defence. It states:

"If a member state is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all means in their power, in accordance with Art. 51 of the UN Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain member states. Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those states that are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence."

The policy of Irish neutrality has already been destroyed. This clause in the treaty legalises its destruction.

Instead of funding the Irish health service the Irish Taxpayers will have to fund the militarisation of the EU which is the main function of the European Defence Agency. Article 28(3) provides for the establishment of a start-up fund for the EU military as outlined in the Petersburg Tasks. In Article 28(2) EU states are also charged in accordance with the GDP scale for expenditures arising from operations having military or defence implications. Ireland will also have to pay for administrative military expenditure, which is paid out of the EU budget. The EU Council can also decide unanimously to charge all military expenditure to the Union budget Article 28(2).

Ireland will also have an obligation to "progressively improve" its military capacity.

The Irish defence budget is already over Euro 1,079 million with an army of little over 10,000. There are already Irish troops in Afghanistan and Kosovo and many more are being sent to Chad. A highly sophisticated US guided missile system has been purchased for use in backing up France's military in its neo-colonial state run by Debray, its local dictator, and will cost the Irish taxpayer €60million at least, this year alone. The initial cost for the missile system is Euro 13million and each missile costs Euro 75,000. Each confrontation could cost Ireland up to a million euro.

Let there be no mistake or misunderstanding. The advocates of this treaty virtually all have private health insurance. They do not care about the sick.

They want to spend more money on weapons and take part in more wars and spend less money on the health system. They want the EU to be more like the US, which spends 46% of the global military expenditure and has 46 million of its citizens with no health care.

If the Irish people vote for this Imperial Charter then that is exactly what they will get.

As the EU Foreign policy Chief, Javier Solana talking about military expenditure so clearly said: "there is an absolute requirement for us to spend more, spend better, and spend more together". (EU Observer, Nov 20 th , 2007)

The Protocol on Permanent Structured Cooperation states: "Recalling that the common security and defence policy of the Union respects the obligations under the under the North Atlantic Treaty of those member States which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which remains the foundation of the collective defence of its members, and is compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework; Convinced that a more assertive Union role in security and defence matters will contribute to the vitality of a renewed Atlantic Alliance, in accordance with the Berlin Plus arrangements(the sharing of EU/NATO assets)."

Irish people should vote no to a EU Common Foreign Security and Defence policy that is compatible with the use of nuclear weapons as a first strike weapon and contributes to the "vitality" of an existing nuclear-armed military alliance.

Structured Cooperation allows a group of states within the EU to form permanent military groups to implement the "most demanding" military adventures. It is not clear if once established these groups can have their own defence policies. Their military operations shall be "in accordance with the principle of a single set of forces" which is just another way of saying an army, a European Army. France is already proposing that the six largest EU states establish a massive EU intervention Army using this Protocol.

The Secretary General of the nuclear-armed military alliance, NATO Jaap Hoop Scheffer recently called upon NATO and the EU to pool their military forces and make them equally available to both the EU and NATO.

Finally, PANA was established in 1996 to advocate Irish Independence because we believed it was the intention of the Irish/EU political elite to integrate Ireland into the EU/US/NATO military structures in order to ensure Ireland's full and active participation in the resource wars of the 21 st century, wars in which the defeat of the EU/US/NATO axis would be the only and absolutely inevitable result. The Irish people, on their own, cannot stop this process. The Americans, French, British, German and other peoples living in the axis states can only do this. We can however, vote NO to this process by voting No to the treaty and obtain a Protocol, similar to that which the Danes already have. This would exclude Ireland from paying for, or involvement with the militarisation of the EU. If we win, we would hope that other people in the remaining EU states would follow our example.

This year marks the 90th anniversary of the decision of the Irish people to establish the Republic in the 1918 election. It is a good year to stand by that Republic and to reject the born-again Redmondites that support this Imperial Charter.

The choice facing the Irish people on the 12 th of June is between a Partnership Europe and an Imperial Europe. PANA stands by the Irish Republic and a Partnership Europe and urges to people of Ireland to vote no.

This year also marks the 150 th anniversary of the foundation of the Fenian Movement, the Irish Republican Brotherhood.

The Irish people have a real decision to make in this referendum on the 12th of June. Either they vote no and stay on the stepping-stones to the Republic as advocated by Michael Collins, one of the greatest of the Fenians by voting no, or they re-establish the Irish Imperialist tradition by voting yes. It is a big choice and PANA is confident that given a fair and democratic opportunity to vote, with the full knowledge of the facts, the Irish people will vote NO.

Partnership Europe of Imperial Europe

EU Watch - issue 10 - Feb/Mar 2008
A publication of the Independence/Democracy Group

Letter from the editors

Dear "EUWatch" reader,
The Treaty of Lisbon inserts a new Article 6 into the Treaty on European Union (TEU) which stipulates that the Union “recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union” and that this Charter "shall have the same legal value as the Treaties."

What does this mean for the new Union as shaped by the Treaty of Lisbon?
Will the Charter extend the field of application of Union law or establish new powers or tasks for the Union?
Are specific national provisions, such as the Czech Republic's Beneš Decrees compatible with the Charter?
Will the citizen benefit from a more efficient and coherent fundamental rights protection or will, on the contrary, traditional national human rights be at risk?
Will this Charter and the Union’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 6.2 TEU) raise competence and demarcation issues concerning the scope of the Charter, its relationship with individual Member States’ Constitutions and the European Convention on Human Rights?
May this lead to a lack of legal certainty and hence to a confusion of law and/or powers which will tend to detract from the notion of improving protection of fundamental rights?
Who will be responsible for interpreting this Charter and which Union principles, e.g. those of the single market, might limit the rights set out in the Charter?

These are the main questions addressed by the various contributors from the Czech Republic, Ireland, France and Germany.

While other article focus on the “unsettled” referendum debate in Austria and on Hungary’s "precipitous" ratification of the LisbonTtreaty, "Europe in Numbers" takes a critical view of the actual benefits of monetary union.

Hoping that you will enjoy reading our contributions and looking forward to receiving whatever comments or reactions you may care to give us, we remain,
Yours faithfully,
Klaus Heeger Karoly Lorant
Chief Editors

- download PDF file (2,127 kb) euwatch10.pdf

Independence/Democracy Group - www.indemgroup.org
European Parliament, Rue Wiertz, 60 - D4 02 M055 - 1047 Brussels, Belgium

The Impact of the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights

Volume 1, Number 1 April - June 2008
"Every nation, if it is to survive as a nation, must study its own history and have a foreign policy"

Editorial Statement
This is the first issue of Irish Foreign Affairs, a quarterly journal established to comment on foreign policy and on global affairs from an independent Irish perspective.

The Irish State was founded with a core foreign policy idea – the notion of the right of the Irish nation to have an independent state of its own and through that state to make a distinct mark in the world. The limits of this independence were necessarily first and foremost the ability of the state to develop and act free of British constraints.

Until the 1960s, Irish citizens took for granted that this was what the state was about. People knew the Proclamation of 1916 with its foreign policy position, and there was in general a remarkably high level of knowledge about foreign affairs. This knowledge of the world was not derivative of the British liberal media and was informed by commentaries from a uniquely Irish perspective in newspapers such as the Irish Press, various journals, and even in early RTE television.

Today such a perspective is difficult to find. The Irish seem no longer to think about such things. Commentary and debate on foreign policy is largely derivative and often little more than a provincial echo of British concerns or pop fashions.

Fashionable views now proclaim independent Ireland to have been “insular” and “inward looking”. The ending of this sad state of affairs by the “opening up” of Ireland since the 1960s is hailed as a major step in its “growing up”. This is a nonsense. Ireland in many ways has become a narrower, more derivative place.

Nationalist Ireland had always argued with itself about its role in the world: Redmondites saw an Irish future as a junior partner with England in a world imperial project, while the Sinn Féin Party which won the 1918 election in a landslide victory sought connections with the world independent of and at odds with that empire.

In challenging the British Empire, the Irish Independence movement raised the flag for all nations subordinated against their will within that empire, and became a beacon for their subsequent strivings for statehood. This reputation has remained strong across the world, particularly in popular liberation movements, though, as Conor Lynch reports in this issue, it is a reputation now understandably under threat.

The distorted development of the Free State resulting from the 1921 Treaty imposed on it under threat of “immediate and terrible war” was reflected in its early foreign policy. No faction of the Sinn Féin movement, including those who supported in retrospect the signing of the Treaty, believed in or openly defended the castrated sovereignty it bestowed. At the time it was signed Michael Collins wrote an article (re-published here) advocating that the Free State become “a pivot in a league of nations” which would lead to the dissolution of empire. But already even this focus back to possibilities within the confines of empire was a distorted development. It was easily abandoned when the project to build the Republic was resumed under Fianna Fáil in 1932.

Under de Valera Ireland played a high profile role in world affairs, notably following his election to President of the League of Nations. Even before that he was making an impression as an international statesman, as reflected in his shrewd handling of the Soviet bid for League membership described in an article by Manus O’Riordan in this issue. “Insular” and “inward looking” indeed!

De Valera’s role advocating collective security while major powers plotted a replay of the First World War, and his role in asserting and vindicating Irish independence by ending British military occupation in 1938 and declaring Ireland’s neutrality in any new imperialist war, are key touchstones in the history of Irish foreign policy, and a cause of great headaches to those embarrassed by that history and seeking to revise it.

Connecting with Europe as a way to free the country from political, economic and security dependence on Britain was a much discussed idea in Ireland and reflected in the 1916 Proclamation.

Membership of the EU has been a cornerstone of recent Irish development. But it does not represent Ireland “opening up”. How can you “open up” something that was never closed? From the start of the European process we sought involvement in it, but were constrained by our continued economic dependence on Britain (96% of Irish exports were still to Britain in the late 1960s). Charles de Gaulle was politely emphatic on why Britain could not join the EEC (see his speech reprinted in this issue). When membership became possible, an overwhelming majority of the electorate supported it, and repeated this support in various referendums until the Nice Treaty vote in 2004.

British membership in comparison has been unpopular there and resisted and resented since. Irish governments – and the electorate – have repeatedly supported radical reforms to deepen the integration of Europe. Under Haughey Ireland was steered into very close relations with Germany and France, the driving force of the European Federalist movement. But the end of the Cold War and the reemergence of British world power ambitions have disrupted the development of Europe and distorted the direction it is taking.

This first issue of Irish Foreign Affairs critically examines these issues and draws consequences for the position we propose in relation to the Lisbon Treaty process, a process from which the EU of the Treaty of Rome must be saved.

Irish Foreign Affairs

éirígí, believing as it does that Irish political and economic control should be under the collective jurisdiction of the Irish people rejects the European Union’s proposed Lisbon Treaty and encourages people to bin the treaty by voting No in the upcoming Twenty-Six County referendum.

If implemented, the Lisbon Treaty will mark the latest sell-off of the limited independence that Ireland secured with the 1921 British withdrawal from the Twenty-Six Counties. It will also ensure that Twenty-Six County legislation, labour practices and political and military alliances will be further ‘harmonised’ on a EU-wide basis. This ‘harmonisation’ will, without doubt, be designed to protect and promote the political and economic interests of the most powerful states within the EU.

The Treaty itself is a cynical re-draft of the EU Constitution, which was rejected by the electorates of France and the Netherlands in referenda in 2005. The reformed (Lisbon) Treaty includes many of the most reactionary provisions of that Constitution, but bypasses the need for democratic accountability by referenda in many member states.

This was confirmed by the German chancellor Angela Merkel in June 2007 when she stated; “The substance of the constitution is preserved. That is a fact.”

The Lisbon Treaty will, if implemented, adversely affect the lives of half a billion people in 27 separate states. To date only the electorate of the Twenty-Six Counties have been permitted a vote on the Treaty, with the people of the Six Counties being denied a vote due to the British occupation.

éirígí believes that this scenario places a special onus on the electorate of the southern state to reject the Treaty, not only in the interests of all the people of Ireland, but also on behalf of the people of Europe, who are being denied a voice at this crucial juncture.

The Treaty, if implemented, will entail:

Further militarisation of the EU, with each member state contributing to an overall EU military capacity, which will work in close conjunction with NATO – effectively ending the concept of Irish neutrality.
The removal of national vetoes in around 50 policy areas and an extension of the areas under which decisions are taken by qualified majority, particularly in policing and judicial affairs.
A reduction in the number of commissioners from 27 to 18, with the simultaneous strengthening of the role of president of the European Commission.
The recognition of the EU as having a legal personality, entitling the EU to conclude, in its own right, agreements and treaties in the name of all member states.
A reduction in the voting strength of the Twenty-Six Counties, and other smaller states, thus giving more power to larger states.
The primacy of European law over national law, even if in contravention of the Twenty-Six County constitution.
The harmonisation of ‘market policy’, paving the way for the further encroachment of neo-liberal, ‘free’ market economics across the EU.

Anybody who is any doubt about the extent of the anti-democratic changes planned for the citizens of Europe should keep an eye on the expostulations of its leading statespeople. Here are just two of their opinions on the rights of European citizens:

"The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it" - Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister and Vice-Chairman of the Convention Constitution, speech at London School of Economics, February 21 2007.

"Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would it be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?" - Jean Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxembourg, Daily Telegraph, July 3 2007.

The Lisbon Treaty clearly centralises more powers and competencies in an embryonic EU super-state through the reduction of national vetoes and the autonomy of individual states. In the Irish context this diminution of national sovereignty will lead to a further erosion of independence, democracy and neutrality.

éirígí will be highly active in encouraging people to vote No to Lisbon and begin the fight back against the many and varied attacks on Irish national sovereignty.

We appeal to all those who share our concerns to get involved in the campaign.

- download PDF file (2406 kb) eirigi-lisbon.pdf
- website: www.eirigi.org

éirígí say no to the Lisbon treaty – Say Yes To Democracy And Independence

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche
Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche, the chairwoman of the Civil Rights Solidarity Movement (BüSo) in Germany.
- April 2008

How dangerous the militarization of the EU, through the Lisbon Treaty, is, and its planned integration with NATO, should be totally clear, if you look back at the changes that are under discussion in NATO itself.

Among these are the proposed changes of the NATO statutes, which impose majority-rule, exactly the same thing as the right of veto by individual states which is being eliminated under the EU Treaty. The Treaty provides that the defense policy of the member states must be compatible with NATO, that the Solidarity clauses of the EU mean simply the same as NATO's, that the two institutions are melded into one imperial power, and that no member state could resist any military interventions.

Even though this is not yet the official policy of NATO, one must still take seriously the direction in which certain neoconservative circles want to alter the alliance.

Under the title, "Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World," five retired generals have published a new strategic concept for NATO, in which a new defense structure of the United States, the EU, and NATO would meet six fundamental challenges: population growth; climate change; energy security; the increase of irrationality, and the decline of reason (!); the weakening of national-states and world institutions such as the UN, the EU, and NATO; and "the dark side of globalization," which includes international terrorism, organized crime, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the misuse of financial resources or energy control, migration, HIV/AIDS, and SARS.

The paper, which is signed by the five former chiefs of staff, Dr. Klaus Naumann (Germany), Field Marshall Lord Inge (U.K.), Gen. John Shalikashvili (U.S.A.), Adm. Jacques Lanxade (France), and Gen. Henk van den Bremen (the Netherlands), is an extremely alarming document.

The above two paragraphs are from
www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/03/18/helga-zepp-larouche-no-europe-empire.html

Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World - Executive summary.
In every country, and at all times, we like to rely on certainty. But in a world of asymmetric threats and global challenges, our governments and peoples are uncertain about what the threats are and how they should face the complicated world before them. After explaining the complexity of the threats, the authors assess current capabilities and analyse the deficiencies in existing institutions, concluding that no nation and no institution is capable of dealing with current and future problems on its own. The only way to deal with these threats and challenges is through an integrated and allied strategic approach, which includes both non-military and military capabilities.

Based on this, the authors propose a new grand strategy, which could be adopted by both organisations and nations, and then look for the options of how to implement such a strategy. They then conclude, given the challenges the world faces, that this is not the time to start from scratch. Thus, existing institutions, rather than new ones, are our best hope for dealing with current threats. The authors further conclude that, of the present institutions, NATO is the most appropriate to serve as a core element of a future security architecture, providing it fully transforms and adapts to meet the present challenges. NATO needs more non-military capabilities, and this underpins the need for better cooperation with the European Union.

Following that approach, the authors propose a short-, a medium- and a long-term agenda for change. For the short term, they focus on the critical situation for NATO in Afghanistan, where NATO is at a juncture and runs the risk of failure. For this reason, they propose a series of steps that should be taken in order to achieve success. These include improved cost-sharing and transfer of operational command. Most importantly, the authors stress that, for NATO nations to succeed, they must resource operations properly, share the risks and possess the political will to sustain operations.

As a medium-term agenda the authors propose the development of a new strategic concept for NATO. They offer ideas on how to solve the problem of the rivalry with the EU, and how to give NATO access to other than military instruments. They further propose bringing future enlargement and partnership into line with NATO’s strategic objectives and purpose.

In their long-term agenda the authors propose abandonment of the two-pillar concept of America and Europe cooperating, and they suggest aiming for the long-term vision of an alliance of democracies ranging from Finland to Alaska. To begin the process, they propose the establishment of a directorate consisting of the USA, the EU and NATO. Such a directorate should coordinate all cooperation in the common transatlantic sphere of interest.

The authors believe that the proposed agenda could be a first step towards a renewal of the transatlantic partnership, eventually leading to an alliance of democratic nations and an increase in certainty.

Download full document (pdf file, 152 pages) from the
Center for Strategic and International Studies website: www.csis.org/media/csis/events/080110_grand_strategy.pdf

No To Europe as an Empire: The Militarization of The EU Must Be Stopped

Speech given by Daithí Mac An Mhaistír (éirígí) at a meeting organinsed by Anti-War Ireland, in Cork City on Thursday, 27th March, 2008.

"The pooling of coal and steel production should immediately provide for the setting up of common foundations for economic development as a first step in the federation of Europe ."

The Lisbon Treaty is the culmination of a long process of economic and political integration that has its roots in the Schumann Declaration , of May 9 th 1950, on the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community, from which the words I have just quoted are taken.

The truth is that the Lisbon Treaty is quite clear about its economic intentions for Europe. It is quite clear that it favours the principle of profit over people. Valery Giscard d'Estaing may have asserted that the EU Constitution proposals, rejected by the French & Dutch in 2005 for the very reason that they represented an attack on the notion of a 'social' Europe, would be retained, hidden and disguised in some way in the Lisbon Treaty [Le Monde, 2007].

But, thanks to the Trojan work of a number of people here and in Europe we have the evidence to present to the working people of Ireland that this is a treaty that does not have their interests at heart.

Jonas Sjöstedt is one of those people. His paper, entitled The Lisbon Treaty - Centralization and Neoliberalism , very clearly outlines how the adoption of Lisbon will compound the ever-increasing erosion of economic and political sovereignty that the European Union project represents. The CAEUC's document Vote NO for a Democratic, Social and Demilitarised Europe (available for download at www.caeuc.org) is another authoritative text on the various aspects of the Treaty, including the one that we are dealing with here presently - that of the likely effects of so-called 'trade liberalisation' on the lives of working people throughout Europe. This paper draws heavily from both documents. I would encourage you all to source both and read them.

The Lisbon Treaty, like all EU treaties before it, promotes the need, and therefore greed, of private business over the needs of people.

Debacles such as the privatisation of Eircom and massive water charges for schools are only a taster of what is to come if the Lisbon Treaty is passed.

In real terms this treaty means that private corporations will be evermore facilitated to make vast profits from essential services such as healthcare and education. This is not scare-mongering.

This treaty continues a policy dating back to the 1980's whereby 'restructuring' of essential public services such as water and sanitation, public transport, energy, post and telecoms has taken place. This 'restructuring' has led to the widespread conversion of these public services into private businesses. The Lisbon Treaty is now taking aim at the crucial public service areas of health, education and social care. Neo-liberalism is EU policy, and it is pushed further by this renamed constitution. ( Vote NO for a Democratic, Social and Demilitarised Europe , CAEUC).

In this regard, Lisbon will authorise the EU Commission to enter negotiations with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) with the objective of promoting, (and I quote) "the achievement of uniformity in measures of liberalism", and, the (I quote) "progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade and on foreign direct investment" ( Article 188 )

Subsequent to Lisbon, these negotiations will be conducted, for the first time, on the basis of a removal of the right to unconditional veto in the areas of health and educational services that members States once held.

The simple fact of all of this is that the Lisbon Treaty would make privatisation of our health and social services easier.

Consider, if you will:

How EU treaties all state that the free market, in goods, capital, services and labour etc., take precedence over all other concerns
How, in the EU, a company's right to sell goods is more important than environmental or consumer protection, or worker's rights (as in:
1) the case of Vaxholm - Laval, where the ECJ gave limited protection to the right to strike in pursuit of the 'minimum', yes, minimum, worker's rights - crucially however, providing that this strike action didn't preclude the free movement of goods and services ), and
2) Where the ECJ struck down the Volkswagen law in Germany - in place since 1961 (which put company policy in State hands), opening up the way for a hostile takeover by Porsche.

Both of these cases clearly show how "the ECJ prioritises freedom to buy companies, move capital and maximise profit. Employment, control of production and the environment take second place". ( Vote NO for a Democratic, Social and Demilitarised Europe , CAEUC).

Consider how member states will be severely limited in their ability to legislate for any measure that is considered to be an obstacle to the free movement of goods, services and labour.
How this, in turn, clearly limits laws that are intended to improve the environment (as we shall see later) or consumer protection.
How this is particularly serious given that countries will be actively prohibited from leading the way and showing that it is possible to implement better laws in pursuit, again for example, of environmentally sustainable development.
"It puts new measures into treaty law - which is impossible to change - rather than domestic law, which can be changed by a change of government". ( Vote NO for a Democratic, Social and Demilitarised Europe , CAEUC).
This is an important point, and therefore should be re-stated: The EU will introduce a whole range of new laws (given the huge increase in its 'competencies') that cannot be changed, and will prohibit National parliaments introducing laws that contradict them.
The EU's internal market is considered so crucial that there is even a special article, ( Article 297) , that states that the internal market must be upheld even when countries are at war.
The EU advocates, as an explicit goal in the Treaty, a policy of deregulation and privatization in pursuit of the objective of an internal market with free competition.
What this means is that, in effect, the EU demands the deregulation of sectors such as the postal system, ports, railways and telecommunications.
With respect to the service sector, there are several explicit demands for deregulation included in EU treaties.
The EU's Services Directive, which gave rise to the scandal at Irish Ferries, has a solid foundation in the proposed Lisbon Treaty.
The treaty also states that: "All restrictions on the movement of capital between member states ... and third countries shall be prohibited" ( Art 56 ).
Even with respect to economic policy, the treaties lean sharply to the right. The rules for economic policy and the single currency have a pre-eminent goal: stable prices.
This means that other goals, such as social welfare and employment always take a back seat.
Neither does the Lisbon Treaty institute any democratic control over monetary policy.
To fulfill the single currency's requirements, the EU virtually always demands that Member States cut their public spending.
On the whole, the Lisbon Treaty limits the possibilities to pursue a progressive policy in several crucial areas. With respect to equality, employment or the environment there are only very small or no improvements included in the text. The goal of full employment is added to the treaty's paragraph on goals, but in the chapter on employment the goal is then reduced to high employment.

What the people who will vote on Lisbon need to know is that the water charges that Mary Hanafin & Bertie Ahern lamented they could do so little about, came from Europe (1999). The postal and electricity directives also are also similarly designed to place these essential services and resources under so-called 'free-market', and not, democratic control

And what about the crucial public services areas of health, education and social care?

What does Lisbon have to say about these?

Will the Treaty ease the concerns of the thousands who will march this Saturday for a decent health service?

Will the proposals contained in Lisbon advance the cause of an accessible and just health system based upon need?

For the fist time Lisbon will remove the requirement that trade deals involving health, education, and cultural and audiovisual services be unanimously agreed to i.e. - the right to veto is removed ( Art 188c.4) , other than in exceptional circumstances.

These exceptions being where, a) in the field of trade in cultural and audiovisual services, where these risk prejudicing the
union's cultural and linguistic diversity, and b), in the field of social, educational and health services, where these agreements risk seriously
disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of member states to deliver them."

What the 'risk of seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of member states to deliver them' actually means is very ill-defined, and, if the ECJ's interpretation of its duty to uphold worker's rights is anything to go by (i.e. - upholding the right to strike in pursuit of the implementation of 'minimum' wage agreements only), then Lisbon holds out all the possibility that these protections will not amount to the proverbial 'hill of beans' for working people.

And why should they?

When EU Commission President Manuel Barroso likened the developing EU as a creation "to the organisation of an empire", we must remember that in empires, it is the bureaucrat, businessman and politician who prosper.

Not you or I

Lisbon and the Environment - 'Promoting' Change, Rewarding Business

When we come to the environment and what the Lisbon Treaty has to say in this regard, we again see rhetoric and vagueness but very, very little by way of substance. And to be honest - we shouldn't really have expected much more.

The Lisbon Treaty section on the environment includes a brief passage on the special significance of climate change. This article ( Art. 191.1 TFEU - consolidated text produced by the Institute of International European Affairs ), if adopted, would commit the EU to "promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, and in particular combating climate change" .

But no new authority to make decisions in this area has been introduced in the Treaty. All measures such as they exist, derive from previous EU treaties and policies.

One interpretation of the climate change reference - that of the 10 th report of the British House of Lords Select Committee on European Union ( 10.11), - notes that "the introduction into the Treaty of a specific reference to climate change is of strategic rather than legal significance."

So - on the one hand we have vague and very brief references to 'promoting' measures to combat climate change while at the very same time EU policies in the areas of agriculture, transportation and trade do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed the recent announcement by the EU Commission that EU states will have to make a 20 per cent cut in greenhouse gases by 2020 makes huge concessions to cement, steel and aluminium companies.

Indeed, EU priorities were summed up by EU enterprise commissioner Guenter Verheugen when he said: "I am all for setting an example for the rest of the world. But I am against committing economic suicide." ( Vote NO for a Democratic, Social and Demilitarised Europe , CAEUC).

This is the conflict at the heart of EU deliberations on the environment. This conflict has not been addressed in the Treaty:

"The EU favours big business over sustainable development. Market-led policy gives rise to logging of the rainforests, plantations for biofuel and ranches for cheap beef. Despite a genuflection to climate change, the Lisbon Treaty would further undermine sustainable development.

Protocol Two of the Lisbon Treaty establishes the European Atomic Energy Commission (Euratom). This prioritises nuclear energy over renewables. The Irish people have consistently rejected nuclear energy, but this treaty, like its predecessors, commits the EU to promote nuclear power". ( Vote NO for a Democratic, Social and Demilitarised Europe, CAEUC).

It is estimated that we are contributing in the region of 8 million euro annually to EURATOM. Why does it make more sense to contribute 8 million in Irish taxes to the development of nuclear energy sources rather than to the development of renewables?

Again, we need to understand that nuclear energy, like oil, is the preferred energy of big business: defined as it is by short-term gain at the expense of long-term sustainability and security.

The flip-flopping of the Green Party with regard to the EU Constitution, and then the Lisbon Treaty, rejecting the former whilst accepting the latter, is very instructive of how policy can be jettisoned and those with an agenda for change can very easily and rapidly become servants of power.

I would strongly encourage Green Party members to do the honourable thing and vote against Lisbon.

On the whole, no improvements of any importance have been made in the Lisbon Treaty in the area of environmental protection.

According to Friends of the Earth, " The EU's common agricultural policy has remained largely unchanged since the 1950s. Over the years, the goal of increasing productivity in agriculture (Art. III-227.1a) has led primarily to increased large-scale farming and the use of chemical pesticides. Additionally, agricultural policy has led to surpluses and dumping, and to skewed competition on the world market, which has first and foremost had an adverse effect on the small farmers of the developing world."

Moreover, and most importantly - 'any internal actions on environmental problems would have to be reconciled with the EU's rules on the taking of action "which distort or threaten to distort competition" ( Art 87 TFEU ), and the EU policy of safeguarding the internal market and sustaining the energy market.' (What the Lisbon Treaty Would Do - 17th March, 2008), The National Platform EU Research and Information Centre)

This is very important - again, we see that whether we are talking about worker's rights, public services or climate change - it is the rights of the 'market' and Capital that take precedence over the rights of people.

Should we really be surprised by this fact, and the consequent contempt within which the people of Europe are held by their political leaders?

Should we really be surprised that politicians serve the interests of Capital over those of people and the air they breathe?

The clearest indication of how little indeed the rights of the peoples of Europe figure in the deliberations of the 'Euroclass' is epitomised perfectly by the arrogance with which these bureaucrats and politicians approach, obfuscate, and finally dismiss the principle of democracy itself - such as it applies to the European Union construct and its workings.

When Valery Giscard d'Estaing in 2007 stated that "Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly" ... he was reflecting an attitude that epitomises, as Vincent Browne has recently written, "the modus operandi of the European Union - scorn for everyone" .

In the same article Browne goes on to state that this scorn is held "even for the Euro fans themselves - but they are so besotted they don't care.
.... The rest of us should". [Irish Times, Wednesday, March 5 th 2008]

This scorn for democracy is, (the nature of the Treaty's proposals notwithstanding), the primary reason for éirígí's decision to dedicate itself to wholeheartedly opposing this 'Reform' Treaty. To do so is to stand on the side of democracy and a vision of Europe wherein the people are sovereign; wherein politicians are the servants of the citizens of their respective States. Saying NO to Lisbon is to say yes to the possibility of a democratic Europe, to the possible realisation of James Connolly's notion that an "internationalism of the future will be based upon the free federation of free peoples", (... something that) "cannot be realised through the subjugation of the smaller by the larger political unit" (James Connolly, Forward , 1911)

This is the only vision for Europe that éirígí can countenance.

SAY NO TO A UNITED STATES OF EUROPE - SAY NO TO LISBON

Go raibh maith agaibh

Daithí Mac An Mhaistír

Promoting greed over need - Lisbon & Neo-liberalism

by Jonas Sjöstedt (February 2008)
Röda EU-tema number 10is published by the Swedish Delegation of the GUE/NGL

Respect the Will of the People!
Preface by Jens Holm and Eva-Britt Svensson

In the summer of 2005, the voters of France and the Netherlands said no to the proposed EU Constitution. In both countries debate had been intensiv and voter turnout was high. After the vote in the two countries, most other countries discontinued their efforts for ratification of the proposed constitution. Public opinion surveys indicated that voters in several other members
of the EU, including those of Sweden, would have rejected the proposal had they been given the chance.

The referendums on an EU constitution provided the EU with the opportunity for debate and self-criticism. We were hopeful that consideration would be given to criticism of the proposal, which, to a large extent, had come from the left. It was a criticism focused on the EU’s democratic weakness, its altogether too centralized power structure and its neoliberal character. The referendumsgave those in power within the EU the chance to show sensitivity and create a better Union. Unfortunately this has not happened. The proposed Lisbon Treaty that this document describes has, for all practical purposes, the same content as the rejected constitution. Few changes have been made, and where they have, they are most often symbolic. For example, the paragraph concerning EU laws’ precedence over national laws has been transformed into a binding protocol. The title for the Union’s foreign minister has been changed, but the position remains. The name for the text itself has been changed from constitution to treaty. But the content is the same. These changes have been made in order to be able to claim that the content has been changed and to make it easier to ride roughshod over public opinion in the member countries. The powers that be within the EU do not want to hear whether or not their voters want the new treaty this time either. They are doing everything in their power to avoid referendums and, thereby, serious debate on the issue.

In different countries the new treaty is described in different ways. In most quarters, not the least of which is in EU institutions, it is admitted that the new treaty is to a large degree identical to the rebuffed constitution. In France and the Netherlands, on the other hand, the governments maintain that significant changes have been made in the new text. For the ordinary voter it is not that easy to judge the content of the text that is to be the EU’s new constitution. The text is very nearly indecipherable, detailing changes in previous treaties, protocols and waivers and with references to other texts. It is a democracy problem in itself when a text that is to take precedence over our national constitutions is a virtual textual morass. Therefore, documents like this one are needed to clarify what the text actually means. We hope that this document will be a guide for citizens who want to understand what the new treaty really means.

Just as was the case with the previous proposal for a constitution, the Lisbon Treaty is a text that magnifies the EU’s failings. The text’s proposals add to the EU’s problem of deficient democracy. Still more power is concentrated in the hands of the Union’s institutions and more populous Member States. The EU is militarized in a manner that is contrary to Swedish policy of being free of military alliances. The treaty makes the market economy pre-eminent over other political concerns such as the environment or workers’ rights. It eliminates Sweden’s waiver of participation in the EU’s single currency, the euro.

The list of the disadvantages of the new treaty is long. By comparison the few positive aspects are easily outweighed. All in all, the changes proposed in the reform treaty are the most far-reaching to have been put forward since Sweden became a member of the Union. They break many of the promises concerning the right of veto, freedom from military alliances, intergovernmental agreements that those in favour of membership gave prior to the vote on joining the EU.

We want a referendum to allow the voters to be able to decide whether or not they want this new EU treaty. The arguments for a referendum now are even stronger than they were during the debate on the EU Constitution. It is also a question of respecting the outcome of the previous French and Dutch votes. It is about respect for democracy – respect for the will of the people.

The Lisbon Treaty - Centralization and Neoliberalism

by Eoin Ó Broin (An Phoblacht - 17, January 2008)

IN THE coming months, the 26 Counties will hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. The treaty is the most significant revision of the structures, procedures and policies of the EU since its foundation. It is vital that republicans understand the treaty and are able to debate the issues involved.

Recent Eurobarometer and Irish Times/MRBI polls indicate that Irish attitudes to the EU are changing. People are becoming more critical of the direction of the European Union. A majority of the 26-County electorate has yet to make up their minds on the treaty.

In the coming campaign every activist has a role to play in convincing friends, family, work colleagues and neighbours of the reasons why this treaty is bad for Ireland and the EU.

Download Sinn Féin, An Phoblacht article (pdf file) that shows you 20 reasons to say NO to the Lisbon Treaty

There is no doubt that the EU needs radical reform. Sinn Féin has a clear agenda for change. We want an EU that:-

Deepens meaningful democracy and meets thehighest standards of accountability;
Protects and promotes human, civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights;
Assists member states in building prosperity and equality;
Combats poverty, inequality, discrimination and social injustice;
Pursues environmentally-responsible and sustainable policies;
Promotes conflict resolution, peace building and global stability;
Protects Irish neutrality and opposes militarisation and the arms trade;
Assists the developing world overcome global poverty, inequality and disease.

The Lisbon Treaty does none of these things.
ANOTHER EUROPE IS POSSIBLE — BUT ONLY IF WE SAY NO TO THE LISBON TREATY

www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/23479

20 reasons to say NO to the Lisbon Treaty

by Joe Higgins (December 2007)

The smear campaign against those of us who will campaign for a 'No' vote in next year's EU Reform Treaty is already under way - a full seven months out.

Last week Sean McConnell, The Irish Times Agricultural correspondent, wandered into a press conference in Strasbourg organised by Jean Marie Le Pen, leader of the French National Front, one of the most repulsive, right wing and xenophobic parties in the EU.

Le Pen is asked if he would travel to Ireland to help groups opposed to the Treaty and predictably answers? 'Obviously I would have to be invited to go and I would have no hesitation in going to oppose it.' This finds its way onto the front page of the Irish Times of October 25 th under the headline 'Le Pen may come to Ireland to oppose EU treaty in poll.' And for good measure we are told that Le Pen's associates in the European Parliament are Mussolini's daughter and various other far right, anti immigrant parties.

In Moscow, around the same time as Le Pen's press conference, a man dubbed 'the chessboard murderer' was convicted of callously killing 48 unfortunate people. Alexander Puchishkin told the court that killing was like 'falling in love'. Too bad the Irish Times wasn't in the body of the court. 'Hey Alex, any chance you might be interested in coming to Ireland next year to campaign against the EU Reform Treaty?' Faced with the prospect of rotting in a Russian jail for the rest of his life, he would be unlikely to say 'niet', giving us a new headline , 'Serial killer may come to Ireland to oppose EU treaty.' And we might even be informed that he would be accompanied by the ghost of the Rostov Ripper executed in Russia in 1994 for murdering 52 people.

Speaking in the Dail on Thursday, Fine Gael Leader, Enda Kenny, took his cue from that morning's Irish Times as he warns, 'Every headbanger in Europe will probably be in Ireland when the referendum takes place.' His EU Spokesperson, Billy TimminsTD, reminded us that, when it comes to anti treaty headbangers, 'we have many of them at home.'

Fine Gael's anxiety is palpable as Kenny goes on to explain, 'The eyes of 500 million people will be on this country next year, as the only country voting in a referendum on the reform treaty.' Taoiseach Bertie Ahern agrees that, 'we need to cooperate closely on tactics for the referendum,' bearing in mind that 'we will not be dealing with the issue within our own shores only but will also draw attention from outside.'

So there we have it. The Irish voters are the only possible roadblock in the way of the latest neoliberal project of the EU's economic and political establishment dominated by the multinational corporations and their tools in member state parliaments. Woe betide the Irish establishment should it fail to deliver the correct result. Expect, then, most media, the churches, trade union leaders and many more besides to be pressed into service for the 'Yes' side.

A campaign of abuse against treaty opponents might indicate a lack of confidence even with the Green Party joining the establishment side. We know this for sure since Fianna Fail Foreign Minister, Dermot Ahern, told us definitively in the Dail on Thursday. 'All parties represented at the Cabinet table - the Green Party, the Progressive Democrats and ourselves' - are in favour of the reform treaty as agreed last week.' Where does that leave the Special Convention of Green Party members?

Those of us who oppose this EU treaty from an internationalist, anti xenophobic and Left perspective and are campaigning instead for a workers' Europe that is democratic and socialist, are determined that there will be a genuine debate . We will cry 'foul' when predictable sections of the media will no doubt repeat variations on the Le Pen theme.

We will show whose policies really can be said to emanate from 'headbangers'. Like forcing us to pay higher electricity prices to guarantee profits for private capitalists coming into the energy sector to 'create competition'. But isn't competition supposed to be about bringing down prices? Well yes but...

And a similar scenario for our postal services. The EU says An Post must have private competitors. So a few brave hearts will no doubt serve the corporate sector's postal needs in areas of dense population but 'handling your granny's postcards is unlikely' as the private TNT Mail UK Chief Executive cynically put it, and certainly not delivering them to the farther ends of the Erris and Inishowen peninsulas. So with the most profitable sectors of the postal service cherry picked, prices will rise for the ordinary people.

A debate on which economic direction the EU is headed, for whose benefit and at whose instigation will indeed be hugely instructive. That is why we must not allow the 'Yes' smear campaign succeed in obscuring the truth.

Reply to Irish Times article re Le Pen coming to Ireland for Lisbon Treaty referendum Campaign

Why Trade Unionist should demand a Referendum on the EU's Renamed Constitution
TUAEUC - Trade Unionists Against the EU Constitution.

As a trade unionist you will no doubt have witnessed some pretty low-downtricks and even deceit when negotiating with management on any givenissue. It may not surprise you then to learn that despite the rejection of the EUConstitution by French and Dutch voters two years ago, the EU haspresented us with the same animal under a different name.

Under its terms, member states would hand over significant governmental powers to unelected EU institutions. It would give Brussels the power to privatise any industry, force public services to be put out to ‘competition’, extend the unelected European Commission’s exclusive right to draw up new laws and commit EU member states to joining the Euro.

It represents a new and significant threat to workers’ rights to collective bargaining in the interests of creating a ‘single internal market’ without giving us the right to strike.

It would further militarise the EU and give the EU theright to extend its own police force, whose officers enjoy immunity from prosecution. All these measures and more are still in the ‘new’ treaty despite what some well-heeled politicians may tell you. In other words, it is the same treaty that TUC Congress delegates voted overwhelmingly to oppose in 2005. So remember, if it quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, then it is a duck.
-BOB CROW RMT General Secretary, TUAEUC Chair

In May 2005 French and Dutch voters, led primarily by trade unions, rejected the proposed EU Constitution, and the UK referendum we were promised by our government on it was shelved.

EU leaders declared a ‘time for reflection’ in order to decide how to continue the process of imposing a supranational state Constitution on the diverse peoples of Europe.

Their answer was to establish an ‘exclusive mandate’ in June 2007, which is designed to keep all the features of the old constitution. The bigger states like Germanyand Britain pressurised the weaker EUstates to accept this strategy as a fait accompli.

The Czech delegation regarded the summitas "a fiasco". A member of the Czech delegation stated that "without a partnerfrom one of the larger states, we werepowerless". A ‘new’ version of the Constitution, now blessed with the more harmless-sounding tag ‘Reform Treaty’, was unveiled a month later by an intergovernmental conference (IGC) set to conclude by October 18 2007.

However, the process of imposing an ‘exclusive mandate’ on states negotiating with one another is illegal under laws governing international treaties. Under the Vienna Convention that governs international law and treaties, it is the fundamental right of sovereign states to negotiate any handing over of powers.

In the past with all EU treaties, from Rome to Nice, the IGC has preceded the tabling of a draft treaty where unanimity and ratification by all member states was required.

In the case of the “exclusive mandate” these principles have been set aside by the European Council – an informal group of EU heads of government.

At the supposedly sovereign IGC, governments will only be allowed to discuss the treaty which the European Council wants. So sovereign governments are now acting under orders from the European Council, an EU body.

Before any further moves are taken to rubberstamp this Renamed EUConstitution, we believe the peoples of Britain should have a say on the matter by casting their votes in the referendum the government promised us two years ago.

Download full Pamphlet (pdf file, 504 kb) EUcontrickpamphlet.pdf
More information is available at www.tuaeuc.org

October issue of EUWatch, produced on behalf of the EU Democrats in the European Parliament and is edited by Klaus Heeger, who is legal assistant to Jens-Peter Bonde, Danish MEP.

The document gives a detailed breakldown of the different changes the EU Constitution Mark 2 would make as compared with the EU Constitution Mark 1. In legal effect the two Constitutions would be virtually the same document, although the new treaty will be an indirect way of giving the EU a Constitution as against the more direct way which the French and Dutch rejected in their 2005 referendums.

Below is a summary Table which Heeger has compiled to show how the proposed so-called "Reform Treaty" would compare wth previous EC/EU treaties as regards number of powers/competences that have been/would be surrendered by the Nation States to the supranatonal Brussels institutions.

Number of policy areas moved to QMV (Qualified Majority Voting) at European level or article requiring unanimity at EU level which were moved to QMV - in each case removing the national veto

1957 - Treaty of Rome (plus extensions): 38
1986 - Single European Act: 12
1992 - Maastricht Treaty on European Union: 30
1998 - Treaty of Amsterdam: 24
2002 - Treaty of Nice: 46
2004 - European Constitution: 61
2007 - Draft "Reform Treaty"/EU Const.2: 62

-2007 Draft Reform Treaty2004 ConstitutionNew national policy areas shifted to QMV at EU level:4149Existing EU policy areas shifted from unanimity to QMV:2021 Areas/issues in which the national veto is abolished: 6162 New law-making powers given to the EU: 3132 Other powers given to the EU 7473 Total new powers given to the EU:105105New passerelles, where the "summit meetings"
of Prime Ministers and Presidents on the European Coucil
can shift a policy area from unanimity to majority-voting
without the need for new treaties or referendums:88

Download (pdf file) EUWatch-oct2007-version18.09.07.pdf

The 2007 Reform Treaty or the Renamed EU Constitution

Erik Meijer MEP

Last week, the Dutch government announced that it saw no need to hold a referendum on the revised text which has replaced the proposed European Constitution, the so-called European Reform Treaty. A few weeks earlier, Erik Meijer, MEP, a member of the Netherlands' biggest opposition party, addressed a fringe meeting at the Trades Union Congress in the UK. Organised by Trade Unionists Against the European Constitution, the meeting was interested to hear what the state of play was in Meijer's country. This is what he told them:

There have been always advocates of a European Union Constitution. Most of those people were not the bad guys. They were mainly idealists, dreaming of a world of peace and solidarity, to start with a better Europe. The hard core of their ideas on a constitution contains more rights for the people against those powers who govern them, less freedom for multinational companies to do what they prefer to do, disarmament, environmental protection and support for the development of poor countries in the Third World.

This kind of constitutional idealism has nothing to do with the reality of to-day. The proposal of former French president Giscard d'Estaing, published in 2003, is a totally different kind of EU-constitution. It is characterized by four main elements:

First: It seeks to provide free market capitalism and the NATO military system with a constitutional basis for all eternity. It contains therefore elements of a right wing policy, such as unlimited free competition, a continuing liberalisation of services, and the obligation for all member states to improve their military capacity. Of course this is what the right advocates in general, and what they try to implement in their governmental policy, but by making it the hard core of a constitution they are trying to prevent left majorities from changing this if they win power.

Second: Instead of the current 27 member states now - which will probably be more in the future - it seeks to create a super state Europe. Justice and foreign policy, until now an area reserved to the separate states, will be included in the EU competences. A small minority of member states can no longer veto a growing number of EU laws. With unanimity the national governmental delegations in the Council can abolish for ever still more remaining rights of the member states. In addition, the European Court of Justice will have the opportunity to decide that more central decision-making is unavoidable.

Third: They create not a normal constitution, which is always a relatively short document with sections on state structure and civil rights, but a kind of telephone book with 500 article. Nobody, except those people in power and their officials, can understand and remember such a text. So it creates a monopoly for a small group of privileged people to impose their interpretation of constitutional obligations. And it becomes nearly impossible to change or to abolish all of those obligations once they have been adopted.

And at the end of the range of characteristics, number four: The constitutional text of 2003 was a 'package deal', of bad points and good points together. To get support for the bad points, they included some wishes of trade unions, environmental movements and organisations for international solidarity. In this way they hoped to integrate those organisations into their political aims. The leaders of the European Trade Union Congress were in favour of this constitutional text, for example, because they could find inside the text some elements for which they had lobbied. And by including some weak points of democratisation in the text the rulers expected that their project would be seen as desirable for everybody.

EU member states have the freedom to decide themselves on the way in which they will decide whether to support or reject this proposal for a constitution. In most states it is only a decision of the national parliament. In general 75 to 85% of the national parliamentarians are in favour of this project, but the public opinion is much more critical.

Up until now only four countries have organized referenda to approve or to reject this text. Only in Spain did the government win broad support for the constitution. They were in a hurry to be the first, leaving insufficient time for a national debate. The government asked the voters not to read the document, but to show their gratefulness for the billions of euros Spain received from the EU, for infrastructural projects and agrarian support. Despite this many voters stayed at home. In Spain the perspective of rejection was completely absent. Also in Luxembourg the government got a majority in favour, but only of 54%, and this after the popular prime minister had announced his intention to resign if he did not get enough support.

In the Netherlands and in France the constitution was defeated by the voters. In both countries there was no legal obligation to organize such a referendum, but in both cases supporters of the EU constitution took the initiative for the referendum in order to show that the majority of the people support their positive view. In France it was the President of the Republic, who is in fact the only one who has the right in law to initiate a referendum. In the Netherlands it was the parliamentary groups of three parties, the social democrats, the centre-left liberals and the Greens, who took the initiative. This was an exceptional proposal, as we had never in more than two centuries, since 1797, had a national referendum. This initiative from the constitution's advocates won a majority because we, the Socialist Party, supported their proposal, as it gave us the opportunity to resist this project.

In France and in the Netherlands the fact of the coming referendum changed the political situation. At the start of the campaign there was still widespread lack of interest. The first opinion polls in the Netherlandsshowed that there would be a low rate of participation, and of those whointended to participate one third was in favour, one third against and onethird had still not decided. The first reaction of many people was: "We havepositive and negative feelings concerning the European Union. We cannotdecide pro or contra the foreseen future developments. We, the ordinarypeople, cannot influence this project of our rulers. They will continue ontheir way, and we cannot prevent it. So we won't vote, we'll stay at home."But after a few months of campaigning interest had increased enormously.More and more people took outspoken positions pro or contra.

In France the national debate lasted six months, but in the Netherlands onlytwo months. I participated in local debates, mainly in the Netherlands butalso in France, and I was surprised by the degree of the people's interest.

For us, the Socialist Party of the Netherlands, our first aim was to promote voters' participation. We are a relatively new party, which entered national parliament only in the 'nineties, and have now twenty-five MPs, twelve Senators and two Members of the European Parliament.

Our perspective was not to campaign against any possible text of a newEU-treaty. We did not defend the existing treaties, which never had thesupport of the people, and we didn't resist changes in the existing rules.We campaigned only against the neo-liberal, militarist and centralistcharacter of the text. For many reasons we prefer small-scale institutionsand small-scale decision making. In large- scale institutions the power ofmultinational private companies is always much greater than the democraticinfluence of ordinary people. We campaigned for the right of the people toamend those important proposals on the future of the European Union. Rejection of the proposed text could provoke a broad debate in society, we felt, which could result in a better proposal for a renewal of the treaty.

You know the final result: in France 55% against, and in the Netherlands as many as 62%. In the Netherlands the participation of voters was more than 20% higher than in the elections for the European Parliament a year earlier. It is interesting that both in the Netherlands and in France the majority oftrade unionists and the majority of social democrat voters voted 'no',despite the appeal of their leaders to vote 'yes'. In both countries alsohalf of the Green voters said 'no', although their leaders were in favour ofthe project.

And you have to be aware that this was not a vote against the EU membership of the Netherlands or France. In those countries and their direct neighboursthere are only a few advocates of leaving the EU. Differently from GreatBritain or, for example, Sweden, we are narrowly linked with our neighbourstates and we have many problems in common. Our borders are not situated inthe sea, but cross densely populated urban areas. For work, transport,environment and even public services we are highly interdependent.

After those overwhelming results, the advocates of the originalconstitutional text have again taken the initiative. They know that theiroriginal proposals are unacceptable to the people, yet they try to maintainthem as much as possible. After an interruption of two years, in June thisyear they agreed the main lines for a new text. It will be much shorter,because the existing rules will not form part of the new treaty. So thoserules, introduced in the past without referenda, will be kept outside thedebate and outside any voting.

The new document that will be finalized next month, will claim a lessfar-reaching significance than the previous one. The names 'Constitution'and 'Minister of Foreign Affairs' have been replaced by other unclear terms.The treaty doesn't refer to the existing European flag or to the Europeananthem. The right wing French President Sarkozy was clever enough tomoderate the free competition paragraph, in order to convince the protestingFrench workers, without changing the right wing neo-liberal policies. Butthe main contents are the same as in the earlier version. Even the mainauthor of the text, former French President Giscard d'Estaing, admits thatthe hard core has been saved.

To avoid new referenda the twenty-seven national governments moved Chapter2, the Charter of Civil Rights of the European Union, to an annex. So itlooks less like a real constitution. It is surprising that this undisputedpart is no longer inside the text. It can only be removed for tacticalreasons. This chapter coincided strongly with the European Convention onHuman Rights, initiated by the Council of Europe, which is supported byforty-six countries instead of only the EU twenty-seven. It is not better orworse than that treaty, or than the national constitutions. We don't needit, but nobody has strong reasons to object to it. Some progressive peoplevoted 'yes', only because of this chapter. Now they have lost the one thingthey liked.

Nevertheless, we have recorded a partial success. For us this result isstill not good enough, but we are halfway to the necessary change. Thissuccess is not a reason to stop our campaign but to continue. Many peopletend always to vote for final results, even if they doubt the quality of theproposals, because they want to be constructive. So we have to convince themthat this text cannot be the final offer. By rejecting the second proposalwe create the necessity of a third proposal, which will be at least lessdangerous or possibly even acceptable.

In France it is certain that there will not be a referendum. In that countryonly the president can decide to organize such a vote, and the newly electedpresident Sarkozy has openly announced to that he will refuse to do so. Inthe Netherlands we are demanding again a referendum. The government willrefuse it, as did the previous government in 2005, but probably they will beoverruled again by the parliament. Not only the greens and the left wingliberals, will support our claim, but even the social-democrats of theLabour Party, who have for half a year been one of the three parties ingovernment. They cannot afford to refuse a new referendum, as we, theSocialist Party, are in opinion polls bigger than they are and have moretrade-union support. A refusal of the Dutch Labour Party would bedestructive for their own role in the competition with us, the SocialistParty. (1)

A new complication is that a small majority in the Senate, a kind ofindirectly elected House of Lords, seems to reject the possibility of a newreferendum. The reason for this is that the smallest governmental party, theChristian Union, no longer opposes the treaty. In the European Parliamentthey belong to the same group as the British UKIP, the United KingdomIndependence Party, and for their European parliamentary group the commonaim is to resist the Constitution. This small Christian Union, campaignedtogether with us against the Constitution in 2005. Now they seem to acceptthe new version of the treaty. In that case their parliamentarians andsenators can reject a new referendum, and in the case of such a referendumthey will not call their adherents to vote again 'no'. So it is remarkablethat the Dutch ally of UKIP may possibly block a new referendum on theconstitution.

Despite all of this, the possibility of a new 'no' from the Dutch votersremains big. What is important now is now what happens in those EU memberstates which have not yet decided, because their rulers fear a defeat. Nowthe key is not only in the hands of the Netherlands, but also in the handsof the United Kingdom, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Poland and the CzechRepublic. In all those countries we have the opportunity to win if weconvince the voters that we are not destructive, but want to take theopportunity to improve the new EU-treaty.

(1) This has of course been overtaken by events, but Labour's refusal to callfor a referendum is indeed having serious repercussions for the party

Erik Meijer has been a MEP for the Socialist Party of the Netherlands (SP)and the United Left Group/Nordic Green Left (GUE/NGL) since 1999.

See also www.spectrezine.org/europe/wurtz10.htm

No referendum for the Netherlands?

Produced and distributed by United for Peace and Justice

The so-called Petraeus Report-actually written within the White House-is supposed to evaluate "progress" inthe U.S. war and surging occupation of Iraq based on a set of congressionally-determined benchmarks.Those evaluations will ostensibly provide an overview of how far along U.S.-occupied Iraq is in achieving "stability," "democracy," "equity between groups," and more.

But however the White House drafters and General Petraeus and the spindoctors assess the benchmarks,what the report will almost certainly NOT do is provide a true glimpse of what the shattered lives of the 25million Iraqis look like today.

It will almost certainly NOT mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead because of the U.S. war and occupation: the British medical journal Lancet reported 650,000 dead as of two years ago and casualtieshave increased since.

It will probably NOT say much about the two million Iraqis who have fled the war to seek hard-to-find refugein neighboring countries, nor the additional two million Iraqis forced by war-fueled violence to flee their homesand who remain displaced and homeless inside Iraq.

It will very likely NOT mention that most Iraqis have electricity for only about five hours a day, that cleanwater remains scarce for most and unobtainable for many, and that Iraq's oil production remains a fraction ofwhat it was before war.

It is NOT likely to highlight the fact that the Pentagon has already spent $456 billion or so of our tax dollars,occupation, war and violence have so devestated the Iraqi economy that unemployment has reached up to40% and higher, and underemployment an additional 10% or more.

If the report has anything close to a true assessment, it would acknowledge that the lives of people in 2007Iraq are worse than ever.

It will NOT admit to another set of truths as well. The 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq was illegal, and in violation ofthe United Nations Charter. It was based on lies, and those lies have NOT become truths just because theU.S. occupation has now continued for 4 and 1/2 years.

The war was NOT launched because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction; it didn't;
The U.S. did NOT invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein was tied to al-Qaeda; he wasn't;
The U.S. did NOT invade to bring democracy to the people of Iraq; it hasn't.

The failure of the Iraq War has also meant a huge cost to ourdemocracy at home. We have paid an enormous price: in thedeaths and shattered minds and bodies of our young soldiers; inthe threats to an economy ravaged by billion-dollar bills to pay foran illegal war; in the destruction of so much of our infrastructure,security and social fabric because of human and financialresources diverted to Iraq; and in the shredding of our Constitutionand civil rights as fear becomes a weapon in the hands of theBush administration aimed at Congress, the courts and the peopleof this country.

Download ful document (pdf format): peoplesreport.pdf

Iraq - The People's Report

The so-called EU "Reform Treaty" - which is the EU Constitutional Treaty under another name - would do six important things. It would do them by amending the two existing European Treaties, which would be called henceforth the "Treaty on European Union" and the "Treaty on the Functioning of the Union". These two amended treaties would together become the Constitution of the new Federal European Union they would establish.

"The German Ministry of Justice has compared the legal acts adopted by the Federal Republic of Germany between 1998 and 2004 with those adopted by the European Union in the same period. Results: 84 percent come from Brussels, with only 16 percent coming originally from Berlin ... The figures stated by the German Ministry of Justice make it quite clear. By far the large majority of legislation valid in Germany is adopted by the German Government in the Council of Ministers, and not by the German Parliament ... And so the question arises whether Germany can still be referred to unconditionally as a parliamentary democracy at all, because the separation of powers as a fundamental constituting principle of the constitutional order in Germany has been cancelled out for large sections of the legislation applying to this country" - Roman Herzog, former German President and former President of the German Federal Constitutional Court, Welt Am Sonntag, 14 January 2007

1. Giving the European Union the power to make laws binding on us in over 40 more policy areas:
The new Treaty would add to the powers of the Brussels institutions, which already make the majority of our laws, in over 40 new policy areas - including civil and criminal law, public services, energy, transport, tourism, space, sport, civil protection, public health and the EU budget. This would greatly increase the personal power of the 27 politicians on the EU Council of Ministers by enabling them to make further laws for 500 million Europeans, while taking power away from the citizens and national Parliaments that elect those politicians and that have made these laws for their own countries up to now. It would also increase the power of the non-elected Brussels Commission, which has the monopoly of making proposals for European laws to the Council of Ministers, by giving it many new policy areas to propose laws for.

2. Giving more voting power to the Big EU States:
In making European laws in the Council of Ministers the new Treaty would increase the voting weight of the bigger EU States, in particular Germany, and reduce that of the middle-sized and smaller EU States.

3. Removing the right of each Member State to have a permanent EU Commissioner:
The new Treaty would deprive Member States of the right to have a representative at all times on the Brussels Commission, the body which proposes European laws. Big States as well as small ones would lose a permanent Commissioner, but the economic and political weight of the former makes them inherently better able to defend their interests without such representation.

4. Making this into a self-amending Treaty:
The new Treaty would contain a mechanism to enable majority voting for European law-making to be extended to new policy areas by agreement among Member State governments, without need for new treaties or treaty ratification.

5. Giving the EU final power to decide our rights:
The new Treaty would make the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding on the EU Member States and their citizens in all areas of European law, which now makes up the majority of new laws we must obey each year. This would give the 27 judges of the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg the final decision on the wide range of human rights issues covered by the Charter, as against national Constitutions and Supreme Courts or the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. This would greatly extend the power of the Court of Justice, which one of its judges once characterised as "a court with a mission" - that mission being to extend the powers of the EU as widely as possible by means of the case law of a Court that has become notorious for "competency creep".

The Charter would apply in all areas of EU law-making, whether by the Brussels institutions or by Member States when implementing European laws. It would open the possibility of uniform standards being imposed over time across the new Union as regards sensitive human rights areas where there are significant national differences at present: for example, rules of evidence in court, trial by jury, censorship law, the legalisation of hard drugs and prostitution, rights attaching to State churches, conscientious objection to military service, the right to life, euthanasia, succession, rights to property, family law, the rights of children and the elderly etc. It could lead to jurisdictional disputes between the EU Court of Justice in Luxembourg and the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, for the EU court would have supremacy in any case of conflict between the two as to what their respective powers are.

Some trade unions have supported the Fundamental Rights Charter in the belief that it would strengthen their rights to collective bargaining and strike action, thinking that European law would override national law in such areas to their advantage. This is an illusion. The new treaty would provide that the Charter of Fundamental Rights is to be interpreted in the light of the Explanations set out in an accompanying Declaration (No.12 in the 2004 Constitutional Treaty). These Explanations state that "the modalities and limits for the exercise of collective action, including strike action, come under national law and practices".

Moreover the new Treaty would provide that the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights may be limited "to meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union". This means that the rights set out in the Charter would not be so fundamental after all. Giving the EU Court of Justice final competence to decide our rights over the large area of public policy covered by the EU is more about power than rights. Human rights standards in the EU Member States are not so defective that they require a supranational EU Court to lay down a superior norm or impose a common standard across the EU States and their Constitutions.

6. Giving the EU the Constitution of a supranational European Federal State, of which we would all be made real citizens for the first time, legally bound to give that EU Federation our prime allegiance:
Constitutionally and politically, the most important thing which the new Treaty would do would be to give the legally new European Union which it would establish the constitutional form of a supranational European Federation for the first time - in effect a State. Instead of the EU being coterminous with its 27 Member States as at present, the Treaty would establish a legally new Union that would be constitutionally separate from and superior to its Member States, as is normal in any Federation. This new Union would have its own government, legislature, executive and judiciary, its own political President, Foreign Minister, diplomatic corps, Public Prosecutor and right to sign international treaties with other States, its own citizenry and citizenship, its own human rights code, its own currency and economic policy, and indeed its own flag, anthem and annual official holiday, although the latter three symbols of statehood are to dropped from the new treaty, while continuing in use without a legal base, as they have done for decades.

The relation between the new EU which the "Reform Treaty" would bring into being and the 27 EU Member States would be like that between the Federal USA and California or Massachussetts, or like Federal Germany in relation to Bavaria, Saxony and the other German Länder. We would then all be made real citizens of this new EU Federation rather than notional or honorary "European citizens" as at present; for one can only be a citizen of a State.

This would be the most important step to affect the various EU States since they first came into being as members of the international community, for it would be a formal end to their national independence and democracy and their character as sovereign States. It would announce to the world that henceforth they would form part of another State, a Federal European Union. They would have become part of a new country called "Europe".

It is these provisions which give the so-called "Reform Treaty" the character of an EU Constitutional Treaty which, by amending and renaming the two existing European treaties, would constitute or establish a legally quite new European Union and give it a Constitution. This constitutional revolution in both the EU and its Member States would be accomplished by (a) giving the EU legal personality and its own corporate existence for the first time, making it separate from and superior to its Member States; (b) merging the supranational and "intergovernmental" areas so as to give the new Union a unified constitutional structure that would be capable of exercising all powers of government either actually or potentially; and (c) transforming national citizens into real EU citizens with the normal citizen's duty of giving obedience to the laws of the new Union and loyalty to its authority and institutions as having primacy over their national Constitutions and laws like in any Federation. (For more details on this point, see the accompanying document, Giving the EU a Federal State Constitution).

Let the people decide

"Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would it be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?" - Jean Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxembourg, Daily Telegraph, 3 July 2007

"Referendums make the process of approval of European treaties much more complicated and less predictable. I was in favour of a referendum as a prime minister, but it does make our lives with 27 Member States in the EU much more difficult. If a referendum had to be held on the creation of the European Community or the introduction of the euro, do you think these would have passed?" - Commission President Jose M. Barroso, EUobserver, 6 February 2007

It is no small thing to attempt to turn the citizens of the 27 Member States of the EU into real and not just notional citizens of a supranational "United States of Europe" which is separate from and superior to their own national States and Constitutions. It can only be done by deception and bullying - and above all by avoiding referendums that would enable Europe's peoples to decide themselves whether they wish for such a fundamental constitutional change.

Those pushing the new treaty hope that we will thereby have real citizens' obligations of obedience, solidarity and loyalty to the new European Union imposed upon us without our knowing or realising that this is happening. By such sleight of hand - doubtless long concerted by the international European Movement and its allies - are we to be made real citizens of a real supranational European Federation that has primacy over our own national States. Simultaneously the latter would be reduced to the status of provinces or regions of the new Union, similar to the local states of the USA or Federal Gemany's Länder. If the deception succeeds, Europe's peoples will have had their national democracy and national independence filched from them without their scarcely noticing.

"People say 'We cannot vote again.' What is this joke? We have to vote again until the French see what the stakes are." - Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, former French President and Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution, Agence Presse, 12 June 2006

If the European and national elites who are pushing this treaty should succeed, one can confidently predict that the popular reaction will be all the more explosive when people across Europe realise what has been done.

But they must not succeed. The monstrous deception must and can be exposed. The EU elites must not get away with their plan to pretend that they are not giving the EU the Constitution of a Federal State because they no longer call it that, when it patently is such. They must not succeed in their plan to get around the rejection of the Constitution by the peoples of France and the Netherlands by attempting to push through a treaty which has essentially the same effect, by calling it something else and avoiding holding referendums on it.

Europe's peoples alone have the right to decide whether they should be made citizens of an EU State or not - Whether they should agree to abandoning their own national democracy and national independence - Whether they should hand over massive new powers to the non-elected Brussels Commission and to the 27 politicians on the EU Council of Ministers who now make most of our laws. Democracy requires that there be a referendum on this Renamed EU Constitution in every EU country.

"At every stage of this craze, from 1996 until 2005, a more reasonable choice could have been made, a calmer rhythm could have been adopted, that would not have deepened the gap between the elites and the population, that would have better consolidated the real Europe and spared us the present crisis. But in saying this, I underestimate the religious fervour that has seized the European project. For all those who believed in the various ideologies of the second half of the 20th century, but survived their ruin, the rush into European integration became a substitute ideology."- Hubert Védrine, former French Foreign Minister, Irish Times, 8 August 2005

Anthony Coughlan - Secretary
THE NATIONAL PLATFORM EU RESEARCH AND INFORMATION CENTRE
24 Crawford Avenue, Dublin 9, Ireland
Tel.: 00-353-1-8305792

The above organisation is affiliated to TEAM, The European Alliance of EU-critical Movements, and welcomes any constructive comment on this document. Please feel free to adapt it and disseminate it as you may wish, without any need for reference to or acknowledgement of its source.

What the so-called “Reform Treaty” - the Renamed EU Constitutional Treaty - would do

Explanatory Notes on the so-called "Reform Treaty" - the 2007 Renamed Constitutional Treaty

"The most striking change (between the EU Constitution in its older and newer version) is perhaps that in order to enable some governments to reassure their electorates that the changes will have no constitutional implications, the idea of a new and simpler treaty containing all the provisions governing the Union has now been dropped in favour of a huge series of individual amendments to two existing treaties. Virtual incomprehensibility has thus replaced simplicity as the key approach to EU reform. As for the changes now proposed to be made to the constitutional treaty, most are presentational changes that have no practical effect. They have simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum." - Dr Garret FitzGerald, former Irish Prime Minister(Taoiseach), Irish Times, 30 June 2007

The 2004 and 2007 EU Constitutional Treaties
It is useful to refer to the two treaties that have aimed or are aiming to establish an EU Constitution as the 2004 EU Constitutional Treaty and the 2007 Renamed Constitutional Treaty, for that is an accurate description of each of them.

The 2004 Treaty - which was titled the "Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe" - was both a Constitutional Treaty and a Constitution. The substantive clause of the first sentence of its first Article read: "This Constitution establishes the European Union, on which the Member States confer competences to attain objectives they have in common." Clearly this would have been a different European Union from the one currently existing.

The 2007 Treaty is likely to be known as the "Reform Treaty" or the Treaty of Lisbon. While being an EU Constitutional Treaty in that it amends and renames the two existing European Treaties, viz. the "Treaty on (the? ) European Union" (TEU) and the "Treaty Establishing the European Community" (TEC), thereby turning these two treaties together into an EU Constitution, it is not in itself that Constitution. The two amended treaties, one of them renamed, would be that. Together they would have exactly the same legal effect as the 2004 "Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe" in that they would turn the existing European Union, which is not at present a State, into a supranational European Federation and would make us all real citizens of that Federation, instead of being merely notional or honorary "EU citizens" at present.

The amended "Treaty on European Union" would become the constitutive part of the new EU Constitution, the part which would establish a new European Union that would be constitutionally, legally and politically quite different from the present EU, and the "Treaty on the Functioning of the Union" - the renamed TEC - would become the Constitution's "implementational" part, which would set out how the new Union would work and its main policies. The effect of this amending and renaming process would be that the Constitution of the new Union would be set out in two treaties instead of one, both having equal legal value.

The EU "constitutional concept" in rhetoric and reality
When the IGC Mandate stated that "the constitutional concept is abandoned" and that "The TEU and the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union will not have a constitutional character", or when British Foreign Secretary David Miliband states that the 2007 Constitutional Treaty differs "in absolute essence" from the 2004 one, they are seeking to distract attention from the new method of giving the EU the Constitution of a European Federation, without actually calling it a Constitution or without admitting that they are engaged in a Constitution-making process.

Therefore, the IGC Mandate is profoundly misleading in referring to the "constitutional concept" as being a matter merely of legal form and nomenclature: "The constitutional concept, which consisted of repealing all existing treaties and replacing them by a single text called 'Constitution', is abandoned", or, "The TEU and the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union will not have a constitutional character."

In reality the essence of the "constitutional concept" consists in bestowing a Federal-style State Constitution on the new European Union which the so-called "Reform Treaty" would have the effect of establishing. British Foreign Secretary Miliband is right in stating that the 2007 Treaty, unlike the 2004 one, does not embody such a Constitution in itself. The so-called "Reform Treaty" would nonetheless have the effect of creating an EU Constitution by amending and renaming the two existing European treaties and thereby turning these together into a Constitution. It is therefore perfectly valid to refer to the 2007 Treaty as being, like the 2004 one, an EU Constitutional Treaty, even if it is not in itself the EU Constitution. Instead, it creates that Constitution indirectly rather than directly.

As everyone knows, the whole purpose of this more roundabout legal path towards an EU Constitution is to avoid using the word "Constitution" in either the text or title of the new treaty. That alarms and upsets people, as V.Giscard d'Estaing and others have acknowledged. The legal-political effect of ratifying the so-called "Reform Treaty" however would be exactly the same as ratifying the 2004 EU Constitutional Treaty which French and Dutch voters rejected in their referendums.

Both treaties, the 2004 one and the 2007 one, would be international treaties that would hand over national State powers to a supranational Federal-type entity. The content of the handover and the extent of the diminution of national sovereignty involved would to all intents and purposes be identical in each. The Open Europe organization, London, estimates that all except 10 of the 250 or so Article of the new treaty would be the same in legal substance as its predecessor. They would be mostly identical in wording also, except that the word "Constitution" would be omitted throughout. In other words, 96% of the new text would be the same as the EU Constitution which the peoples of France and the Netherlands rejected.

In face of this strategy of deception it is necessary to explain to people that under the so-called "Reform Treaty", the EU Constitution would become the two amended and renamed constituent Treaties together: the "Treaty on European Union" and the "Treaty on the Functioning of the Union". It is also desirable that democrats and EU-critics concentrate on explaining to the public the character of the European Federation which the new Treaty would have the effect of establishing, rather than be distracted by the mechanics of the legal process involved. They need to point out that the abandonment of the word "Constitution" the second time around has no practical significance and is designed purely to obfuscate and deceive.

Supporters of the new Treaty will naturally try to make much of the change of name and legal procedure, for they have no other argument to fall back on. That is why democrats need to show that they are playing with words and procedural tricks. V.Giscard d'Estaing, who chaired the Convention which drew up the original Constitution, admits that the purpose of the new constitution-making process is deception: "All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way." Belgian Foreign Minister Karel de Gucht has said: "The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable. The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success."

The name and reality of a State Constitution
"Those who are anti-EU are terrorists. It is psychological terrorism to suggest the spectre of a European superstate." - Giorgio Napolitano, President of Italy, Sunday Express, London, 17 June 2007

"The Constitution is the capstone of a European Federal State." - Guy Verhofstadt, Belgian Prime Minister, Financial Times, 21 June 2004

"When we build the euro - and with what a success - when we advance on the European defence, with difficulties but with considerable progress, when we build a European arrest-warrant, when we move towards creating a European prosecutor, we are building something deeply federal, or a true union of states Š The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must become a charter of rights that is applicable and effective ... I wish this Constitution to be the Constitution of a rebuilt Union, able to reflect its social cohesion, deepen its political unity, express its power externally." - Pierre Moscovici, former French Minister for Europe, Le Monde, 28 February 2002

"We already have a federation. The 11, soon to be 12, member States adopting the euro have already given up part of their sovereignty, monetary sovereignty, and formed a monetary union, and that is the first step towards a federation." - German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, Financial Times, 7 July 2000

"And I am also quite clear that I am advocating a more powerful Europe, also a more closely integrated Europe ... In short I am advocating a United States of Europe."- Guy Verhofstadt, Belgian Prime Minister, speech at the London School of Economics, 21 March 2006

As regards nomenclature, what makes a State Constitution into a Constitution is not that there is a legal document which has the word "Constitution" in its title, but that there is a legal and political act, sometimes though not always expressed in a constitutional document, which constitutes and establishes a State, which maintains that State in being thereafter and which lays down the rules for running it as its Constitution is implemented over time.

In some countries the State Constitution calls itself just that: a Constitution. In Germany the Constitution is called a Basic Law. In other countries the Constitution is a resolution or act of a Constituent Assembly which has the effect of establishing a State and setting up its basic rules and institutions. As is well-known, the United Kingdom itself does not have a written Constitution that one can point to as establishing and maintaining in being the British State. Britain has a Constitution nonetheless, namely the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament over the territory and citizens of the UK, a Constitution which is expressed and implemented continually in successive Acts of Parliament.

The existing and proposed new European Union
Both the 2004 and 2007 EU Constitutional Treaties aim to constitute or establish quite a new European Union for the first time, in the constitutional form of a supranational Federation, and in each case with exactly the same difference from the existing European Union, which is constitutionally, legally and politically quite a different entity from a State. What we call the European Union today - a name which derives from the 1992 Maastricht Treaty on European Union - is merely a general descriptive term for the various areas of cooperation between its 27 Member States: the so-called "Community" area of supranational European law deriving from our continuing membership of the European Community, and the "intergovernmental" areas of foreign policy, justice and home affairs, where Member States still interact on the basis of retained sovereignty.

This is made clear in Article A of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), introduced by the Maastricht Treaty, 1992, which states: "By this Treaty, the High Contracting Parties establish among themselves a European Union The Union shall be founded on the European Communities, supplemented by the policies and forms of cooperation established in this Treaty. Its task shall be to organize, in a manner demonstrating consistency and solidarity, relations between the Member States and between their peoples."

The Maastricht "Treaty on European Union" did not establish the EU as a corporate entity with its own legal personality. If it had done, it would have been a "Treaty OF Union" rather than "ON" Union. The proposed EU Constitution, which would be brought into being by the 2007 "Reform Treaty" and its amending and renaming the two existing European treaties, would in effect become the "Treaty OF European Union".

"After Nice the forces of political Europe joined others in stoking the fire. The Commission, the Parliament, the federalists, French proponents of integration, the media, all found Nice too 'intergovernmental'. Together, they imposed the idea that Nice was a disaster, that we urgently needed a new treaty. Soon a 'new treaty' wasn't enough. It had to be a 'Constitution', and little did it matter that it was legally inappropriate. When the time came, the result had to be ratified. What tiny national parliament, what people, would then dare to stand in the way of this new meaning of history? The results of the Convention, at first deemed insufficient by maximalists, became the holy word when it was realised that selfish governments might water it down". - Hubert Védrine, former French Foreign Minister, Irish Times, 8 August 2005

The three steps the so-called "Reform Treaty" would take to turn the EU into a supranational European Federal State:

1. GIVING THE EU LEGAL PERSONALITY
The first legal step would be for the treaty to give the new European Union which it would establish its own legal personality and distinct corporate existence for the first time, something that all States possess. This new Union would be thereby endowed with a Federal-type State sovereignty of its own, separate from and superior to that of its present Member States. This would make the new European Union into a Federation rather like the United States of America in that the USA is separate from and constitutionally superior to its constituent states, California, Texas etc. The local states of the USA still retain their own state Constitutions and differ from one another as regards taxation levels, social service provisions and issues such as the death penalty and marriage laws, while being subordinate to the US Federal Constitution. So it would be with the new EU. Likewise Federal Germany is separate from and superior to the various German Länder

Giving legal personality to this newly constituted Federal EU would enable it to sign treaties with other States, have its own political President, Foreign Minister - howevercalled - diplomatic corps and Public Prosecutor, and take to itself all the powers and institutions of the existing European Community, which already has legal personality and which now makes the majority of laws for its Member States each year. The Constitutional Treaty would enable the new Union to sign the European Convention of Human Rights just like any other European State, as its 27 component States have already done and as the new Treaty proposes. It would enable the new Union to speak on behalf of its Member States on the United Nations Security Council on agreed foreign and security policy positions, and to have its own UN seat. The latter situation would be analogous to the position of the old USSR, which had its own United Nations seat while some of its constituent republics, Ukraine, Byelorussia etc., had UN seats too.

The symbols of European statehood - flag, anthem, motto and annual holiday - would be removed from the new treaty for, as Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern said after the June 2007 Brussels summit, they annoy a lot of people. But the EU State reality they symbolise would nonetheless come into being. The EU flag, anthem and annual Europe Day would continue in use anyway, as they have done for years, without any legal basis in a European treaty.

To grasp the constitutional significance of this key step to Federal Statehood for the EU it is necessary to realise that what we call the European Union at present does not have legal personality or corporate existence in its own right, and what we term EU "citizenship" does not have supranational legal content. Properly speaking, therefore, there is no such thing as "EU"(European Union) law, only "EC"(European Community) law. That would change with the new treaty.

The first sentence of the first Article of the 2004 Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe stated: "This Constitution establishes the European Union." Clearly this would have been quite a new Union in constitutional terms compared with the EU which currently exists. The 2004 EU Constitution would have created a Federal European Union distinct from and superior to its Member States, with its own legal personality and distinct corporate existence in its own right, empowered to interact with the other sovereign States that make up the international community. The proposed 2007 "Reform Treaty" would achieve exactly the same constitutional result by inserting the following amendment in Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union: "The Union shall be founded on the present Treaty and on the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall replace and succeed the European Community". The 2004 Treaty says "this Constitution establishes" a new Union; the 2007 Treaty says the new Union "shall be founded on" the two amended constituent treaties. The two treaties do exactly the same thing.

If the "Reform Treaty" is ratified, the two treaties that it would amend would have the same legal value as being in effect the joint constituent treaties, and the joint Constitution, of a newly established Federal Union. This would be in contrast to the relative position of these treaties in the current EU, where the "Treaty Establishing the European Community"(TEC) has legal primacy over the "Treaty on European Union"(TEU).

2.MERGING THE SUPRANATIONAL"COMMUNITY" AND "INTERGOVERNMENTAL" AREAS
The second legal step in giving the constitutional status of statehood to the new EU Federation would be to abolish the distinction between the supranational "Community" and the "intergovernmental" areas - or "pillars" as they are called in EU jargon - of the two existing European treaties, the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty Establishing the European Community (TEC). This would be done by merging the existing European Community with the newly established European Union and giving the latter a unified constitutional structure. Thus all spheres of public policy would come within the scope of supranational EU law-making, either actually or potentially, as in any constitutionally unified State.

One emphasises "potentially" because new inter-state treaties would still be required to transfer further national powers to the new Union in the future, or to shift powers from the new Union to its Member States. This is because State sovereignty in a Federation such as the "Reform Treaty" would establish is divided between the Federal level and the provincial state level. A Federal State is normally an entity governed by law. In classical Federations both the Federal level and the provincial state level are constitutionally bound to act within their respective spheres of competence. Neither level can shift power between them unilaterally, whether bottom up or top down, and the proposed EU Constitution contains provisions of this kind.

The abolition of the separate "Community" and "intergovernmental" pillars of the present EU is significant also because the existing "Community" pillar already establishes a supranational authority over the EU Member States, a step which might be regarded as already constitutional in character in that it gives the existing European Community several State-like features - for example the power to make laws binding on its Member States.

An important aspect of the new Union's constitutional structure would be the provision of the "Reform Treaty" which for the first time would turn the European Council - the quarterly meetings of the EU Heads of State or Government - into one of the institutions of the new Union. This would mean that in constitutional terms these meetings henceforth would no longer be intergovernmental in character. Those taking part, whether collectively or individually, would be legally bound to act with their Union hats on, at least in so far as they took their obligations under the EU Constitution seriously. The Constitutional Treaty lays down that the European Council shall define the general political directions and priorities of the new Union and that as one of the new Union's institutions it "shall aim to promote its values, advance its objectives, serve its interests" and "ensure the consistency, effectiveness and continuity of its policies and actions" Furthermore, like all the Union's institutions, acts of the European Council, or if it "fails to act", would be subject to review by the European Court of Justice (Article 230 ff TEC as applied in the TFU). All spheres of public policy, supranational and national, would thus in principle come within the purview of the EU Heads of State or Government in the European Council as they exercise the political government of the new Union.

This newly constituted Federal European Union would then possess all the key features of a fully developed State except the power to impose taxes and to take its constituent Member States to war against their will. Indeed the obligation on the new Union to raise its "own resources" in order to finance the attainment of its objectives, may be regarded as conferring on it taxation powers, although these would require unanimity to exercise. The new Union would have its own government, with a legislative, executive and judicial arm, its own political President, its own citizenship and citizenry, its own currency, economic policy and revenue, its own human rights code, international treaty-making powers, foreign policy, foreign minister and diplomatic corps, crime and justice code and Public Prosecutor.

All the classical Federal States which have been formed on the basis of power being gradually surrendered by lower constituent states to a higher Federal authority have developed in this way over sometimes quite a long period of time. The USA, Canada, Australia, Switzerland and 19th century Germany are the most obvious examples. Indeed the EU has obtained its powers much more speedily than some of these classical Federations, in the short historical time-span of some 60 years. The difference between these classical Federal States and the new European Union however is that the former were established by distinct national communities with their own languages, histories, cultures and communal solidarities, which gave them a democratic basis, whereas there is no European people or "demos" except statistically. The EU elite is seeking to construct a European Federation artificially, from the top down, out of Europe's many nations, peoples and States, without their free consent.

3. TRANSFORMING US FROM NOTIONAL EU CITIZENS INTO REAL ONES
The third legal step would be to make us all real citizens of this new EU State entity, with the normal citizens' duties of obedience to its laws and loyalty to its authority and institutions. A State must have citizens, who are its members and inhabitants, and it cannot exist without them. One can only be a citizen of a State. If the so-called "Reform Treaty" is ratified, the new European Union would thereafter have prime call on its citizens' allegiances as the constitutionally, legally and politically superior entity, over and above their obligations to their national constitutions and laws, with all the implications of that.

At present EU "citizenship" is an entirely notional status attaching to membership of one of the 27 Nation States that make up the current EU/EC. Citizens of the Member States have certain European Community rights attaching to their national citizenship, but they are not citizens of a supranational entity, for one can only be a citizen of a State and neither the Union nor Community is yet that. The so-called "Reform Treaty" would radically alter this position by establishing a real supranational EU Federation which people would be made real and not just notional or honorary citizens of.

Henceforth EU citizenship would entail real rights and duties vis-a-vis the new Union, over and above the rights and duties entailed in national citizenship. Those pushing the EU State-building project hope that voters will not notice the radical character of the constitutional change proposed, for after all does not the "European Union" exist already and are we not already EU "citizens"? These already familiar terms would continue to be used as if nothing had changed, although their legal substance would be transformed fundamentally.

The audacious plan of the Euro-integrationists is to turn the citizens of the 27 EU Members States into citizens of a supranational European Federation, with all the implications of that, if possible without their realising it and without permitting them any say in the matter. One indicator of the change would be that the European Parliament, which at present consists of "representatives of the peoples" of the Member States, would under the Constitutional Treaty consist of "representatives of the Union's citizens".

That is why the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, which got people to use the terms "European Union" and EU "citizenship" for the first time, was titled a "Treaty ON European Union", not OF Union. By amending the two existing European treaties, the so-called "Reform Treaty" would effectively bring into being the "Treaty OF Union", although it would be called something else. It would in effect be the capstone of the EU Federal State edifice, which its champions hope to set in place nearly sixty years after the 1950 Schuman Declaration, which is commemorated annually on 9 May, Europe Day, proclaimed the European Coal and Steel Community to be the "first step in the federation of Europe".
Continuing to use the same terms, "European Union" and "EU citizenship" for the present EU and the new Union that would be established by the so-called "Reform Treaty", while radically changing their legal content so that people will not realise what is happening, is fundamental to the stratagem of deception being currently employed.

Giving the EU a Federal State Constitution

- Feargus Mac Aogin

Aibren na bliana seo, dfhgair an tAire Cosanta,Willie ODea, go mbeadh ire ag glacadh comhphirtocht iomln sa Dorma Catha Nordach (Nordic Battlegroup) mar chuid de dhorma catha an Aontas Eorpaigh(A.E.). Is iad ire, An tSualainn, An Fhionlainn, An Ioruaidh agus An Eastin baillthortha an Dorma Catha Nordach (DCN). Beidh an DCN faoi cheannasaocht na Sualainne agus ag feidhmi faoi Pholasa Slndla agus Cosanta an A.E. 13 dorma catha ag feidhmi cheana fin agus spriocuimhir 60,000 saighdiir troda mar aidhm ag an A.E. faoin mbliain 2010.

Sard at i gceist sa DCN n cathln amhin(1,500 saighdiir),maraon le tacaocht aeir, tacaocht mara agus tacaocht listochta. Bheadh ar an bhfrsa seo bheith ridh chun cruinnithe lasmuigh den stt laistigh de 5 l ar ord Chomhairle an A.E.Ina dhiaidh sin, ba chir go mbeadh frsa an DCN ridh chun seoladh laistigh de 5 l eile. D bhr sin, deich l tar is ord a fhil Chomhairle an A.E., ba chir go mbeadh Frsa Cosanta na hireann ridh chun dul i mbun* sochna a dhanamh it ar bith ar domhan in ainm,agus faoi bhrat, an A.E.Nl g le sainord na Nisiin Aontaithe agus is deacair a fheiceil conas is fidir linn muinn a bheith againn a thuilleadh(m bh riamh) as an Triple Lock, ceal ama.

"Peacemaking means imposing,by the use of force,peaceful conditions under the terms laid down by the peacemaker.It is very difficult to distinguish that from warmaking."
(John Bruton T.D., F.G., Dil ireann, 22.10.99)

Ós rud go bhfuil coincheap an cogadh ar son na daonnachta fhgairt mrthimpeall an domhain ag Meirice agus ag An Bhreatain, t s nos doilire n riamh cn difrocht a bheidh ann idir sochin a dhanamh agus cogadh a fhearadh, go hirithe os rud go mbeidh dlthbhaint ag comhghuaillocht mhleata *NATO leis an scal ths. Nl ar chumas an A.E. na dorma catha a iompar gan NATO os rud nach bhfuil cabhlach mara n eitlein mleata mr go leor acu fin. Ach, ar mhara an tsaoil, t a leithid de threalamh ag NATO agus ag roinnt tortha a bhfuil ballraocht acu i NATO. Is baill de NATO cheana fin An Ioruaidh agus An Eastin, r bpirtnir nua sa DCN.

"Battlegroups could be used to go to war.Why did the E.U.create the Battlegroup? It is not just to help rebuild a country. The Battlegroups are not for building schools.We shouldnt think the E.U. is for soft power and NATO for hard power."
Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Rna-Ghinearlta NATO, 11.3.2005.

Ms impireacht nua a bheidh san A.E. amach anseo,cn dochar dinne, mar bhall den Impireacht, r neodracht mhleata thraidisinta a chaitheamh uainn? Nach buntiste an chogaocht dinn anseo in irinn ms buntiste don Impireacht?

"What is the Empire?I believe it is understood to mean the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland with independent legislatures,united under one head. But this union of the executive does by no means imply so complete a union of power or of interest, that an injury or benefit to one, is an injury or a benefit to the other; on the contrary,the present emergency shows that occasions may arise wherein the exact opposite is the fact To talk of the independence of a country and yet to deny her a negative voice in a question of no less import to her well-being than that of peace or war, is impudent nonsense."
(Wolfe Tone:The Spanish War,1790.Athfhoilsithe ag Cumann na mBan,1915. Athfhoilsithe ag PANA,2006,luach e3).

Feargus Mac Aogin, Coiste Nisinta C.S.N./PANA. Bealtaine 2007.

Wolfe Tone & Willie ODea: n Neodracht go Dorma Catha an Aontais

THE NATIONAL PLATFORM EU RESEARCH AND INFORMATION CENTRE
Sunday 24 June 2007

1. IT WOULD GIVE THE EU THE CONSTITUTIONAL FORM OF A STATE FOR THE FIRST TIME AND MAKE US ALL REAL AND NOT JUST HONORARY CITIZENS OF THIS EU STATE: Politically, the most important thing the proposed new Treaty would do would be to set up a legally new EU in the constitutional form of a supranational European Federation and to make us all real citizens of that State, owing obedience to its laws and loyalty to its authority, in contrast to our notional or honorary EU "citizenship" at present. The symbols of an EU State - flag, anthem and national day - are to be dropped, for they already exist anyway without a legal basis; but the actual EU State of which these are the symbols is to be constitutionally created by the proposed new Treaty. This is to be done by giving the EU legal personality and its own corporate existence for the first time, separate from and superior to its Member States, just as the USA is legally separate from and superior to states like California, Kansas and New York, or Federal Germany is superior to Bavaria, Saxony etc. Politically and legally, this is the core element of an EU Constitution, which the Intergovernmental Conference is now being established to draw up. It will incorporate most elements of the existing "Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe", although the word "Constitution" is to be avoided for fear it might alarm people. As this is politically and legally the most important part of the revised Constitution, while being the least understood and discussed aspect of i t - for the EU State-builders are desperate to avoid drawing attention to it - it is explained more fully below.

2. IT WOULD GIVE THE EU MORE LAW-MAKING POWERS: The proposed revised constitutional Treaty would transfer more powers to the EU from national States, national Parliaments and citizens. It would give the constitutionally new Union which it would establish law-making powers over 50 new areas or topics of public policy. These include transport, public health, energy, space, science, sport. The non-elected Commission would get the monopoly of proposing EU laws in these new areas and these laws would be made primarily by the oligarchy, the committee of legislators, which is the 27 politicians who constitute the Council of Ministers as they make laws for 450 million Europeans and are irremoveable as a group.

3. IT WOULD GIVE THE BIG STATES MORE WEIGHT AND SMALL AND MIDDLE STATES LESS WEIGHT IN MAKING EU LAWS: It would do this by making population size a key element in deciding EU laws and thereby reduce the relative voting weight and influence of small and middle-sized States as compared to the Big States, of which Germany is the biggest.

4. IT WOULD REMOVE THE RIGHT TO A PERMANENT EU COMMISSIONER: It would remove the right of each Member State to be represented at all times on the EU Commission, the body which has the monopoly of proposing EU laws, by making the number of Commissioners fewer than the number of Member States. This matters less to Big States, for their political and economic weight ensures that they can defend their interests in EU policy-making even if they are occasionally without Commission representation. This proposed change has far more serious implications for smaller States.

GIVING A NEW EU THE CONSTITUTIONAL FORM OF A STATE, OF WHICH WE WOULD BE MADE REAL AND NOT NOTIONAL CITIZENS AS AT PRESENT: Politically and legally the most important thing in the proposed revised EU Constitutional Treaty is that

(a) it would give the constitutional form of a supranational European State to the legally new EU it would establish, making the latter separate from and constitutionally superior to its 27 Member States, just as the USA is separate from and constitutionally superior to California, New York, Kansas etc.; and

(b ) it would make us all real citizens of this newly constituted EU, owing obedience to its laws and loyalty to its authority as superior to our own national constitutions and laws, just as the constitution and laws of the USA are superior to the constitution and laws of California, New York etc. Real EU citizenship would thereby replace the notional or honorary EU "citizenship" people speak of at present, for one can only be a citizen of a State.

The new Treaty would make this change this by
(a) Giving the legally new EU which the Treaty would establish its own legal personality and distinct corporate existence for the first time, something all States possess;

(b) Abolishing the current distinction between the area of supranational European Community law, where the EC Commission has the monopoly of legislative proposals, and the "intergovernmental" areas of foreign policy, justice and home affairs, where Member States up to now have retained their sovereignty. All areas of public policy would thereby come within the scope of supranational EU law-making either actually or potentially , as in any single unified State;

(c) Transferring the powers and institutions of the existing European Community to the new European Union which the revised constitutional treaty would establish;

(d) Making us real citizens of this new EU State entity, with the normal citizens' duties of obedience and loyalty, with all the implications of that.

By constituting this new European Union for the first time, the proposed new treaty would in effect be the Constitution of a supranational EU Federal State even though the intention is to avoid using the word "Constitution" so far as possible, for fear that would alarm people if they realised what is happening, especially if they get a chance to vote in referendums. Hence the intention of avoiding giving citizens a say, except in Ireland and possibly Denmark, where referendums on all surrenders of State sovereignty are constitutionally required.

Up to now the European Union does not have legal personality or corporate existence in its own right. Only the European Community, which makes supranational EC laws, possesses that. Properly speaking therefore, there is thus no such thing as "EU"(European Union) law - ;only "EC"(European Community) law. At present the name "European Union", which derives from the 1992 "Maastricht Treaty on European Union", is a descriptive term for the various forms of cooperation amongst the 27 EU Member States. These forms of cooperation cover the area of supranational law constituted by the European Community on the one hand, where the European Commission proposes all the laws, and on the other hand cooperation in the "intergovernmental" areas of foreign and home affairs, where Member States have up to now retained their sovereignty and the European Commission has no legislative role.

That is why the 1992 Maastricht Treaty is called the " Treaty ON European Union" rather than "OF" Union. The proposed revised constitutional treaty which the Intergovernmental Conference will now draw up would be in effect the " Treaty OF European Union", for that would legally establish the European Union as a distinct entity for the first time, with most of the features of a State, and would make us all real citizens of this new State entity.

Giving the new European Union which the revised Constitutional Treaty would establish legal personality and its own corporate existence would enable it to have not only its own President, Foreign Minister - however called - and diplomatic corps, and sign inter-State treaties with other States, it would enable the new Union to take to itself all the powers and institutions of the existing European Community - legislative, executive and judicial. This legally new EU would thereby possess all the features of a fully developed State except the power to impose taxes and to take its constituent member states to war against their will; and the Euro-federalists aim to give the new EU Federation the latter two powers in time.

Why this curious procedure of having one Treaty - Maastricht - "on" European Union and another Treaty - the proposed Constitutional Treaty - effectively a Treaty "of" Union? The reason is that because the Maastricht Treaty on European Union makes us all familiar with the terms "European Union" and "European citizenship", without actually legally establishing these or giving them substantial legal content, those pushing the Euro-federalist integration project hope that citizens will not notice the radical character of the constitutional change being proposed in the revised Constitution and how the legal essence of both the "Union" itself and EU "citizenship" is to be altered without most people being aware of it. The same familiar names and terms will be kept, but their legal substance would be fundamentally transformed.

By such sleight of hand are we to be made real citizens of a real European State that is superior to our own national States. We are thereby to have real citizens' obligations of obedience, solidarity and loyalty to the new European Union imposed upon us without most people knowing or realising that this is happening, for those pushing the new Treaty are desperately anxious not to draw attention to this aspect of it. And so far as possible the peoples of Europe are not be consulted in referendums, for fear they might thereby realise what is happening and they might object.

It is surely no small thing to attempt to turn the citizens of the Member States of the EU into citizens of a supranational "United States of Europe" that is separate from and superior to their own National States and Constitutions. It can only be done by sleight of hand, deception and bullying. Hence the elaborate charade of the 1992 Maastricht Treaty on European Union and the new Treaty of European Union, which the proposed revised Constitutional Treaty in effect wouold be , although it is intended to give the latter some such spin-doctor's title as "Reform Treaty" to make it easier for the EU elites to get it ratified.

The 1950 Schuman Declaration on the European Coal and Steel Community stated that that was "the first step in the federation of Europe" . The proposed revised Constitutional Treaty would be the capstone of the Euro-federalist edifice in that it would give the constitutional form of a supranational State Federation to the legally constituted new EU it would establish, to which we would all be required to give citizens' obedience and loyalty. This would be a superior obedience and loyalty to that which we currently owe our national States and Constitutions, just as the latter would be constitutionally and legally inferior to the former. Yet the peoples of Europe have no desire for such a development, for it would fundamentally subvert the national democracy and independence of their respective Nation States and deprive them of the right to make most of the laws they must obey.

That is why this entire scheme is a profound assault on democracy by the European political, bureaucratic and economic elites that are pushing it. It can only generate hostility and bitterness among citizens all over Europe as they discover with time the implications of the constitutional coup d'etat being planned by these Euro-elites. It constitutes the greatest assault on democracy on our continent since the days of fascism and World War 2.

That is why democrats in every EU country, whether on the right or left politically, should unite to oppose it and cooperate and exchange information cross-nationally in doing so.

(Signed)
Anthony Coughlan - Secretary
THE NATIONAL PLATFORM EU RESEARCH AND INFORMATION CENTRE
24 Crawford Avenue, Dublin 9, Ireland
Tel.: 00-353-1-8305792

The above organisation is affiliated to TEAM, The European Alliance of EU-critical Movements, and welcomes any constructive comment on this document. Please feel free to adapt it and disseminate it as you may wish, without any need for reference to or acknowledgement of its source.

The four important things the proposed revised EU constitutional treaty would do and why democrats everywhere should oppose it

The Peace & Neutrality Alliance commissioned Lansdowne Market Research Ltdto conduct a national survey of a representative sample of the Irish peopleon their attitude towards the use of Shannon Airport in the Iraq war.

They were asked; "Are you in favour of, or opposed to the use of ShannonAirport by US troops travelling to and from Iraq?"

Their response was as follows

In Favour: 19%
Opposed: 58%
No opinion: 21%
Don't know: 2%

A detailed breakdown is available on request.

The Chair of the Peace & Neutrality Alliance, Roger Cole in response to thesurvey said:

"PANA welcomes the results of this survey. PANA which helped to organisethe massive demonstration against the war on Iraq and the Ahern FF/PDgovernments support for the war by destroying Irish/neutrality, on the15/3/03 accepts that the numbers turning out on ant-war demonstrations sincethen has fallen dramatically.

PANA however believed this reflected people's belief that there was littlepoint in taking part and not their opposition to the war. These results showthat the massive majority of the Irish people oppose the use of Shannon andthat the Ahern Government does not have a democratic mandate in its policyto support the war and destroy Irish neutrality. PANA seeks to make the theuse of Shannon Airport in the war an issue in the election.

Since other polls show that it is unlikely that the current war parties ofFF and the PD's will return to power without the support of either theLabour Party, the Green Party or Sinn Fein, all of which opposed the war, itseems self evident that the use of Shannon airport in the war, especiallynow that the number of US troops using it are increasing, is and should be,an election issue."

Independent National Survey shows Irish people oppose the use of Shannon airport in the Iraq War

by Harry van Bommel and Niels de Heij

Summary

European cooperation has already brought us many benefits, for example in the areas of human rights and of our prosperity. That does not mean that it is always good or that cooperation in all areas offers added value. The outcome of the referendum on the European Constitution demonstrated that a clear majority holds the European Union as it is now in little esteem, and that there was a need for a broad social discussion over Europe and the role of the Netherlands within it. This paper is intended to contribute to such a debate by making proposals for a more democratic, slimmed down, balanced and affordable EU, as well as a fruitful European agricultural policy.

Proposals for a more democratic Europe:

strengthen the role of national parliaments and governments and of the European Parliament (EP)
limit the role of the European Union, the European Commission and the European Court of Justice (ECJ)
introduce the proposed 'yellow-card procedure', under which, where a minimum of a third of national parliaments consider that a proposed EU measure comes under national competence, the Commission must reconsider the proposal
limit the scope of the economic market
make the Council more transparent
improve relations between national parliaments and the European Parliament
increase public involvement
changes to the Treaty should be put to referendum

Proposals for a slimmed down Europe:

subject legislation to tests of competence, subsidiarity and proportionality
clearly demarcate competences and return them to national institutions
develop a Europe based on core competences
improve and limit the scope of the internal market
improve European environmental, asylum, energy and terrorism policies
ensure that we have fewer but more effective rules
work towards a 'social' Europe
no centralised European foreign policy

Proposals for a more balanced European Union

extend the accession criteria
hold referenda over future enlargements
give more financial support to poor member states
regulate the free movement of workers
for the time being, no enlargement in the Balkans

Proposals for an affordable EU:

limit the EU budget
suspend the Dutch contribution to the budget by refusing to approve the annual accounts
apply the Stability Pact fairly
reform the structural funds
the EP must have a single seat in which it holds all meetings

Proposals for a fruitful agricultural policy

shift agricultural subsidies to farmers and to environmentally beneficial services
ensure better environmental, food safety and animal welfare legislation
discourage overproduction
abolish export subsidies
give developing countries preferential market access
extend the Anything-but-Arms rule
remove agricultural production from the WTO
cofinancing for agricultural policy

A Better Europe Starts Now

Ken Coates

For some years now there has been concern about the confrontationbetween the United States and Iran. This has continuously given riseto apprehension, as leaks from the American Intelligence Services, andthe notable dispatches of Seymour Hersh have raised alarm from timeto time. But there have been other voices which, without being sanguine,have been somewhat more reassuring. Discounting the apologists for theAmerican administration, there have been serious voices from the UnitedStates Intelligence, and the American military, explaining why the militaryand social costs of an extension of the Middle East war to Iran wouldbe prohibitive, wreaking far more damage on American interests thanit would be rational to risk. This view has not usually been foundedon any moral rejection of the awful consequences of war, but on calculationsof its likely consequences.

Quite generally this nowadays excludes the possibility of any groundoffensive. What has been a more open question has been whether the UnitedStates might launch air attacks. Rational people might have expectedthat. The remarkable story of the offensive against Lebanon, which sufferedprolonged Israeli bombardment and immense destruction, and yet remainedundefeated, would have given serious thought to military planners inthe United States. It certainly seems that the opposition of the Britishand American Governments to an immediate ceasefire was based on thecalculation that given sufficient time the Israelis would be able todestroy Hezbollah, even if this process involved the most widespreaddestruction, and very large numbers of civilian casualties. But Hezbollahwas not crushed, and indeed, according to its leader Sayed Hassan Nasrallah,it emerged from that terrible conflict stronger in popular support,and indeed, even in a stronger military position than it had at thebeginning.

But there have been insistent noises from the Bush entourage, not onlyaccusing Hezbollah of being proxies for Iran, but also threatening tovisit a similar destruction upon Iran from the air, like that whichhas afflicted the Lebanon. As sometimes happens, events that might providean awesome deterrent to rational people may sometimes be an incentiveto military adventurism.
Now there is a careful report from Sam Gardiner (full text availableat www.tcf.org), theretired Air Force Colonel who has been evaluating the prospects fora military onslaught on Iran. Gardiner thinks that the consequencesof a serious air strike on Iran can be incalculable. But he thinks thatwhereas military rationality might have prevailed heretofore, todaythe issue is perilously more uncertain.

His conclusion is very chilling. Just prior to any anticipated strike,he says we can expect the quiet deployment of Air Force tankers to stagingbases, and ³we will see additional Navy assets moved to the region².There will also be a fierce intensification of the propaganda preparationsfor war on terrorism.

All of us are well aware of some of the recent propaganda moves inthis direction. Now, more ominously, the latest news is that a significant³Strike Group² of ships is heading for the Persian Gulf. OnSeptember 21st it was reported in The Nation that:

³the Eisenhower Strike Group bristling with Tomahawk cruise missiles,has received orders to depart the United States in a little over a weekŠ other official sources Š confirm that this armada is scheduledto arrive off the coast of Iran on or around October 21st².

If such an air strike is scheduled, then we need only look at theIsraeli onslaught on Lebanon to see what is likely to happen. Certainly,just as the Lebanon was comprehensively flattened, we can expect immensedevastation to be wrought on Iran. This is adequately reported by Gardiner.We can also expect serious retaliation, and quite possibly immense economicdamage as oil supplies are cut off.

Of course, Gardiner may not be right about the economic consequences.Oil may not reach the spike of $125 per barrel, leave alone $200. Theanticipated paralysing recession may not happen. If the state of mindof American military planners can be deduced from what is said by Gardiner,there can be little doubt that they have been intensively studying thelessons of Hezbollah in Lebanon, which are most likely to be appliedin Iran when that is levelled by even larger air attacks. But the globaleconomic consequences of attacks on the Lebanon will not be in any waycomparable with the potential ruin that can be brought about by attackson Iran.

Colonel Gardiner has tried to estimate what these might be. The onlyconclusion a sane person can draw is that the very idea of such an offensiveis suicidal lunacy. There is quite a lot of evidence that this appreciationextends deep into the leadership of the military intelligence communitiesin the United States, and is shared by diplomats and other opinion-shapersaround the world.

Will their view prevail on the United States Government? Is the AmericanFleet voyaging to the Gulf simply in order to make belligerent threats?Is it thought that such threats alone might conduce to an election victoryin the mid-term, based upon fear and irrationalism?

We do not know the answer to these questions. Not so very long agoit would have been unthinkable that anyone could ask them. If ever therewas work for the peace movements to do, surely it is here, and neverwas it more pressing.

Download publication (PDF):
http://www.tcf.org/publications/internationalaffairs/gardiner_summer_diplomacy.pdf

Iran: Why you should read Colonel Gardiner

- By Richard Falk Princeton University and the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (August 2006)

The UN has become in these situations, sadly, more of a geopolitical instrument than an instrument for the enforcement of international law. This regression betrays the vision that the guided the architects of the UN back in 1945, chief among whom were American diplomats. It is today incapable of protecting any state that is the victim of an aggressive war initiated by the United States or its close allies. Sad as it is, this assessment should not lead to a cynical dismissal of the Organization. We need the UN - and there are three ways in which we can help it be what it was meant to be.

- For those of us who believe that we must never let any state get away with forcing the UN to undermine its own authority and the fundamentally important norms of its Charter, Richard Falk's analysis is a deeply moving wake-up call to us all: Do something before the UN decays completely as an organization for world peace. And he tells us what can still be done. Please read it, translate it, send it on to anyone in the media, decision-makers and friends worldwide! - urges TFF director Jan Oberg.

- www.transnational.org/pressinf/2006/pi241_Falk_AssessUNLeb.html

Assessing the United Nations After the Lebanon War 2006

- By Richard Falk Princeton University and the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (August 2006)

- www.transnational.org/pressinf/2006/pi241_Falk_AssessUNLeb.html

Assessing the United Nations After the Lebanon War 2006

With the Defence (Amendment) Bill 2006, the Government has effectively abandoned the triple lock, say Greens.

On Wednesday, July 5th, the second last day of the Dail session, the Government will be rushing all stages of the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006 through the Dail. In just a few hours, with no proper debate, fundamental changes will be made to the Irish Defence Acts, changes which will have far-reaching impacts on Ireland's proud tradition of bluehelmeted UN peacekeeping service. The Government is hoping that it will all be over very quickly, that it can sneak off into the Summer Recess without the public - including many of Fianna Fail's core supporters - being aware of just how momentous this legislation is.

The Green Party/Comhaontas Glas will be opposing this Defence Bill at every (brief) stage of its passage through the Dail. Minister of Defence,Willie O'Dea's continuous mantra that our Triple Lock requirements will remain intact has been proven to be meaningless cant: the necessity ofGovernment and Dail approval and a UN mandate before Irish troops are sent abroad has now effectively been ditched. Triple Locks take time toopen. And Rapid Reaction Forces don't have time. The EU Battlegroups that this Government - and Fine Gael and Labour - are so eager to join,need rapid decision making. The EU's ambition is to deploy the Battlegroups within 5 to 10 days after approval by the EU Council. Waitingfor UN mandates are a 'luxury' that only Ireland requires. And so enters the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006.

An EU Battlegroup consists of a battalion-size force package of around 1,500 troops, complete with combat support and logistics units as well asthe necessary air and naval components, ready for rapid deployment anywhere in the world - no geographical boundary has been set. TheBattlegroups will engage in the full range of so-called Petersberg Tasks, humanitarian and rescue tasks; peacekeeping; tasks of combatforces in crisis management, including peacemaking; -- as well as new tasks approved in the EU's European Security Strategy -- jointdisarmament operations; support for third countries in combating terrorism; and Security Sector Reform (SSR). This means in factthat Battlegroups can do just what they say: go into battle. For the Government to portray the Battlegroups as a misnomer and as something more akin to the Red Cross is a complete misrepresentation of what Ireland is about to join.

1. The Definition of International United Nations Force in Section One
"International United Nations Force" means an international force or body established, mandated, authorised, endorsed, supported,approved or otherwise sanctioned by a resolution of the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations;

The definition in section 1 of "International United Nations Force" is now so broad that any vague resolution from the Security Council will do. Thepresent Irish Defence Acts state only that such a force should be 'established' by the Security Council or General Assembly. A number ofrecent military missions have been 'authorised' by the UN Security Council [e.g. Resolution 1244 (1999), SC decision to deploy international civil andsecurity presence in Kosovo, under UN auspices] and the Green Party would be open to 'established, mandated or authorised'. However, the otherterminology is far too broad and open to abuse. Both the United States and Britain insisted that their illegal attack on Iraq was in line with UN resolutionsand the UN Charter.

2. Dispatching Irish soldiers abroad with only the approval of the Government in Section Three
[Sect. 3 -(1)] A contingent or member of the Permanent Defence Force may, with the prior approval of and on the authority of the Government,be despatched for service outside the State for the purposes of

carrying out duties as a military representative or filling appointments or postings outside the State, including secondments to any international organisation,
conducting or participating in training,
carrying out ceremonial duties, participating in exchanges or undertaking visits,
undertaking monitoring, observation or advisory duties,
participating in or undertaking reconnaissance or fact-finding missions,
undertaking humanitarian tasks in response to an actual or potential disaster or emergency,
participating in sporting events, or
inspecting and evaluating stores, equipment and facilities.

(2) Nothing in this section shall prevent the Government from giving general approval, for such period of time as they determine, to such classes of any of the activities specified in subsection (1) as they consider appropriate and subject to such conditions as they impose.

Section 3 makes it clear that not even Dail approval is required for certain operations. The Green Party can understand that military personnelattending sporting events or on ceremonial duties should be able to do so with Government approval only. However, contingents of troops involved insuch areas as training, military reconnaissance, or humanitarian tasks in response to 'actual' or potential' disaster or emergency should not be ableto be dispatched at the whim of a Government. The question which Minister O'Dea refused to answer from Green Party Deputy, John Gormley, in theDail last week is: what happens if our troops are fired upon in such circumstances? Also, the EU Battlegroups are supposed to be involved inhumanitarian tasks under the Petersberg Tasks. It appears that Section 3 leaves the way open for Irish troops to participate in EU Battlegroups insuch instances without any UN mandate, let alone even Dail approval. The definition of 'humanitarian tasks' can be extremely broad: when NATO began its bombing campaign in Kosovo in March 1999, NATO argued that it was to 'avert a humanitarian catastrophe'. Much tighter controls will be required in Section 3 for certain overseas military activities.

3. Provision for Irish troops to be dispatched with EU Battlegroups before UN authorization in Section 8.
8.-Section 2 of the Act of 1960 is amended a)in subsection (1), by substituting "subsections (2) and (3)" for "subsection (2)", and (b) byinserting the following after subsection (2): "(3) A contingent or member of the Permanent Defence Force may, with the prior approval of and on the authority of the Government, be despatched for service outside the State as part of a force to beassembled or embarked before being deployed as part of a particular International United Nations Force if, but only if, thecontingent or member is not so deployed until a resolution under subsection (1) of this section has been passed by Dail Eireann approving of their despatch for such service."

Section 8 is both farcical and dangerous. It is designed to allow Irish troops to go off with the Battlegroups prior to UN approval - to be rapidly 'assembled' or 'embarked', but not 'deployed'. This is the Irish Government's halfbakedsolution to the inconvenience of UN mandates. It would appear that our troops are expected to wait on the fringes - perhaps on the fringes of an armed conflict -- awaiting UNauthorisation to join the remainder of the Battlegroup. Again, what happens if our troops are attacked in this situation? The logical answer - the oneWillie O'Dea did not give in the Dail last week - is that they can defend themselves, in which case they are involved in a conflict before there isproper UN authorisation. This dangerous section needs to be totally deleted from the legislation.

The Defence (Amendment) Bill 2006 represents the final assault by Fianna Fail and the PDs on what remains of Irish neutrality. It takes a hacksaw tothe Triple Lock and undermines the status of UN mandates. It is true that Kofi Annan has welcomed regional organizations in assisting thepeacekeeping role of the United Nations. However, this has to be under the authority of the UN. The General Assembly has emphasized that only theUN Security Council has the legal authority to mandate coercive action to maintain and restore international peace and security.

Ireland is a small country with a small military and an immense, highly respected and proud reputation as UN peacekeepers. This is the role theGreen Party would like to see our defence forces maintain. We are convinced that Ireland's military strength in promoting international peaceand security is to be found in this 'niche' role, not as a tag- on to an EU Battlegroup. Unfortunately, Fianna Fail and the PDs, along with a willing'Opposition' in Fine Gael and Labour, have decided - via the Defence (Amendment) Bill 2006 -- to launch our defence forces in a new, highlydubious and regrettable direction.

The Green Party / Comhaontas Glas
16/17 Suffolk Street, Dublin 2
Tel: 01 6790012 /Fax: 01 6797168
Email: info@greenparty.ieWeb: www.greenparty.ie

Eu battlegroups legislation - a Policy statement, Green Party

Summary

The militarisation of the EU is a controversial development that should be fiercely contested. EU funding of military research is also very controversial, from both a constitutional and political perspective.

This Statewatch-TNI report examines the development of the EU Security Research Programme (ESRP) and the growing security-industrial complex in Europe it is being set up to support. With the global market for technologies of repression more lucrative than ever in the wake of 11 September 2001, it is on a healthy expansion course. There are strong arguments for regulating, limiting and resisting the development of the security-industrial complex but as yet there has been precious little debate.

The story of the ESRP is one of Big Brother meets market fundamentalism. It was personified by the establishment in 2003 of a Group of Personalities (GoP) comprised of EU officials and Europes biggest arms and IT companies who argued that European multinationals are losing out to their US competitors because the US government is providing them with a billion dollars a year for security research. The European Commission responded by giving these companies a seat at the EU table, a proposed budget of one billion euros for security research and all but full control over the development and implementation of the programme. In effect, the EU is funding the diversification of these companies into the more legitimate and highly lucrative dual use sector, allowing them to design future EU security policies and allowing corporate interests to determine the public interest.

The planned Security Research Programme raises important issues about EU policy-making and the future of Europe. Europe faces serious security challenges: not just terrorism, but disease, climate change, poverty, inequality, environmental degradation, resource depletion and other sources of insecurity. Rather than being part of a broader strategy to combat these challenges, the ESRP is part of a broader EU counter-terrorism strategy almost singularly orientated to achieving security based primarily on the use of military force and the demands of law enforcement. Freedom and democracy are being undermined by the very policies adopted in their name.

Ben Hayes has been a researcher with the civil liberties group Statewatch since 1996, specialising in the development and implementation of EU Justice and Home Affairs policy. He is widely published on civil liberties issues in Europe and has written about policing, surveillance, criminal law, immigration controls, asylum policy, human rights, privacy and data protection, freedom of information and democratic standards. He works with of range of NGOs and community groups including the American Civil Liberties Union, the International Campaign Against Mass Surveillance, the Campaign Against Criminalising Communities (UK) and the Global Freedom of Information Advocates Network. He is joint co-ordinator of the European Civil Liberties Network, launched in October 2005.

Arming Big Brother - The EU's Security Research Programme

Baineadh geit mhor as ceannairi polaitiula an Aontas Eorpaigh (AE) nuair a fograiodh torthai na reifrinn ar Bhunreacht na hEorpa a tharla sa bhFrainc agus san Isiltir. Sa bhFrainc, dhiultaigh 55% don Bhunreacht agus 62% a bhi ina haghaidh san Isiltir. Ni hamhain san ach bhi lion na ndaoine a chaith vota sa da thir an-ard,70% sa bhFrainc agus 63% san Isiltir. Ni hamhlaidh go bhfeadfadh ceannairi na hEorpa an cluas bhodhar a thabhairt da saoranaigh fein,an bhfeadfadh? Bhi Bunreacht na hEorpa ar lar anois, nach raibh? Nach gciallaionn 'daonlathas', daonlathas?

Nuair a dhiultaigh votoiri na hEireann do Chonradh Nice (an chead cheann!), duradh linn nach nglacfai lenar nguth daonlathach toisc gur "tir bheag" i Eire agus go raibh lion na votoiri "an-iseal". Ma leantar leis an loighic sin ta coincheap an daonlathais san Eoraip anois ag brath ar ce chomh 'mor' is ata do thir agus ce chomh 'lionmhar' lucht votala agat. Ni loighic na daonlathas e seo,gan amhras, ach miloighic is frithdhaonlathas. Nil ann ach Rialu an Mhaorlathais, dairire. Ba leir don te is daille ag an am nach mbeadh Nice 2 ann ar chor ar bith da mba rud e go raibh an bua ag lucht Ta le haon vota amhain,cuma ce chomh gann lion na votoiri.

Ce a chreidfeafdh,afach,nach nglacfadh maorlathas polaitiuil na hEorpa le guth daonlathach na Fraince no na hIsiltire? Sa raiteas a d'eisigh ceannairi stat an AE tar eis na votai a theacht isteach, creid e no na creid, duradh le lucht Nil (an moramh) gur 'tuigeadh da gcuraimi is da n-imni' ach nar dhoigh leis na ceannairi go raibh na votoiri 'ag diultu don Bhunreacht' (ce gur ar an mBunreacht a bhi an vota) Dar leo,bheidis ag glacadh "deis macnaimh" sula rachaidis "ar aghaidh leis an bproiseas".

Nior bhain an raiteas ud aon gheit daonlathach astu siud a throid agus a bhuaigh Nice 1. Thuigeamar ag an am, agus tuigtear duinn go foill, nach "democratic deficit" ata i gceartlar an AE ach folus daonlathach. Tagann meadu suntasach ar an bhfolus san le gach vota 'daonlathach', mar dhea,a chaitear san AE.

An mbeidh deireadh amach anseo le reifrinn san AE toisc nach feidir leis na ceannairi na torthai a thuar? Ceard is fiu reifrinn mura nglactar leis na torthai? An gcuirfear na torthai ar ceal mura bhfaightear an freagra ceart? Nach cuma anois ce chomh 'beag' no ce chomh 'mor' an tir a fhreagraionn Nil? Nach cuma anois ce chomh lionmhar no chomh fanach lucht votala?

San AE anois,de reir dealraimh, ta seanmhana Henry Ford athchruthaithe ag ar gceannairi polaitiula: Is feidir pe fhreagra is mian leat a thabhairt... a fhad is gur Ta ata ann! Na ceapaimis, mar sin, go bhfuil Bunreacht na hEorpa ar lar. Nil se sa chonra fos na baol air. Ta lucht an mhaorlathais ag deanamh athbheou air faoi lathair agus, amhail Dracula, oiche dhorcha eigin...

Feargus Mac Aogain,Coiste Feidhmeannach Chomhaontas na Siochana is na Neodrachta/PANA. Foilsiodh iomlan an ailt seo don chead uair san INC News ,Geimhreadh 2005.

Bunreacht na hEorpa ar lar?

A submission to The European Parliament, Temporary Committee on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transport and illegal detention of prisoners (TDIP)
by Edward Horgan (20 April 2006)

Executive Summary

Since the end of 2001, Shannon Airport in the west of Ireland has come to be used as a military base of key strategic significance for the United States in its prosecution of its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

At the time of writing, the Irish Department of Transport's figures for troops passing through Shannon Airport indicate that almost all of the American troops in Iraq have transited through this civilian airport, back and forth between the United States and Iraq, several times (The latest official figures confirm that over one thousand three hundred armed US troops are passing through Shannon airport each day). Much military hardware has also passed through the airport.

At the same time, flight logs of aircraft owned or operated by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) show that Shannon Airport has served as one of the most important nodes in a network of airports used by the CIA to conduct its programme of "extraordinary renditions". Under this programme promoted by the administration of President George W. Bush, more than 10,000 people have been abducted in the course of the last four years and transported to and from various sites in a global network of prisons, including prisons in Afghanistan and Iraq, an internment camp at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, and secret "black sites" in Eastern Europe. At these prisons, the abducted prisoners have been subjected to various forms of torture, which have been sanctioned by the administration.

Flight logs also implicate other Irish airports, including Dublin and Baldonnel, in crimes of torture related to the programme of extraordinary rendition. Airports in at least 30 other European countries have also been implicated in these crimes, as documented in reports in the international media.

Some of the abducted prisoners have been sent ("rendered") to countries such as Egypt and Syria, where they may be subjected to particularly harsh torture, even to the point of death.

At the time of writing, it is a matter of particular urgency that hundreds of undocumented prisoners are in danger of suffering summary execution in order to conceal crimes of torture committed under the United States' programme of extraordinary renditions. It is most likely that some have already been murdered.

The United States' programme of extraordinary renditions represents a backward step for humanity, by which various regimes around the world justify their own practices of torture. This represents a threat to the security of all of us, including, most strikingly, American citizens kidnapped, tortured and beheaded in Iraq. Two Irish citizens have also been abducted and murdered in Iraq.

All of the above-mentioned activities associated with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with the programme of extraordinary renditions (which is intimately related to those wars) are in breach of Irish and international law. In particular, the Irish Government has committed repeated, frequent breaches of Ireland's obligations as a neutral state under the Hague Convention, of the UN Convention against Torture and of Irish legislation that incorporates the Convention against Torture.

Despite the outright illegality of these activities, the Irish state, including both elected government ministers and high-ranking public servants, has actively colluded in facilitating the use of Shannon Airport for the conduct of the United States' unlawful wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and for the transport of prisoners abducted under the programme of extraordinary rendition for torture. The government has granted explicit permission for aircraft in the service of the United States' armed forces and of the CIA to transit Shannon Airport, and has effectively granted such aircraft immunity from being searched, or investigated.

The government has eagerly accepted worthless assurances and reassurances from the White House that Shannon Airport has not been used for purposes of torture, and, in the course of a visit on St. Patrick's Day, prime minister Bertie Ahern has requested the administration to provide information about some of the flights, with view to mollifying the Irish citizenry, who are overwhelmingly opposed to the torture programme.

Statements from government ministers fall short of denying knowledge of the use of Shannon Airport for the programme of extraordinary rendition for torture, presumably because the ministers are well aware that these crimes have been committed.

In a perversion of justice, members of government have demanded that concerned citizens, including the author of this submission, present evidence of crimes of torture committed at Shannon Airport, while directing airport security staff and members of the Garda Síochána to harass, detain and arrest these same activists in their attempts to gather such evidence.

Government ministers have repeatedly stated that, if the concerned citizens will only produce evidence of crimes, then the government will conduct an investigation into the torture flights. This kind of false reassurance is clearly a disingenuous tactic by which they seek to blur the distinction between "prima facie evidence" and "conclusive proof" - a distinction of which Minister for Justice Michael McDowell in particular, being a practising barrister, must be acutely aware.

In accordance with its duties, the Intelligence Section of the Irish Defence Forces has probably conducted an investigation into these abuses at Shannon Airport - though without publicising its conclusions - and so we must presume that high-ranking members of the Defence Forces are also aware of crimes of torture committed or facilitated at Shannon Airport. Senior members of the Garda Síochána (Irish police force), Civil Aviation Authority and other key organs of state are presumably also privy to specific details of these crimes of torture.

The response of the Irish Government to a request from the Council of Europe, in accordance with its Article 52, constitutes a fraudulent attempt to conceal its crimes. While the government in this official reply to the Council asserts that it is in compliance with its obligations to investigate and prevent crimes of torture, it is clear that it has in fact failed to protect the victims of torture. The government has not only failed to prevent the "unacknowledged deprivation of liberty" of victims of torture, but on dozens of occasions abused its powers to unlawfully deprive protesters and peaceful observers of their liberty. As recently as 16 th April 2006 four peace activists were arrested at Baldonnel military airport near Dublin.

This submission documents the misuse of Shannon airport by the US military and provides detailed flight logs of almost one hundred landings of CIA aircraft at Shannon. These confirmed CIA landings represent only some of the CIA use of Shannon airport, because the complete set of flight logs, which are available to the Irish Government, are not available to peace activists so far.

In view of the failure of the United Nations to effectively intervene to enforce the rule of law as regards crimes of torture, the European Union must intervene as a matter of utmost importance and urgency. The TDIP Committee must call at least four Irish Government ministers to face questions about the abuses at Shannon Airport (and other Irish airports): Ministers for Justice, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister for Defence and Minister for Transport.

Download text of full submission (PDF file, 189 kb): EHorganEUParliament200406.pdf

Edward Horgan, Commandant (Retired) of the Irish army, former UN military peacekeeper,
Manager, Centre for Care of Survivors of Torture,
213 North Circular Road, Dublin, Ireland.

Special Report by Citizen of European Union State on Extraordinary Rendition for Torture

by Jan Joel Andersson
SIEPS 2006:2
Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies

This report traces the origins of the EU decision to set up battlegroups, describes the underlying political and military concepts and analyses the challenges that the EU and its member states face in realising the Headline goal 2010, the plan adopted by the European defence ministers in June 2004 with the aim of improving European military capabilities. It also discusses the broader question of whether or not a military capability allows the EU to better achieve its goals.

The Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies, SIEPS, conducts and promotes research and analysis of European policy issues within the disciplines of political science, law and economics. SIEPS strives to act as a link between the academic world and policy-makers at various levels.

By issuing this report, we hope to stimulate the European discussion on how the role of the European Union on the global scene is related to its military capabilities.
Stockholm, March 2006
Annika Strm Melin
Director,SIEPS

SUMMARY
The capability to deploy military forces on short notice during crises is an essential aspect of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). TheEuropean Union Battlegroup concept lies at the centre of this capability. An EU Battlegroup consists of a battalion-size force package of around 1,500 troops, complete with combat support and logistics units as well as the necessary air and naval components, ready for rapid deployment around the world. The EUs ambition is to be able to launch a Battlegroup operation within five days after approval by the Council. Once the decision has been made, troops should be on the ground implementing their mission within ten days. To date, the EU Member States have agreed to the establishment of thirteen Battlegroups. Every six months, two of these will be on stand-by to deploy within 5-10 days. Limited operational ability is already in place but full operational capability is expected to be reached by 2007. At that time, the EU should be able to undertake the simultaneous or near-simultaneous launch of two concurrent single battalion-size rapid response operations. The Battlegroups will be capable of managing the full range of response tasks, including humanitarian assistance, traditional peacekeeping and peacemaking by force. In support of the ESDP, Sweden, Finland, Norway and Estonia have agreed to establish a joint Nordic Battlegroup (NBG) under Swedish leadership, which will be on standby during the period 1 January 30 June 2008.

This report traces the origins behind the EUs decision to establish these Battlegroups, discusses the political and military concepts underlying the EUs decision and analyses the challenges facing the EU and its Member States in realising the Headline Goal 2010. Moreover, the report will review the current build-up of the Nordic Battlegroup (NBG), which comprises units from Sweden, Finland, Norway and Estonia. In conclusion, the report addresses the fundamental question of whether the development of the Battlegroup concept in fact enables the EU to better achieve its goals.

The report then discusses three alternatives by which the EU might achieve its goals and examines how the EU Battlegroup Concept functions within each. The three alternatives are as follows:

remain a civilian great power and rely on civilian means;
become a traditional great power and develop the full range of tools for international statecraft, including an army and
attempt to square the circle by acquiring a limited military capability as a complement to mainly civilian tools.

While the Battlegroup concept has won wide acceptance in Europe, the question remains whether rapid deployment of 1,500 light infantrymen will be the right answer to the next crisis. If military force is to be an instrument in achieving the EUs strategic goals set in the European Security Strategy - counteracting terrorism, preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, promoting security in the neighbourhood and assisting the UN in the management of international crises - the EU will need far more than two battalion-size Battlegroups at its disposal to meet these goals. While the EU may not necessarily need an entire army, it will need at minimum a few standing brigades. If not, the Member States may eventually find themselves in a Union whose bark is much worse than its bite.

Download Publication (PDF file): www.sieps.se/_pdf/Publikationer/2006/20062.pdf

Jan Joel Andersson is a research fellow at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs. His main areas of research are European security and defence policy. A graduate of Uppsala University, he received his M.A. and Ph.D. in political science from the University of California, Berkeley. Dr Andersson is a member of the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London and a form er visiting fellow at the Institute for Security Studies in Paris. Among his recent publications are the edited volume Sverige och Europas frsvar (2005) and a forthcoming co-edited volume on the European Security Strategy.

Armed and Ready? The EU Battlegroup Concept and the Nordic Battlegroup </h1>

by Roger Cole (updated March 2006)

The Resource Wars of the 21 st Century and the EU Battlegroups
The collapse of the European Empires, British, Belgian, Dutch, French, Germany, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish made the ruling elite of each of the states realise that they could not re-establish their Imperial traditions except by combining and creating a new "European" identity.

They sought to create a "European" elite that was committed to the steady and gradual destruction of the national democracy and Independence of the states within the EU via a series of treaties of which the proposed EU Constitution was to be a cornerstone, and its transformation into a centralised, neo-liberal, militarised, Imperial Superstate, allied to the US. It was their joint intention to engage in Imperial wars of conquest. The US invasion and conquest of Iraq in order to gain control of Iraqi oil and to consolidate US/ Israeli military domination of the Middle East was actively supported by 14 EU states; Belgium, Britain, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Holland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, and Spain (initially) most of which also sent troops to participate in its invasion and/or occupation.

It was only the massive opposition by millions of ordinary people in 2003 within the states of Europe to this restoration of the European Imperial tradition that prevented the EU states from more actively supporting the war. As a consequence of these massive demonstrations and the rejection of the EU Constitution by the French and Dutch people of the EU Constitution their whole project is under threat and the emerging "European" elite is now more divided than ever as how to respond.

The reasons given for the war, such that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction were lies. Their real intention was to replace Saddam as ruler with Chalabi, a committed ally of the US and the EU who would privatize the Iraqi oil industry. Unfortunately for US, the plan has gone badly wrong and Iraq now has Islamic Shia Government friendly with the Iranian Government.

Since the US described Iran as part of the "axis of evil" this has been a bad result that now needs to be rectified.

A substantial element of the EU/US elite is therefore preparing to attack Iran in order to regain the momentum lost as a consequence of the war and the referendum results. With the election of the pro-war Chancellor Merkel in Germany the chances of such a war proceeding have increased dramatically. She would be well aware that Bismarck used war to create the German Empire and war could be used to create a European Empire The EU/US is steadily putting more and more pressure on Iran not to proceed with its development of nuclear power, alleging such a development would allow it to develop nuclear weapons. At the same time they are putting no pressure on Israel to abolish its existing nuclear arsenal or to withdraw from the occupied territory of Palestine. If Iran does not accept the current diplomatic efforts to force it to stop its nuclear developments, then the EU will say it has no alternative but to support the US military strike on Iran.

As in 2003 there will be massive protests, but since the British, Danish and American people re-elected their Imperialist leaders, and Merkel was elected in Germany, the elite clearly feel it can easily handle any opposition. It's our job to make sure that the mobilization against another Imperial war is so strong that they quickly come to realise that they got it very wrong again. It would be even better if we could build an electoral alliance throughout the EU to remove them from power.

The war will mean that the EU Battle groups will be called into action.

It is these resource wars of the 21 st century or the "war on terrorism" as our establishment media call it, provides the justification for the growth in military expenditure. The EU Battle Groups are only a small but crucial part of the EU/US military partnership.

These wars will transfer financial resources away from health, education and social housing. The "war on terrorism" also allows the elite to create a climate of fear in which it will be easier to push through a sustained attack on the working and living standards on the ordinary people of Europe via the services directive and other neo-liberal driven measures.

The "war on terrorism" is also leading to a sustained attack on civil liberties creating moves towards a super EU police state.

The EU Battle Groups
The idea of EU Battle Groups was first suggested at the Franco-British Summit in Le Touquet in February 2003 and made explicit in the London meeting in November 2003.

The EU Defence Ministers in their meeting in Brussels in 2004 adopted the decision. They will act as the "shock troops" Regiments of the emerging Empire. Thirteen Battle Groups are being created with 1,500 combat soldiers each, which means allowing for rotation, etc, at an average ration of seven to nine for each combat soldier; a total force of approximately 156,000 combat soldiers. It is planned that they could operate as separate units or in joint expeditions.

The objective was to ensure that the first few would be ready by 2005 and between 6-7 by 2007 with the remainder established by 2010. General Wolfgang Schneiderhan, is Chair of the EU Military Committee with direct military responsibility for the EUBG's.

Each Battle Group will have to be able to go to a theatre of operations up to at least 6,000 km (which includes the Middle East) from the borders of the EU within 5 days of being instructed to do so by the EU Council, and be able to stay there for at least 120 days allowing for rotation. They would have to be able to operate in hostile environments including deserts, mountains and jungles, and would have a high degree of training, equipment, command structures and planning units.

The purpose of the EU Battle Groups is to go to battle, to go to war, as Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, The Secretary General of NATO has said:"Battle Groups could be used to go to war. Why did the EU create the Battle Group? It is not just to help rebuild a country. The Battle Groups are not for building schools. We shouldn't think the EU is for soft power and NATO for tough power." (Irish Times 11/3/05)

The states of the EU, either individually or in groups are to provide the necessary combat trained troops and required equipment and they are

France
Italy
Spain
UK
France, Germany, Belgium, Luxemburg, and Spain
France and Belgium
Germany, the Netherlands and Finland
Germany, the Czech Republic and Austria
Italy, Hungary and Slovenia
Poland, Germany, Slovakia, Latvia, and Lithuania
Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal
Sweden, Finland, Norway and possibly Estonia
UK and the Netherlands.

In the case of Battle Groups in which a number of states participated, one state would be regarded as a "lead nation" which would take operational command and provide the Headquarters of the Battle Group. Membership of the Battle Groups would be open to non-EU NATO countries such as Turkey that are applying for EU membership.

The Danish Protocol
Denmark is not taking part in the Battlegroups because the movement for Danish Democracy won a major victory, which ensured that a number of legally binding Protocols were added to the Amsterdam Treaty including one that excluded Denmark from the process of the militarisation of the EU.

The Peace and Neutrality Alliance has campaigned for years for a similar Protocol to be added to the various EU Treaties that would also exclude Ireland along the following lines: "With regard to measures adopted by the Council in the fields of ArticleJ3 (1) and J7 of the Treaty of the European Union, Ireland does not participate in the elaboration and the implementation of decisions and actions which have defence implications, but will not prevent the development of closer cooperation between member states in this area. Therefore Ireland shall not participation in their adoption. Ireland shall not contribute to the financing of the operational expenditure arising from such measures."

The Irish political Elite and the EU Battlegroups
The Irish political elite, however is totally committed to the creation of a European Empire, and like their Redmondite predecessors, has rejected Irish Democracy, Irish Independence and Irish Neutrality and refused to accept such a Protocol for Ireland. As far as they are concerned the Irish Army is to play the same role in the European Union as the Irish Regiments of the British Union.

The Irish political elite have already made their commitment to the integration of Ireland into the EU/US military industrial structures absolutely clear : by their decision to join Nato's PfP without a promised referendum, by voting against a Bill to amend the Constitution to enshrine neutrality into it in February 2003, and in particular, by destroying the longstanding policy of Irish neutrality by allowing thousands upon thousands of US troops to use Shannon airport. Between January 2003 and October 2005, 549,457 US troops have landed in Shannon airport on their way to the war in Iraq.

Since International law under the Hague Convention of 1907 states that a neutral country cannot allow its territory to be used by belligerents in a war, they have now destroyed Irish neutrality by supporting the illegal invasion, conquest and occupation of Iraq, and by allowing thousands upon thousands of US troops to use Shannon airport on their way to Iraq. They also refuse to search US planes that might be carrying prisoners to torture centres. The Irish Government claims it has not agreed to the establishment of such torture centres on Irish soil, but such is their subservience to the EU/US elite that such claims have no credibility.

They therefore are strong supporters of the EU Battle Groups and have made it absolutely clear they intend to ensure that Irish troops will be allocated to them.

They however have a slight problem. Existing Irish legislation does not allow any armed force to operate on Irish soil except those directly under the control of Dail Eireann and as a consequence of their defeat in the first Nice Referendum they were forced to pass legislation that would prevent Irish troops participating in EU military engagements via the Battle Groups unless they are mandated by the UN, the Irish Government and Dail Eireann. However the FF/PD Government has made it clear that it will introduce legislation that would remove these legal impediments to the Irish Army being integrated into the EU Battle Groups.

While they claim they intend to keep the ", the so called 'triple lock'", the rest of the EU states have no such legislation and a Government that is actively supporting an Imperialist war already will have no problem supporting another Imperialist war.

There are other problems. The states that have formed groups to jointly establish a EU Battle Group are geographically beside each other in order to facilitate military co-ordination so Ireland's obvious partner is Britain. Even the Irish elite however realize that it would be difficult to sell the idea of Irish Rangers fighting shoulder to shoulder with members of the British Paratroop Regiment. They are trying to create an atmosphere to facilitate such a Battle Group. In that context, a successful full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement is crucial. Such a full implementation would be promoted by the elite as final resolution of the longstanding conflict between the advocates of Irish Independence and British Imperialism which would not only allow the creation of a British/Irish EU Battle Group but would be promoted as a real and concrete act of peace and reconciliation between the two nations, which acting together can bring peace to other parts of the world, especially the Middle East.

However, while the Irish elite supports the Good Friday Agreement as a stepping-stone towards a European Empire, Irish Democrats and Republicans see it as a stepping-stone towards a United Independent Democratic Irish Republic. The issue of EU Battle Groups therefore has, as much relevance to Irish people living in Northern Ireland as it has to those living in the Republic of Ireland. The GFA is only a small part of a bigger jigsaw.

Unfortunately for the Irish elite, the conquest of Iraq has already divided all the political parties into pro and anti imperialist groups and PANA is confident that similar divisions will develop in regard to their attitude to the EU Battle Groups.

What is absolutely clear is that what Fianna Fail and the other imperialist parties offer is Ireland being dragged deeper and deeper into Imperialist war rather than a fight for democracy. What they offer is a sustained attack on the living standards of the Irish people via the EU Service Directive.

What they offer is inevitable defeat. There is no chance whatsoever of crushing the Muslim people in the Middle East. These 21 st century Crusader armies, of which the Battle Groups are to be part, will be defeated as were the Crusader Armies of the Middle Ages. It is only their racist arrogance, which prevents them from seeing the reality.

The Irish elite however know that Good Friday Agreement or not, participation in the Trafalgar celebrations or not, commemorating the death of an Irishman who won a VC defending the British Empire in India or not, selling the concept of an Irish Rangers/ British Paratrooper EU Battle Group would be difficult. So they have tried other alternatives.

They have sought to be part of the Swedish/Finnish EU Battle Group but so far it would appear have been unable to get the final agreement of the Scandinavians. This is not surprising. Since the Battlegroups have to go to war within five days an extremely high degree of military interoperability needs to be achieved. The distance between Finland and Sweden and Ireland makes this option very hard to implement in practice. Another possible option is the formation of a Norwegian/Irish Battlegroup, but Norway's membership of the nuclear-armed military alliance, NATO, would again cause problems.

Nevertheless the FF/PD Government has virtually no opposition from the Irish political/media elite.

The Fine Gael Party, Ireland's major opposition Party have made it clear that it they go into Government they will abolish the 'triple lock' legislation and fully support the integration of the Irish Army into the Battle Groups. It has already totally rejected Irish neutrality.

The Irish Labour Party has been a long-standing supporter of the emerging EU Empire, although they originally opposed it. At their recent party conference their delegates massively supported the EU Constitution although Labour Youth voted against. Soon after, the French and Dutch people voted to reject it and the left led the campaign in both countries. More recently the British Congress of Trade Unions voted overwhelmingly to oppose the EU Constitution.

This growing opposition to the EU Empire by the left throughout Europe is bound to weaken the Empire Loyalists within the Irish Labour party, especially its trade union section. It is possible that it might be convinced to end its support for the Irish Army being integrated into the Battlegroups. It did after all oppose the Iraq war, and it is committed to maintaining the 'triple lock' legislation.

While the Labour Party is also committed to a pre-election pact with Fine Gael, the issues of the EU Batttle Groups and the service directive might mean that if it has to pick between the Irish Trade Union Movement and Fine Gael, the current leadership despite what they are saying at the moment, will be forced to pick the trade union movement.

Therefore while the outcome is not clear, the possibility of the Irish Labour Party and Trade Union Movement ending their alliance with the Irish Empire Loyalists remains a real option.

Sinn Fein and the Irish Green Party are opposed to Irish participation in the Battle Groups and support the Triple lock legislation as are a number of independent Dail Deputies.

Virtually the entire media in Ireland has supported the war on Iraq, Battle Groups and the use of Shannon by the American Empire up to the hilt till now, although some elements are beginning to change their minds. However the growth of the Internet has already facilitated alternative methods of spreading information. The power of corporate media to set the agenda is coming to an end.

The EU Security Strategy
Military Intervention without a UN mandate
The EU Security Strategy, "A Secure Europe in a Better World" was written by the EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javiar Solana, and endorsed by the EU in December 2003.

The EU strategy totally endorses President Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive war.

"Our traditional concept of self-defence... was based on the threat of invasion. With the new threats, the first line of defence will often be abroad... we should be ready to act before a crisis occurs".

The strategy goes on to state that not all these threats can be countered by military means and a mixture of instruments must be used. This however leaves the way open for humanitarian aid being used as a tool in the fight against 'terrorism'.

Concord, a pan-European federation of over 1200 development NGO's has repeatedly cautioned against the EU Security policy misusing humanitarian assistance in such a way.

The fact is the EU does not see itself as being bound by the necessity of securing a UN mandate before it sends the EU Battle Groups to a war. While references are made to observance of the UN Charter (similar references are made in the NATO Treaty) nowhere does it state in the EU Treaties that the EU Battle Groups need a UN mandate. While International Law clearly states a UN mandate would be required before a state was invaded, the EU like the US is prepared to ignore such law.

Warmaking and Peacemaking
While the democratic forces in France & the Netherlands defeated the EU Constitution, which would have further consolidated the militarisation of the EU, the existing treaties remain in force including, Article J7.2 that states: "Questions referred to in this article shall include humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks, and combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking."

John Bruton, ex-leader of Fine Gael, and the now the EU Ambassador in the US said after the Amsterdam Treaty was passed: "Peacemaking means imposing, by the use of force, peaceful conditions under the terms laid down by the peacemaker. It is very difficult to distinguish that from warmaking." Dail Eireann 22/10/99

The EU elite does not need a EU Constitution to establish Battlegroups and we can be sure that Mr. Bruton is reflecting their attitude when he says there is no difference between warmaking and peacemaking.

Command Structure
The decision to deploy Battle Groups would be taken by the EU Council in response to "a crisis" or a "request from the UN".

The EU Civilian and Military Planning Cell is now well underway in Brussels.

The Cell is directly responsible to the EU High representative Javier Solana. It will have the responsibility in coordinating and generating the capacity to plan and run autonomous EU military operations.

Several of the states participating in the EU Battle Groups also are developing specialist skills, for example, Finland is providing troops trained in combating chemical and biological weapons, Lithuania is providing experts in water purification and Greece is providing troops with maritime transport skills.

Britain is ensuring members of the Paratroop Regiments are being allocated to the EU Battlegroups and clearly their specialty is shooting unarmed Civil Rights marchers.

The need for a rapid response has major implications for the law in many of the national states. The Luxemburg Defence Minister stated: "Some countries will have to change their laws to be able to take their political decisions quickly and then their military must follow immediately" www.iwar.org.uk

NATO and the EU Battle Groups
The EU is very clear that the Battle Groups are to be developed as a military machine in a mutually reinforcing way with NATO initiatives such as the NATO Response Force. This is especially true given the overlap of EU/NATO/Partnership for Peace military that is well established. There is a very strong requirement for interoperability between the EU military forces and NATO military forces.

In fact as far as Britain is concerned, to quote Geoff Hoon, UK Minister for Defence: "NATO would always have the first choice to launch a military operation"

The reality of the link between the Battle Groups of the EU and NATO was underlined by the report published by 2 ex-NATO chiefs in October 2005. To quote the report: "Failure to meaningfully improve Europe's collective defence capabilities in the coming years would have profoundly negative impacts on the ability of European countries to protect their interests, the viability of NATO as an alliance, and the ability of Europe to partner in any meaningful way with the US."

In February 2005 in a letter written to the House of Commons Select Committee on the European Union Hoon describes the EU Battle Groups as being; "mutually reinforcing with the larger NATO Response Force ... ... and having the potential to act as a stepping-stone for countries that want to contribute to the NATO Response Force, by developing their high readiness forces to the required standard and integrating small countries contribution to multinational units. Wherever possible and applicable, standards, practical methods and procedures for Battlegroups are analogous to those defined in the NATO RF. Correctly managed there is considerable potential for synergy between the two initiatives."

So there it is for all to see. The reality is the EU Battlegroups are not the basis for an alternative European power to the US, but an extension of the power of the US, which dominates NATO. The EU Battlegroups are an extension of the military power of the US/EU Partnership.

Hoon went on to say the EU states should spend at least 25% of their budgets on research and new weapons.

The NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer was eve more explicit when in Rome in December 2004 he said: "NATO and the EU need a partnership that covers all aspects of modern security policy; combating terrorism, preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction, preventing the emergence of failed states, and dealing with them where and when they occur."

The Finnish Minister for Defence regards the Nato' as a "Partner" and calls for greater interoperability, to quote him; "standards and criteria for EU Battle Groups should be the same as those required for similar formations assigned to Nato's RRF in accordance with NATO standards and criteria."

An official Finnish Ministry document states: "In practice, many EU countries will be double-hat various troops to EU and NATO rapid deployment forces. It is up to those countries to ensure that their resources and personnel are not in simultaneous readiness to two different groups.

In practice, the Battle Groups will mostly be trained in NATO exercises."

Since December 2003 as a consequence of NATO/EU consultations the EU has established a permanent military cell in SHAPE (NATO Headquarters) and NATO has established a permanent liaison arrangement with the EU Military Staff.

NATO has now established its NRF since October 2004. This is a 21,000 combat troop military force capable of being deployed within 5-30 days and is well equipped with high tech weapons.

Since most EU states are also in NATO and many states cannot provide the necessary troops and equipment to both the EU Battle Groups as well as the NRF arrangements are being made to ensure the EUBG's and the NRF are mutually coherent and complimentary.

The EU Battle Groups lack the necessary independent strategic airlift planes, mid air refueling and communication capability and independent intelligence resources.

Military Equipment
Thus to operate independently of NATO the EU Battle Groups need a commitment by EU States to spend a great deal more money on new military equipment.

Yet the longer-term core concept of the EU Battle Groups by the dominant Franco-German faction of the EU elite remains the idea that they could operate as separate military units directly under the control of the EU Council if required. The concept is reinforced by the need for the EU to have its own satellite system, under EU rather than US control. The EU therefore has spend 3.5 billion Euro on its Galileo system which would be used to facilitate the operations of the EU Battle Groups. These 30 satellites would mean the EU would not be dependent on the US GPS or the Russian GLONASS systems, which are also being financed for military purposes. Since, for example, the US GPS system signal could be blocked or jammed at a moments notice, the EU would be completely dependent on the US in its military expeditions unless it had its own satellite system. Germany held up funds for the development on Galileo until an agreement was reached on where the expenditure was to happen and did so after more was allocated to parts of Germany.

The Battle Groups would have to take into consideration the role of the Future Rapid Effects System (FRES) centred on a 'family' of 900 highly sophisticated combat vehicles costing £6.7 million each, with a lifetime cost of £55.5 million over 30 years.

Other equipment includes the new communication equipment by Bowen & Falcon, Watchkeeper unarmed aerial equipment, the Soothsayer electronic warfare capability and the Panther armoured reconnaissance vehicle.

The combined defence budget of the EU states is 175 billion Euro (compared with $550 billion for the US) and they have a combined military force of 1.6 million troops, although at the moment only 5-10% (60,000) are deployable as a rapid reaction force thousands of miles from Europe. The EU elite is seeking to raise that number to at least 200,000.

The US political elite is constantly calling for the EU to spend more on militarisation even though it would have a long way to go to reach US expenditure (the US Army has 1.4 million troops, 400,00 of whom can be deployed globally).

Many others however see the EU militatisation only as an extension of the NATO military structures.

Jamie O'Shea of NATO has called for a EU Constitution with provisions that would be: "compatible with NATO".

Many other EU leaders are very open as seeking no difference between the EU, NATO and the US. At a recent NATO Conference is Sweden the Lituanian Ambassador called NATO: "the greatest military alliance in history - combating global terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and failed states threats which are facing the Euro-Atlantic community"

The EU commitment to spend 25 billion Euro for the A400 M military transport aircraft is a demonstration of what the emerging EU superstate can achieve. 60 are for Germany, 50 for France and others for Spain, the UK, Belgium and Turkey.

There are investment plans for acquiring an aircraft carrier and airwing by 2008.

The European Defence Agency
In July 2004 the EU foreign Ministers (except Denmark) authorized the creation of The European Defence Agency has already been established with a start up staff of 25 and now 80 and headed up by Nick Whitney. All the EU Defence Ministers including Ireland have control of it and meet at the Agency Headquarters at least twice a year. It has taken over the Western European Armaments Agency and its research cell and has a budget of 2 billion Euros. Its importance is clearly shown by the decision to include it in the EU Constitution, which envisaged it as being central to the development of a EU Defence capability.

Its function is to promote coherence in European defence procurement, enhance collaboration on the development of equipment, promoting the European defence sector's technological and industrial base. It is also to foster European defence-relevant Research and Technology. It will probably take over previous EU armaments co-operations initatives such as OCCAR and WEAG.

It also seeks to create an internationally competitive European Defence Equipment market, in particular by pursuing a EU-wide development and harmonization of relevant rules and regulations (particularly by an EU-wide applications of relevant rules of the LoI Framework Agreement).

Such a development would seriously threaten Europe's current arms export policy and be a threat to the national democracy of the individual states, as no further national ratifications would be necessary.

The Ceo's of Europe's top EADS, BAE Systems and Thales welcomed the establishment of the EDA and called for an increase in military expenditure.

These military corporations are continually seeking to influence the EU elite via direct lobbying groups such as ASD, the New Defence Agenda and the Kangaroo Group. The arms industry by now are very deeply integrated into the elite and the EU security research budgets are among the best examples of their success.

The Privatisation of war and the EU Battle Groups
Mercenaries have played a significant role in war. 30,000 German mercenaries were employed by the British Empire in its efforts to defeat the National struggle for Independence by the USA. However so strong have the neo-liberal values become in the USA of to day that between 1994-2002 the Pentagon awarded 3,000 contracts to the modern mercenaries now know as Private Military Companies or PMC's.

There are now 90 such companies operating in 110 countries and the war in Iraq has been a great boost for them. They constitute the second largest military grouping in Iraq after the US Army.

The revenue of British PMC's has increased from £32million to £160 million since the war in Iraq. One of the larger PMC's, Blackwater, which is very active in Iraq has stated it could put together a Rapid Reaction Force or Battle Group. As the neo-liberal values spread in the EU from the US it is reasonable to assume the use of mercenaries as Battle Groups or as auxiliaries to the Battle Groups will be strongly advocated by the EU elite.

Conclusion
When the Peace & Neutrality Alliance was founded 10 years ago to oppose the process by which the elite sought to destroy Irish Independence, Irish Democracy and Irish Neutrality and integrate this state into a neo-liberal, centralised, militarised superstate few people believed us. Now with Irish neutrality totally destroyed, with Ireland having been transformed into a US aircraft carrier and the Irish Army about to be integrated into the Battle Groups of the EU, there are few who do not believe us.

In 1996, the same year PANA was established, an MRBI poll showed only 32% of the Irish people in the Republic of Ireland wanted it to do all it could to preserve Ireland's independence from the EU. By 2005, that figure in a similar survey had increased to 45%. So the evidence backs up the fact that our 10 years long campaign is having a real impact and more importantly, that we are winning.

The objective of PANA is to help translate the clear evidence of the growing opposition to the emerging EU Empire into votes for political parties and independents that are affiliated to PANA.

If the Irish political elite led by the Fianna Fail/PD Government are to be defeated in their efforts to restore the Redmondite Imperialist tradition then an alternative political formation has to be created.

The large votes against the EU Treaties and the latest MRBI/TSN poll, which showed the majority of the Irish people, would have reject the EU Constitution also shows a growing opposition to a European Empire.

The massive anti-war demonstrations in the 2003 and the enormous marches in support of the Irish Ferry workers show, like the poll results quoted, that there is very real and strong opposition to the transformation of the EU into a centralised, militarised, neo-liberal superstate among a very large number of people.

The parties that have played a key role in these demonstrations have been the Green Party, the Labour Party, Sinn Fein and the smaller socialist parties such as the Socialist Party and the Socialist Workers Party as well as a range of radical independents. PANA has always acted as a catalyst in the efforts to build these political forces into an alternative alliance and an alternative Government.

Victory
There is no doubt that on one hand building such an alliance to the imperialist formation that now dominates our political/media elite is not easy. On the other hand, since all the Fianna Fail, PD, Fine Gael and unionist parties offer is a sustained attack on the living and working conditions of the people and a deepening Irish involvement in an ongoing war in which the defeat of the EU/US military is only possible option it might not be as difficult as all that. We should know from previous major political shifts such as 1912-1918, or 1927-32 that many of the political activists operating within the elite change sides, and it will not be any different this time around either.

We should therefore accept that the defeat of the neo-Redmondites is absolutely inevitable; it's only a question of time. Our real task therefore is to ensure that the alternative that develops is rooted in the anti-imperialist philosophy of Tone and Connolly. The creation of an alternative based on an alliance of the political formations that have already shown their leadership in 2003 and 2005 demonstrations against the war and in support of the workers in Irish Ferries is and remains the central objective of PANA. The linking of the militarisation of the EU with its neo-liberal economic goals in the minds of the people is of crucial importance if we are to win.

After all, the living standards of the ordinary trade unionists is going to be eroded very quickly by the service directive, and since we are being dragged deeper and deeper into war, it is more than possible that faced with the choice of dying for a neo-liberal elite led by a George W. Bush or a Hilary Clinton, as advocated by FF/FG/PD/DUP/UUP parties or a Red/Green Alliance that is opposed to war, they will pick the Alliance.

PANA has never been about protest. PANA has always been about winning. It is about defeating imperialism by gaining the support of the people for a real alternative, a United Independent Democratic Irish Republic with its own Independent Foreign Policy pursued through a reformed United Nations and with neutrality enshrined in our Constitution and an Irish Protocol attached to an EU Treaty which would exclude our involvement with the militarisation of the EU.

Indeed PANA has steadily built up links with other peace movements throughout Europe and believe that our objectives are becoming more and more widely shared throughout the continent.

Throughout the whole of South America a wave of anti-imperialist political forces is winning the support of the people and consolidating the political terrain. In the Middle East the total defeat of EU/US Imperialism is only a few years away. The willingness of some Shia leaders to ally themselves with US Imperialism will undermine their ability to provide a coherent alternative, leaving the option for a democratic alternative based on the unity of Iraq, to emerge as the only effective alternative to Imperialism.

Therefore not just in Ireland, but also throughout South America, the Middle East as well as throughout Europe and in the US itself, through organizations such as United for Peace & Justice, a global anti-imperialist movement is being created. PANA is only one small part of that global movement. Defeating the efforts of the Irish political elite to integrate the Irish Army into the Battle Groups is also only a small part of a very much wider struggle. But win we will, and win we must, because all the Imperialists offer is war, poverty and defeat, all they offer is a return to the Dark Ages.

Roger Cole (Chair, Peace & Neutrality Alliance)

The EU BATTLE GROUPS: Regiments of the Empire (update)

by Roger Cole (updated May 2006)

"We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownershipof Ireland and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies to be sovereignand indefeasible." - 1916 Proclamation

"Are we all clear that we want to build something that canaspire to be a world power?" - EU Commission President, RomanoProdi, 13/2/01

In 1916 the Irish people were given a choice: support the Irish Volunteers of the Irish Republic or the Regiments of the British Union and Empire, a choice between Irish Independence or Imperialism.In 2006, as the Irish Defence Forces are about to be integrated into the EU Battle Groups, the Regiments of the European Union and Empire, theIrish people are again being offered a choice between Imperialism and Irish Independence.The decision of the Government to have 200 Irish soldiers join the EU Battle Groups is just another step in the process in the destruction of Irish Independence, Irish Democracy and Irish Neutrality. The integration of Ireland into an Imperial, militarized neo-liberal European superstate allied to the US will ensure the full and active participation of all of Ireland in the resource wars of the 21st century. The defeat of the EU/US axis is the only inevitable outcome of these wars.

The Peace & Neutrality Alliance advocates another choice- a United Independent Irish Republic - as part of a democratic Europe,a partnership of Independent, democratic states, legal equals withouta military dimension. We believe a reformed United Nations is the institutionthrough which Ireland should pursue its foreign policy and security concerns.The choice for the Irish people is clear, and it is the same as it hasbeen for generation after generation. The choice is either the Republicor Imperialism.

The Resource Wars of the 21 st Century and the EU Battlegroups
The collapse of the European Empires, British, Belgian, Dutch, French,Germany, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish made the ruling elite of eachof the states realise that they could not re-establish their Imperialtraditions except by combining and creating a new "European"identity.

They sought to create a "European" elite that was committedto the steady and gradual destruction of the national democracy and
Independence of the states within the EU via a series of treaties (ofwhich the proposed EU Constitution was to be a capstone), and theirtransformation into a centralised, neo-liberal, militarised, ImperialSuperstate, allied to the US. It was their joint intention to engagein Imperial wars of conquest. The US invasion and conquest of Iraq inorder to gain control of Iraqi oil and to consolidate US/ Israeli militarydomination of the Middle East was actively supported by 14 EU states- Belgium, Britain, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Holland, Ireland,Italy,
Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, and Spain (initially)- most of which also sent troops to participate in its invasion and/oroccupation.

It was only the massive opposition in 2003 by millions of ordinarypeople within the states of Europe to this restoration of the EuropeanImperial tradition that prevented the EU states from more actively supportingthe war. As a consequence of these massive demonstrations and the rejectionof the EU Constitution by the French and Dutch people the whole projectis under threat and the emerging "European" elite is nowmore divided than ever as to how to respond.

The reasons given for the war, for example that Iraq had weapons ofmass destruction, were lies. The real intention was to replace Saddamas ruler with Chalabi, a committed ally of the US and the EU who wouldprivatize the Iraqi oil industry. Unfortunately for the US, the planhas gone badly wrong and Iraq
now has an Islamic Shia dominated Government friendly with the IranianGovernment.

Since the US described Shia dominated Iran as part of the "axisof evil" this has been a bad result that now needs to be rectified.

A substantial element of the EU/US elite is therefore preparing toattack Iran in order to ensure "regime change" and to regainthe momentum lost as a consequence of the Iraq war and the referendumresults. With the election of the pro-war Chancellor Merkel in Germanythe chances of such a war proceeding have
increased dramatically. She would be well aware that Bismarck used warto create the German Empire and that war against "Muslim fundamentalists"could be used to create a European Empire. The EU/US is steadily puttingmore and more pressure on
Iran not to proceed with its development of nuclear power, allegingthat such a development would allow it to develop nuclear weapons. Atthe same time they are putting no pressure on Israel to abolish itsexisting nuclear arsenal or to withdraw
from the occupied territory of Palestine. Instead they have withdrawnaid to the Palestinian Authority because they did not like the resultof a democratic election. If Iran does not accept the current diplomaticefforts to force it to stop its nuclear
developments, then the EU will say it has no alternative but to supporta US military strike on Iran.

As in 2003 there will be massive protests, but since the British,Danish and American people re-elected their Imperialist leaders, andMerkel was elected in Germany, the elite clearly feel it can easilyhandle any opposition. It’s our function as part of the Irishand global anti-war movement to make sure that the mobilisation againstanother Imperial war is so strong that they quickly come to realisethat they got it very wrong again.

We need to take advantage of the fact that the war option does nothave the support of the entire US/EU elite. The massive drop in supportfor Bush among the American people including retired generals, the victoryof the centre left in Italy, the defeat of the French Government’sneo-liberal measures via massive demonstrations, and the recent electoraldefeat of the Imperialist New Labour Party are all indications thatit will not be easy for the EU/US elite to go to war with Iran.

But if the war party wins out it will mean that the EU Battle Groupswill be called into action.

These resource wars of the 21st century, or the "war on terrorism"as our establishment media call it, provide justification for the growthin military expenditure. The EU Battle Groups are just a small but crucialpart of the EU/US military partnership in what the Pentagon DefenceReview described as being a "long war".

This war will transfer financial resources away from health, educationand social housing. The "war on terrorism" also allows theelite to create a climate of fear in which it will be easier to pushthrough a sustained attack on the working and living
standards of the ordinary people of Europe via the services directiveand other neo-liberal driven measures.

The "war on terrorism" is also leading to a sustained attackon civil liberties creating moves towards a super EU police state.

The EU Battle Groups
An EU Defence policy was not an issue for a long time and it was notuntil the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 that common foreign and defencepolicy provisions were made part of EU law. The Amsterdam Treaty in1997 massively expanded the EU’s CFSP. In June 1999 the EU establishedthe Political and Security Committee consisting of the member states’ambassadors to the EU and the European Union, and the Military Committeeconsisting of the member states’ chiefs of defence staff to advisethe PSC on military issues. The EU Military staff also provides militaryadvice.

In December 1999 the EU agreed to set a military capability targetknown as the Helsinki Headline Goal. It included the establishment ofan EU Rapid Reaction Force of 50-60,000 soldiers with a self-sustainingmilitary capacity including intelligence, air, naval and combat supportcapable of deployment within 60 days up to 6,000 km from the bordersof the EU, sustainable for at least a year. The EU states in practicelacked the capability to do so. They did not have enough soldiers trainedfor such an independent EU military activity, as most were allocatedto NATO. The EU RRF also lacked the necessary strategic lift, attackhelicopters, IRS-capabilities, air-to-air refueling tankers, airborneelectronic warfare capacity and anti-missile defence. Nevertheless inDecember 2001 the EU declared itself to be "militarily operational".

However since the RRF was not actually functioning they agreed to startwith a smaller military force. The idea of EU Battle Groups was firstsuggested at the Franco-British Summit in Le Touquet in February 2003and made explicit in the
London meeting in November 2003.

The EU Defence Ministers in their meeting in Brussels in 2004 adoptedthe decision. They will act as the "shock troops", regimentsof the emerging Empire. Thirteen Battle Groups are being created with1,500 combat soldiers each, which means, allowing for rotation, etc,at an average ratio of seven to nine for each combat soldier, a totalforce of approximately 156,000 combat soldiers. It is planned that theycould operate as separate units or in joint expeditions.

The objective was to ensure that the first few would be ready by 2005and between 6-7 by 2007 with the remainder established by 2010. GeneralWolfgang Schneiderhan is Chair of the EU Military Committee with directmilitary responsibility
for the EUBG’s.

Initially each Battle Group would have to be able to go to a theatreof operations up to at least 6,000 km (which includes the Middle East)from the borders of the EU within 5 days of being instructed to do soby the EU Council, and be able to
stay there for at least 120 days, allowing for rotation. More recentlythey have been given the authority to operate in any part of the globe.They have to be able to operate in hostile environments including deserts,mountains and jungles, and
have a high degree of training, equipment, command structures and planningunits.

An EU Battle Group is to be "the minimum military effective,credible, rapidly deployable, coherent force package capable of actingalone, or for the
initial phase of larger operations."

A Battle Group consists of the following:

Force Headquarters
Force Commander with staff
Mechanised Infantry Battalion
Commander with staff
3 x Mechanised Infantry Company
Logistics Company
Fire Support Company (Mortars/Light Artillery
Combat Engineering Platoon
Air Defence Platoon
Reconnaissance
Intelligence Platoon
Helicopter Support Unit
Medical Service Platoon
Military Police Platoon

Each of the three or four mechanized infantry companies is expectedto field 10-12 combat vehicles armed with 30- 90mm cannons, supportedwith 6-9 light howitzers or 120 mm heavy mortar systems, anti-tank missiles,air defence systems, and helicopter gunships.

Airlifting a Battle Group is a major problem as it requires a hugeexpenditure on the military transport aircraft required, such as theC-17 Globemaster which can load 78 metric tonnes and has a 5,000 kmrange, therefore only requiring 30 flights to deploy an EU Battle Group.The lack of strategic airlift has meant several EU states have orderedthe A- 400M. Several EU states which are in NATO have also agreed tobuy AN-124 Condor aircraft from the Ukraine which are massive planescapable of carrying 120-150 tonnes of cargo up to 5,000 km. These arevery expensive planes.

The purpose of the EU Battle Groups is to go into battle, to go towar, as Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Secretary General of NATO has said:
"Battle Groups could be used to go to war. Why did the EU createthe Battle Group?
It is not just to help rebuild a country. The Battle Groups are notfor building schools.
We shouldn’t think the EU is for soft power and NATO for toughpower."
Irish Times 11/3/05

The states of the EU, either individually or in groups, are to providethe necessary combat trained troops and required equipment and theyare:

France
Italy
Spain
UK and possibly Ireland
France, Germany, Belgium, Luxemburg, and Spain
France and Belgium
Germany, the Netherlands and Finland
Germany, the Czech Republic and Austria
Italy, Hungary and Slovenia
Poland, Germany, Slovakia, Latvia, and Lithuania
Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal
Sweden, Finland, Norway, Estonia and Ireland
UK and the Netherlands

In the case of Battle Groups in which a number of states participated,one state would be regarded as a "lead nation" which wouldtake operational command and provide the Headquarters of the BattleGroup. Membership of the Battle Groups would be open to non-EU NATOcountries such as Turkey that are applying for EU membership or NATOstates.

The Danish Protocol
Denmark is not taking part in the Battlegroups because the movementfor Danish Democracy won a major victory which ensured that a numberof legally binding protocols were added to the Amsterdam Treaty includingone that excluded Denmark from the process of the militarisation ofthe EU.

The Peace and Neutrality Alliance has campaigned for years for a similarprotocol to be added to the various EU Treaties that would also excludeIreland along the following lines:

"With regard to measures adopted by the Council in the fieldsof Article J3 (1) and J7 of the Treaty of the European Union, Irelanddoes not participate in the elaboration and the implementation of decisionsand actions which have defence implications, but will not prevent thedevelopment of closer cooperation between member states in this area.Therefore Ireland shall not participate in their adoption. Ireland shallnot contribute to the financing of the operational expenditure arisingfrom such measures."

The Irish political Elite and the EU Battlegroups
The Irish political elite, however is totally committed to the creationof a European Empire and, like their Redmondite predecessors, has rejectedIrish Democracy, Irish Independence and Irish Neutrality and refusedto accept such a protocol for Ireland. As far as they are concernedthe Irish Army is to play the same role in the European Union as theIrish Regiments of the British Union used do.

The Irish political elite have already made their commitment to theintegration of Ireland into the EU/US military industrial structuresabsolutely clear; by their decision to join Nato’s PfP withouta promised referendum, by voting against a Bill to amend
the Constitution to enshrine neutrality into it in February 2003 and,in particular, by destroying the longstanding policy of Irish neutralityby allowing thousands upon thousands of US troops to use Shannon airport.Between January 2003 and October 2005, 549,457 US troops landed in Shannonairport on their way to or from the war in Iraq.

In the first three months of 2006 the number of troops landing in Shannonairport increased by more than 20,000 compared with the same periodin 2005, a total of 116,450.

Since International law under the Hague Convention of 1907 states thata neutral country cannot allow its territory to be used by belligerentsin a war, the Government has now destroyed Irish neutrality by supportingthe illegal invasion, conquest and occupation of Iraq, and by allowingthousands upon thousands of US troops to use Shannon airport on theirway to Iraq. They also refuse to search US planes that might be carryingprisoners to torture centres.

They therefore are strong supporters of the EU Battle Groups and havemade it absolutely clear they intend to ensure that Irish troops willbe allocated to them.

They have a slight problem. Existing Irish legislation does not allowany armed force to operate on Irish soil except those directly underthe control of Dáil Eireann and as a consequence of their defeatin the first Nice Referendum they were forced to pass
legislation that would prevent Irish troops participating in EU militaryengagements via the Battle Groups unless they are mandated by the UN,the Irish Government and Dáil Eireann. However the FF/PD Governmenthas made it clear that it will
introduce legislation that would remove these legal impediments to theIrish Army being integrated into the EU Battle Groups.

While they claim they intend to keep the so-called "triple lock",the rest of the EU states have no such legislation and an Irish Governmentthat is actively supporting an Imperialist war already will have noproblem supporting another Imperialist war.

There are other problems. The states that have formed groups to jointlyestablish an EU Battle Group are geographically beside each other inorder to facilitate military co-ordination, so Ireland’s obviouspartner is Britain. Even the Irish elite however realise that it wouldbe difficult to sell the idea of Irish Rangers fighting shoulder toshoulder with members of the British Paratroop Regiment. They are, therefore,trying to create an atmosphere to facilitate such a Battle Group. Inthat context, a successful full implementation of the Good Friday Agreementis crucial. Such a full implementation would be promoted by the eliteas final resolution of the longstanding conflict between the advocatesof Irish Independence and British Imperialism which would not only allowthe creation of a British/Irish EU Battle Group but would be promotedas a real and concrete act of peace and reconciliation between the twonations which, acting together, can bring "peace" to otherparts of the world, especially the Middle East.

While the Irish elite supports the Good Friday Agreement as a stepping-stonetowards a European Empire, Irish Democrats and Republicans see it asa stepping-stone towards a United Independent Democratic Irish Republic.The issue of EU Battle Groups, therefore, has as much relevance to Irishpeople living in Northern Ireland as it has to those living in the Republicof Ireland. The GFA is only a small part of a bigger jigsaw.

Unfortunately for the Irish elite, the conquest of Iraq has alreadydivided all the political parties into pro and anti imperialist groupsand PANA is confident that similar divisions will develop in regardto their attitude to the EU Battle Groups.

What is absolutely clear is that what Fianna Fáil and the otherimperialist parties offer is Ireland being dragged deeper and deeperinto Imperialist wars rather than a fight for Irish Independence anddemocracy.

What they offer is inevitable defeat. There is no chance whatsoeverof crushing the Muslim people in the Middle East. The 21st century Crusaderarmies, of which the Battle Groups are to be part, will be defeated,as were the Crusader Armies of the
Middle Ages. It is only their racist arrogance which prevents them fromseeing this reality.

The Irish elite however know that Good Friday Agreement or not participationin the Trafalgar celebrations or not, commemorating the death of anIrishman who won a VC defending the British Empire in India or not,selling the concept of an Irish Rangers/ British Paratrooper EU BattleGroup would be difficult. So they
have tried other alternatives.

They seek to be part of the Nordic Swedish/Finnish/Norwegian/Estonian,EU Battle Group. It will be difficult. Since the Battlegroups have togo to war within five days an extremely high degree of military interoperabilityneeds to be achieved. The distance between Finland and Sweden and Irelandmakes this option very hard to implement in practice.

The FF/PD Government has virtually no opposition from the Irish political/mediaelite.

The Fine Gael Party, Ireland’s major opposition Party, have madeit clear that if they go into Government they will not only ensure thatthe Irish Army is integrated into the EU Battle Groups but that theywill also abolish the "triple lock" legislation. Fine Gaelhas already totally rejected Irish neutrality.

The Irish Labour Party has been a long-standing supporter of the emergingEU Empire, although they originally opposed it. At their recent partyconference their delegates massively supported the EU Constitution althoughLabour Youth voted against. Soon after, the French and Dutch peoplevoted to reject it and the left led the campaign in both countries.More recently the British Congress of Trade Unions voted overwhelminglyto oppose the EU Constitution.

This growing opposition to the EU Empire by the left throughout Europeis bound to weaken the Empire Loyalists within the Irish Labour party,especially its trade union section. It is possible that it might beconvinced to end its support for the Irish Army being integrated intothe Battle Groups. It did after all oppose the Iraq war and, unlikeFG, it is committed to maintaining the "triple lock" legislation.

While the Labour Party is also committed to a pre-election pact withFine Gael, the issues of the EU Batttle Groups and the service directivemight mean that if it has to choose between the Irish Trade Union Movementand Fine Gael, the current leadership, despite what they are sayingat the moment, will be forced to pick the trade union movement.

Therefore while the outcome is not clear, the possibility of the IrishLabour Party and the Irish Trade Union Movement ending their alliancewith the Irish Empire Loyalists remains a real option.

Sinn Fein and the Irish Green Party are opposed to Irish participationin the Battle Groups and support the "triple lock" legislationas do a number of independent Dáil Deputies.

Virtually the entire media in Ireland has supported the war on Iraq,EU Battle Groups and the use of Shannon by the American Empire up tothe hilt until now, although some elements are beginning to change theirminds. However the growth of the
Internet has already facilitated alternative methods of spreading information.The power of corporate media to set the agenda is coming to an end.

The Nordic Battle Group
Since the Nordic Battle Group is the preferred group of the Government,the pamphlet by Jan Joel Andersson of the Swedish Institute for EuropeanPolicy studies, "Armed and Ready?" about the Nordic BattleGroup is worth reading. Published in March 2006 it states that on 22November 2004, Sweden, Finland and Norway declared they would establisha Nordic Battle Group and that Estonia joined shortly afterwards. TheNBG was to be ready by January 2008. It will have two light companiesequipped with splinter-protected light wheeled vehicles, one heavy companyequipped with Hagglunds CV9040 tracked infantry, combat vehicles armedwith 40-mm automatic cannon and a logistics company. Combat SupportUnits drawn from a "menu" of capabilities will complementthe core battalion. These capabilities include fire-support (mortars,armour), engineers, air defence, helicopters, ISTAR, CIS-support, CBRNand force protection. It will also have pre-identified strategic airand sealift resources, tactical air transport and close air support,logistics and Special Forces units.

Sweden has assumed overall responsibility and 1,100 personnel. Finlandwill contribute combat support, such as a heavy mortar platoon, a ChemicalBiological Radiological and nuclear detection detachment, a unit inthe joint Swedish-Finnish intelligence ISTAR Company and military police,making a total of 200 soldiers. Norway will contribute another 200 troopsin medical services, logistics and strategic lift. Estonia will provide40-50 troops for force protection.

There is no mention of Ireland, but the Minister of Defence has said200 Irish troops will join the Nordic Battle Group. While he declareshe does not like the term Battle Group, any objective analysis of themilitary equipment outlined above clearly shows
that the Nordic Battle Group is not about making tea, it is about beingable to go to war, to do battle. That the Irish media parrot the wordsof the Minister for Defence simply reflects the fact that it is openlycomplicit in deceiving the Irish people about the real purpose of theEU Battle Groups.

The Battle Group has to train as a single unit so that while each participatingstate has the right to withdraw its own national contingent it is extremelyunlikely that any state would do so, as the Battle Group would thennot be able to function properly. In the case of the Irish State, sinceit already is a strong supporter of an illegal Imperialist war for oil,it would be the last to pull out of another Imperialist military adventure.

The Headquarters of the Nordic Battle Group will be in Northwood, outsideLondon.

Operational planning will be co-ordinate between Sweden, Finland, Norway,Estonia, Britain and now Ireland and the EU Military staff in Brussels.The EU will appoint operational control, probably a Swedish Commander.

Since the EU Battle Group has to be able to go to war anywhere in theworld within 10 days, airlift capacity is of crucial importance. Itcould use British C-17 Globemaster planes or the AN-124-100 Condor Planesfrom the Ukraine. To be independent it
would have to buy its own planes. The C-17 Globemaster costs $202 millioneach. Ireland would be expected to help pay their share. So much forgiving priority to the A&E services. Given such expenditure theNordic Battle Group is planning to use lighter equipment.

The EU Security Strategy Military Intervention without a UNmandate
The EU Security Strategy, "A Secure Europe in a Better World",was written by the EU High Representative for the Common Foreign andSecurity Policy, Javiar Solana, and endorsed by the EU in December 2003.

The EU strategy totally endorses President Bush’s doctrine ofpreemptive war:

"Our traditional concept of self-defence…. was basedon the threat of invasion. With the new threats, the first line of defencewill often be abroad… we should be ready to act before a crisisoccurs".

The strategy goes on to state that not all these threats can be counteredby military means and a mixture of instruments must be used. This howeverleaves the way open for humanitarian aid being used as a tool in thefight against "terrorism".

Concord, a pan-European federation of over 1200 development NGO’s,has repeatedly cautioned against the EU Security policy misusing humanitarianassistance in such a way.

The fact is the EU does not see itself as being bound by the necessityof securing a UN mandate before it sends the EU Battle Groups to a war.While references are made to observance of the UN Charter (similar referencesare made in the NATO Treaty) nowhere does it state in the EU Treatiesthat the EU Battle Groups need a UN mandate. While International Lawclearly states a UN mandate would be required before a state was invaded,the EU, like the US, is prepared to ignore such law.

Warmaking and Peacemaking
While the democratic forces in France and the Netherlands defeated theEU Constitution, which would have further consolidated the militarisationof the EU, the existing treaties remain in force including:

Article J7.2 that states:
"Questions referred to in this article shall include humanitarianand rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks, and combat forces in crisis management,including peacemaking."

John Bruton, ex-leader of Fine Gael, and the EU representative in theUS said after the Amsterdam Treaty was passed:

"Peacemaking means imposing, by the use of force, peacefulconditions under the terms laid down by the peacemaker. It is very difficultto distinguish that from
warmaking."
Dáil Eireann 22/10/99

The EU elite does not need a EU Constitution to establish Battle Groupsand we can be sure that Mr. Bruton is reflecting their attitude whenhe says there is no difference between warmaking and peacemaking.

Command Structure
The decision to deploy Battle Groups would be taken by the EU Councilin response to "a crisis" or a "request from the UN".

The deployment of the EU Battle Groups therefore do not need a UN mandate.

The EU Civilian and Military Planning Cell is now well underway inBrussels.

The Cell is directly responsible to the EU High representative JavierSolana. It will have the responsibility of coordinating and generatingthe capacity to plan and run autonomous EU military operations.

Several of the states participating in the EU Battle Groups are alsodeveloping specialist skills. For example, Finland is providing troopstrained in combating chemical and biological weapons, Lithuania is providingexperts in water purification and Greece is providing troops with maritimetransport skills.

Britain is ensuring members of the Paratroop Regiments are being allocatedto the EU Battle Groups and clearly their specialty is shooting unarmedCivil Rights marchers.

The need for a rapid response has major implications for the law inmany of the national states. The Luxembourg Defence Minister stated:

"Some countries will have to change their laws to be ableto take their political decisions quickly and then their military mustfollow immediately" www.iwar.org.uk

This clearly means that if a quick decision has to be made to deploythe Battle Groups the "triple lock " legislation will haveto be abolished, leaving the decision up to the Government, or maybeeven the Taoiseach alone to make the decision to deploy the EU BattleGroups. The Fine Gael Party in the Dáil (9/5/06) has alreadysuggested that such a decision be left solely to the Minister of Defence.

NATO and the EU Battle Groups
The EU is very clear that the Battle Groups are to be developed as amilitary machine in a mutually reinforcing way with NATO initiativessuch as the NATO Response Force. This is especially true given the overlapof EU/NATO/Partnership for Peace military that is well established.There is a very strong requirement for interoperability between theEU military forces and NATO military forces. NATO, like the EU BattleGroups has given itself the right to send in troops anywhere in theworld.

In fact as far as Britain is concerned, to quote Geoff Hoon, UK Ministerfor Defence:
"NATO would always have the first choice to launch a militaryoperation"

The reality of the link between the Battle Groups of the EU and NATOwas underlined by the report published by 2 ex-NATO chiefs in October2005. To quote the report:

"Failure to meaningfully improve Europe’s collectivedefence capabilities in the coming years would have profoundly negativeimpacts on the ability of European
countries to protect their interests, the viability of NATO as an alliance,and the ability of Europe to partner in any meaningful way with theUS."

In February 2005 in a letter written to the House of Commons SelectCommittee on the European Union Hoon describes the EU Battle Groupsas being:

"mutually reinforcing with the larger NATO Response Force…… and having the potential to act as a steppingstone forcountries that want to contribute to the NATO
Response Force, by developing their high readiness forces to the requiredstandard and integrating small countries contribution to multinationalunits.

Wherever possible and applicable, standards, practical methodsand procedures for Battlegroups are analogous to those defined in theNATO RF.

Correctly managed there is considerable potential for synergy betweenthe two initiatives."

So there it is for all to see. The reality is the EU Battle Groupsare not the basis for an alternative European power to the US, but anextension of the power of the US, which dominates NATO. The EU BattleGroups are an extension of the military power of the US/EU Partnership.

Hoon went on to say that the EU states should spend at least 25% oftheir defence budgets on research and new weapons.

The NATO Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, was even more explicitwhen in Rome in December 2004 he said:

"NATO and the EU need a partnership that covers all aspectsof modern security policy; combating terrorism, preventing the spreadof weapons of mass destruction, preventing the emergence of failed states,and dealing with them where and when they occur."

The Finnish Minister for Defence regards NATO as a "Partner"and calls for greater interoperability. He says:

"standards and criteria for EU Battle Groups should be thesame as those required for similar formations assigned to Nato’sRRF in accordance with NATO standards and criteria."

An official Finnish Ministry document states;

"In practice, many EU countries will double-hat various troopsto EU and NATO rapid deployment forces. It is up to those countriesto ensure that their resources and personnel are not in simultaneousreadiness to two different groups.

In practice, the Battle Groups will mostly be trained in NATO exercises."

Since December 2003 as a consequence of NATO/EU consultations the EUhas established a permanent military cell in SHAPE (NATO Headquarters)and NATO has established a permanent liaison arrangement with the EUMilitary Staff.

NATO has had an established NRF since October 2004. This is a 21,000combat troop military force capable of being deployed within 5-30 daysand is well equipped with high tech weapons.

Since most EU states are also in NATO and many states cannot providethe necessary troops and equipment to both the EU Battle Groups as wellas the NRF, arrangements are being made to ensure the EUBG’s andthe NRF are mutually coherent and complementary.

The EU Battle Groups lack the necessary independent strategic airliftplanes, mid air refueling and communication capability and independentintelligence resources.

Military Equipment.
Thus, to operate independently of NATO, the EU Battle Groups need acommitment by EU States to spend a great deal more money on new militaryequipment, especially in air lift capability.

On the 7th of March 2006 the EU Defence Ministers agreed to establisha Common Defence and Technology Fund. Javier Solana said at the meeting:

"We must spend more, spend more together and spend more efficiently."

The longer-term concept of the EU Battle Groups by the Franco- Germanfaction of the EU elite remains the idea that they could operate asseparate military units directly under the control of the EU Councilif required. The concept is reinforced by the need for the EU to haveits own satellite system, under EU rather than US
control. The EU therefore has spent €3.5 billion on its Galileosystem which would be used to facilitate the operations of the EU BattleGroups. These 30 satellites would mean the EU would not be dependenton the US GPS or the Russian GLONASS systems, which are also being financedfor military purposes. Since, for example, the US GPS system signalcould be blocked or jammed at a moment’s notice, the EU wouldbe completely dependent on the US in its military expeditions unlessit had its own satellite system. Germany held up funds for the developmentof Galileo until an agreement was reached on where the expenditure wasto happen and agreed only after more was allocated to Germany.

The Battle Groups would have to take into consideration the role ofthe Future Rapid Effects System (FRES) centred on a "family"of 900 highly sophisticated combat vehicles costing £6.7 millioneach, with a lifetime cost of £55.5 million over 30 years.

Other equipment includes the new communication equipment Bowman &Falcon, Watchkeeper unarmed aerial equipment, the Soothsayer electronicwarfare capability and the Panther armoured reconnaissance vehicle.

The combined defence budget of the EU states is €175 billion (comparedwith $ 550 billion for the US) and they have a combined military forceof 1.6 million troops, although at the moment only 5-10% (60,000) aredeployable as a rapid reaction force thousands of miles from Europe.The EU elite is seeking to raise that number to at least 200,000.

The US political elite is constantly calling for the EU to spend moreon militarisation even though it would have a long way to go to reachUS expenditure (the US Army has 1.4 million troops, 400,000 of whomcan be deployed globally).

Many others however see the EU militarisation only as an extensionof the NATO military structures.

Jamie O’Shea of NATO has called for a EU Constitution with provisionsthat would be, "compatible with NATO".

Many other EU leaders are open about seeing no difference between theEU, NATO and the US. At a recent NATO Conference in Sweden the LithuanianAmbassador called NATO:

"the greatest military alliance in history – combatingglobal terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and failedstates threats which are facing the Euro-Atlantic community"

The EU commitment to spend €25 billion through OCCAR for the A400M military transport aircraft is a demonstration of what the emergingEU superstate can achieve. Sixty are for Germany, 50 for France andothers for Spain, the UK, Belgium and Turkey.

There are investment plans for acquiring an aircraft carrier and airwingby 2008.

The European Defence Agency
In July 2004 the EU foreign Ministers (except Denmark) authorised thecreation of The European Defence Agency. This has already been establishedwith a start-up staff of 25 (now 80) and headed up by Nick Whitney.All the EU Defence Ministers
including those of Ireland have control of it and meet at the AgencyHeadquarters at least twice a year. It has taken over the Western EuropeanArmaments Agency and its research cell and has a budget of €2 billion.Its importance is clearly shown by the decision to include it in theEU Constitution, which envisaged it as being central to the developmentof an EU Defence capability.

Its function is to promote coherence in European defence procurement,enhance collaboration on the development of equipment, promoting theEuropean defence sector’s technological and industrial base. Itis also to foster European defence-relevant Research and Technology.It will probably take over previous EU armaments co-operations initativessuch as OCCAR and WEAG.

It also seeks to create an internationally competitive European DefenceEquipment market, in particular by pursuing an EU-wide development andharmonisation of relevant rules and regulations particularly (by anEU-wide applications of relevant rules) of the LoI Framework Agreement.

Such a development would seriously threaten Europe’s currentarms export policy and be a threat to the national democracy of theindividual states, as no further national ratifications would be necessary.

The Ceo’s of Europe’s top EADS, BAE Systems and Thaleswelcomed the establishment of the EDA and called for an increase inmilitary expenditure.

These military corporations are continually seeking to influence theEU elite via direct lobbying groups such as ASD, the New Defence Agendaand the Kangaroo Group. The arms industry by now is very deeply integratedinto the elite and the EU security
research budgets are among the best examples of its success.

The Privatisation of war and the EU Battle Groups
Mercenaries have played a significant role in war. 30,000 German mercenarieswere employed by the British Empire in its efforts to defeat the Nationalstruggle for Independence by the USA. However so strong have the neo-liberalvalues become in the USA today that between 1994-2002 the Pentagon awarded3,000 contracts to the modern mercenaries now know as Private MilitaryCompanies, or PMC’s.

There are now 90 such companies operating in 110 countries and thewar in Iraq has been a great boost for them. They constitute the secondlargest military grouping in Iraq after the US Army.

The revenue of British PMC’s has increased from £32 millionto £160 million since the war in Iraq. One of the larger PMC’s,Blackwater, which is very active in Iraq, has stated it could put togethera Rapid Reaction Force or Battle Group. As the neoliberal
values spread in the EU from the US it is reasonable to assume thatthe use of mercenaries as Battle Groups or as auxiliaries to the BattleGroups will be strongly advocated by the EU elite in the not too distantfuture.

Conclusion
When the Peace & Neutrality Alliance was founded 10 years ago tooppose the process by which the elite sought to destroy Irish Independence,Irish Democracy and Irish Neutrality and integrate this state into aneo-liberal, centralised, militarised superstate, few people believedus. Now with Irish neutrality totally destroyed, with Ireland havingbeen transformed into a US aircraft carrier and the Irish Army aboutto be integrated into the Battle Groups of the EU, there are few whodo not believe us.

In 1996, the same year PANA was established, an MRBI poll showed only32% of people in the Republic of Ireland wanted the state to do allit could to preserve Ireland’s independence from the EU. By 2005that figure, in a similar survey, had increased to 45%. So the evidence backs up the fact that our 10 years’long campaign is having a real impact and more importantly, that weare winning.

The objective of PANA is to help translate the clear evidence of thegrowing opposition to the emerging EU Empire into votes for politicalparties and independents that are affiliated to PANA.

If the Irish political elite, led by the Fianna Fail/PD Governmentare to be defeated in their efforts to restore the Redmondite Imperialisttradition then an alternative political formation has to be created.

The large votes against the EU Treaties and the latest MRBI/TSN poll,which showed the majority of the Irish people would reject the EU Constitutionalso shows a growing opposition to a European Empire.

The massive anti-war demonstrations in 2003 and the enormous marchesin 2005 in support of the Irish Ferry workers show, like the poll resultsquoted, that there is very real and strong opposition to the transformationof the EU into a centralised,
militarised, neo-liberal superstate among a very large number of people.

The parties that have played a key role in these demonstrations havebeen the Green Party, the Labour Party, Sinn Fein and the smaller socialistparties, as well as a number of radical independents. PANA has alwaysacted as a catalyst in the efforts to build these political forces into an alternative alliance and analternative Government, and we will continue to do so.

Victory
There is no doubt that, on one hand building such an alliance to theimperialist formation that now dominates our political/media elite isnot easy. On the other hand, since all the Fianna Fáil, PD, FineGael and unionist parties offer is a
sustained attack on the living and working conditions of the peopleand a deepening Irish involvement in an ongoing war in which the defeatof the EU/US military is the only possible option, it might not be asdifficult as all that. We should know from previous major politicalshifts such as 1912-1918, or 1927- 32 that many of the political activistsoperating within the elite change sides, and it will not be any differentthis time around either.

We should therefore accept that the defeat of the neo- Redmonditesis absolutely inevitable; it’s only a question of time. Our realtask, therefore is to ensure that the alternative that develops is rootedin the anti-imperialist philosophy of Tone and Connolly. The creationof an alternative, based on an alliance of the political formationsthat have already shown their leadership in the 2003 and 2005 demonstrationsagainst the war and in support of the workers in Irish Ferries, is and
will remain the central objective of PANA. The linking of the militarisationof the EU with its neo-liberal economic goals in the minds of the peopleis of crucial importance if we are to win.

After all, the living standards of the ordinary trade unionist is goingto be eroded very quickly by the service directive, and since we arebeing dragged deeper and deeper into war, it is more than possible thatfaced with the choice of dying for a
neo-liberal elite led by a George W. Bush or a Hilary Clinton, as advocatedby FF/FG/PD/DUP/UUP parties, or a Red/Green Alliance that is opposedto war, they will choose the Red/Green Alliance.

PANA has never been about protest. PANA has always been about winning.It is about defeating imperialism by gaining the support of the peoplefor a real alternative: a United Independent Democratic Irish Republicwith its own
Independent Foreign Policy pursued through a reformed United Nations,with neutrality enshrined in our Constitution, and an Irish Protocolattached to an EU Treaty which would exclude our involvement with themilitarisation of the EU.

PANA has steadily built up links with other peace movements throughoutEurope and believe that our vision for the future of Europe is partof wider vision shared by growing numbers of people throughout the Europeanstates.

Throughout the whole of South America a wave of antiimperialist politicalforces is winning the support of the people and consolidating the politicalterrain. In the Middle East the total defeat of EU/US Imperialism isonly a few years away. The
willingness of some Shia leaders to ally themselves with US Imperialismwill undermine their ability to provide a coherent alternative, leavingthe option for a democratic alternative, based on the unity of Iraq,to emerge as the only effective
answer to Imperialism.

Not just in Ireland therefore, but also throughout South America, theMiddle East as well as throughout Europe and in the US itself, throughorganizations such as United for Peace & Justice, a global anti-imperialistmovement is being created. PANA is only
one small part of that global movement. Defeating the efforts of theIrish political elite to integrate the Irish Army into the EU BattleGroups is also only a small part of a very much wider struggle. Butwin we will, and win we must. For all the Imperialists offer is war,poverty and defeat; all they offer is a return to the Dark Ages.

Roger Cole, Chair,
Peace & Neutrality Alliance
www.pana.ie

For further information:
ISSP 1996,
Lansdowne 1998,
Irish Times/MRBI 2001,
ECR Survey 2001,
Irish Times/MRBI 2002,
Irish Times/TSNmrbi 2003, 2004, 2005
www.russfound.org
www.tni.org
www.forum-europe.com
www.isis-europe.org
www.nato.int
www.ecln.org
www.defence-aerospace.com
www.sweden.gn.se
www.eurotopiamag.org
www.sieps.se
www.stimson.org
ue.eu.int
www.sipri.org
www.acus.org
www.corporateeurope.org
www.cer.org
www.norway-nato.org
www.statewatch.org
www.forumoneurope.ie
www.observer.com
www.europolitic.com
www.kas.de
www.axisglobe.com
www.newdefenceagenda.org
www.spectrezine.org
www.social-europe.org.uk

The EU BATTLE GROUPS: Regiments of the Empire

by MIKA KERTTUNEN, TOMMI KOIVULA, TOMMY JEPPSSON
MAANPUOLUSTUSKORKEAKOULU - NATIONAL DEFENCE COLLEGE
Strategian laitos - Department of Strategic and Defence Studies
(HELSINKI 2005)

PREFACE
The European Union member states declared in June 1999 that the EU shall play its full role on the international stage. To that end, they decided to create necessary means and capabilities to assume its responsibilities, including the capacity for autonomous action, backed up by credible military forces. Since then, in some five years, the ESDP has become, not only a success story, but also a real option for political leaders to use it when deemed appropriate. This option contains, among others, a 60.000-strong force, the institutional structure and procedures to facilitate political and military decision-making, as well as planning and command and control mechanisms. The European Defence Agency has been established for further development of necessary capabilities. Moreover, the EU has been involved in several military and police operations in the Balkans and Africa gaining valuable collective experience on the field, and several hundreds of military personnel are working on a daily basis in the EU structures for the fulfilment of the European Security Strategy.

Pertaining to the topic of this publication, the European Union Battlegroups, in 2003 several initiatives regarding more substantial cooperation was agreed upon in order to deepen military relations between the member states. Building on the success of operations Concordia, Proxima and, as a turning point, Operation Artemis together with needs stemming from the European Security Strategy, France, Germany and the United Kingdom introduced the so-called Battlegroup concept in order to create a capacity for rapid reaction. In this context, the availability of rapidly deployable military units entered to discussion. Of course, a capacity for rapid reaction had previously been recognized as an essential tool for a wide range of crisis management operations, but at this stage there was enough common will to go forward, too.

Since then we have been in the middle of a lively discussion related to the European Union Battlegroups. Consequently, the rationale for this publication, in addition to the traditional role of the Department to provide information and aspects, is a common need to promote analysis of the EU Battlegroup concept as an important tool for future crisis management. In order to reach these goals, some argumentation based on facts and figures as well as some 'food for though' is offered for the reader. Due to the fact that a profound conversation facilitates and promotes deeper understanding, the publication of this study is coordinated with the conference on 'Developing European Crisis-Management Capabilities' co-organised by the Atlantic Council of Finland and the European Security Forum, on 28th April 2005 in Helsinki.

The content of the study dealing with two national projects is an excellent example of the fruitful cooperation with our Swedish counterparts. On behalf of the authors and the Department, I would like to express our gratitude to all the experts in Brussels, Stockholm and Helsinki who provided the authors with valuable information, good advice and critical comments.

Helsinki, 28th April 2005
Lieutenant Colonel, Lic.Pol.Sci. Juha Pyykönen Director of the Department of Strategic and Defence Studies National Defence College

Download Publication (PDF file, 1,733 kb): eubattlegroups.pdf

EU BATTLEGROUPS: Theory and Development in the Light of Finnish-Swedish Co-operation

Subject: Irish Involvement in Iraq War and Occupation and in Transport of Prisoners for Torture, at Shannon. (Tuesday 20 December 2005)

Delegation of Peace Activists: Edward Horgan, Mary Kelly, Tim Hourigan and Deirdre Morgan.

Dear Members of the Oireachtas,
The purpose of our meeting with you is to inform your committee of grave matters of public importance, and to engage in dialog on these matters with you, and to ask your committee to investigate, or cause to be investigated the matters we put before you. In this respect we do not expect you to act only on our say so, and on the information we provide, but rather ask you to carry out your own thorough investigations. We consider it a democratic privilege to be allowed address you, and we hope your committee will treat these matters with due importance.

Due to time and resource constraints, this submission will of necessity be incomplete. We will update it for the benefit of your committee as additional information become available to us.

Introduction and summary
On 20 th March 2003, the Government of Ireland decided to authorise, and Dáil Éireann approved a motion approving, the use of Shannon airport by US troops for the purposes of the Iraq War. This was in contravention of the spirit of Article 28 and 29 of Bunreacht na hÉireann , in contravention of the article of the Hague Convention on Neutrality, and in contravention of the spirit and several article of the UN Charter.

There are four primary issues that we wish to raise with this committee:

Ireland's involvement in the Iraq War, and the resultant breaches of international laws on neutrality
The use of Shannon airport the US Government and CIA associated aircraft for the purposes of 'rendering' prisoners for torture, and the breaches of international laws associated with this practice
Breaches of Irish laws at Shannon airport particularly the Criminal Justice (UN Convention against Torture) Act 2000, but also serious breaches of common laws, and breaches of duty by Gardai and other agents of the Irish State, at Shannon airport, resulting in their failures to investigate the most serious of crimes
The threats to public safety, and security at Shannon airport arising from the misuse of this civilian airport, and other airports such as Baldonnel, by US military, and the wider threats to the Irish public, especially in Dublin, resulting from Ireland's unwarranted assistance to one of the belligerents in the war against Iraq, that is the United States, thereby causing a risk of retaliation on behalf of the victims of this war.

While these are portrayed above in a legalistic manner, as befitting the role of the members of your committee as legislators, we wish to emphasise that our primary concerns are always the humanitarian concerns, and our duties as citizens to prevent unlawful killings, torture and other human rights abuses, wherever they are occurring, but especially to prevent Irish complicity and active participation in the most serious crimes imaginable.

Download Submission (PDF file, 99 kb) pa-submission-to-oireachtas.pdf

Submission to Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs

- by Andy Storey

Paper for presentation at the African Studies Association of Ireland conference, (Dublin, 3rd December 2005).

"We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future": thus did former Secretary of State Madeline Albright express her distinctive sense of American 'exceptionalism' in world affairs. The words are much quoted, and often mocked for their hubris. But a certain similarity of tone may be found in some recent writing on Europe's role in the world, rooted in a particularly admiring vision of Europe's identity and ethos. A colourful example is Jeremy Rifkin's 2004 book The European Dream: How Europe's Vision of the Future is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream:

"The European dream emphasises community relationships over individual autonomy, cultural diversity over assimilation, quality of life over the accumulation of wealth, sustainable development over unlimited material growth, deep play over unrelenting toil, universal human rights and the rights of nature over property rights, and global cooperation over the unilateral exercise of power" (Rifkin, 2004: 3).

On the back cover of the book, former EU Commission President Romano Prodi claims that "Rifkin's book mirrors the European soul". While not perhaps claiming that Europe has a soul, an article (first published in 2003 in the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung ) by two of Europe's leading philosophers - Jurgen Habermas of Germany and the late Jacques Derrida of France - does claim that Europe embodies certain distinctive and desirable characteristics. The first is a model of post-national governance, a means of reconciling national identity with a wider (in this case regional) identity which supersedes national allegiances and dilutes national rivalries. The EU, it is argued, provides a unique model for how people can live together simultaneously within and beyond nations, thus removing a perennial source of conflict between peoples.

The second claimed distinctive feature is a peculiarly European model of social protection:

"Europeans have a relatively large amount of trust in the organisational and steering capacities of the state, while remaining sceptical towards the achievements of markets... They maintain a preference for the welfare state's guarantees of social security and for regulations on the basis of solidarity" (Habermas and Derrida, 2003: 295) (1).

For Habermas and Derrida, while this 'social model' is distinctively European, Europeans can seek to transfer it to the global arena and imbue 'globalisation' with the idea of social solidarity currently exclusive to Europe alone. Thus, in summary, because of their distinctive perspectives on, and practices of, citizenship and social solidarity, Europeans can make the world a more civilised and safer place if they have the confidence and capacity to export their ideas and models to the rest of the world.

Normative Power Europe?
Aspects of these claims are reflected in the field of international relations in the work of Ian Manners, who stresses the concept of Europe exercising power in the world through its ability to influence (and partially set) global opinions and norms (Manners, 2002). Europe's normative power, Manners argues, needs to be set alongside the more traditional conceptions of military and civilian power. According to Manners (2002: 241),

"The EU has gone further towards making its external relations informed by, and conditional on, a catalogue of norms which come closer to those of the European convention on human rights and fundamental freedoms (ECHR) and the universal declaration of human rights (UDHR) than most other actors in world politics. The EU is founded on and has as its foreign and development policy objectives the consolidation of democracy, rule of law, and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms".

While recognising that good (stated) intentions do not always translate into good practice, Manners (2002: 241) nonetheless asserts that "the EU is normatively different to other polities with its commitment to individual rights and principles".

Manners identifies the core European norms as peace, liberty, democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, with 'minor' norms of social solidarity, anti-discrimination, sustainable development and good governance (though what precisely constitutes 'good' governance might be open to debate and is discussed further below). These norms are diffused through diplomatic means and also through the very procedures of EU membership and application - for example, states seeking to join the EU must move to abolish the death penalty.

Some empirical studies appear to lend support to Manners. For example, in their analysis of the trade and political agreement signed by Mexico and the EU in 2000, Syzmanski and Smith relate the insertion of a human rights suspension clause in the agreement to "The centrality of human rights as a European cultural norm" (2005: 178). Previous EU agreements with third countries had included political dialogue provisions around issues of democracy and human rights, but had not contained provision for automatic suspension in the event of violations. EU negotiators were, it is claimed, willing to abandon the agreement altogether rather than abandon huma rights principles (Syzmanski and Smith, 2005: 175). By contrast, the North American Free Trade Agreement between Mexico and the US (and Canada) contained no reference to human rights (Syzmanski and Smith, 2005: 173). Syzmanski and Smith conclude that there may be "a growing acceptance of the EU as a force for long-term global peace, prosperity and stability through its use of principled co-operative development programmes with poorer countries" (Syzmanski and Smith, 2005: 190).

Other assessments are much less favourable. Forsberg and Herd (2005) are scathing in their assessment of the EU's policy towards Russia in the light of the Chechen conflict which, they contend, exposed "the limitations of human rights principles as a central organising principle" within that policy (Forsberg and Herd, 2005: 455). Instead, it is claimed, and especially after September 2001, the EU largely accepted the Russian characterisation of the conflict as 'anti-terrorist' in nature, and chose to concentrate on issues such as shared security threats, trade and investment (Forsberg and Herd, 2005: 468). "[R] ealpolitik state interests were promoted at the expense of the normative agenda" (Forsberg and Herd, 2005: 477). Simultaneously, the authors argue, the EU maintained the pretence of a concern for human rights by accepting Russian claims that abuses were decreasing, or, where occurring, were justified (Forsberg and Herd, 2005: 477-8).

A study by Lightfoot and Burchell (2005: 76) of the EU's stance at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development argues that the EU "remains some way short of a coherent adoption of sustainable development as an EU norm" (albeit a 'minor' norm according to Manners' categorisation); they find that corporate and trade interests worked to undermine stated EU commitments to sustainable development. In particular, "DG Trade is identified as favouring free market liberalism over sustainable development... whilst DG Agriculture is identified as not fully sharing the sustainable development norm" (Lightfoot and Burchell, 2005: 83). And the authors report allegations "that officials from DG Trade, along with their counterparts from the USA, ensured that the section on legally binding corporate rules... was deleted [from the Summit communique]" (Lightfoot and Burchell, 2005: 86).

Many non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have long been highly (if implicitly) critical of any suggestion that the EU is driven by normative concerns. They point, for example, to EU requests (tabled in 2002) under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) to 109 countries. Each such request involved asking the government of the country concerned to open certain, specified service sectors up to competition from EU firms. The requests largely originated from the European Services Forum (ESF), a European business lobby group (Corporate Europe Observatory, 2003). (2) While these requests were not initially made public, leaked documents obtained by the World Development Movement (WDM, 2003) led that organisation to draw conclusions about the EU's negotiating stance, including that the EU was targeting the poorest countries in the world in its pursuit of services market access for European companies and that the EU was targeting countries where "effective non-market based delivery systems are in operation" (WDM, 2003: 2), precisely because such not-for-profit systems limit the commercial opportunities available to European service exporters.

More recently, the WDM (2005) obtained further leaked documents suggesting that the EU was proposing compulsory, quantified service liberalisation targets be agreed at the Hong Kong World Trade Organisation (WTO) talks in December 2005 (WDM, 2005). The EU is reported as seeking specific liberalisation commitments from developing countries in relation to 93 out of 163 GATS sub-sectors (WDM, 2005).

In the light of these and numerous other critiques, is there real substance to the idea of a Normative Power Europe in relation to how it conducts its external affairs, especially vis-à-vis developing countries? To what extent is EU external policy likely, in practice, to be influenced by claimed normative considerations? This paper will seek to address these questions through an analysis of the EU's negotiating positions vis-à-vis the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) being put in place with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. If norms are being promoted or diffused, are they appropriate to African countries and populations? Or is the whole rhetoric of norm diffusion simply a guise for the pursuit of European economic interests?

Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs)
"the Commission approaches negotiations with developing countries in the same way that they deal with the US, Japan or China - with a view to getting the best possible outcome for Europe" (Christopher Stevens, Institute for Development Studies, Guardian , 5 th October 2005).

Introduction and Background
EPAs constitute alternative arrangements to the long-standing Lomé Convention's regulation of EU-ACP relations, under which the ACP grouping had enjoyed privileged access to EU markets as well as certain aid and political dialogue provisions. Under Lomé's successor - the Cotonou Agreement of 2000 - the EU-ACP relationship will be transformed into relationships between the EU and regional groupings of ACP states, including a staggered transition towards reciprocal free trade i.e., a shift from the position whereby the ACP countries enjoyed non-reciprocal, privileged access to EU markets.

This shift is explained on two grounds. First, non-reciprocal arrangements are judged to be in breach of WTO rules (whereas reciprocal free trade deals are not), and a WTO waiver allowing temporary retention of the Lomé-style provisions expires at the end of 2007. Second, there is a claimed "mutual recognition that existing non reciprocal trade preferences have not promoted the sustainable development or integration into the world economy of ACP countries" (Commission, 2005b: 2). There is evidence for this latter claim: the ACP share of world exports fell from 3.2% in 1970 to 1.3% in 2003, while even the ACP share of the EU market (where they enjoyed favourable access) declined over the same period from 4.1% to 1.0% (Borrmann et al , 2005: 169). However, whether EPAs are the best means to reverse this trend towards marginalisation is not as widely agreed upon. And whether the commercial self-interest of the EU is also one of the grounds for the shift is discussed below.

In terms of the practical detail of the negotiations, the Caribbean and Pacific constitute separate regions in their own rights. The African regional groupings with which the EU is negotiating are as follows.

Central Africa: Cameroon, Republic of Central Africa, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, and Sao Tomé e Principe.
Eastern and Southern Africa (ESA): Burundi, Comoros, Djibouti, DR Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Rwanda, Seychelles, Sudan, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
Southern Africa Development Community (SADC): Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, Swaziland and Tanzania, and with South Africa participating in a supportive and observer capacity. (The original SADC, a pre-existing regional body, also contains six other members - DR Congo, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Zambia and Zimbabwe - but these have chosen to negotiate with the EU through the ESA).
West Africa: Benin, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Guinea Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Togo, Cape Verde, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria, Mauritania and Sierra Leone.

The intention is to have EPAs agreed with each region and ready to come into force on 1 January 2008. Trade liberalisation would proceed asymmetrically, with the EU dismantling barriers more quickly than the ACP states (and with scope for transitional protection of 'sensitive' sectors, particularly on the part of the ACP), though differences of opinion have arisen about the precise time periods and probable exemptions involved (see below). The EU would also agree packages of financial assistance with each region.

EU Self-Interest and the Scope of the Negotiations
Some commentators argue that a third, typically unstated, reason for the shift towards reciprocal free trade is to allow EU business better penetrate emerging ACP markets (Goodison and Stoneman, 2004: 733; and see the above cited WDM critique of the EU's GATS agenda). The charge is rejected by the current EU trade commissioner: "EPAs are not about Europe trying to force open markets for our benefit" (Mandelson, 2005). Nonetheless, critics remain sceptical on this point and suggest that "the EU's commercial self-interest" remains a driving factor (Bain et al , 2004).

The organisation Traidcraft (2003; see also Hurt, 2003 and www.stopepa.org) has been to the fore in criticisms of the EU's (allegedly self-serving) agenda, highlighting the following claimed elements of the EU's negotiating stance vis-à-vis the EPAs:

Demands for liberalisation of public procurement in the ACP states (allowing EU firms to bid for public works contracts there and not allowing ACP governments support or prioritise local contractors);
Movement towards liberalisation of all service sectors i.e., an even more ambitious approach than the GATS one of tabling sectoral requests (see above);
And pressure to ensure European firms receive at least as favourable treatment as local ones in the ACP countries, meaning that ACP governments would not be allowed discriminate in favour of locally owned firms or require European companies to abide by special conditions with regard to local employment or procurement.

The Commission has denied that these demands are based on European self-interest and defended the very wide agenda of the negotiations:

"EPAs are part of the overall effort to build up the economic governance framework, the stable, transparent and predictable rules necessary to lower the costs of doing business, attract fresh domestic or foreign investment and make ACP producers more diversified and competitive. This is why the EPAs must be comprehensive, dealing with all the rules and issues that concern private investors and traders... As a result, issues such as competition policy and investment rules are no luxury but fundamental factors that affect the decisions of traders and investors" (Commission, 2005b: 32).

Critics remain unconvinced by the attempt to extend the agreements beyond trade policies and into areas of what they see as domestic economic governance. They note that it is precisely these ambitions on the part of the EU, to push the so-called 'Singapore Issues' (investment, competition, and public procurement) into trade agreements, that have been rejected by most developing countries at World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations (Curtis, 2005: 12-13). The Commission recognises the point, but is unapologetic:

"We recognise the concern among NGOs that the EU is 'trying to reintroduce the so-called Singapore issues by the back door'. However, everyone should acknowledge that investment, public procurement and competition policy are essential parts of successful economic governance" (Commission memorandum, January 2005, cited in Curtis, 2005: 13).

But not everyone does acknowledge this argument, nor do they see why they should. They see instead an attempt on the part of the Commission to lock ACP states into a particular model of economic governance, reflecting a longer-term shift in EU-ACP relations from "a redistributive, interventionist approach to one founded on the principles of free trade and neoliberal othrodoxy" (Nunn and Price, 2004: 213). (3) By 'locking in' the neoliberal paradigm, EPAs may oblige ACP countries to surrender important elements of autonomy and flexibility of economic policy in the future (Nunn and Price, 2004: 221). This raises the possibility that Normative Power Europe in indeed in action - diffusing, however, a particular and controversial 'norm' of economic governance, a possibility discussed further below.

This relates to wider debates within economic development about the claimed 'shrinking of development space' (Wade, 2003) - the way in which trade agreements serve to preclude countries from pursuing the types of interventionist policies which, it is claimed, stimulated economic development in the now-developed economies (Chang, 2002). Whether the motive for this 'lock-in' is commercial self-interest on the part of the EU may, at the end of the day, be less important than the fact of the imposition of a certain 'one-size-fits-all' economic orthodoxy. This is especially problematic when the claimed gains to the ACP countries from the EPAs are highly debatable, as the next section will demonstrate.

Preliminary Economic Assessments: Trade and Revenue Effects
Milner et al (2005) have sought to estimate the likely economic impact of an EPA on three African economies - Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda. As far as trade effects are concerned, consumers in Tanzania and Uganda might benefit from cheaper EU imports, but Kenyan producers, who currently supply many of these imports, would likely lose out. And all three countries would be affected by the loss of tariff revenue as trade barriers were dismantled. In the case of Tanzania and Uganda, over half of current tariff revenue would be lost, an especially severe blow given the relatively limited potential for diversification of the tax base. While long-term gains might be reaped through, for example, increased attractiveness to foreign investment, "The core conclusion is that one cannot assume that the welfare effects on ACP countries will be positive; it is very possible that the static effects will be negative", even, as for a country like Kenya, before the loss of tariff revenue is taken into account (Milner et al , 2005: 348).

One aspect of the Milner et al study is striking in retrospect. The authors assumed that Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda would all be part of a single EPA. In, fact Tanzania has opted to negotiate with the EU as a member of the SADC group even though it is a member, with Kenya and Uganda, of the East African Community's Customs Union. This highlights the issue of overlapping memberships of regional groupings and begs the question of whether EPAs will correspond to the existing and/or most appropriate patterns of regional co-operation in Africa, a question returned to in the next section of this paper.

Borrmann et al (2005) review a number of studies of the likely impact of EPAs. In the case of West Africa, they cite findings of a probable moderate trade impact but a potentially severe loss of important customs revenues. In the case of Cape Verde and Gambia, that projected loss might amount to 20 per cent of total government revenue, with the figure likely to range between 5 and 10 per cent for other countries in the region (Borrmann et al , 2005: 171). As the authors comment, "These are relatively large numbers that may affect the ability of West African ACP countries to provide much needed public goods, such as education or infrastructure" (Borrmann et al , 2005: 171). The findings reviewed in the cases of SDAC and ESA also point to declining ACP welfare levels as tariff revenue losses are projected to outweigh gains (to consumers) from lower import prices (Borrmann et al , 2005: 172).

Research carried out by the Institute for Development Studies (IDS), and referred to further below, broadly reinforces these conclusions, noting that "The task of adopting to tariff revenue loss could be substantial" (Stevens and Kennan, 2005: 4).

Fostering Regional Co-operation?
"Creating integrated regional markets is at the heart of the concept of the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) that the EU is currently negotiating with four Sub-Saharan regions of Africa. These innovative agreements are being designed with development as the major objective and benchmark" (Commission, 2005a: 26).

As previously mentioned, ACP countries will have some flexibility regarding the opening up of their markets to EU imports under the EPAs, as not all trade has to be liberalised, rather 'substantially all' (Stevens and Kennan, 2005: 1). What this might mean in practice is not clear. Stevens and Kennan (2005: 2) construct a scenario where 'substantially all' is taken to mean 90 per cent of trade between the EU and each EPA regional grouping - if the EU allows 100 per cent duty-free access to ACP imports than the overall average could be achieved by the ACP countries dropping barriers on just 80 per cent of their imports from the EU. (4) (The EU-South Africa Trade Development and Co-operation Agreement of 1999 envisages South Africa liberalising 86 per cent of its imports from the EU and the EU 95 per cent of its imports from South Africa over a 12-year period - EcoNews Africa and Traidcraft, 2005: 47). This could leave ACP states with quite a lot of scope to maintain tariffs vis-à-vis especially sensitive sectors (perhaps those most vulnerable to EU competition) or to maintain those tariffs that generate significant government revenues. This is one of the reasons why Stevens and Kennan (2005) anticipate mild trade effects arising from EPAs.

However, the problem with this scenario is the challenge it poses to regional co-operation. The products that any one country would probably seek to exclude from liberalisation would usually not be the ones that other countries in the region would likely seek to exclude. There is not one single product that would be common to the probable exclusions list of all individual country members of any of the regional groups, and in the case of West Africa there would be no country overlap at all in the case of 92 per cent of products (with the figures for Central Africa, ESA and SADC 51, 43 and 64 per cent respectively). Thus, unlike the estimate for trade effects, when it comes to regional integration "it looks likely that there will be a significant effect - but a negative one" (Stevens and Kennan, 2005: 4).

That EU policy may be prejudicial to African regional co-operation is a point made by other observers also, and is already implicit in the projection of EU imports displacing those from Kenya on the Ugandan market - hardly a motive force to regional integration in East Africa. And the separation of Kenya and Uganda (ESA) from Tanzania (SADC) in the negotiations raises question marks over the viability of plans to relaunch the East African Community as a Customs Union (Goodison, 2005a: 172). The wider Common Market of Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) - the core of the ESA bloc - is itself divided by the EPA process as its largest economy, Egypt (a non-ACP country), cannot be a party to the negotiations (Goodison, 2005a: 172). Page (2004) has pointed to the EU's negotiation of a separate free trade agreement (Known as the EU-South Africa Trade Development and Co-operation Agreement) with South Africa (in 1999), posing special difficulties for the four ACP countries already members of a customs union with South Africa - Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia and Swaziland (BLNS). The BNLS countries are now, along with Tanzania, Angola and Mozambique, negotiating an EPA with the EU as part of SADC (though, as noted earlier, this is really a sub-group of SADC as several of its members are negotiating an EPA as members of the ESA group). The EU has effectively locked the BLNS countries into the same tariff structure as South Africa (Melber, 2005: 5) and this may now act as the basis for an EU-SADC EPA. Goodison and Stoneman (2004: 727) note that this may be highly inappropriate to the specific needs and constraints of the BLNS countries and also those of Angola, Mozambique and Tanzania.

Indeed, it is partly for these reasons that Mauritius and Zimbabwe chose the ESA rather than the SADC EPA option: "To avoid being forced to open their market according to the EU-South Africa... liberalisation schedule" (Meyn, 2004: 16). But Meyn (2004: 16) goes on to point out that this decision may be damaging to the close investment ties between Mauritius and South Africa i.e., there is a "risk that Mauritius' trade interests are pursued at the expense of its investment interests".

Further problems for effective regional co-operation within the EPA groupings arise from the fact that many ACP countries are classified as 'least-developed' countries (LDCs) and thus already see their exports qualify for almost unlimited duty-free and quota-free access to the EU market under the 'Everything But Arms' (EBA) scheme. As the EU lowers import barriers generally to ACP states under EPAs, the relative advantage enjoyed by the EBA countries disappears; "either the EPAs must provide for differentiation among members or they will offer worse treatment to the LDCs than they have under EBA" (Gillson and Grim, 2004: 1). Again, the way in which the EU has constructed cross-cutting deals and schemes vis-à-vis Africa renders regional co-operation problematic, though this is not a factor the Commission itself (2005b) is willing to acknowledge in its identification of barriers to EPA progress. Given the EU's complicated and overlapping policies, Page (2004: 6) finds it "surprising that the European Commission thinks it is in a position to criticise African countries for having multiple trading agreements".

For all the above reasons, Goodison (2005a: 172) notes that "the EPA process... has led to the fragmentation of existing regional integration schemes".

Flexibility and 'Flanking' Measures
As mentioned above, there is some dispute about the schedule that the ACP countries would be expected to follow in terms of reciprocating market access. The WTO rules only specify that reciprocal free trade agreements should be implemented "within a reasonable period of time" (cited in EcoNews Africa and Traidcraft, 2005: 47). In March 2005, the British government argued that the EPAs should not be used to leverage European access to developing country markets, and that a minimum 20-year timetable should be set for full import liberalisation on the part of ACP states. The Director-General of the Commission's trade directorate described the British position as "a major and unwelcome shift" and insisted that a shorter timetable for full liberalisation would be adhered to by the Commission regardless of Member State objections (Guardian , 19th May 2005). According to the Commission official, the British stance "could well make progress with EPA negotiations more difficult by reinforcing the views of the more sceptical ACP states and raising the prospect of alternatives that are, in reality, impractical" (Guardian , 19th May 2005). (5)

The Africa Commission does not believe that alternatives are impractical, arguing instead that "individual African countries should be allowed to sequence their own trade reforms, at their own pace, in line with their own poverty-reduction and development plans" (cited in Goodison, 2005b: 296). A British parliamentary report has argued that there should be no fixed timetable for liberalisation at all, and that LDCs should only be expected to offer reciprocal market access after they have graduated out of their LDC status (Goodison, 2005b: 296). Goodison (2005a and 2005b) raises the possibility of the ACP countries liberalising to the minimal extent necessary to become WTO-compliant, and deferring further liberalisation until such time as they have a sense of how their economies and comparative advantages are evolving. This evolution will be heavily influenced by reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and by the establishment of regional markets and production structures, amongst other factors, and it will be some time before the countries concerned have the information necessary to determine what sectors they wish to retain protection for.

But the Commission, while perhaps being willing to consider a 15-year timetable rather than the 10-12 year transition fist mooted, remains wedded to a specific liberalisation timetable being laid down in advance (Goodison, 2005a: 170; Goodison, 2005b: 297).

The Commission has also indicated that it recognises the importance of so-called 'flanking' issues, such as EU food safety standards acting as barriers to ACP exports, and has pledged aid support to countries needing assistance to meet such standards (Goodison, 2005b: 299). According to Goodison (2005b: 299-301), however, this recognition has not translated into changes in aid disbursement, nor is it likely to do so if the evidence of "administrative indifference in Brussels and a lack of effective follow-through on rhetorical commitments by the Commissioners responsible" is anything to go by (Goodison, 2005b: 300). There is "currently little evidence that addressing supply-side constraints is being accorded priority within the EU aid-deployment process" (Goodison, 2005a: 168-9).

Conclusion
"it would be an act of foolish optimism to expect integrity or honesty in the EU's trade policy towards Southern Africa and the wider ACP group" (Goodison and Stoneman, 2004: 734).

The Commission has implied that some critics are ideologically motivated; it itself, of course, is not, by definition. It also claims that "In a number of cases, NSAs [non-state actors] have taken a very critical stance towards EPA without however considering more nuanced arguments or offering alternatives how to improve the situation of the ACP" (Commission, 2005b: 6). In fact, it is not the absence of alternatives, but rather the Commission's unwillingness to consider alternatives, that has tended to characterise the EPA debate.

Does this imply that the EU is not acting as a Normative Power but rather out of an old-fashioned realpolitik defence of (mainly economic) self-interest? Perhaps, and there if no doubt that the EU's trade agenda in general is hugely influenced by corporate lobbying and influence (Deckwirth, 2005), despite a profound reluctance to admit as much. For example, the Commission's new EU strategy for Africa talks of a "changing geopolitical context" in Africa, with powers such as China, the US and Russia increasingly engaging with Africa for reasons including market access and sourcing of energy supplies (Commission, 2005a: 10). The EU's engagement with Africa, by contrast, is portrayed as unsullied by such squalid materialism.

At the same time there may also be a sense in which the EU is not necessarily pursuing immediate commercial goals, but is acting to diffuse (possibly even impose) 'norms' on Africa - specifically, certain norms of (neoliberal) economic governance, alternatives to which are dismissed as much for reasons of principle as for the prospect of commercial gain. Goodison (2005a: 170) describes the Commission's "ideological belief in what is termed 'open regionalism'" i.e., using regional economic integration as a stepping-stone to global economic integration, rather than as a (perhaps temporary) shield against the forces of global competition. (6)

Commissioner Mandelson has spoken of 'the right conditions' needing to be in place if openness to trade is to translate into poverty reduction:

"For Commissioner Mandelson these 'right conditions' appeared to relate primarily to improving the business climate, establishing appropriate domestic economic policies and following principles of good governance" (Goodison, 2005a: 168).

Thus, there may be some reality in the idea that Normative Power Europe is in action in the EPA negotiations, especially as, in his initial formulation of the concept, Manners (2002) identified 'good governance' as one of the (minor) norms in question. The problem is that what is being promoted is a particular model of 'good governance', narrowly focused on specific norms concerning liberal democracy and market economics (Abrahamsen, 2000). This is far from guaranteed to yield positive outcomes for African and other ACP countries.

Contrary to the aspiration of Habermas and Derrida (2003), the EU is not seeing to imbue 'globalisation' with the idea of social solidarity claimed to be characteristic of Europe itself. It is, instead, committed to a neoliberal agenda that drives forward rather than restrains actually existing globalisation. Manners (2002) is correct to argue that Europe exercises power in the world through its ability to influence (and partially set) global opinions and norms. This is evident in the EPA negotiations but, unfortunately, the norms being promoted do not correspond to the developmental needs of African economies.

Andy Storey (Centre for Development Studies, University College Dublin)
Contact: andydsc@yahoo.co.uk

1) Similarly, Will Hutton (2003), editor of the Observer newspaper, argues that "we Europeans have a lot in common. Europeans believe in a social contract - the big idea behind the NHS and state education. Europeans believe that their civilisations are enriched by public interventions and institutions - from public footpaths to public service broadcasting". - back

2) In the words of one Commission official, speaking in 1999, "The European Commission is going to rely heavily on the ESF... We are going to rely on it just as heavily as on member state direct advice in trying to formulate our objectives" (cited in Corporate Europe Observatory, 2003). - back

3) Charting a similar transition, Karagiannis (2004: 111) notes that "The European development discourse from the 1970s up to the 1990s has moved from a conception of giving centrally involving the gift to a conception of giving as market exchange", where the market is the determinant of what constitutes efficiency and, therefore, desirability. - back

4) In effect, this scenario assumes that the EU extends to all ACP countries the duty-free access privileges currently accorded to least-developed countries under the EU's 'Everything But Arms' initiative. - back

5) The Guardian (19 th May 2005) went on to quote a 'trade source' in Brussels as saying that "Britain has not been pushing its position very hard", which might suggest the position was more of a sop to a (pre-election) domestic constituency than a serious attempt to alter the Commission's trade negotiating position. "Before the election, Blair makes one of his tear-jerking appeals for love, compassion and human fellowship, and gets the anti-poverty movement off his back. After the election he discovers, to his inestimable regret, that love, compassion and human fellowship won't after all be possible, as a result of a ruling by the European commission" (Monbiot, 2005). - back

6) Nesadurai (2002) distinguishes between two models of regionalism in relation to globalisation: 'open' and 'resistance' (though she does not claim that these two options exhaust the range of possible regional governance models, and, in practice, any country is likely to exhibit aspects of both 'openness' and 'resistance'). Open regionalism establishes regional governance arrangements that serve to facilitate globalisation, whereas resistance regionalism seeks, in one way or another, to govern a region so as to restrain or limit aspects of globalisation and to favour regional interests over those from outside the region. - back

REFERENCES

Abrahamsen, R. (2000) Disciplining Democracy: Development Discourse and Good Governance in Africa . London and New York: Zed Books.

Bain, C., Wilmshurst, E., Miller, R., Abugre, C., Bennet, G. and P. Chandler (2004) 'EU's Terms of Trade', Guardian (letter, 2 nd December).

Borrmann, A., Busse, M. and S. Neuhaus (2005) 'EU/ACP Economic Partnership Agreements: Impact, Options and Prerequisites', Intereconomics 40 (3): 169-76.

Chang, H.-J. (2003) Kicking away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective . London: Anthem Press.

Commission of the European Community (2005a), 'EU Strategy for Africa: Towards a Euro-African Pact to Accelerate Africa's Development', Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee, Brussels (October).

Commission of the European Community (2005b), 'The Trade and Development Aspects of EPA Negotiations', Commission Staff Paper (Directorate-General for Trade, Directorate-General for Development, and EuropeAid), Brussels (October).

Corporate Europe Observatory (2003) 'Servicing Big Business', www.wtocancun.com (September).

Curtis, M. (2005) '17 Ways the European Commission is Pushing Trade Liberalisation on Poor Countries', a report commissioned by Christian Aid for the European movement for trade justice (November).

Deckwirth, C. (2005) 'The EU Corporate Trade Agenda: The Role and the Interests of Corporations and their Lobby Groups in Trade Policy-Making in the European Union', 'Seattle to Brussels' Policy Paper, Brussels/Berlin (November).

EcoNews Africa and Traidcraft Exchange (2005) 'EPAs: Through the Lens of Kenya', London and Nairobi (September).

Forsberg, T. and G.P. Herd (2005) 'The EU, Human Rights, and the Russo-Chechen Conflict', Political Science Quarterly 120 (3): 455-78.

Gillson, I. and S. Grimm (2004) 'EU Trade Partnerships with Developing Countries', Overseas Development Institute Briefing Paper (April).

Goodison, P. (2005a) 'The European Union: New Start or Old Spin?', Review of African Political Economy (103): 167-76.

Goodison. P. (2005b) 'Six Months On: What Shift is there in the EU Approach to EPA Negotiations?', Review of African Political Economy (104/5): 167-76.

Goodison, P. and C. Stoneman (2004) 'Europe: Partner or Exploiter of Africa? The G-90 and the ACP', Review of African Political Economy (99): 725-34.

Habermas, J. and J. Derrida (2003) 'February 15, or What Binds Europeans Together: a Plea for a Common Foreign Policy, Beginning in a Core of Europe', Constellations 10 (3): 291-7.

Hurt, S.R. (2003) 'Cooperation and Coercion? The Cotonou Agreement Between the European Union and ACP States and the End of the Lomé Convention', Third World Quarterly 24 (1): 161-76.

Hutton, W. (2003) 'Why I Fear that the Dream is Doomed', Observer (14 th December).

Karagiannis, N. (2004) Avoiding Responsibility: the Politics and Discourse of European Development Policy . London and Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto Press.

Lightfoot, S. and J. Burchell (2005) 'The European Union and the World Summit on Sustainable Development: Normative Power Europe in Action?', Journal of Common Market Studies 43 (1): 75-95.

Mandelson, P. (2005) 'For Real Trade Justice, Barriers Must Come Down Gradually', Guardian (3 rd October).

Manners, I. (2002) 'Normative Power Europe: a Contradiction in Terms?', Journal of Common Market Studies 40 (2): 235-58.

Melber, H. (2005) 'The EU-ACP Process: Building Block for a Coherent EU Policy on Africa? A Critical Appraisal with Special Reference to the Economic Partnership Agreements', input paper presented to the Second ExpertWorkshop 'From Individual Action to a Common Strategy? EU Policy on sub-Saharan Africa', organised by the Development and Peace Foundation, Gustav-Stressmann-Institute, Bonn (20-21 September).

Meyn, M. (2004) 'Are Economic Partnership Agreements Likely to Promote or Constrain Regional Integration in Southern Africa? Options, Limits and Challenges Botswana, Mauritius and Mozambique are Facing', Namibian Economic Policy Research Unit Working Paper (96), Windhoek (July).

Milner, C., Morrisey, O. and A. McKay (2005) 'Some Simple Analytics of the Trade and Welfare Effects of Economic Partnership Agreements', Journal of African Economies 14 (3): 327-58.

Monbiot, G. (2005) 'A Game of Double Bluff', Guardian (31 st May).

Nesadurai, H. (2002) 'Globalisation and Economic Regionalism: a Survey and Critique of the Literature', CSGR Working Paper (108), Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation, Warwick.

Nunn, A. and S. Price (2004) 'Managing Development: EU and African Relations through the Evolution of the Lomé and Cotonou Agreements', Historical Materialism 12 (4): 203-30.

Page, S. (2004) 'Special and Differential Treatment or Divide and Rule? European Union Trade Policy towards Developing Countries', University College Dublin Centre for Development Studies Development Research Briefing (3).

Rifkin, J. (2004) The European Dream: How Europe's Vision of the Future is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream . Cambridge: Polity.

Traidcraft (2003) 'Economic Partnership Agreements: the EU's New Trade Battleground', London (September).

Stevens, C. (2005) 'Mandelson's Plans for Market Access', Guardian (letter, 5 th October).

Stevens, C. and J. Kennan (2005) 'EU-ACP Economic Partnership Agreements: the Effects of Reciprocity', Institute of Development Studies Briefing Paper (May).

Syzmanski, M. and M.E. Smith (2005) 'Coherence and Conditionality in European Foreign Policy: Negotiating the EU-Mexico Global Agreement', Journal of Common Market Studies 43 (1): 171-92.

Wade, R.H. (2003) 'What Strategies are Viable for Developing Countries Today? The World Trade Organisation and the Shrinking of "Development Space"', Review of International Political Economy 10 (4): 621-44.

World Development Movement (2005) 'Leaked Documents Reveal EU Plan to Force Open Developing Country Markets', London (October).

World Development Movement (2003) 'Whose Development Agenda? A Preliminary Analysis of the 109 EU GATS Requests', London (February).

Normative Power Europe? Economic Partnership Agreements and Africa

- Roger Cole

National Independence

The Peace & Neutrality Alliance was established in 1996 to advocate Irish Neutrality, that Ireland should have its own Independent Irish Foreign Policy and that that policy should be pursued through a reformed United Nations rather than via the EU, which should be a partnership of independent democratic states, legal equals, without a military dimension.

We did so because we believed the Irish political elite intended to destroy Irish neutrality, independence and democracy and integrate this state into an EU which is being transformed into a centralised, militarised, neo-liberal superstate, an Empire, allied to the US Empire, in order to achieve all Ireland integration into the EU/US military structures, to ensure Ireland's full and active participation in the resource wars of the 21 st century. Very few people believed us.

Nine years later, with Irish Neutrality totally destroyed as thousands upon thousands of US troops use Shannon airport on their way to their way to consolidate their Empire in the Middle East, as the EU elite prepares to join the US in a war on Iran, and as the Irish Army is integrated into the EU Battle Groups, the shock troops regiments of the emerging EU Empire, there are few who do not.

Nine years ago in the first of a series of polls on behalf of the Irish Times, people were asked:

Which of the following statements comes closest to your views?

Ireland should do all it can to unite fully with the EU
Ireland should do all it can to protect its independence

58% said they agreed Ireland should do all it can to unite fully with the EU and only 32% agreed Ireland should do all it can to protect its independence from the EU.

This year on being asked the same question, only 36% agreed that Ireland should unite fully with the EU and 45% agreed Ireland should do all it can to protect its independence from the EU.

The Empire Loyalists are losing the support of the Irish people and the values based on Irish National Independence are becoming more popular, a process that will be accelerated and consolidated next year with the 90 th anniversary of the 1916 Rising. Since James Connolly the founder of the Irish Neutrality League was executed in 1916, PANA should mark that anniversary.

PANA has played a role in this transformation of the attitude of the Irish people towards the emerging European Empire.

We were the only alliance that campaigned against the Amsterdam Treaty. The political elite deliberately held the referendum at the same time as the referendum on the Good Friday Agreement. They expected that the vast majority of the people would vote yes to the Agreement and the yes to the Amsterdam Treaty, which would also be a substantial increase in support for the Empire than that achieved in the previous referendum.

In fact the opposite occurred and the vote in favour of Independence increased from 31% to 38%.

The reason is that while the elite saw the Good Friday Agreement as a final settlement to the Irish National issue, a sizable percentage of the Irish people saw it as a stage towards national unity and independence. To the elite, the 6 counties were already integrated into the US/EU military structures and the Amsterdam Treaty was a crucial step towards the integration of the 26 counties into the same structures.

So that while both Empire Loyalists and those of us in favour of Irish Independence voted in favour of the Good Friday Agreement, the real and fundamental differences in the desired objectives, a United Independent Democratic Irish in favour of the peaceful resolution of international disputes as advocated by PANA or an Ireland that had Home Rule status within a European Empire allied to the US and committed to international war as advocated by the political/media elite, remained unresolved.

PANA also demanded that Mr. Ahern hold the promised referendum on Ireland membership of Nato's PFP. He refused and Ireland joined without a referendum.

The elite were absolutely confident they would win the Nice referendum. Big mistake. Our victory in the Nice 1 referendum came as a major shock. They were forced to establish the Forum on Europe and give PANA a role in it. They were forced to pass legislation to enshrine the triple lock, which meant the Irish Army would not participate in EU military actions unless the Dail, and the Government agreed and that the Security Council of the United Nations supported the EU military action.

These concessions helped them win the second referendum on the Nice Treaty, and while we lost, 38% of the people voted no, so PANA still reflected the views of a considerable percentage of the Irish people.

PANA however always argued that it was not opposed to Europe or the US per se, but the process of the integration of Ireland into the US/EU military structures. In fact we made a point of building up links internationally especially with the European Peace & Human Rights Network and the US United for Peace & Justice organisation.

But the events of 2003 brought our campaign to totally new level.

The US invasion and conquest of Iraq in that year transformed international politics. It will transform Irish politics.

PANA was the first organisation to hold a demonstration at Shannon airport in May 2002. We decided to focus on the Nice referendum and it was only after it did we propose that PANA, the NGOPA and the Irish Anti-War Movement join forces to organise the Irish participation in the massive global demonstration against the war on the 1 th of February 2003.

Over 120,000 participated in that massive demonstration, 50,000 in Belfast and thousands of others in other demonstrations throughout the country and millions throughout the world.

Bush, Blair Ahern and others supported by virtually the entire media throughout the US and the EU including Ireland went to war despite the demonstrations. It was an illegal criminal war fought to gain control of the oil in Iraq and to consolidate US/Israeli military domination of the Middle East. The majority of the elected representatives in the Dail and showed themselves to be a collection of grovelling, forelock touching neo-Redmondite sycophants by voting to back the war and destroy Irish neutrality.

In the 6 counties, virtually all the unionists stayed loyal to their imperialist tradition and backed the war.

The Hague Convention of 1907 clearly declares that a state that wishes to be regarded in international law as neutral cannot allow its territory to be used by belligerents in a war. Yet 121,943 US troops passed through Shannon in 2003, 158,549 in 2004 and 268,963 by October 2005, US soldiers stopped off at Shannon. The policy of Irish Neutrality has been totally obliterated.

The neo-Redmonite FF/PD Government also refuses to search planes landing in Shannon to see if prisoners are on board being brought to be tortured in the secret torture chambers run by the US with the help of some EU states. It is the first time since this 26 county state was formed that it has actively and enthuastically backed an Imperialist war.

But as the war drags on an on and as the lies told by the Imperialists are exposed and the body bags keep coming back the popular support for the war sustained by media is cracking.

In the heart of the US Empire not everything is going well for the leader of this 21 st Crusade. With over 2,100 US soldiers killed and over 18,000 injured so far, 10% of the Crusader Army of occupation have been killed or injured. The war has cost the US Empire over $220 billion so far and there has been a substantial drop in the number of its citizens joining the National Guard. Popular support for Bush in the US has declined dramatically. In the UK, Blair's Imperialist, New Labour Party saw it's majority reduced substantially in their election and the Blair government recently suffered a major defeat in its efforts to destroy civil liberties.

As stated earlier, the absolute reality is the conquest of Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terrorism. Fundamentalist Muslims have always argued that the conquest of Iraq was about building an Israeli-Christian Empire stretching from Palestine to Afghanistan. Therefore the conquest of Iraq not only provided the evidence, but also removed a Baathist regime from power and gained themselves a massive number of recruits. Popular support for the Muslim fundamentalists has grown exponentially. If the US Empire together with the emerging EU Empire in a de facto alliance with Israeli continues with their efforts to gain popular support for the bombing of Iran or even its invasion, support for Muslim Fundamentalists would expand even more. Since there are 1.5 billion Muslims it is absolutely inevitable that the Christian fundamentalist leaders Bush and Blair, like the previous Crusaders will be defeated and driven out of the Middle East.

However we should be clear that both Ben Laden and Bush are opposed to democracy and justice. They are like twin angels of death, dragging us down into the gates of Hell. We must seek the end of the conflict by ensuring it is those political and social forces that advocate justice and democracy take the lead in demanding the ending of the occupation.

For the reality is that in order to end the conflict with a victory for democracy and social justice, the occupation of Iraq has to end and the sooner the better.

Israel has also to withdraw to its 1969 boundaries so that a viable state of Palestine can be established in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip. It is these occupations that provide the support base for the Muslim fundamentalists. End them, together with the occupation of Afghanistan and Chechnya and the possibility of a lasting democratic settlement can emerge. Only those people in favour of the ending of these occupations are really opposed to terrorism. Those like Bush and Blair and Ahern that support war and occupation are the real supporters of terrorism.

However, so far, no Irish soldier has been killed, and so far, no bomb has gone off in Ireland as a consequence of the decision of the Irish political elite to support this Imperial war. To most Irish people the military effects of supporting the imperial ambitions of the EU/US elite has been an abstract concept, not affecting their daily lives.

The same cannot be said of the economic realities of the emerging neo-liberal, centralised EU superstate.

The decision of Irish Ferries to sack Irish workers unless they work for virtually nothing, and to say they intend to bring in workers from Eastern Europe if they did not, has had a major impact on Irish workers and the organised trade union movement. The Service Directive proposed by the EU Commission, which would allow firms based in other EU states to employ workers in Ireland at the same wages and working conditions as in the country in which the firms are based would mean a massive reduction in the wages and working conditions of Irish workers. A PANA AGM is not the place to have a long analysis of the effects of the neo-liberal agenda on Irish workers. Suffice to say however that the EU elite is well aware that an ongoing war is a very good way to distract the workers from opposing attacks on their living standards. A war creates an enemy that has the effect of creating unity, and labels those who oppose the war as being people who are "soft on terrorism" or "fellow travellers".

Unfortunately for the elite, the French and Dutch people massively defeated the proposed EU Constitution that was to the crowning glory in the process of the creation of their Empire. Despite the fact that 90% of the political / media elite in France and Holland backed the proposed EU Constitution it was comprehensively rejected. Two stakes were driven through its heart. Even Ahern has temporarily given up trying to hawk it around Europe like some sort of 21 st century Dracula. It was clear however that it was the mobilisation and unity achieved by the political forces led by a resurgent left opposed to the neo-liberal agenda that led these great victories. Together with the massive anti-war demonstrations in 2003, the referendum results mark the start of the counter attack against neo-liberal ideology that has dominated the globe since the 1960's. They mark the growing belief among an increasing number of people that the neo-liberal militarists like bush, Blair and Ahern can be defeated if the unity achieved to date can be made stronger and more powerful. We need to get used to winning.

Since all the US/EU elite offers is a war in which defeat is inevitable, and a sustained attack on the living and working conditions of workers throughout Europe we should feel very confident that we would win if we continue to build and consolidate our forces.

It was that in mind that PANA organised a Conference on the EU Constitution in November 2004 with speakers not only from PANA but DAPSE and the Peoples Movement that campaigned on the neo-liberal and democracy agenda.

Out of that Conference has developed the Campaign Against the EU Constitution.

In the meantime PANA had affiliated to the European NO Campaign. As Chair of PANA I spoke at Conferences on the EU Constitution in Dublin, Manchester, London and Amsterdam. These invitations reflected the growing international role of PANA. We have always said that the Imperial objectives of the US/EU elite are global and if we were to defeat them, we had to be part of a global movement.

While the EU Constitution is dead, and killing it was a tremendous victory, the right wing neo-liberal and militarist ideology remains and its political and social forces that give it life remains strong and determined.

The next two-battle area is the appropriately named EU Battle Groups and the Service Directive.

The EU is establishing 13 Battle Groups, each with 1,500 troops capable of invading a country up to 6,000 K from the borders of the EU within 5-10 days of being given the order to do so. To allow for rotation this means a military force of 156,000 under the command of the EU whose military doctrine advocates pre-emptive war without a UN mandate. The EU Battle Groups are to be interoperable with the NATO Rapid Reaction Force, a 60,000 strong military force under NATO control, already capable of going to war with 10 days.

In a letter written in February 2005 to the House of Commons Select Committee on the European Union, Geoffrey Hoon, the British Minister for Defence described the Battle Groups as;

"mutually reinforcing with the larger NATO Response Force (NRF). ... ... and have the potential to act as a stepping-stone for countries that want to contribute to the NATO Response Force, by developing their high readiness forces to the required standard and integrating small countries' contributions into multinational units.

Wherever possible and applicable, standards, practical methods and procedures for Battlegroups are analogous to those defined within the NATO Response Force. Correctly managed, there is considerable potential for synergy between the two initiatives".

So there it is, the EU/US military structures are laid out for all to see. The whole theory that the EU is some sort of military alternative to the US is exposed as the total bullshit that it is.

PANA is in the process of writing an analysis of the EU Battle Groups and intends to campaign actively against Irish participation in the EU Battle Groups. We have been totally vindicated in our long campaign for a legally binding Protocol to exclude Ireland from the militarisation of the EU.

We will also link the militarisation of the EU with opposing the neo-liberal agenda through the CAEUC. We will certainly find the organised working class and its trade union movement more responsive as the effects of the EU sponsored Service Directive deepen.

Finally, long process towards the next election is underway. PANA should approach all candidates and ask them to agree with the following;

The termination of the use of Shannon by the US Empire.
A commitment to maintain the Triple Lock legislation.
A commitment to ensure that a Protocol be included in any new EU Treaty that like the Danish Protocol, would exclude Ireland from the militarisation of the EU.
An amendment to enshrine neutrality into the Irish Constitution.

It is a difficult task. The Fianna Fail and PD parties that have already show their active support for the Imperialist war and who also actively support the Services directive clearly hate PANA and all we stand for. The Labour Party is committed to an effective merger with Fine Gael, a party that sprung from the tradition of European Fascism and which is favour of the total abolition of Irish neutrality and Independence.

However, as the reality of what's on offer, a militarised, centralised, neo-liberal superstate becomes more and more obvious, the Irish trade union movement will force its leadership to respond and oppose the Empire Loyalists as has already happened in the British TUC. In such circumstances I am absolutely confident that the party of Connolly will in time, and perhaps sooner than later, will have to choose between the trade union movement and the Blueshirts. I am confident it will pick the trade union movement.

Because the real division in Ireland is between those Irish people that support Imperialism, that support the integration of Ireland, all 32 counties into the EU/US military structures on one side and those who seek to establish a United Independent Democratic Irish Republic on the other. These four demands are the absolute minimum that we should seek from all candidates standing for election in Ireland. They are demands that set the real benchmark.

PANA is only a very small part of a growing global alliance against Imperialism that first manifested itself on the 15 th of February 2003.

We need to continue to build on that achievement. We need to win, because if we do not all we have to look forward to is war and poverty. Building the alliance, building PANA has to remain the focus of our political campaigning for years to come. The EU/US elite offers poverty and war. We offer peace and justice. And we are going to win.

Roger Cole

by Patrick Comerford (World View, The Irish Times, 6 August 2005)

Living under the mushroom cloud
TODAY [August 6th] marks the sixtieth anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Tuesday [August 9th] is the sixtieth anniversary of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, and next Monday week [subs: August 15th] marks the 60th anniversary of the Japanese surrender to General Macarthur and the eventual end of World War II.

The commemorations in Japan this weekend are of a more low-key nature, and have a less international flavour, than the commemorations in Europe earlier this year marking the liberation of the concentration camps and the end of World War II. The US still feels no collective shame for the atrocities in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while the Japanese have never really accepted responsibility for the role their imperial expansion in Asia played in triggering the war.

However, the solemnity and dignity in Europe earlier this year were reminders that commemorations must never be about recriminations. Instead, we should remember that it was war and racism, rather than people, that are evil, and in remembering we should commit ourselves to the ideal that the evils of World War II must never be repeated. Unfortunately, the trials of Slobodan Milosevic and those allegedly involved in the massacres of Srebrenica and "ethnic cleansing" throughout the former Yugoslavia, remind us how easily we forget the lessons of racism and war.

What lessons have we learned from the horrors that befell Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Twenty-five years ago, on Hiroshima Day 1980, as chairman of the Irish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, I was involved in planting a cherry tree in Dublin's Merrion Square to commemorate the 200,000 victims of the Hiroshima bomb and the 100,000 victims of the Nagasaki bomb. I had spent the previous summer studying in Japan on a fellowship for young journalists, and was so moved emotionally during a visit to Hiroshima that I returned to Ireland with a life-lasting commitment to nuclear disarmament.

For five years I was either chair, vice-chair or national secretary of Irish CND.

Between 1979 and 1984, I was involved in lobbying every successive Minister for Foreign Affairs, and while the qualified assurances we received about Irish neutrality were never going to satisfy CND activists and lobbyists, there was a consistent assurance from ministers that Ireland would never be involved in the arms industry, the arms trade, or in permitting the use of Irish territorial space (land, sea or air) for the transportation of nuclear missiles.

In the 20 years since my involvement in Irish CND has lapsed, I have watched in near-despair as those assurances have been eroded to the point that they now appear meaningless. The transportation of US troops through Shannon to take part in an illegal war in Iraq and the use of depleted uranium in their weapons have eroded all the barriers between neutrality and membership of military alliances and eroded all the inhibitions that helped to distinguish between "conventional" warfare and "nuclear" warfare.

Since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, nuclear proliferation appears to have continued unabated over the span of two generations. It is not being over-emotional or over-fretful to say the whole world is now living under one looming mass mushroom cloud.

The Greenham women were singularly succesful in having the missile silos shut down at Greenham Common. They proved that unilateral nuclear disarmament was possible politically. In recent years, Britain has taken out of service all its non-strategic nuclear weapons, it has disarmed 70% of its total nuclear explosive capacity, it has halted the production of weapons-grade material, and it has placed its fissile material not in warheads under international safeguards. But Britain retains an arsenal of 185 Trident nuclear warheads on four nuclear submarines, and Tony Blair has plans to replace Trident with a new generation of nuclear weapons.

Today, there are 11,000 active, deliverable nuclear weapons in the world -- the US has the majority of these (6,390), and Russia has 3,242. The US and Russia signed a bilateral arms control treaty in 2002, aimed at sharply reducing the number of operationally deployed nuclear warheads by 2012. But the weapons do not have to be destroyed, only moth-balled, and there are no verification procedures.

The western world is quick to express its fears that groups like al-Qaeda may acquire nuclear capability and that Iran and North Korea are about to join the nuclear club. In a recent paper in the magazine 'America', Professor Ronald Powaski of Cleveland State University grimly detailed the breakdown in relations between the US and North Korea. Placing much of the blame on the Bush administration, he believes there must be a reversal of US policy before the situation worsens and says President Bush is left "with only two options: allow North Korea to become a nuclear-weapon state or take military action to prevent it."

Despite the failure of pressure on Iran and North Korea in recent, threse efforts must continues. But they are not the only "rogue states" in the nucelar arms race. Last May, the Bush administration contributed singularly to the collapse of the review conference on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Washington is now planning a new generation of nuclear weapons designed not to deter but to wage a nuclear war, including small-yield "mini-nukes" and the nuclear "bunker-busters". The Bush Adminstration has no intention of joining the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, or of signing a verifiable accord ending the production of new non-fissile material intended for nuclear weapons.

President Bush says "the gravest danger facing the world is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons." But he says nothing about the very real danger from the governments already possessing those weapons, including the US, Britain, Russia, France and China. Israel probably has 200 nuclear weapons, but no Arab state posseses nuclear weapons. Real possession is surely a greater danger than an ambition to possess.

The sort of hypocicy osown by the US has allowed Israel, Pakistan and China to remain outside the regime of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to develop their own nuclear arsenals. If all our fears about Iran and North Korea following this week's failures are to be taken seriously, then the five nuclear powers need to turn around and give a commitment on their own behalf that they too will do all in their power to assure us that there will be no more Hiroshimas and no more Nagasakis.

Rev Patrick Comerford is a Church of Ireland priest. He is a former Irish Times journalist and was the founding chairman of the Irish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in 1979.
Contact: theology@ireland.com

Lessons of nuclear catastrophe go unheeded

- by Frank Slijper (May 2005) -

After many years of ideas, but little substance, military developments in the European Union arecurrently moving forward faster than ever before. Issues that were deemed likely to remain at thediscussion table forever have 'suddenly'rooted: EU defence policy, common procurement, militaryresearch spending and the restructuring of the arms industry. The incorporation of military issuesin the EU Constitution and the creation of the European Defence Agency in particular are importantmilestones that have passed unnoticed for many people. Not so for the defence industry. Besides a dozen generals and diplomats, three arms industry representatives were asked to givetheir view on Europe's defence policies – but no representatives from civil society organisations.

Over the last few years, the arms industry has increasingly pressurised high-ranking officials andparliamentarians, in Brussels and in national capitals, to adopt their policy proposals - with no smalldegree of success. 'The Group of Personalities', 'LeaderSHIP 2015' and other task forces led byEuropean Commission luminaries, have been essential in lobbying their interests, ranging fromincreased spending on anti-terrorist technology to the removal of arms export barriers.

This TNI Briefing highlights the influential but little-exposed role that the arms industry and itslobby play in Brussels today. The close co-operation between the European Commission and thearms industry is a case study of backroom policy making, and a caricature of how many peopletoday look at European decision-making processes in general.

The briefing also shows how thislobbying power threatens the 1998 EU Code of Conduct on arms exports (CoC) that should forbidarms sales to human rights abusers or conflict zones. This study therefore hopes to contribute toa much more transparent European decision-making process - especially on military matters -
involving civil society, instead of the current situation of overwhelming corporate power.

Download Briefing in PDF format (341 kb): eumilitary.pdf

Frank Slijper works at the Dutch Campaign against Arms Trade (Campagne tegen Wapenhandel)and has been a researcher and campaigner on arms trade issues for the past thirteen years. Hegraduated in 1993 as an economist (international economic relations), specialising in Dutch militaryprocurement and the offset policies implemented to enhance the defence industry. He haswritten and published extensively on Dutch arms exports and policy ever since. In 2003 he coauthored
"Explosieve materie - Nederlandse wapenhandel blootgelegd" [Explosive material - Dutcharms trade revealed"], a unique handbook based on 16,000 pages of previously secret informationreleased through the Dutch Freedom of Information Act. For many years, one of the focal pointsof his work has been the arms trade to India and Pakistan. Last year, he wrote a comprehensivereview of Dr. A.Q. Khan's many connections with The Netherlands, as part of a GreenpeaceInternational report on nuclear proliferation.

More on Dutch Campaign Against Arms Trade: www.stoparmstrade.org

TRANSNATIONAL INSTITUTE
Founded in 1974, TNI is an international network of activist-scholars committed ro critical analyses of the global problems of today and tomorrow, with a view to providing intellectual support to those movements concerned to steer the world in a democratic, equitable and environmentally sustainable direction.
TNI website:www.tni.org

The emerging EU military-industrial complex

The Democratic Revolution
A Democratic Revolution is sweeping across Europe from Georgia to the Ukraine and now to France and the Netherlands where the people are rejecting the political elites that offer nothing but war and poverty.

In France in a referendum on the EU Constitution, where the turnout was 70%, the people voted no by a 55%-45% margin and in Holland with a 63% turnout, the margin was greater at 62%-38% no majority. Since every state must ratify the EU Constitution the ratification process should stop immediately unless the French and Dutch are to be forced to vote again as the Irish were forced to do after they rejected Nice 1. The difference is of course is that in Nice 1 only 34% voted and Ireland is a much smaller country than France or Holland. The political elite are refusing to terminate the EU Constitution and are preparing to declare a "period of reflection" where the EU Constitution instead of being killed off is being turned into a 21 st century Dracula, a sort of "undead". They will also continue to proceed to establish the EU Battle Groups and other aspects of the EU Constitution they can impose without need of a referendum.

They are underestimating the rejection of their vision of the future of Europe. Their idea of a centralised, militarised, and the people have rejected neo-liberal EU, allied to the US.

This is clear from an examination of the EU Constitution.

I would like to begin by quoting Jean-Pierre Raffarin, the ex-Prime Minister of France, "For the first time, Europe has a shared Constitution. This pact is the point of no return. Europe is becoming an irreversible project, irrevocable after the ratification of this treaty. It is a new era for Europe, a new geography, a new history." Le Metro, 7/10/04

Mr Raffarin is now himself history, but it is history, which informs PANA's attitude to the proposed Constitution for the EU.

For generations, Ireland was part of the British Empire. The 1790's saw the birth of the Irish Republican Movement, which sought to establish by exclusively democratic means a United Irish Republic. Wolfe Tone, one of its founders, in 1790 published a pamphlet entitled the Spanish War in which he made the case for Irish Neutrality. Denied the right to pursue their right to seek their objective by democratic means they rose in rebellion against the occupation of Ireland and were crushed by the Empire. Over 30,000 Republicans were killed in 1798, the same number as those killed in the "terror" period in Paris during the French Revolution.

Throughout most of the 19 th and early 20 th century, the dominant political parties sought only Home Rule within the British Union at best, supported its Imperialism and encouraged Irish people to join the Battle Groups of the BU. One leader, Isaac Butt supported the Crimean War in which 7,000 Irish people died and another, Redmond supported the 1st Word War in which 50,000 Irish people died. Irish people know all about a militarised, centralised, neo-liberal Imperial State.

It was only after the 1916 Rising, the threat of conscription and a National war of Independence that a degree of Independence was achieved in the 26 counties. Those that accepted the Treaty only did so because they believed it offered a stepping-stone to an Independent United Irish Republic.

But the Irish supporters of Imperialism did not go away you know. They merely waited in the long grass for their time to come again. In the EU they have found their new Empire, their new Imperial state.

The division in Ireland on the EU Constitution is just another chapter in of the long struggle between those Irish people that support Imperialism and those that support Irish Independence, Democracy and Neutrality.

In supporting the EU Constitution the Irish political/media elite are, far from being modern and progressive, are in fact, seeking to drag us back into the past, back into the 19 th century.

Since our foundation in 1996, PANA has advocated that Ireland, all 32 counties, should be a neutral state, have its own Independent Foreign Policy and pursue that policy primarily through a reformed United Nations. Our vision of the future is based in a belief in the need for global justice, not global war.

Therefore, PANA's vision of the future of Europe is as a Partnership of Independent, Democratic States, legal equals, without a military dimension and to advocate our own Independent foreign policy through inclusive global institutions such as the United Nations, reformed and renewed so it represents all the people of the world, not one dominated rich white Europeans and Americans.

We opposed the process by which Ireland was being steadily integrated into the EU/US/NATO military industrial structures in order to ensure Ireland's full participation in the resource wars of the 21 st century and not only campaigned against the militarisation of the EU, but also against the War on Iraq and Irish membership of Nato's PfP.

However to date, Irish experience as a member of the EEC-EC-EU has been largely benign. There has been a large and substantial transfer of funds from the other EU states via EU institutions to Ireland, in particular our farmers. The Irish government was forced to agree to equality legislation and to respond to environmental issues as a consequence of EU membership. Therefore, many of the political and social forces that would have a perception of themselves as being modern and progressive have developed a strong sense of identity with "Europe".

Those of us who belong to the Irish anti-imperialist tradition have had a tough job seeking to gain their support. We are not helped by the fact that the leader of the right wing opposition to the EU, who was made the Leader of the campaign against the Nice Treaty by the media, attended a neo-nazi rally.

The reality however, is that PANA was the only broad based alliance to campaign against the Amsterdam Treaty. The right wing grouping represented by the likes of Justin Barrett played no role whatsoever in it and 38% of the people voted no. The establishment media by making Barrett a so-called leader in the Nice campaign sought to ensure the NO campaign was seen as led by right wing reactionaries. But the Amsterdam result had shown that the people were responding to a desire to fight imperialism, and to show their allegiance to Irish democracy and Independence, and Barrett etc had played no role in it. In the Nice 1 and 2 referendums the reality was it was the anti-imperialist that led the no campaigns.

However, as the financial transfers from the EU are terminated, as the vision of a Social Europe is replaced by a neo-liberal militarised Europe, support for an Independent Irish Republic is again steadily gaining the support of the people. PANA realising that the progressive forces needed to take the initiative and to broaden out the arguments from the militarisation which was and remains PANA's focus organised a Conference on the 10 th of December with speakers from Sinn Fein, DAPSE and the People's Movement out of which has grown the Campaign Against the EU Constitution. The CAEUC Declaration against the EU Constitution covers the neo-liberal and democracy issues as well as those of militarisation.

This EU Constitution transforms a EU based on Treaties between states into a militarised, neo-liberal and centralised superstate allied to the American Empire and committed to permanent war.

This future for Europe is being continually confirmed. Two recent examples being the 5 th joint Franco-German Cabinet meeting whose joint press statement included the sentence; "The EU Constitution will help reinforce the sphere of activity of Europe through the expansion of the scope of the EU (military) missions."

At the European Business Summit on March 11 th , European business leaders called again and again for the downscaling of environmental and social protection. In the session on the Transatlantic Defence Industry they talked about the opportunities to grow expenditure on military defence, taking advantage of, "the supply chain of insecurity". They made it clear that since the 2003 US budget on military expenditure was €380 billion and the expenditure of the EU states were only €150 million there was a great opportunity to demand more expenditure on the military. The European Arms Agency is made part of the EU Constitution and the EU states are to improve their military capabilities.

John Bruton, once an Irish Taoiseach is now the EU Ambassador in the United States believes that the new foreign, security and defence policy as envisaged under the EU Constitution would help,

"The EU become a more effective partner of the United States"
and
"EU arms industry will be facilitated by the EU Constitution to help Europe assume its responsibilities on the world scene" - www.eurunion.org

It is therefore absolutely clear, that while there some real tensions exist between the US and the EU, the elite of the US and the elite of the EU are united in favour of a EU/US partnership for war, facilitated and strengthened by the EU Constitution.

PANA as part of the European Peace Movement will seek to defeat this EU Constitution, not just because it militarises Europe, but because is part of a process of the militarisation the US/EU structures that offer nothing but permanent war, death destruction and ultimately, defeat.

The history is clear. Europe in the first half of the 20 th century was dominated by Imperial states that had extensive Empires throughout the world.

Now the EU elite is seeking to create for the first time, a EU with its own separate identity, with a separate legal personality from the states themselves. The process had been a series of treaties between the states. Now it is proposed the EU becomes an entity in itself, with its own Constitution, Minister for Foreign Affairs, national anthem, Diplomatic Corps, Central Bank, citizenship, President, Foreign Minister, flag military headquarters and evolving army. The states of the EU and their Constitutions are to be subservient to the EU and its Constitution. Ireland will have the same relationship to the EU as Alabama has to the US.

To quote Article 1-6; "The Constitution and law adopted by the institutions of the Union in exercising competences conferred on it shall have primacy over the law of the Member States."

In short, the broken Empires of France, Germany, Holland, Belgium, Italy. Spain, Portugal and Britain, etc, seek by getting together to create a new European Empire, a new world power.

The EU elite has established EU Battle Groups and the EU Constitution ensures, that like the armies of Bush's American Empire, they can be sent to war anywhere in the world without a UN mandate.

PANA helped defeat the Irish political elite in the first referendum on the Nice Treaty. In order to win the 2 nd referendum, they were forced to pass legislation, which became known as the "triple lock"

The "triple lock" was to ensure that Irish soldiers would not serve abroad unless there was a UN Security Council mandate, as well as Dail and government approval. It is now to be abolished by the Irish government to ensure full participation by the Irish Army in the EU Battle Groups even though the ink on the Nice Treaty is hardly dry. Like the American Union that sent in its army to invade and conquer Iraq without a UN mandate and now intends to do the same with Iran, and maybe Syria, Cuba and Venezuela, the emerging European Union intends to give itself the same power, and be able to invade any country in the world without a UN mandate. The EU is also creating 13 military Battle Groups, its EU Marines, to do the invading.

These Battle Groups consist of 1,500 troops each and have to be able to go into battle within 15 days and be equipped so as to be capable of high intensity operations, i.e., kill large numbers of people. To allow for rotation for every soldier in the field they need seven back up troops, which means a total of 12,000 soldiers in each group, each one the size of the existing Irish Army. Since the Battle Groups are being formed on a regional basis, i.e. Finland and Sweden are jointly creating one, it is more than likely that Ireland and Britain will also establish one jointly. The headquarters of the EU Battle groups are to in the country that provides the largest number of troops, so in Ireland's case it will probably be somewhere in Britain.

Once the Irish Army is integrated into EU Battle Groups they will not only not be able to act independently. Irish soldiers will become part of the Battle Groups of the EU, just as they were par of the Battle Groups of the British Union. They will become the new born again Connaught Rangers.

The EU Battle Groups include one each from the following country or group of countries:
-France,
-Italy,
-Spain,
-UK,
-France/Germany/Belgium/Luxembourg/Spain,
-France/Belgium,
-Germany/the Netherlands / Finland,
-Germany/Czech Republic / Austria,
-Italy/Hungary/Slovenia,
-Italy/Spain/Greece/Portugal, Poland/Germany/Slovakia/Latvia/Lithuania, Sweden/Finland/Norway, the UK/Netherlands.

The purpose of these Battle groups is to go to war, a reality confirmed by the General Secretary of NATO Jaap de Hoop Scheffer (IT 11/5/05).

A military force of 156,000 soldiers able to go into battle anywhere in the world within 15 days without a UN mandate is an Imperial Army. The EU Constitution says that before they are deployed there has to be unanimous agreement. But does anybody believe that an Irish political elite that has already destroyed Irish neutrality by actively supported an illegal imperialist war for oil by allowing the US Army to send over 300,000 via Shannon to Iraq will do anything other than enthuastically support the EU's Imperial adventures?

The Petersberg tasks given to these Battle groups, already is broad enough to include war, humanitarian, rescue, peace-keeping and peace-making, have been expanded by the EU Constitution to include, "joint disarmament operations, military advice and assistance tasks and post-conflict stabilisation". "All these tasks may contribute to the fight against terrorism, including by supporting Third countries in combating terrorism in their territories." In its European Security Review (July 23, 2004) the Brussels-based Security Information Service (ISIS) stated that "joint disarmament operations" "could include anything from providing personal security to UN inspectors to full scale invasions a la Iraq."

As well as these Battle groups the EU intends to eventually establish a Rapid Reaction Force capable of sending 60,000 troops into battle within 60 days. This means a military force of 480,000 troops, an even larger Imperial Army.

The military dimension of the Galileo navigation positioning system (at a cost of €3 billion) is another a key part of militarisation of the EU. Another is the FRES, or battlefield vehicle or more accurately family of vehicles will cost 6.7 million Stirling each, and the lifetime cost for each would be 55.5 million Stirling. These new military systems designed for rapid reaction military forces, such as the EU Battle Groups gives some idea of the costs involved.

The EU Constitution establishes new posts to preside over these new Battle Groups with their new tasks. A new EU Council President appointed for up to 5 years to preside over EU Summits. A new EU Minister for Foreign Affairs will preside over meetings of the EU Foreign Ministers. A new EU Diplomatic Service is established. The member states will have an obligation to show mutual solidarity to the EU's Common Foreign, security and defence policies, to make their civilian and military capabilities available to the EU and to assist the already established European Armaments, Research and Military Capabilities Agency.

The wording of the Nice Treaty, that the progressive framing of a common defence policy " might lead to common defence, should the European Council so decide" is now changed to, "will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides" .

The EU will ensure via its new security doctrine that;
The common security and defence policy of the Union shall contribute to the "vitality of a renewed NATO" and be compatible with Nato's defence policy, with is based on the first use of nuclear weapons. (Protocol 23)

Taxpayers will have to pay towards the EU military structures now being established. This will leave less money for health, education and social services and therefore provides another reason for their privatisation.

Structured Cooperation will allow "member states whose military capabilities fulfil higher criteria and which have made more binding commitments in this area with a view to more demanding missions shall establish permanent structured cooperation within the Union framework." These mini alliances can be established by QMV and can then execute any of the Petersberg Tasks subject only to their own members. States that do not join will have no role.

The original proposed amendment to our own Irish Constitution was framed in such a way as to allow Ireland to join the structured co-operation group without need for another referendum. The were removed through pressure from sections of the media and the Green Party and the Labour Party, but only after they became public.

Article 1-41.7 provides a mutual defence assistance clause for all EU states in the case of armed aggression. It states: "If a member state is a victim of armed aggression its territory the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all means in their power" It goes on to say such commitments shall be consistent with NATO commitments.

Article 1-43 states: "The Union and its Member States shall act jointly in a spirit of solidarity if a Member State is the object of a terrorist attack"

Since Britain, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Holland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, and Spain have already supported an illegal imperialist war for oil, we can legitimately assume that any or all of them feel they can invade any other country any time they like.

In an MRBI survey in February 2004, 51% of the Irish people said that Ireland should do all it can to preserve its Independence from the EU, while 48% wanted to fully integrate with the EU, so a narrow no vote is a real possibility in Ireland.

But in the recent Eurobarometer survey 59% of the Irish people surveyed believed the Irish government should make decisions on defence policy rather than their being a EU defence. So in Ireland the issue of defence is a key issue on which we can win again as we did on Nice 1. PANA agrees with 59% of the Irish people. PANA seeks to defeat this Imperialist, neo-liberal and centralising Constitution. We seek a legally binding Protocol, similar to that already achieved by Denmark (Protocol 20) that would exclude Ireland from paying for or involvement with the process of militarisation of the EU. We would call on all the other peace movements in the other states of the EU to also call for such a Protocol for their own country.

Yet in Ireland, virtually the entire political/media elite supports integration, supports the creation of a centralised, neo-liberal, militarised Imperial superstate because it gives power to themselves at the expense of the Irish people. There should be no surprise in this. At the moment for example, virtually no family member of the US Senate or Congress is in Iraq as they are mostly the poor who join the US army to get citizenship or education grants. You can be sure that the rich EU elite including the rich Irish will make certain that their kids will not be joining the Battle Groups.

In the course of the referendum campaign on the EU Constitution in Spain, its Prime Minister Jose Zapartero said, "Britain and all the other EU states will close their embassies around the world as they are replaced by a single European service."

Mr Zapartero is to be congratulated for pulling Spanish troops out of Iraq after they were sent to help in the illegal invasion, conquest and occupation of Iraq by the American Superstate, the American Empire. Building a European superstate, a European Empire, however, is no solution.

Imperialism, whether it was British or Soviet was no solution to social justice in the 20 th century and Imperialism whither American, Chinese or European is no answer to social justice in the 21 st century. An Imperial EU superstate provides no solution to poverty, injustice and the struggle for human rights and democracy.

If you want a neo-liberal, militarised and Imperialist EU then you should vote yes. If you want a Social Europe, a democratic Europe and an anti-imperialist Europe you should vote no.

Finally, this meting is taking place just after the Dutch and French people voted on the EU Constitution. They voted no in massive numbers. Since each state must vote to support the Treaty establishing the EU Constitution, is now dead. The rich and powerful voted in favour and the ordinary men and women of France and Holland voted no. The Empire loyalists are now divided. Some want to force the other states to proceed and then force the French and Dutch to vote again. Others accept that several of the states that must have a referendum such as Ireland, or those like England that have been promised one will vote no. Others advocate that the key elements of the Empire be agreed to and implemented anyway, regardless of what the peoples of the EU states want.

Those of us in Ireland who oppose Imperialism and who advocate a Partnership Europe, a partnership of Independent, Democratic States, legal equals, without a military dimension need to do more than say NO. We need to put flesh on our vision of Europe. We need to move past the slogan of "Another Europe is possible". We must start with the premise that there is no European Demos; there is no such thing as the European people. We are all different people, all Irish, or French or Dutch or German etc. We need to construct a Europe out of these realities and firmly based on values that are anti-imperialist, democratic and centred on human, social and democratic rights. There is a democratic tradition and an imperialist tradition rooted in all our histories. We need to seek to ensure that it is the democracy that wins.

It will not be easy. Most of the major corporations, especially those in the arms industry are providing massive amounts of money to the Empire Loyalists. The bulk of the media corporations support the Empire loyalists. But the French and the Dutch have shown that they can be beaten. PANA is steadily building up links with other groups in the EU, in the US and throughout the world that oppose war and imperialism. We do not only need another Europe, we need another world.

Roger Cole, Chair
Peace & Neutrality Alliance

- Mansion House, Dublin.

YES to a Partnership Europe - NO EU Superstate

by Cllr. Deirdre De Burca to a Seminar on the EU Constitution.

Good afternoon everybody. We are here today as part of a process of debating the EU Constitution, evaluating its provisions, and trying to assess whether we can ultimately support the ratification of the Constitution, or not. It's quite a daunting task because the issues are broad and complex, and the provisions of the Constitution are such a mixed bag, ranging from extremely positive and progressive to those that raise serious concerns.

I am suggesting today that in trying to decide whether or not we should support the Constitution, the extent to which we believe its institutional provisions will guarantee a healthy, democratically- responsive, and accountable polity should be the central consideration in our decision-making process. That is not to say that concerns about the proposed economic, social, environmental or foreign policy directions set out within the Constitution should not be regarded as relevant considerations. However, it is important to remember that what we are being asked to ratify is a Constitution for the European Union. A Constitution, as we know from our own national constitution, is the founding instrument of a state. It is a solemn act by which a political community, a people or a nation, defines its values and makes provision for the legal rules to which it is subject. In fact, the essential purpose of a constitution is to organize the powers of public institutions and to set out the institutional framework that will govern political decision-making. A well-crafted political constitution should be the ultimate guarantor of an effective, healthy and democratic polity. I am proposing that in the interests of making the best possible decision regarding the Constitution, we should temporarily set aside the concerns we have about some of its policy provisions and focus instead on how satisfactory the institutional framework it proposes for political decision-making within the European Union is likely to be. I believe we need to look beyond the narrow 'efficiency' grounds that are often used to assess the functioning of the EU and its institutions, and to focus to a much greater extent on how democratic and accountable their functioning will be. If we don't do this, we run the risk of possibly endorsing a Constitution for Europe that will enshrine and consolidate its long-standing and widely acknowledged democratic deficit. This is not in the interests of either the European Union or the rest of the international community. I would like to explain why before moving on to evaluate the institutional provisions proposed by the Constitution.

The democratic deficit of the European Union has unfortunately become something that its citizens have learned to live with. As more aspects of national sovereignty have been transferred to a European level, the ability of citizens to influence and supervise this new power base has declined significantly. The failure of successive EU treaties to introduce bold initiatives to tackle this deficit has meant that it has become integral to the way in which the EU functions. I will now highlight some of the more obvious examples of the European Union's democratic deficit as it applies to the main EU institutions - the Council of Ministers, the Commission, the EU Parliament and the European Council. (i) Firstly, to date, the Council of Ministers, which is part executive/ part legislature, has met completely in private. The minutes of its meetings, reflecting how the Ministers of Member States have voted on particular policy issues, are not readily available to citizens. It is very difficult therefore for citizens to hold Ministers accountable for their actions and their decisions within the Council of Ministers. Furthermore, the parliaments of Member States have different and generally weak systems of scrutiny in place for monitoring Government Ministers and holding them to account for such decisions. These systems range from strong parliamentary scrutiny procedures in Member States such as Denmark, Austria, Sweden, and Finland where the parliaments can issue opinions that are binding on government in its negotiations in the Council of Ministers, to Greece where the government is not even obliged to consult or inform parliament. (ii) Secondly, the powerful Commission is part civil service but also part government, given the unusual powers it has as an un-elected body, including the jealously guarded right to initiate or propose legislation. Those who defend the Commission usually stress its role as a vital guardian of the European or "Community" interest. Dinan describes it as a "strategic authority established by the founding fathers to guarantee continuity of the integration project despite the political or geopolitical hazards". While this may explain the unusual powers given to such an un-elected body by the early architects of the EU, the extent to which the Commission as a body appears, for example, to have become an ideological champion of neo-liberal policies without reference to the ordinary people of Europe or their voices and interests (eg its promotion of the 'Services Directive'), highlights the risks attached to giving such powers to what is largely an electorally unaccountable body.

Furthermore the powerful and increasingly undemocratic role in the EU political process played by the 15,000 permanent lobbyists based in Brussels, most of them representing business interests, is a matter of concern to many. In fact as recently as October 2004, the Corporate Observatory Europe wrote an open letter to the Commission President, Jose Manual Barroso, on behalf of 50 civil society groups from more than a dozen EU countries calling upon him to act immediately to curb the excessive influence of corporate lobby groups over EU policy-making. The letter argued that these lobby groups succeed all too frequently in postponing, weakening or blocking badly needed progress in EU social, environmental and consumer protections and called on the European Commission to take action now to prevent Europe from drifting towards the levels of corporate control exercised over politics in the United States. (iii) Thirdly, the European Parliament, the sole directly elected institution of the EU is the only parliament in the world without the right of legislative initiative. It also lacks the legal authority to hold the Commission to account for its actions. Its powers are limited to approving the appointment of the Commission in its entirety, and to dismissing the College of Commissioners, which naturally is a measure of last resort to be used only in the most extreme circumstances. To date it has had no role whatsoever in the development of the extremely important area of EU trade policy, and in particular the negotiation of internationally- binding trade agreements within the World Trade Organization. At present, this responsibility is shared between the Commission and the Council of Ministers. The exclusion of the EU Parliament from the EU's trade policy process contrasts with those of the US Congress which, even where the fast-track negotiation procedure is in operation, has the power to accept or reject trade agreements in their entirety. (iv) Finally, the European Council is an extremely powerful body consisting of the 25 Heads of Government and State. It gives overall policy direction to the Union and to date has had formal power over economic governance and foreign policy. Issues are also referred to the European Council that can't be resolved by the Council of Ministers. This most powerful body of the European Union operates free from the constraints of institutional accountability. Its decisions are not subject to any real requirements for transparency, or for judicial or parliamentary control.

While citizens are generally encouraged by their political leaders to believe that the issue of the resolution of the democratic deficit is just another treaty away, the reality is that this deficit has remained to a largely un-addressed. This is extremely unfortunate and has convinced a growing number of citizens that real political democracy can only be properly realized within the framework of the nation state. This perception detracts from the otherwise attractive model of 'post-national governance' represented by the European Union which allows national sovereignty to be meaningfully pooled, potential national rivalries to be diluted, and people to live together peacefully both within and beyond nations. In fact, citizens are rightfully beginning to question whether the evolution of political systems from national modes of governance to more complex transnational forms of political co-operation should automatically result in significant reductions in the levels of democracy, accountability or transparency that have been delivered within the framework of the nation state. If this is the case, it gives rise to serious questions about the long-term future of the kind of regional models of political and economic co-operation exemplified by the European Union. If the continued development of the European Union results in a weakening of democracy at the level of the nation state without a commensurate strengthening of democratic guarantees at EU level, then the EU does not deserve the allegiance of its citizens. If endorsing a Constitution for Europe means that its citizens are accepting institutional arrangements that will make permanent the democratic shortcomings that have characterized the functioning of the Union to date, clearly they should not endorse it.

Any debate about whether to endorse the current EU constitutional treaty or not should also have regard to the context of the wider international community. It is clearly not in the international community's interest that a European Constitution should be ratified that consolidates and entrenches the existing democratic deficit of the Union. The momentum that has been generated by the process of European integration to date is quite impressive as Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey and Croatia, among others, signal their enthusiasm for joining the Union as soon as possible. In fact, it is likely that in the foreseeable future the European Union will have to respond to considerable pressure for further enlargement from countries of significant size such as the Ukraine, Belarus and even Russia. The EU may continue to expand to incorporate such countries, or it may encourage them to form their own regional arrangements. In either case, the institutional framework and the model of governance that has been developed by the European Union will be extremely significant. They will either ensure that the EU is a flexible and responsive democratic polity that can satisfactorily absorb new applicant countries, or alternatively will provide an important political model which aspiring countries can emulate within other regional unions. The European Union is also likely to play a central role in the eventual emergence of a system of global political governance over the coming decades. For these reasons it is imperative that the Constitution of the European Union should not represent a flawed model of democratic political decision-making but instead should offer a model of governance that meets the highest standards of democracy, accountability and representation.

So how satisfactory are the institutional provisions of the European Constitution and to what extent do they succeed in tackling the EU's existing democratic deficit? More importantly, how satisfied should citizens be with the institutional arrangements set out in the Constitution and the prospect being governed by them for the foreseeable future? This is certainly a key criterion for citizens to use in deciding whether to support the Constitution or not. Although it is being presented to them in the form of a treaty, unlike previous treaties such as Amsterdam and Nice which, since the Single European Act in 1986, have regularly and incrementally advanced the process of European integration approximately every five years, the proposed constitutional treaty is likely to be qualitatively and substantively different. It is highly improbable that the Constitution will be subject to such regular amendment by other future treaties, at least in the short to medium term. The Convention Chairman Giscard D'Estaing suggested that this Constitution would be of a more enduring nature than previous treaties and would govern the functioning of the European Union for at least the next fifty- year period. This is a reasonable proposition, for two main reasons. Firstly because from a political point of view, it is desirable that a Constitution should be a more permanent, less changeable document that will guide the evolution of the Union into the future. Secondly the likelihood of being able to avoid the need to resort to the traditional revision process, involving national ratification procedures, is strengthened by the fact that the Constitution contains certain mechanisms which allow for important changes or legal developments to take place outside of this traditional ratification process. For example, the simplified revision procedure set out in Article IV-444 of the constitutional treaty states that where there is a requirement in the Constitution for the Council of Ministers to act by unanimity in a given area or case, the European Council may adopt a European decision authorizing the Council of Ministers to act by a qualified majority in that area. (The European Council must act unanimously after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament and this provision does not apply to decisions with military implications, or those in the area of defence). Furthermore, Article 1-18, known as the 'Flexibility Clause' states that if the Constitution has not provided the necessary powers for the Union, within the framework of the policies defined in Part III, to attain one of the objectives set out in the Constitution (which are very wide indeed), the Council of Ministers, acting unanimously on a proposal from the European Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures. In deciding whether to support the EU Constitution or not, it is important therefore to remember that the institutional arrangements which are set out within it are likely to be relatively permanent and not subject to the kind of regular review and amendment by other treaties in the future as they have been over the last two decades.

I now wish to make a number of key propositions about the institutional arrangements in the Constitution. These are:

The Constitution does not provide adequate safeguards to prevent the European Union developing into a centralized Superstate, where power is largely exercised at the level of the EU institutions
The Constitution's institutional arrangements largely promote the interests of States at the expense of their peoples
The Constitution fails to provide sufficient protection for smaller states and
It largely fails to tackle the democratic deficit of the EU's main institutions that I outlined in the earlier part of this presentation.

My first argument concerns the extent to which the provisions of the Constitution result in an excessive centralization of power at the level of the EU institutions. One of the main institutional provisions of the Constitution involves the clear listing of categories of EU powers and competences. This was seen as a symbolically important issue since much of the early debate about the need for a constitutional text had focused on the fears of 'creeping' EU powers, and of the difficulties for states, regions and citizens to know exactly what the scope of the powers of action of the EU and its institutions were. In fact, the Laeken Declaration 2001 that provided the impetus for the drafting of the Constitution referred to the possibility of 'restoring' certain tasks to Member State's parliaments. However, the Constitution doesn't contain a single proposal to repatriate powers from EU institutions to Member State's parliaments. What it does do is to set out three categories of competences that have been conferred on the Union by Member States. The first category is one in which the Union has exclusive competence, and includes areas where only the EU can act (eg competition rules for the internal market, customs union, monetary policy, the common commercial policy etc). The next category, sets out areas of 'shared competence' in which one would assume the EU and Member States share the competences listed. However, Article 1-12.2 states that in this category "The Member States shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised, or has decided to cease exercising its competence". In fact in this category the EU institutions have the prerogative to act, and if they do, Member States may not exercise any competence. While it is more difficult to give a ready and clear picture of the extent of the EU's powers in this category since they are defined by the scope of the policy areas set out in Part III of the Constitution, the areas covered are broad and include, amongst others, the internal market, some areas of social policy, economic social and territorial cohesion, agriculture and fisheries, environment, consumer protection, transport, energy, and the area of freedom, security and justice. Article I-16 also states that the Union's competence in matters of common foreign and security policy shall cover all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union's security. The third category of Union competence set out in the Constitution includes areas where it will have competence to carry out actions to support, co-ordinate or supplement the actions of Member States without superseding their competence in these areas or attempting to harmonize their laws or regulations. These areas include the protection and improvement of human health, industry, culture, tourism, education, youth, sport and vocational training, civil protection, and administrative co-operation. In fact, it is difficult to think of any area of public policy that either remains within the exclusive competence of the Member States, and which does not actually or potentially fall within the competence of the Union.

I am proposing that, given the broad range of EU competences set out in the Constitution, and more importantly the extent to which the EU will have a prerogative to exercise these competences independently of the Member States (certainly where the substantial categories of exclusive and shared competences are concerned), the Constitution fails to provide adequate safeguards to prevent political power being centralized and exercised largely at the level of the EU institutions. And this possibility raises questions about the kind of political form that is being aspired to by the European Union. Unfortunately, there has been a lack of honest debate, particularly on the part of Irish politicians, about the eventual political form of the European Union. While Irish people have been encouraged to support deeper and deeper levels of European integration, little has been said about whether the European Union will follow the model of some traditional federal systems where clear competences or powers exist at regional, national and federal levels of government or whether it is likely to evolve into a much more centralized system where power is exercised at an EU level, rendering the regional and national levels of governance rather weak and even irrelevant. I do not believe the latter centralized model would be in the interests of the citizens of Europe, firstly because of the democratic deficit that currently applies to the way in which the EU institutions function. However, I also believe that a genuinely multi-level system of governance, where regional, national and federal levels of government all play meaningful roles in overall political decision-making should be the model of a 21st century system of governance that is advanced by the European Union. The levels of local/regional and national government are more accessible to the citizen than the relatively remote level of the EU institutions, and it is through the former that citizens should be able to monitor and exercise some influence over decision-making and policy formation at a European Union level.

I anticipate that those who disagree with the analysis I have just presented will draw my attention to another of the new institutional provisions of the Constitution concerning the role of national parliaments. The first of two protocols attached to the Constitution relating to national parliaments provides that they are to be informed of proposals for EU laws at the same time as the Council of Ministers and the EU Parliament. The second protocol provides that a national parliament can complain if they believe the principle of subsidiarity has been breached, within six weeks of learning about proposed new EU legislation. If one third of the national parliaments object, then the Commission has the discretion to maintain, amend or withdraw the proposal, but it is not required to do any of the above. However, closer examination reveals that the concessions made to national parliaments are somewhat tokenistic. Firstly, the role envisaged for them appears to be a passive one, consisting essentially of surveillance and monitoring of the EU institutions. Secondly, while these protocols appear to empower national parliaments, in practice the time limits provided for are problematic. The provisions of the Constitution require that within a six week period national parliaments will have to examine the considerable volume of documentation sent to them, select the documents they want to follow up on, undertake the necessary consultations with regional or local government where appropriate, and finally come up with a reasoned opinion which is in line with the opinions expressed by other EU national parliaments. To reach the one third of the votes of national parliaments required in order to lodge an objection to the Commission, parliaments which object will have to deliberate and debate across national boundaries, and all within the same six week period! And even if all this is achieved, there is no guarantee that EU institutions won't decide to overlook parliaments' objections and maintain the draft legislative proposals.

The possibility for national parliaments to bring a legal challenge to a measure adopted in supposed violation of the subsidiarity principle is a very weak safeguard since the subsidiarity principle has not been well defined in the treaties in the past, nor is it in the current constitutional treaty. More importantly, in the handful of cases on which the ECJ has been asked to review an EU law for violation of subsidiarity, the Court has been minimal in its scrutiny and has almost entirely deferred to the EU legislature (e.g. the biotechnology directive case, the working time directive case, the German bank deposit guarantee case and even the Tobacco advertising directive, which was annulled by the court, wasn't annulled for violation of subsidiarity but for using the wrong treaty basis). The Constitution also contains no provisions for a meaningful strengthening of the role of local or regional government. In fact, the regional dimension of the European Union has always been its 'Achilles' Heel'. The reality is that EU integration greatly disrupts and weakens regional government. The Constitution, rather than attempting to counterbalance this trend by enhancing the role of regional government, leaves this matter up to the Member States themselves supposedly in deference to the national diversity that exists in regional systems. And within the Constitution itself, EU bodies that represent regional assemblies such as the Committee for the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee remain fairly insignificant in terms of overall EU institutional decision-making.

My second argument, which follows on from the first, is that the institutional arrangements set out by the Constitution largely promote the interests of States at the expense of those of the people of Europe. I will use several examples to support this point. Article I-1 of the Constitution states "Reflecting the will of the citizens of Europe to build a common future, this Constitution establishes the European Union, on which the Member States confer competences to attain objectives they have in common". However, it should be obvious to most people that the interests of citizens do not always coincide with those of the state. In fact, a convincing theory in the field of international relations known as the "collusive delegation" hypothesis holds that states often transfer their powers to supranational institutions in order to loosen domestic political restraints and to evade the democratic controls that apply at a national level. Karl Dieter Wolf , a well known theorist in the field of international relations, has argued that states have an interest in expanding their autonomy or independence with respect to society. According to Wolf states used to help each other mainly by perpetuating a threatening external environment, but he suggests that they now tend to achieve the same effect by creating binding intergovernmental arrangements. Now, as then, he argues: "states can co-operate against societies". Mathias Koenig Archibugi , Research Officer at the London School of Economics and Political Science, in an article entitled "the Democratic Deficit of EU Foreign and Security Policy", made the following assertion: "In the EU, the prospect of democratization seems particularly problematic because the main actors threatened by it are precisely those in charge of determining the pace and shape of the Union's institutional change, that is, the governments of the member states". I will now use several examples to support this argument.

I have already referred to the failure of Member States to provide for proper arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny of EU legislation and the decisions taken by government representatives on the Council of Ministers. This clearly suits the purposes of Member State governments who can thus evade the kind of parliamentary scrutiny and levels of accountability that they are subject to at a national level. This allows governments to blame what appear to be remote EU institutions for unpopular Directives and other legislation that must be implemented at a national level rather than having to accept responsibility for their role in supporting such legislation in the first place. It is unacceptable that the Constitution, beyond specifying that national parliaments have a right to receive copies of EU legislation at the same time as EU institutions and to object to proposed legislation on the grounds of subsidiarity, leaves the specific role of national parliaments in EU decision-making up to Member States. This gives rise to a situation where the citizens of some Member States are fortunate enough to have parliaments that can issue binding opinions on how Ministers should vote on the Council of Ministers, and other citizens have parliaments that have no powers to insist on any levels of accountability whatsoever. I would also argue that the failure of the Constitution to strengthen the role of regional government within the overall process of EU decision-making promotes the interests of states who, in institutionalizing significant competences at a supranational or EU level, are moving the decision-making process further away from citizens rather than closer to them.

An issue of concern is also the extent to which the EU Commission, given its extensive powers, is not directly accountable to the people of Europe. Commissioners are not elected, or even appointed by the European Parliament. Rather, they are appointed by states, and so actually represent a 'government appointed by governments'. The formal powers of the directly elected European Parliament are limited to approving and dismissing the Commission 'en bloc'. The Parliament is beginning to use this 'en bloc' power in a more individual way by questioning commissioners during the nomination process, as occurred when the present Commission was proposed. However, Commission President Barroso only yielded to the Parliament at the last minute because it seemed that its vote to approve the Commission would go against him. Otherwise he was more than prepared to defy up to 50% of the parliamentarians and their concerns about selected commissioners. The EU Constitution does nothing to change this situation.

There are many other examples of institutional arrangements that favour the interests of states over those of citizens, in particular the various bodies set up by States at EU level which operate in a secretive and unaccountable way and which cannot be monitored by citizens or even by national parliaments. One example of such a body is what is known as the Article 133 Committee. Each Member State has a number of representatives on the Article 133 committee and it is through this committee that Member States discuss and communicate their willingness to liberalise and open up particular areas of their economies to international trade, including public services such as health and education. The proposals of the Article 133 Committee go to the European Commission, which is empowered by the Council of Ministers to negotiate trade agreements on behalf of all the Member States of the EU. Of particular concern is that the deliberations of the Article 133 Committee are not made public. So citizens and national parliaments are not told in advance what their government's proposals are either in relation to those aspects of their public services that might be offered for trade to the international service industries, or in relation to what their governments are proposing that developing world countries should do. (After the second referendum on the Nice Treaty in Ireland, for example, 32 Freedom of Information requests were made in relation to the Article 133 Committee and the activities of the Irish representatives on it: 31 of these requests were refused). Citizens and elected representatives of the Member States do not get to see what has been negotiated on their behalf until after the deals have been concluded either in the WTO, or with individual countries, and at that stage the agreements are legally binding.

A second example of a potentially secretive and democratically unaccountable body that will promote the interests of Member States rather than those of EU citizens is what has been called the Article 261 Committee. Article III-260 and 261 of the Constitution propose that what was formerly known as the Article 36 committee will become a standing committee to ensure 'operational co-operation' in internal security and to co-ordinate activities of EU and national bodies such as police, intelligence agencies, customs, and border police. This body has been described by organisations such as Statewatch UK as the equivalent of an "EU Interior Ministry" with responsibility for the maintenance of law and order, internal security and external borders. According to the provisions of the Constitution its activities could potentially include, amongst others, public order (at football matches and protests), the use of para-military police units (at protests or to guard EU summits and other international meetings), anti-terrorist units, and the setting up of a European Border Police Force with EU wide powers. Because the Constitution defines the role of this committee as a technical/ operational, rather than a legislative one, senior officials from Home and Interior Ministries of Member States will run EU-wide policing, security and external border management. This Committee will be answerable to the Council of Ministers conflicts and will not be subject to parliamentary or judicial control. I believe this case represents an example of the way in which the EU Constitution, rather than addressing the EU's democratic deficit actually advances and consolidates it in a number of its new provisions. A final example of the way in which the interests of states are promoted over those of citizens in the EU constitution relate to its provisions regarding the right to take legal action against EU institutions. In Ireland, for example, citizens have a fairly broad right to take a legal case against the state where they want to challenge a general law or policy that they consider to be unconstitutional. But a similar situation does not apply in the EU, where only states and EU institutions have that kind of general right to bring legal challenges. Individuals can only challenge legal acts that are individually addressed to them or which very specifically concern them in a way that they don't concern anyone else. Despite years of criticism from most lawyers and academics and even advocates general about the very limited right of individuals to challenge EU laws, only a extremely minor amendment was made in the constitution to this provision. (It specifies that individuals can bring a judicial challenge against certain kinds of EU legislation Regulatory Acts - that affects them where there is no national law that implements it).

The third proposal that I have made in relation to the EU Constitution is that it fails to provide sufficient protection for smaller states. To date, given its small population compared to other Member States, Ireland has enjoyed relatively generous terms of membership of the EU. I would suggest that these favourable conditions of membership account to a certain extent for the considerable influence that Ireland has wielded within the EU. Up until recently we have had 15 MEPs out of 623, there has always been an Irish Commissioner on the EU Commission and the voting system operating on the Council of Ministers (including the weighted voting system agreed as part of the Nice Treaty) gave Ireland a level of influence that was disproportionate to its size. However the EU Constitution makes it clear that this will certainly change in the near future. The Constitution proposes a new system of qualified majority voting that will be based on a double majority principle- a majority of states (55%) representing a majority (65%) of the EU's population. This system effectively means that the voting weight of different member states will be much more proportionate to their population size. When one considers that the EU is actively considering enlarging to include countries with populations as large as Bulgaria, Romania, and even Turkey, the adoption of a new voting system that is much more related to population size has to be an issue of concern for a small country like Ireland. The Constitution also removes national vetoes in over 20 different areas.

These new arrangements might be more acceptable if compensatory arrangements applied in any of the key EU institutions. For example, in the US Congress although states are proportionately represented in the House of Representatives, each state also has two seats in the Senate, regardless of its size. This, however, is not the case in the EU. From 2009 onwards, Ireland, like every other Member State will be without a Commissioner for a period of five years on a rotating basis. As far as the European Parliament is concerned, the EU Constitution caps the potential future membership of the Parliament at 750 and states that representation of citizens shall be "degressively proportional", with a minimum threshold of six members per Member State (Article 1-20). Given its size it is likely that Ireland will find itself in the future with only 6 MEPs in a parliament of 750. These weakened institutional positions as far as Ireland is concerned, combined with the likely enlargement of the EU in the future, should be a matter of concern for the citizens of this country. This Constitution for the European Union contains no bold new institutional provisions that might reassure small states with regard to their likely power and voting weight in the EU in the future.

I will conclude now with my fourth point, namely that the proposed EU Constitution largely fails to tackle the democratic deficit of the EU's main institutions which I outlined in the earlier part of this presentation. The positive institutional reforms contained within the Constitution are that the Council of Ministers must meet in public when it is legislating. The European Parliament has also seen its powers of co-decision-making extended across a range of new policy areas. In addition, the Parliament has been given new powers of consent over new international agreements, including trade agreements, where these agreements cover fields to which either the ordinary legislative procedure applies, or the special legislative procedure where consent by the European Parliament is required. The Constitution also allows for a million citizens from a significant number of Member States to submit a petition to the Commission requesting that it proposes a particular piece of legislation in order to advance any of the Constitution's stated objectives. Unfortunately, as the EU Parliament has not been given the power to initiate legislation that every other parliament in the world has, EU citizens are deprived of the opportunity to petition their own elected representatives to introduce desired legislation. The provisions of the Constitution leave it to the discretion of the Commission, a democratically un-elected body, whether to act on such a popular initiative or not.

In many other significant respects the democratic deficit of the EU remains un-addressed. In particular, the power of the European Parliament in relation to the Commission remains limited to approving or dismissing the entire Commission. The Commission on the other hand has seen its power extended, particularly in relation to the negotiation of international trade agreements across all services, including health, education and cultural and audiovisual services while the unanimity requirement that gave Member States a veto in these areas has been removed. Under the Constitution the unaccountable European Council sees its formal powers extended from economic governance and foreign policy to all areas of External Action. Secretive and democratically unaccountable committees such as the Article 133 will continue to operate as they have done under the EU Constitution. Furthermore, a new and potentially very worrying Article 261 Committee has been established under the Constitution that, while acting as a virtual EU Interior Ministry, will not be subject to acceptable democratic controls. The EU Constitution institutionalizes the centralization of power at the level of the EU and gives its institutions the potential to exercise exclusive competence across a worryingly broad range of policy areas. The role of national parliaments set out in the Constitution is largely a passive, surveillance role and no areas of exclusive competence have been repatriated to them. Moreover the timeframe of six weeks allowed for scrutiny and possible challenge by national parliaments to new legislation proposed by the Commission is totally inadequate. The vague definition of subsidiarity outlined in the Constitution will offer a poor protection to national parliaments who do challenge such legislation and the case-law of the ECJ to date suggests that it is likely to rule in favour of the EU institutions in relation to any cases taken by national parliaments on subsidiarity grounds.

In conclusion, the institutional provisions of the new EU Constitution should reflect a model of governance that meets the highest standards of democracy, accountability and representation. Instead, while it does contain a number of welcome provisions, I am proposing that it largely enshrines and consolidates the EU's long-standing democratic deficit. I believe it would be very foolish for national parliaments and EU citizens to ratify a Constitution that represents a flawed and unsatisfactory model of democratic political decision-making. If the Constitution is ratified, we are unlikely to see the EU's democratic deficit being tackled in any significant way for the foreseeable future. I have tried to highlight in my analysis the extent to which I believe the institutional arrangements proposed by the Constitution serve the interests of Member States rather than those of European citizens. If we do not ratify the treaty, we are told it will provoke a "constitutional crisis". I would like to propose here today that it is only in such circumstances of crisis that Member States are likely to even consider bringing about the kind of democratic reforms that they have been resisting to date.

For that reason I would urge you not to support this flawed Constitution, but to vote No to it as part of a necessary strategy of promoting the interests of European citizens by bringing about a radical and long overdue democratization of European Union.

Institutional Reform and the European Constitution

by Roger Cole (European Conference on the EU Constitution, London, 9 April 2005)

I would like to thank the Democracy Movement and the Campaign against euro-Federalism for inviting me to address this Conference in London. A previous European Empire established London, an Empire that was militarised, centralised, dominated by a neo-liberal ideology, where political power resided with an elite, and the people had little or role in they way it was ruled. Rome was the perfect place to sign the EU Constitution. There is no record of an Antonius Blairus becoming the Emperor of that European Empire, but a certain Tony Blair might aspire to the role of Emperor, or President of the newly emerging European Empire.

Ireland was not part of that previous European Empire, and throughout our history there have always been Irish people who did not want to be part of an Empire, and it is from that anti-imperialist tradition that the Peace & Neutrality Alliance developed. As the people of England, Scotland and Wales become part of the newly emerging European Empire, and experience the realities of Empire as we have done, then maybe they will become more Irish than the Irish themselves.

PANA advocates that Ireland should be a neutral state, have its own Independent Foreign Policy and pursue that policy through a reformed United Nations.

Therefore PANA's vision of the future of Europe is as a Partnership of Independent, Democratic States, legal equals, without a military dimension.

PANA was established to oppose the process by which Ireland was being steadily integrated into the EU/US/NATO military industrial structures in order to ensure Irelands full participation in the resource wars of the 21st century. We sought not to build a new group, but to create an alliance of existing groups that opposed this process, which is supported by virtually the entire political/media elite in Ireland.

PANA was the only alliance to oppose the Amsterdam Treaty and while we were defeated, over 38% of the Irish people voted no. PANA also played a key role in achieving a 54% No vote victory, of Nice 1 and achieving a 38% No vote in Nice 2. We sought a Protocol similar to that achieved by the Danes which would exclude Ireland from paying for, or involvement with the EU Battle Groups or Rapid Reaction Force.

We lost but the fact that the yes side spent euro 1,675,500 and the no campaign spent euro 268,000 on the Nice 2 campaign was a central factor in the victory for the Empire Loyalists.

PANA is now campaigning against the EU Constitution, and played an important role in establishing the broad based Campaign Against the EU Constitution (CAECU) in Ireland.

This EU Constitution transforms a EU based on Treaties between states into a militarised, neo-liberal and centralised superstate allied to the American Empire and committed to continuous war.

John Bruton, once an Irish Taoiseach has been appointed the EU Ambassador in the United States. In his last major speech in Ireland before he took up his new job, he attacked Pearse, Connolly, De Valera and Michael Collins and all the others that fought for Irish National Independence. His hero is John Redmond, a supporter of Irish Home Rule within the British Empire. Bruton believes that the new foreign, security and defence policy as envisaged under the EU Constitution would help the EU "to become a more effective partner of the United States in tackling the many regional and global issues we face together" and that EU arms industry will be facilitated by the EU Constitution to help, "Europe assume its responsibilities on the world scene" -www.eurunion.org

They however have a problem. George Bush, the Head of the American Empire is a rich white Protestant Fundamentalist, a 21st century Oliver Cromwell. An Oliver Cromwell II is not popular in Ireland, or England, where Cromwell Is corpse was dug up and hanged. Indeed Oliver Cromwell II is not very popular with the peoples throughout Europe, and while the EU elite support Bush, the latest example being the endorsement of Paul Wolfowitz as President of the World Bank, they are going to have a hell of a job asking the people to die for Bush in wars that will be made easier by this EU Constitution.

To quote the French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin, "For the first time, Europe has a shared Constitution. This pact is the point of no return. Europe is becoming an irreversible project, irrevocable after the ratification of this treaty. It is a new era for Europe, a new geography, a new history." Le Metro, (7/10/04)

PANA agrees with Mr. Raffarin. The EU Constitution is not a 'tidying up exercise' as Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern claim, but 'a new geography, a new history', or more accurately, old Imperial history in a new 21st century Imperial bottle.

The history is clear. Europe in the first half of the 20th century was dominated by Imperial states that had extensive Empires throughout the world.

But states like Belgium, France, Italy, Portugal, Britain, Spain and Holland were defeated in Kenya, Algeria, the Congo, Vietnam, etc, and their Empires collapsed. This encouraged their elites to work together through an expanding EU. A series of Treaties transferred power from their people and their national parliaments to themselves via the various EU institutions. Now the EU elite is seeking to create for the first time, a EU with its own separate identity, with a separate legal personality from the states themselves. The process had been a series of treaties between the states. Now it is proposed the EU becomes an entity in itself, with its own Constitution, Minister for Foreign Affairs, national anthem, Diplomatic Corps, Central Bank, citizenship, President, Foreign Minister, flag military headquarters and evolving army. The states of the EU and their Constitutions are to be subservient to the EU and its Constitution. Ireland will have the same relationship to the EU as Alabama has to the US.

To quote Article 1-6; "The Constitution and law adopted by the institutions of the Union in exercising competences conferred on it shall have primacy over the law of the Member States."

In short, the broken Empires of France, Germany, Holland, Belgium, Italy. Spain, Portugal and Britain, etc, seek by getting together to create a new European Empire, a new world power.

Anybody with any knowledge of the histories of the rulers of these Empires has every right to not trust their successors. Never mind their declared values as outlined in the Fundamental Rights section. Bush says he believes in democracy and Freedom as well.

The EU elite has established EU Battle Groups and the EU Constitution ensures, that like the armies of Bushs American Empire, they can be sent to war anywhere in the world without a UN mandate.

PANA helped defeat the Irish political elite in the first referendum on the Nice Treaty. In order to win the 2nd referendum, they were forced to pass legislation, which became known as the "triple lock".

The triple lock was to ensure that Irish soldiers would not serve abroad unless there was a UN Security Council mandate, as well as Dail and government approval. It is now to be abolished by the Irish government to ensure full participation by the Irish Army in the EU Battle Groups even though the ink on the Nice Treaty is hardly dry. Like the American Union that sent in its army to invade and conquer Iraq without a UN mandate and now intends to do the same with Iran, and maybe Syria, Cuba and Venezuela, the emerging European Union intends to give itself the same power, and be able to invade any country in the world without a UN mandate. The EU is also creating 13 military Battle Groups, its EU Marines, to do the invading.

The EU Battle Groups include one each from the following country or group of countries:
France,
Italy,
Spain,
UK,
France/Germany/Belgium/Luxembourg/Spain,
France/Belgium,
Germany/the Netherlands / Finland,
Germany/Czech Republic / Austria,
Italy/Hungary/Slovenia,
Italy/Spain/Greece/Portugal, Poland/Germany/Slovakia/Latvia/Lithuania, Sweden/Finland/Norway, the UK/Netherlands.

The purpose of these Battle groups is to go to war, a reality confirmed by the General Secretary of NATO Jaap de Hoop Scheffer (IT 11/05).

The Petersberg tasks given to these Battle groups, already is broad enough to include war, humanitarian, rescue, peace-keeping and peace-making, have been expanded by the EU Constitution to include, "joint disarmament operations, military advice and assistance tasks and post-conflict stabilisation". "All these tasks may contribute to the fight against terrorism, including by supporting Third countries in combating terrorism in their territories". In its European Security Review (July 23, 2004) the Brussels-based Security Information Service (ISIS) stated that joint disarmament operations could include anything from providing personal security to UN inspectors to full scale invasions a la Iraq.

The military dimension of the Galileo navigation positioning system (at a cost of 3 billion) is another a key part of militarisation of the EU. The FRES, or battlefield vehicle or more accurately family of vehicles will cost euro 6.7 million stirling each, and the life-time cost for each would be 55.5 million stirling. These new military systems designed for rapid reaction military forces gives some idea of the costs involved.

The EU Constitution establishes new posts to preside over these new Battle Groups with their new tasks. A new EU Council President appointed for up to 5 years to preside over EU Summits. A new EU Minister for Foreign Affairs will preside over meetings of the EU Foreign Ministers. A new EU Diplomatic Service is established. The member states will have an obligation to show mutual solidarity to the EUs Common Foreign, security and defence policies, to make their civilian and military capabilities available to the EU and to assist the already established European Armaments, Research and Military Capabilities Agency.

The wording of the Nice Treaty, that the progressive framing of a common defence policy "might lead to common defence, should the European Council so decide" is now changed to, "will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides". The EU will ensure via its new security doctrine that;

The common security and defence policy of the Union shall contribute to the "vitality of a renewed NATO" and be compatible with Natos defence policy, with is based on the first use of nuclear weapons.

Article 1-41.7 provides a mutual defence assistance clause for all EU states in the case of armed aggression. It states: "If a member state is a victim of armed aggression its territory the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all means in their power" - It goes on to say such commitments shall be consistent with NATO commitments.

Article 1-43 states: "The Union and its Member States shall act jointly in a spirit of solidarity if a Member State is the object of a terrorist attack"

But in the recent Eurobarometer survey 59% of the Irish people surveyed believed the Irish government should make decisions on defence policy rather than their being a EU defence. So in Ireland the issue of defence is a key issue on which we can win again as we did on Nice 1. PANA agrees with 59% of the Irish people. PANA seeks to defeat this Imperialist, neo-liberal and centralising Constitution. We seek a legally binding Protocol, similar to that already achieved by Denmark that would exclude Ireland from paying for or involvement with the process of militarisation of the EU. We would call on all the other peace movements in the other states of the EU to also call for such a Protocol for their own country.

Yet in Ireland, virtually the entire political/media elite supports integration, supports the creation of a centralised, neo-liberal, militarised Imperial superstate because it gives power to themselves at the expense of the Irish people. There should be no surprise in this. At the moment for example, virtually no family member of the US Senate or Congress are in Iraq as they are mostly the poor who join to get citizenship or education grants. You can be sure that the rich EU elite including the rich Irish will make certain that their kids will not be joining the Battle Groups.

Imperialism, whether it was British or Soviet was no solution to social justice in the 20th century and Imperialism whither American, Chinese or European is no answer to social justice in the 21st century. An Imperial EU superstate provides no solution to poverty, injustice and the struggle for human rights and democracy.

If you want a neo-liberal, militarised and Imperialist EU then you should vote yes. If you want a Social Europe, a democratic Europe and an anti-imperialist Europe you should vote no.

We need to build a European Peace Alliance throughout all of Europe, from Russia to Ireland. We need to build an alliance with all democrats. We need to start by build an EPA to oppose this EU Constitution. The IMI in Germany and PANA in Ireland have already established an EPA based on the IMI Declaration in opposition to the EU Constitution. But it is not enough. We need to build a European Alliance that brings together peace movements throughout Europe. This is a struggle against an emerging Empire that offers nothing but war, death, destruction and defeat. The alternative we offer for Europe, a Partnership of Independent, Democratic states working for peace and security through a reformed and renewed United Nations, the only global and inclusive institution committed to collective security is one to which the peoples of national democratic states of Europe will respond. It is up to us provide that vision of peace and security for Europe and the world.

Roger Cole
Chair,Peace & Neutrality Alliance.

Yes to Europe - NO to Superstate

by Caroline Lucas MEP,Green Party- based on research by Colin Hines.

A GREEN 'NO' TO THE CONSTITUTION

The debate over the EU constitution is all too often presented as a sterile dichotomy between those who want greater integration with the EU and those who want less: an argument about whether we want 'more Europe?' or 'less Europe?'. Rarely is the crucial prior question 'what kind of Europe?' asked.

The process of drafting the proposed EU Constitution began from an attempt to answer that very question. The 2001 summit in Laeken, which established the Convention on the future of Europe, envisaged an 'audit' of the EU's role in the 21 st Century, a debate about what the EU was for, which EU competencies (or areas of responsibility) should be 'returned' to member states, and which enshrined in a constitution - in short, a project to reconnect the EU with the people it claims to represent.

Politics got in the way, of course - and these objectives were soon forgotten. The process became embroiled in the nitty-gritty of drafting a single document, that was acceptable to everyone involved, and the 'big idea' at the heart of the union was simply never considered.

This represents a hugely missed opportunity. As a Member of the European Parliament, I am confronted almost daily with the fact that the original 'big idea' - to bring peace to post-war Europe by binding its nations together in an ambitious free trade project - is no longer enough to sustain public support for the EU. Indeed, some have argued that it increases opposition to it.

A new big idea, based on placing sustainability, social justice and peace at the heart of the EU, could revitalise the EU institutions and re-inspire the public enthusiasm that has been eroded by the EU's moves towards 'economism'; the idea that the overriding goals of European integration are economic, and its progress should be measured in terms of economic growth and the removal of internal trade barriers alone. The EU could be a leader in renewable energies, it could be a leader in learning to live more lightly on the planet, it could be a leader in pioneering different economic models which improve our quality of life without being at the expense of the environment, future generations, and the poor of both rich and developing world; but it will have to resolve its internal contradictions first (1).

But the Constitution on offer proposes no such thing. It takes the means by which the EU's founding fathers sought the goal of peace in Europe - economic growth and removing barriers to trade - and places them at the heart of the union, as ends in themselves. Worse, it enshrines this neo-liberal economic model as a constitutional principle rather than, as is currently the case, in elements of a treaty. Since re-writing a constitution is considerably more difficult than revising a treaty, this will make it much more problematic to change those aspects in the future.

Any new constitution should be judged on its ability to move us towards the kind of EU that we want to see - one which puts sustainability and social justice at its heart, one that is based on peace, democracy and subsidiarity. And judged by that criterion, the current draft clearly fails.

This report examines some of the Constitution's shortcomings - and sets out the key elements of an alternative Constitution for a Sustainable Europe. Our appeal to reject the Constitution is neither negative nor Eurosceptic, but rather a positive campaign based on our belief that the peoples of Europe deserve something better.

Taking the cons out of the constitution: A pro-european case against the Eu constitution

by Tobias Pflueger

On the base of the treaty, signed on October 29th, 2004, no peaceful Europe can be achieved.

1. The weighting of votes is for the benefit ofthe big countries - especially Germany
Neither during the governmental conference nor inthe convent for the elaboration of the Europeanconstitutional draft where those aspects of thetreaty seriously disputed in which die EU getsfurthermore militarised. Main point of debate onthe governmental conference was the weighting ofvotes within Europe. According to the proposal ofthe constitutional convent most decisions at thecouncil of the European Union should be reachedwith a "double majority" beginning in 2009: majoritydecisions should be accomplished if at least13 of the 25 Governments representing 60 per centof the population would agree. Poland and Spainopposed to adjust the weighting of the votes onthe number of population, because those countriesbenefited from the current arrangement (the treatyof Nizza) and would clearly loose weight underthe new arrangement. Vice versa Germany as themost populous country would obviously gainweight. This is the status quo, which remained inplace after the agreement on the governmentalconference on June 17/18, 2004. But, to havePoland and Spain get on board, too, the approvalrate had been raised to 55% of the member statesand to 65% of the population. It is interesting tosee how the weighting of votes has switched incontrast to the treaty of Nizza. Germany increasedits votes in the council from 9.0% to 18.2%, whatmeans a huge gain of 9.2%, France raised from9.0% to 13.2 % - that accords to an increase ofvotes of 4.2%, afterwards comes Great Britainwith an increase by 4.0% from 9.0% to 13%, andItaly from 9.0% to 12.6%, that is an increase by3.6 %. Spain had to accept a gain of only 0.6% from 8.4% to 9.0% and Poland had to be contentnot loosing any percentage points at all, stagnatingon an 8,4% share at the council. Every othermember state is loosing between 0.5% up to 1.5%compared to the Treaty of Nizza, which is still inforce at the moment. Therefore it should be clearwho are those having a special interest in the cominginto force of the constitutional treaty. But thereal drama of this reallocation is the annulment ofthe hitherto existing principle of equality betweenthe European member states. The parity of votesbetween the big states Germany, France, GreatBritain and Italy gets abolished. Furthermore, the4 big ones gain 21% of the vote in addition, Spainrises by 3.6%, the medium-sized and smallercountries loose accordingly.

2. Getting Europe fit for the ability to wageglobal war
It is the obvious aim of the constitutional treatyregarding the foreign- and military policy to makethe EU ready for a global ability to wage war. Thetreaty should "provide the Union with an operationalcapacity drawing on civil and military assets"(Art. I-41, Sect. 1). Armament develops intoa constitutional command. " Member States shallundertake progressively to improve their militarycapabilities". (Art. I-41, Sect. 3). And additionally,an "Agency in the field of defence capabilitiesdevelopment, research, acquisition and armaments" (European Defence Agency), [formerly: "European Armaments, Research and MilitaryCapabilities Agency"] should monitor this and "contribute to identifying and, if necessary, implementingany useful measure for strengtheningthe industrial and technological base of the defencesector and for improving the effectivenessof military expenditure" (Art. III-311, Sect 1).

The fact that the European Parliament and theEuropean Court are explicitly excluded from controllingthe foreign and military policy is also seriouslytroubling. The options for intervening aregetting enormously enlarged. The military optionsare described in Article III-309. The so-calledPetersberg-tasks (humanitarian missions up tocombat missions) are amended by so called "disarmamentwars", a neologism by Joschka Fischer,who invented this term before the Iraq war.

But also military actions in the war against terrorare defined. A highly explosive topic is describedin Article III-312: "Those Member States whichwish to participate in the permanent structuredcooperation referred to in Article I-41(6), whichfulfil the criteria and have made the commitmentson military capabilities set out in the Protocol onpermanent structured cooperation shall notify theirintention to the Council and to the Union Ministerfor Foreign Affairs."

All efforts to establish an European constitution,which includes a civil responsibility for the maintenanceof peace in the world, have failed. Insteadof speaking out for a stronger role of the UnitedNations in cross national conflicts and to submit tothe charter of the UN, especially the ban of violence,there is the quotation of the "enhancement"of international law and only a commitment to thefundamentals of the UN charter, which leaves thepossibility of European military interventions, notmandated by the UN, open.

There also aren't explicit formulations, for examplethat there should never again spread war fromEuropean territories. In addition, there is no ban ofpreventive wars or a distinct prohibition of interventionistpolicies. Helpful institutions, whichcould contribute to the creation of a peacefulEurope can’t be found either: Neither an Europeanagency for disarmament and conversion, nor adepartment for the prohibition of arms exports areestablished.

This constitutional treaty is far away from anEuropean Union, which is dismissing war andmilitary means as an solution to conflicts, which iswilling to abolish all weapons of mass destructionand adapting their defence industry to the productionof civil goods as well as ending their armsexports. A peace-providing reduction of all militarycapacities down to the inability to wage offensivewar is turned into the opposite by this constitutionaltreaty. Everything is subordinated to thestructural and actual ability to wage war. Obviously,that’s the only way to reach global powerprojection abilities in the European Union's ownself-conception.

3. The concrete implementation in the EuropeanSecurity Strategy
While the EU constitutional treaty was still underdebate, the heads of government of the memberstates were already busy with the implementationof its military aspects: In December 2003, theypassed an allying military strategy in Rome, theso-called "European Security Strategy" (ESS).

Even before, the German chancellor was amazedabout the fact that all EU countries accepted themaster copy which mirrors mostly the Germanand French agenda: "First of all, with respect tothe inner European differences, it is remarkablethat Javier Solana's European security strategydraft was looked upon so favourably by all EUpartners".(Internationale Politik, Nr. 9-2003)

In fact, the master copy of the High Representativefor the European Common Foreign and SecurityPolicy (CFSP), Javier Solana, was passedessentially unchanged. It names three strategicpriorities:
- First, the fight against Terror;
- Second, the fight against the proliferation ofweapons of mass destruction; and
- Third, support for "failed states" as an instrumentagainst organised crime.

How the EU is going to act militarily is also mentionedin this strategy paper: "As a Union of 25members, spending more than 160 billion Euroson defence, we should be able to sustain severaloperations simultaneously." And elsewhere: "Ourtraditional concept of self- defence - up to andincluding the Cold War - was based on the threatof invasion. With the new threats, the first line ofdefence will often be abroad. The new threats aredynamic."

Regarding „Lines of defence" which are abroad, the so-called preemptive war doctrine of the USAdministration's "National Security Strategy"(NSS) clearly comes into mind. However, the EUavoided words like "preemptive war" or "preventivewar". Concerning this matter, the homepageof the German governments states: "The contentiousterm 'preemptive engagement' was substitutedby 'preventive engagement.'"

Official explanations suggest that the new termnow means "prevention" in terms of the civil preventionof conflicts. But the "Neue Zuericher Zeitung"(15.12.03) assumes that the term "preemptive"was avoided because it is a "buzz word". TheInternational Herald Tribune says the term gotreplaced only because there are no words for "preemptive" in some EU-languages. However, Lines of defence abroad is the paraphrasing term for "attack operations" and attacking before the opponentattacks that is aggression against internationallaw.

4. European Defence Paper includingpreventive war
As a consequence, the Paris Institute for StrategicStudies (ISS), which was working for the EuropeanMilitary Alliance, the Western EuropeanUnion (WEU) until 2001, was assigned to workout different mission scenarios for EU-troops,based on the yet not ratified Constitutional Treatyand the European Security Strategy.

The result was a study made by senior militaryadvisers in October 2004, the "European DefencePaper". Its conclusions are striking: The authorsdemand a resolute, immediate and comprehensivearmament of the EU. The aim should be to gainworld-power-status and to be capable to conductoffensive wars. In this strategy, "preventive engagement"is just taken for granted.

Offensive wars will be fixed on European level.Nuclear options won't be excluded anymore. LotharRuehl, former Assistant Secretary of State inthe German Department of Defence and co-authorof the "European Defence Paper", stated contentedlythat the issue of "Preemption/Prevention" ismostly treated under the aspect of missions withconventional troops and special operational forces.

But "at least" the possibility of "explicitly" or "implicitly" involving British and French nuclearforces is mentioned. (Lothar Ruehl: Lueckezwischen Mittel und Zweck. Das "European DefencePaper"; Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung10/01/.2004) As a matter of fact, the Strategy Paperssays concerning the war settings of the futureEU-force: "(W)e have not avoided presenting scenariosin which the national nuclear forces of EUmember states (France and the United Kingdom)may enter into the equation either explicitly orimplicitly."

5. The new "battle groups"
The EU also generously supports concrete armamentsfor global warfare. Recently the Secretariesof Defence specified the future deployment ofEuropean "battle troops". Appointments made inSeptember 2004 in the Dutch city of Noordwijkled to the domination of the German-French cartelof power over the battle groups, which are rapidly deployable. The fundamental decision in the Constitutionto turn the EU into a power with theglobal ability to wage war was accomplished byBerlin and Paris.

Beneath the realisation of the armament programme,Berlin and Brussels are also promotingthe troop deployment. In March 2004, the EUSecretariesof Defence decided a roadmap for theglobal ability to wage war, the so-called "Head-Line-Goal", which has been ratified on the summitof the heads of state in June 2004.

The plan provides to build up an upgraded army,which should be available for worldwide militaryinterventions under a single EU-command in theyear 2010. Two major aspects of the troops envisionedfor this are now being developed: TheEuropean reaction force, which shall be able todeploy up to 60.000 troops for a sustained periodin a crisis region and the "battlegroups", smallfighting units of 1.500 elite soldiers each, whichshall be sent as the first units into a crisis region tofight the way for the reaction forces.

This refers again to the protocol with the "permanentstructured (military) cooperation", that is dueto fix the dimension of a core European militarizationin the future constitutional treaty. One of thefirst EU-battlegroups shall be the German-Frenchbrigade in Müllheim.

6. Core Europe as "structured Cooperation" inthe military realm
Beside the general steps of militarization applyingto all member states, article I-41 and article III-312 are by way of the so called "structured cooperation"nothing less than a juridical frameworkfor the pooling of only a few states in the field ofmilitary policy - within the EU. The otherwisestipulated unanimity concerning the foreign andmilitary policy of the EU is explicit only referringto those who take part in the structured cooperation,the other ones have to keep out.

For the concrete design of this core Europeanmilitary policy, article III-312 refers on the respectiveprotocol attached to the constitutionaltreaty. In this context, it is necessary to know thatthe public discussion is - if at all - focused on themore than 460 articles of the constitutional treaty.Virtually nobody talks about the 350 pages ofprotocols and the 112 pages of explanations thatwill be binding law after ratification. Actuallythey are unknown to the public. A closer look atthe specific protocol concerning the structuredcooperation reveals that they by no means areaddressing irrelevant aspects. Not only the cooperation with NATO and the asserting of the willingnessto contribute to the "vitality of a renewedAtlantic Alliance" (CIG 87/04) ADD 1) is stressedbut one can also find there unmistakably detailedconstitutional commands for a military coreEurope. Plainly speaking, it is put forward that every member state is allowed to participate in the "permanent structured cooperation" that commitsitself to "proceed more intensively to develop itsdefence capacities through the development of itsnational contributions and participation, whereappropriate, in multinational forces, in the mainEuropean equipment programmes, and in the activityof the Agency in the field of defence capabilitiesdevelopment, research, acquisition andarmaments."

Obviously, this protocol establishes that the coreof those European states that commit themselvesto an outstanding preparedness for military aggressivenessand massive armaments are able tomilitarise their Common Foreign and SecurityPolicy in the context of the permanent structuredcooperation.

This liability is further specified in the protocol.Because the aim is to "have the capacity to supplyby 2007 at the latest ... targeted combat units ...within a period of 5 to 30 days … which can besustained for an initial period of 30 days and beextended up to at least 120 days." To fulfill theseobligations, article 2 of the protocol talks aboutthe "objectives concerning the level of investmentexpenditure on defence equipment, and [to] regularlyreview these objectives, in the light of thesecurity environment and of the Union's internationalresponsibilities." The approximation of the"defensive instruments" is also written down, aswell as the common goals for the deployment oftroops.

To recapitulate, this protocol is a symbol of anunrestricted military core Europe. The relatingprovisions shall be constitutionally enshrined. Onedoesn't want to leave something to chance. If theseconstitutional provisions will turn into reality anobligation for armament and for an increasedreadiness to engage in military missions will begenerated.

This is not only true due to the provisions in articleI-41 but also specifically by the totally new"structures cooperation" in the military sector.

Summary
Because of the German government there will be amuch stronger commitment to obtain a fullyfledgedability to wage war in the context of amilitarised core Europe. Therefore, the crucial question remains whether France and especiallyGermany will be able to gather enough votes afterthe ratification of the constitution to remain onthis track hitherto European wars. As a threat tothe other EU states, the provisions of the "structuredcooperation" are already taking effect today.The danger of an accelerated militarization of theGerman foreign policy with the goal to wageEuropean wars autonomously is taking shape.This is the real problem.

Tobias Pflueger is on the board of directors of theInformationsstelle Militarisierung (IMI) and a Memberof the European Parliament.

Informationsstelle Militarisierung (IMI) e.V., Hechingerstr. 203, 72072 Tübingen
Email: imi@imi-online.de
Website: www.imi-online.de

Militarization by treaty or why Europe's constitutional treaty is endangering peace

by Michel Chossudovsky

The Pentagon has released the summary of a top secret Pentagon document, which sketches America's agenda for global military domination.

This redirection of America's military strategy seems to have passed virtually unnoticed. With the exception of The Wall Street Journal, not a word has been mentioned in the US media.

There has been no press coverage concerning this mysterious military blueprint. The latter outlines, according to the Wall Street Journal, America's global military design which consists in "enhancing U.S. influence around the world", through increased troop deployments and a massive buildup of America's advanced weapons systems.

While the document follows in the footsteps of the administration's "preemptive" war doctrine as detailed by the Neocons' Project of the New American Century (PNAC), it goes much further in setting the contours of Washington's global military agenda.

It calls for a more "proactive" approach to warfare, beyond the weaker notion of "preemptive" and defensive actions, where military operations are launched against a "declared enemy" with a view to "preserving the peace" and "defending America".

The document explicitly acknowledges America's global military mandate, beyond regional war theaters. This mandate also includes military operations directed against countries, which are not hostile to America, but which are considered strategic from the point of view of US interests.

From a broad military and foreign policy perspective, the March 2005 Pentagon document constitutes an imperial design, which supports US corporate interests Worldwide.

"At its heart, the document is driven by the belief that the U.S. is engaged in a continuous global struggle that extends far beyond specific battlegrounds, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. The vision is for a military that is far more proactive, focused on changing the world instead of just responding to conflicts such as a North Korean attack on South Korea, and assuming greater prominence in countries in which the U.S. isn't at war. (WSJ, 11 March 2005)

The document suggests that its objective also consists in "offensive" rather than run of the mill "preemptive" operations. There is, in this regard, a subtle nuance in relation to earlier post-911 national security statements:

"[The document presents] 'four core' problems, none of them involving traditional military confrontations. The services are told to develop forces that can: build partnerships with failing states to defeat internal terrorist threats; defend the homeland, including offensive strikes against terrorist groups planning attacks; influence the choices of countries at a strategic crossroads, such as China and Russia; and prevent the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by hostile states and terrorist groups." (Ibid)

The emphasis is no longer solely on waging major theater wars as outlined in the PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses, Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century, the March 2005 military blueprint points to shifts in weapons systems as well as the need for a global deployment of US forces in acts of Worldwide military policing and intervention. The PNAC in its September 2000 Report had described these non-theater military operations as "constabulary functions": The Pentagon must retain forces to preserve the current peace in ways that fall short of conduction major theater campaigns. ... These duties are today's most frequent missions, requiring forces configured for combat but capable of long-term, independent constabulary operations." (PNAC, www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf, p. 18)

Recruitment of Troops to Police the Empire
The underlying emphasis is on the development and recruitment of specialized military manpower required to control and pacify indigenous forces and factions in different regions of the World:

"the classified guidance urges the military to come up with less doctrinaire solutions that include sending in smaller teams of culturally savvy soldiers to train and mentor indigenous forces." (Ibid)

The classified document points to the need for a massive recruitment and training of troops. These troops, including new contingents of special forces, green berets and other specialized military personnel, would be involved, around the World, in acts of military policing:

"Mr. Rumsfeld's approach likely will trigger major shifts in the weapons systems that the Pentagon buys, and even more fundamental changes in the training and deployment of U.S. troops throughout the world, said defense officials who have played a role in crafting the document or are involved in the review.

The U.S. would seek to deploy these troops far earlier in a looming conflict than they traditionally have been to help a tottering government's armed forces confront guerrillas before an insurgency is able to take root and build popular support. Officials said the plan envisions many such teams operating around the world.

US military involvement is not limited to the Middle East. The sending in of special forces in military policing operations, under the disguise of peace-keeping and training, is contemplated in all major regions of the World. A large part of these activities, however, will most probably be carried out by private mercenary companies on contract to the Pentagon, NATO or the United Nations. The military manpower requirements as well as the equipment are specialized. The policing will not be conducted by regular army units as in a theater war:

"the new plan envisions more active U.S. involvement, resembling recent military aid missions to places like Niger and Chad, where the U.S. is dispatching teams of ground troops to train local militaries in basic counterinsurgency tactics. Future training missions, however, would likely be conducted on a much broader scale, one defense official said.

Of the military's services, the Marines Corps right now is moving fastest to fill this gap and is looking at shifting some resources away from traditional amphibious-assault missions to new units designed specifically to work with foreign forces. To support these troops, military officials are looking at everything from acquiring cheap aerial surveillance systems to flying gunships that can be used in messy urban fights to come to the aid of ground troops. One "dream capability" might be an unmanned AC-130 gunship that could circle an area at relatively low altitude until it is needed, then swoop in to lay down a withering line of fire, said a defense official." (Ibid)

New Post Cold War Enemies
While the "war on terrorism" and the containment of "rogue states" still constitute the official justification and driving force, China and Russia are explicitly identified in the classified March document as potential enemies.

"... the U.S. military ... is seeking to dissuade rising powers, such as China, from challenging U.S. military dominance. Although weapons systems designed to fight guerrillas tend to be fairly cheap and low-tech, the review makes clear that to dissuade those countries from trying to compete, the U.S. military must retain its dominance in key high-tech areas, such as stealth technology, precision weaponry and manned and unmanned surveillance systems." (Ibid)

While the European Union is not mentioned, the stated objective is to shunt the development of all potential military rivals.

"Trying to Run with the Big Dog"
How does Washington intend to reach its goal of global military hegemony?

Essentially through the continued development of the US weapons industry, requiring a massive shift out of the production of civilian goods and services. In other words, the ongoing increase in defense spending feeds this new undeclared arms race, with vast amounts of public money channeled to America's major weapons producers.

The stated objective is to make the process of developing advanced weapons systems "so expensive", that no other power on earth will able to compete or challenge "the Big Dog", without jeopardizing its civilian economy:

"[A]t the core of this strategy is the belief that the US must maintain such a large lead in crucial technologies that growing powers will conclude that it is too expensive for these countries to even think about trying to run with the big dog. They will realize that it is not worth sacrificing their economic growth, said one defense consultant who was hired to draft sections of the document. " (Ibid, emphasis added)

Undeclared Arms Race between Europe and America
This new undeclared arms race is with the so-called "growing powers".

While China and Russia are mentioned as a potential threat, America's (unofficial) rivals also include France, Germany and Japan. The recognized partners of the US --in the context of the Anglo-American axis-- are Britain, Australia and Canada, not to mention Israel (unofficially).

In this context, there are at present two dominant Western military axes: the Anglo-American axis and the competing Franco-German alliance. The European military project, largely dominated by France and Germany, will inevitably undermine NATO. Britain (through British Aerospace Systems Corporation) is firmly integrated into the US system of defense procurement in partnership with America's big five weapons producers.

Needless to say, this new arms race is firmly embedded in the European project, which envisages under EU auspices, a massive redirection of State financial resources towards military expenditure. Moreover, the EU monetary system establishing a global currency which challenges the hegemony of the US dollar is intimately related to the development of an integrated EU defense force outside of NATO.

Under the European constitution, there will be a unified European foreign policy position which will include a common defense component. It is understood, although never seriously debated in public, that the proposed European Defense Force is intended to challenge America's supremacy in military affairs:

"under such a regime, trans-Atlantic relations will be dealt a fatal blow." (according to Martin Callanan, British Conservative member of the European Parliament, Washington times, 5 March 2005).

Ironically, this European military project, while encouraging an undeclared US-EU arms race, is not incompatible with continued US-EU cooperation in military affairs. The underlying objective for Europe is that EU corporate interests are protected and that European contractors are able to effectively cash in and "share the spoils" of the US-led wars in the Middle East and elsewhere. In other words, by challenging the Big Dog from a position of strength, the EU seeks to retain its role as "a partner" of America in its various military ventures.

There is a presumption, particularly in France, that the only way to build good relations with Washington, is to emulate the American Military Project,-- i.e. by adopting a similar strategy of beefing up Europe's advanced weapons systems.

In other words, what we are dealing with is a fragile love-hate relationship between Old Europe and America, in defense systems, the oil industry as well as in the upper spheres of banking, finance and currency markets. The important issue is how this fragile geopolitical relationship will evolve in terms of coalitions and alliances in the years to come. France and Germany have military cooperation agreements with both Russia and China. European Defense companies are supplying China with sophisticated weaponry. Ultimately, Europe is viewed as an encroachment by the US, and military conflict between competing Western superpowers cannot be ruled out.
(For further details, see Michel Chossudovsky, The Anglo-American Axis, www.globalresearch.ca/article/CHO303B.html)

From skepticism concerning Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to outright condemnation, in the months leading up to the March 2003 invasion, Old Europe (in the wake of the invasion) has broadly accepted the legitimacy of the US military occupation of Iraq, despite the killings of civilians, not to mention the Bush administration's policy guidelines on torture and political assassinations.

In a cruel irony, the new US-EU arms race has become the chosen avenue of the European Union, to foster "friendly relations" with the American superpower. Rather than opposing the US, Europe has embraced "the war on terrorism". It is actively collaborating with the US in the arrest of presumed terrorists. Several EU countries have established Big Brother anti-terrorist laws, which constitute a European "copy and paste" version of the US Homeland Security legislation.

European public opinion is now galvanized into supporting the "war on terrorism", which broadly benefits the European military industrial complex and the oil companies. In turn, the "war on terrorism" also provides a shaky legitimacy to the EU security agenda under the European Constitution. The latter is increasingly viewed with disbelief, as a pretext to implement police-state measures, while also dismantling labor legislation and the European welfare state.

In turn, the European media has also become a partner in the disinformation campaign. The "outside enemy" presented ad nauseam on network TV, on both sides of the Atlantic, is Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. In other words, the propaganda campaign serves to usefully camouflage the ongoing militarisation of civilian institutions, which is occurring simultaneously in Europe and America.

Guns and Butter: The Demise of the Civilian Economy
The proposed EU constitution requires a massive expansion of military spending in all member countries to the obvious detriment of the civilian economy.

The European Union's 3% limit on annual budget deficits implies that the expansion in military expenditure will be accompanied by a massive curtailment of all categories of civilian expenditure, including social services, public infrastructure, not to mention government support to agriculture and industry. In this regard, "the war on terrorism" serves --in the context of the neoliberal reforms-- as a pretext. It builds public acceptance for the imposition of austerity measures affecting civilian programs, on the grounds that money is needed to enhance national security and homeland defense.

The growth of military spending in Europe is directly related to the US military buildup. The more America spends on defense, the more Europe will want to spend on developing its own European Defense Force. "Keeping up with the Jones", all of which is for a good and worthy, cause, namely fighting "Islamic terrorists" and defending the homeland.

EU enlargement is directly linked to the development and financing of the European weapons industry. The dominant European powers desperately need the contributions of the ten new EU members to finance the EU's military buildup. In this regard, the European Constitution requires "the adoption of a security strategy for Europe, accompanied by financial commitments on military spending." (European Report, 3 July 2003). In other words, under the European Constitution, EU enlargement tends to weaken the Atlantic military alliance (NATO).

The backlash on employment and social programs is the inevitable byproduct of both the American and European military projects, which channel vast amounts of State financial resources towards the war economy, at the expense of the civilian sectors.

The result are plant closures and bankruptcies in the civilian economy and a rising tide of poverty and unemployment throughout the Western World. Moreover, contrary to the 1930s, the dynamic development of the weapons industry creates very few jobs.

Meanwhile, as the Western war economy flourishes, the relocation of the production of civilian manufactured goods to Third World countries has increased in recent years at an dramatic pace. China, which constitutes by far the largest producer of civilian manufactured goods, increased its textile exports to the US by 80.2 percent in 2004, leading to a wave of plant closures and job losses (WSJ, 11 March 2005)

The global economy is characterized by a bipolar relationship. The rich Western countries produce weapons of mass destruction, whereas poor countries produce manufactured consumer goods. In a twisted logic, the rich countries use their advanced weapons systems to threaten or wage war on the poor developing countries, which supply Western markets with large amounts of consumer goods produced in cheap labor assembly plants.

America, in particular, has relied on this cheap supply of consumer goods to close down a large share of its manufacturing sector, while at the same time redirecting resources away from the civilian economy into the production of weapons of mass destruction. And the latter, in a bitter irony, are slated to be used against the country which supplies America with a large share of its consumer goods, namely China.

New Undeclared Arms Race: America's Agenda for Global Military Domination

The National Platform

The Constitution of any normal State lays down the rules and institutional framework for political decision-making. It does not seek to forestall the ideological content of those decisions. That is left to political debate between the political parties of Left and Right, abiding by those decision-making rules. The EU Constitution contained in the "Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe", which we will have a referendum on in 2005, is different in that it lays down such rules, but it also lays down a right-wing economic ideology which those rules must implement.

1. THE CONSTITUTION ENSHRINES EXTREME NEO-LIBERALISM AS THE BASIS OF THE EU ECONOMY
It turns the fundamental principles of laissez-faire,i.e.free competition across national borders on the basis of the unimpeded movement of goods, services, capital and labour, into constitutional obligations (Arts.I-3 and 4, Arts.III-130, 166 and 167). These are to be implemented by small committees of supranational politicians and bureaucrats under the influence of the big corporate lobbyists such as the European Roundtable of Industrialists, outside democratic control. This is the opposite of public control and economic planning of any kind, which all sections of the Left recognise as necessary in some areas. The EU Constitution suppresses political alternatives. If implemented it would reduce workers' capacity to mobilise and would restrict the policy areas their organisations can effect change in;for they would be constitutionally obliged to conform to neo-liberal economic principles at both EU and national levels. It does not advance a social Europe,which requires social controls on capital, not capital that is free of controls as a matter of constitutional principle. It prevents public enterprises and State aids from serving national social purposes(Arts.III-161 and 162, Arts.166 and 167). The Constitution amounts in effect to a contract not to have socialism, understanding the concept socialism as requiring the imposition of social controls on capital in the interest of workers and the common good, something that socialists and social democrats of all shades have always advocated. The new EC/EU Commission,the body of government nominees that has the exclusive power of proposing EU laws,is dominated by economic neo-liberals. The new Commission President, Jose Manuel Barroso, led an assault on public services and workers' living standards while he was Prime Minister of Portugal.

2. IT ENCOURAGES THE PRIVATISATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES and enshrines a heavy bias against public enterprise in favour of private capital. The Constitution gives Brussels powers to decide by majority vote what counts as a "public service"(Art.III-166). This could mean that it is up to the EU to identify which areas of public health and education services, for example, would be exempt from competition policy, and which areas would be opened up to private sector competitition. It permits such policies to be imposed on developing countries through the trade treaties the EU concludes under the Common Commercial Policy, and the invesment rules it lays down(Arts.III-314,317).

3. IT ENSHRINES THE PERMANENT DOMINANCE OF CAPITAL OVER LABOUR
Article III-156 provides that there shall be no control on the movement of capital either within the Union or between the Union and the rest of the world, even though such controls may periodically be required to serve the social interest.

4. IT MAKES THE MONETARIST ECONOMIC POLICY OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATORY
The ECB's sole brief in setting interest rates and controlling the money supply of the eurozone is to ensure price stability, not maximize economic growth, create jobs or reduce inequalities(Art.III-185). This imposes deflation on the larger eurozone economies. It prevents national governments expanding demand to counter recession and unemployment. It removes credit and financial policy from the sphere of public debate, subordinating it to the priorities of bankers, big business and technical experts, and effectively makes democratic electoral mandates relating to the control of credit, money and interest rates redundant. The Stability and Growth Pact,which imposes rules for national budgets,is regularly flouted by the Big States but has led to smaller States like Ireland being censured.

5. IT MAKES THE ADOPTION OT THE EURO A CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT, even though 13 of the 25 Member States still retain their own national currencies(Arts.I-8 and III-177). Ireland's surrender of its ability to control credit and decide its rate of interest has been an important factor in the country's soaring house prices. If the dollar continues to fall and the euro to rise, as at present, Irish business competitiveness must deteriorate, for we do two-thirds of our trade outside the eurozone. We can no longer counter this by varying our currency exchange rate,something from which we benefited enormously during the "Celtic Tiger" years 1993-1999, for we have surrendered that power by adopting the euro.

6. IT MILITARIZES THE EU
The Constitution points to the end of the formal military neutrality of Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Austria and Malta by replacing the Nice Treaty provision that the progressive framing of a common defence policy "MIGHT lead to a common defence, SHOULD the European Council so decide with the provision in the Constitution that it "WILL lead to a common defence, WHEN the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides" (Art.I-41). This is clearly only a matter of time. It requires all Member States "to make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy" and "to undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities" etc. It permits EU military operations to take place without a UN Charter mandate. Article I-16 gives the EU the power to conduct a common foreign and security policy covering "all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union's security, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence". The same Article places Member States under an explicit constitutional obligation to refrain from following an independent foreign policy if that clashes with the EU one: "Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union's action in this area. They shall refrain from action contrary to the Union's interests or likely to impair its effectiveness."

7. IT CENTRALISES THE EU FURTHER AND TAKES AWAY MORE POWERS FROM NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS AND CITIZENS, TRANSFERRING THEM TO A TINY HANDFUL OF EU POLITICIANS AND CIVIL SERVANTS
The Constitution abolishes existing national vetoes or gives new law-making powers to the EU in relation to over 60 policy areas or issues: for example, harmonising crime and justice matters, criminal sanctions and the definition of offences; border controls; asylum and immigration; energy; culture;tourism; sport; the market for public services; Europol and Eurojust; social security for migrant workers; public health; rules of the structural and cohesion funds etc. This suerrender of over 60 national vetoes is a more extensive transfer of powers to the EU than the 35 areas in relation to which national Parliaments and citizens lost their right to legislate in the 2003 Nice Treaty, or the 19 areas lost under the 1998 Amsterdam Treaty.

8. IT ALLOWS THE POLITICIANS TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION WITHOUT NEED OF FURTHER TREATY RATIFICATION
An "escalator clause" (Art.IV-444) allows the 25 Presidents and Prime Ministers to shift further policy areas - for example harmonizing indirect taxes (Art.III-171) - from unanimity to majority voting without need of new treaties, parliamentary approval or referendums, as long as there is consensus amongst themselves and national parliaments do not object. This creates a permanent democratic deficit and means that the text of the Constitution is not a fully accurate guide to its own provisions. A so-called "Flexibility Clause" (Art.I-18) permits EU Ministers to take new powers to themselves if they think the Constitution does not give the EU sufficient power to attain its very wide objectives. At present they have this power with regard to the single market. The Constitution extends it to all areas of government policy. These two provisions have no place in any democratic Constitution.

9. IT TRANSFERS POWER TO THE NEW EU TO DECIDE OUR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IN THE LARGE AND EXPANDING AREA COVERED BY EU LAW.
At present it is national Constitutions and Supreme Courts that ultimately decide our rights, as well as the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which is quite independent of and separate from the EU Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg. The Constitution gives the EU Court a human rights competence for the first time, which would confer on this "court with a mission", as one of its own judges once called it - that mission being to extend EU powers to the maximum possible extent through its case law - a vast new legal territory to rule over. The EU should respect our human rights; it should not have the power to decide what they are. Giving the EU Court the power to do decide human rights matters would introduce a new and expensive tier of judges and lawyers between citizens and the final Court that decides their rights in all areas covered by EU law. That includes national States when implementing EU law, which nowadays makes up the greater part of national legislation. The Constitution then makes it possible for these rights to be undermined by providing that the rights set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights(Part II of the Constitution) may be limited "to meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union" (Art.II-112). The Charter permits the death penalty to be imposed in time of war for EU-mandated military operations, even though all the individual Member States have decided to abolish the death-penalty in war-time (Art.II-62 and Declaration 12 on the Explanations of the Charter of Fundamental Rights).

10. AS A CONCESSION TO EUROPEAN EMPLOYERS, THE CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS FAILS TO STRENGTHEN WORKERS' RIGHTS TO ORGANISE AND ACT COLLECTIVELY
Article II-88 provides that workers have these rights "in accordance with Union law and national laws and practices". The Constitution protects an employer's right to lock out his employees, quite as much as an employee's right to go on strike, depending on what their national labour law lays down. In so far as the Constitution allows fundamental rights to be limited in the interests of the EU, some future ECJ judgement could threaten workers' rights that have been long fought for and established at national level. The Charter of Fundamental Rights is essentially secondary and subordinate to EU commercial and economic policy and is circumscribed by that policy.

11. EURATOM, THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY TREATY,WHICH PROMOTES NUCLEAR POWER, IS MADE PART OF THE CONSTITUTION
Protocol 36 continues the EURATOM Community in being indefinitely, side by side with the new EU, and commits the EU Member States to supporting nuclear energy. With the advent of the East European members, the majority of EU States now use nuclear power for civil purposes.

12. THE CONSTITUTION ENSHRINES IRELAND'S ABORTION PROTOCOL, WHICH PREVENTS EU INTERFERENCE WITH IRELAND'S ABORTION LAW, OVER WHICH THERE WAS CONTROVERSY IN THE 1992 MAASTRICHT TREATY REFERENDUM
The Maastricht Treaty is now repealed and the relevant provision is reconstituted as Protocol 31 of the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe.

13. IT SHIFTS EU LAW-MAKING BY THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS TO A POPULATION-BASED VOTING SYSTEM WHICH ADVANTAGES THE BIG STATES AND RELATIVELY DISADVANTAGES MIDDLE-SIZED STATES LIKE IRELAND
The Constitution abolishes the weighted voting system that was agreed in the Treaty of Nice to provide for EU enlargement, and ordains that EU laws will be made in future by a "double majority" of States and population: 55% of the Member States, at least 15, as long as they include 65% of the EU's population (Art.I-25). Thus 15 States, if they satisfy the 65% population criterion, would be able to outvote 10. On the number-of-States criterion a blocking minority must be at least 11 States, so that that will be harder to assemble than before. This shift to a mainly population criterion for EU law-making makes it easier for the Big States with their big populations to get their way. It reduces the relative voting weight of middle-rank Member States like Ireland. It would make EU laws easier to pass, which means there would be more of them. Legislative "efficiency" in the EU is not best gauged by the quantity of laws it makes, but by their quality and democratic character. People want good laws, not more laws.

14. THE CONSTITUTION TRANSFORMS THE PRESENT "EUROPEAN UNION", WHICH IS A DESCRIPTIVE TITLE FOR VARIOUS FORMS OF COOPERATION BETWEEN ITS MEMBER COUNTRIES, INTO AN EU FEDERAL STATE, AND REDUCES IRELAND AND THE OTHER MEMBER STATES TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS OF PROVINCES INSIDE THIS NEW EUROPEAN FEDERATION
What is called the "European Union" at present is a descriptive term for various forms of cooperation between its Member States (See Title 1, Article A, of the Maastricht Treaty on European Union,1993, which states this). One of these forms is the European Community (EC). This Community still exists. It has legal personality separate from its Member States, all 25 of which still belong to it. Community (EC) law is supranational and has primacy over national law in any case of conflict between the two. The European Community (EC) covers mainly the economic and single market area, including the euro-currency. Here the EC Member States have "pooled" their sovereignty and the EC Commission has the exclusive right to propose EC laws. In all other areas of government, however, the Member States have retained their independence and sovereignty, and cooperate with one another as free and equal partners internationally - or "intergovernmentally" in EU jargon: in foreign affairs and military matters, crime and justice matters, and national policy on health, housing, education, social security etc.

The "European Union" that we currently belong to refers to all these different forms of cooperation taken together. But the EU does not exist as a legal entity as such. The present EU does not have legal personality or an independent corporate existence in its own right. Therefore there is no such thing as "European Union" law, only "European Community" or "EC" law. Propagandists for the Constitution confuse the terms "Union" and "Community" deliberately, to prevent people realising that the proposed new Union, based on its own Constitution, would in legal terms be fundamentally different from the European Union that we are told we are honorary citizens of at present. This new EU would have become a supranational Federal State, within which the present Member States would be reduced to the constitutional status of provincial states. Because the new Union would have the same name as the existing EU,the Federalist State-builders hope that people will not realise what is happening. Their long-concerted plan has been to get people accustomed to the name "European Union" first, and then change its constitutional and legal essence. That is why the 1993 Maastricht Treaty, from which the name "European Union" came, was titled the Treaty "on" European Union, not "of" Union. Maastricht did not set up a real Union that could act in its own right either internally or externally. Only the European Community, which the Constitution abolishes, could do that. The transformation of the present European Union from a mixture of different forms of cooperation between States into a European Federal State, is being done now with the proposed Constitution. Those pushing the Constitution hope that people will not notice the legal sleight-of-hand. If the Constitution is ratified we would become real citizens of a European Union for the first time,and not just honorary ones as at present. We would owe this new Union real allegiance as a State and have obligations directly to it and not just through our own national States, for national Constitutions must be changed to transfer svereignty to the Union and give its Constitution primacy. As with many Federal Constitutions the European Constitution provides that a Member State may withdraw from the new Union if it wishes, although the procedure it lays down for doing this makes it difficult(Art.I-60). Historical experience suggests that individual withdrawals from Federal States seldom take place. The more usual pattern in the case of Federations that do not last, is that they break up because of conflict between their members, so that everyone leaves, as it were.

The EU Constitution turns the EU into a State by means of four precise legal steps. FIRST, it repeals the existing EC and EU treaties (Art.IV-437). It thereby abolishes the existing European Union and European Community. SECOND, it establishes a new European Union founded on its own Constitution rather than on treaties between sovereign Member States (Art.I-1). A Constitution, as distinct from a Treaty, is an independent source of legal authority for a State,although history also shows many examples of States being set up by treaties. THIRD, it lays down that this Constitution and law made under it has primacy over the law, including the constitutional law, of its Member States, without any qualification or exclusions that would reserve powers to its Member States indefinitely (Arts.I-6). This makes the European Constitution the fundamental source of legal authority in the new EU, supplanting the constitutions of the Member States in that respect. FOURTH, it gives this new European Union, which henceforth derives its authority and legitimacy from its own Constitution, legal personality and independent corporate existence for the first time (Art.I-7). This makes the new EU legally separate from its individual Member States, just as Texas and Virginia are legally separate from the US Federation and vice versa, even though the USA includes these provincial states. The Constitution enables the new EU State to act as sovereign over its Members and to enter into treaty relations with other States, just like any other member of the international community of States.

The Constitution could have excluded some national powers and competences permanently from the scope of this new EU and the primacy of its laws, in which case Member States would have retained some of their original sovereignty and independence. But it did not do that. Member States still retain their own national Constitutions of course, just as Texas and Virginia do, but they are subordinate to the new EU Constitution, which is the fundamental source of authority for the new Union, just as the Federal Constitution has primacy in the USA and other Federations.

This does not mean that the new EU State will run everything, anymore than the early American or German or Indian or Russian Federations run, or ran, everything. The EU actually runs lots of things and potentially runs a lot more. How much more will depend on which of their remaining powers or competences the Member States may agree to transfer to the new EU in the future.

The two main powers of Statehood the new EU would not yet possess if the Constitution is ratified is the power to impose taxes and the power to force its Member States to go to war against their will. However the "escalator" clause (Art.IV-444) would allow the European Council of Presidents and Prime Ministers to replace unanimity by majority voting for harmonizing indirect taxes. And the Constitution's Foreign Policy and Security provisions (Arts.I-41 and III-310) would permit some Member States to take the EU to war, so long as others do not object but "constructively abstain".

Apart from that, the new Union would have all the key features of Statehood: a Constitution, citizenship, a population, a territory, a currency, armed forces, a legislature, executive and judiciary, a Foreign Minister and diplomatic corps, some 100,000 pages of federal law, the right to conclude international treaties with other States in the ever-growing area of its exclusive competence - and now of course its own flag, anthem and annual public holiday, which are given a legal basis for the first time in the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe. Moreover, it would have acquired these features in a much shorter period of time than it took the US Federation historically to acquire them, although unlike the latter there is no European people or national community to give them a democratic basis, legitimacy and authority.

15. THE CONSTITUTION WAS DRAWN UP BY A CONVENTION THAT FAILED TO DO ITS JOB
This Convention was set up by the 2001 Laeken Declaration of EU Presidents and Prime Ministers. This Declaration charged the Convention with the task of producing proposals to make the EU more democractic, more transparent and closer to citizens. It was told to consider the possibility of restoring powers from the supranational level to the Member States, and the possibility "in the long run" of an EU Constitution. Instead of doing that the Convention, which overwhelmingly consisted of Federalist EU-State-builders, rushed headlong into drafting an EU State Constitution that does not propose rapatriating a single power from the supranational to the national level, but proposes rather to transfer over 60 further policy areas from Member States to the EU. ange a single European law, even if they wish overwhelmingly to do that.

16. THE CONSTITUTION FUNDAMENTALLY UNDERMINES DEMOCRACY
The Left has always been among the strongest upholders of democracy. The Left has traditionally stood for the right of peoples to self-determination and to chose their own government. This fundamental democratic right, which is a basic principle of international law, enshrined in the United Nations Charter, is violated by the Constitution's proposal to make the proposed new European Union, founded now for the first time on its own State Constitution, into the supreme source of lawful authority for its 25 Member States. The EU becomes the new legal sovereign for EU citizens, who will owe it real allegiance for the first time, over and above their own national States. Under the Constitution the sovereign powers of the new EU would be vested in its Council, Commission, Court and Parliament, to which we would all owe loyalty and obedience. We would become real citizens of the EU for the first time, not just as an honorary title, an adjunct to national citizenship, as at present under the 1993 Treaty of Maastricht, but with rights and obligations direct to the EU Institutions rather than through our national institutions as hitherto. In this EU Federation the laws for 450 million Europeans would be made by what is effectively an oligarchy, a legislative committee, of 25 politicians on the Council of Ministers, who are irremoveable as a group and collectively responsible to nobody. Those laws in turn are based on proposals from the 25-member, eventually 18-member, EU Commission, who are governmental nominees and not individually elected. European laws may be amended by the elected European Parliament, but only with the agreement of the Council and Commission, whose law-making power is therefore primary. The citizens of any EU Member State cannot change a single European law, even if they wish overwhelmingly to do that.

CONCLUSION
These proposed governmental structures for the greater part of Europe are profoundly undemocratic, quite apart from the neo-liberal economic ideology the Constitution makes it legally imperative for them to implement. As democrats therefore, all socialists, Greens, anti-war activists, genuine liberals and others on the Left, need to work side by side with democratic non-socialists and others, rejecting all association with racist or fascist elements, in the common international struggle to defend democracy in face of the proposed EU Constitution.

* * *

SOURCE: This document has been issued for public information. It represents the views of some members of the National Platform who are on the political Left. It has been vetted for legal accuracy by authorities in European law. It may be adapted or used in whole or in part in any way whatever, without need for acknowledgement to its source. Please feel free to draw it to the attention of others who may be interested in this subject.

WHY THE LEFT SHOULD OPPOSE THE EU CONSTITUTION

A Policy document by the Peace and Neutrality Alliance.

Written by Carol Fox, Research Officer of the Peace and Neutrality Alliance and endorsed by the National Executive Committee.

Introduction:
Before the end of 2006, the Irish people will be asked to go to the polls to approve the new EU Constitution. This will be a momentous vote. The importance of creating a Constitution for the European Union has been acknowledged by the fact that nearly half the EU countries, representing over half the EU's population, will also be having referendums. This is not the normal stuff of EU Treaties where very few countries allow their people to vote on ratification: it is normally left up to Parliaments for approval. Ireland is one of the few exceptions where, thanks to the Supreme Court Case of Raymond Crotty in the late 1980s, the Irish Government was forced to submit the Single European Act and all subsequent treaties to the people for approval: a nod and wink through the Dail was not enough. The Peace and Neutrality Alliance is pleased that more countries will be having referendums in this instance but we feel that all the EU Member States should be giving - or withholding - approval of the EU Constitution via a vote of all the people. Referendums should be held throughout Europe on the same day.

However, some EU Member States will be attempting -- like our own Government - to downplay the real significance of the EU Constitution. This is not merely a pulling together of previous EU treaties into one tidy, more readable document, as our Government will argue. It contains a number of new elements, particularly in the areas that the Peace and Neutrality Alliance (PANA) is most concerned with: common foreign, security and defence policy. It is also far more than a Treaty and the term 'Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe' is designed to obscure what is being proposed: this is a Constitution for a developing EU State, with its own Central Bank, citizenship, currency, laws, judiciary, executive and parliament, President, Foreign Minister, Diplomatic Corps, Charter of Fundamental Rights, military headquarters and evolving army and police force. There is a national anthem, a flag, and a motto. The new EU Constitution will have primacy over the Irish Constitution and all the other constitutions of the EU Member States.

The new departures in the foreign policy and defence areas include:

1) institutional measures to give the EU a stronger voice and role in international affairs: these include a permanent EU President (the rotating six month EU Presidencies between the member states will end) and an EU Foreign Minister and EU Department of Foreign Affairs (European External Action Service);

2) an expansion of the 'Petersberg Tasks' to be carried out by the EU's civilian and military forces, to include combating terrorism, and possible pre-emptive military action against perceived 'threats';

3) a new innovation, Structured Cooperation, which allows mini-military alliances to be established within the structures of the EU to carry out the EU's more 'demanding' missions;

4) Mutual Solidarity and Mutual Defence Clauses which oblige all member states to come to the assistance of any member state subject to armed aggression, terrorist threat or attack, or manmade/natural disaster.

All of these innovations have been developed within a post 9/11 international environment, and the controversies of the Iraq War. They are backed up by a new EU Security Strategy, "A Secure Europe in a Better World", written by the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javiar Solana, and endorsed by the EU in December 2003.

Download full Document in .doc format, 51Kb eu-pana-nov04.doc

To begin, it is necessary to correct a misconception being deliberately promulgated by the National Forum on Europe. A Constitution is the supreme law of a State, which has primacy over the laws of its provinces or regions in any case of conflict. It is the ultimate source of legal authority for the territory it governs. It is enforced by a Supreme Court, in the EU's case its Court of Justice in Luxembourg. A Treaty is an agreement between sovereign States, the High Contracting Parties.

What the EU Governments are now considering is a "Draft Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe," to give it its proper title. It is not a "Draft Constitutional Treaty for the European Union," as the secretariat of the National Forum on Europe misleadingly titles it in their recently published Summary. It re-founds the EU on an entirely new legal basis, with its own Constitution, as in the case of any normal State. It gives the EU legal personality for the first time and makes it an international actor in its own right, separate from and superior to its Member States. The new Constitution repeals all the existing EU Treaties from the Treaty of Rome to the Treaty of Nice, which become null and void (Article IV- 2).

The proposed Constitution would fundamentally change the legal relationship between the EU and its Member State. Hitherto the EU has been the creation of its Member States under the treaties. The Union has had no legal existence apart from its Members. The Draft Constitution changes that. It makes the EU an international actor in its own right, with its own legal personality, separate from and superior to its Members.

Article I-12 (2) takes away from Member States most of their power to sign treaties with other States. Up to now the EU has negotiated treaties on behalf of its members in relation to tariffs and trade matters. This Article gives the EU power to sign treaties that affects any "internal Union act." This greatly extends the EU's treaty-making powers. In future the EU rather than its Member States will negotiate and sign international treaties and conventions relating to criminal law for example, extradition, foreign and security policy and much else.

Article I-5 (2) provides: "Following the principle of loyal cooperation, the Union and the Member States shall . assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from the Constitution."

The word "loyal" is significant. It implies that the Member States owe an obligation of loyalty to the Union and again underlines the EU's constitutional/political superiority over its Member States and its Federal State character. The Article goes: "Member States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union's tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives set out in the Constitution."

The import of this is that national governments must give priority to Union objectives, even in areas of policy that have not been transferred to the EU, because of the overarching scope of the Union's objectives. But what if the Union's objectives conflict with national political objectives, especially if the latter have been democratically confirmed by an electoral mandate at home - for example a country's desire to oppose the EU Rapid Reaction Forces's involvement in a war, or to resist EU tax harmonisation, or a government's commitment to expand public spending to counter deflation, even if that might be in breach of the EU's Growth and Stability Pact ? Taken together, these Article imply an obligation on Member States to refrain from any action at national level that is contrary to the interests of the Union or likely to impair its effectiveness. The Court of Justice will certainly take that view when reaching its legally binding judgements.

Article I-5(1) makes a gesture to nationalists by stating that the Union "shall respect the national identities of its Member States ." This is merely rhetoric, for national identity is not a justiciable concept.

National identity is quite different from national democracy or independence, whichthe Constitution fundamentally subverts. A people keeps its identity in servitude as well as freedom, as shown by the many nations around the world that have an identity but no independence, e.g. Kurds, Palestinians, Chechyns - or Poles, whose country disappeared for almost a century.

Most importantly of all, Article I-10(1) provides: "The Constitution, and law adopted by the Union's Institutions in exercising competences conferred on it, shall have primacy over the law of the Member States."

This doctrine has been developed over the years in the case-law of the EU Court of Justice, but it has not been accepted by, for example, the German, French or Italian Constitutional Courts. These have denied in various court judgements that EU law has the supremacy of federal law. They have held that EU law is binding in national law only to the extent that national law allows. The draft Constitution abrogates this position by formally recognising that the EU Court of Justice, like the supreme court of any Federal State, has the legal power to define its own powers.

A second important point concerns the question of 'primacy'. It is European "Community", not European "Union", law that has primacy over national law in any case of conflict. This situation exists at the present time and dates back to the Costa v ENAL and Van Gend en Loos cases of the early sixties at the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

Nonetheless, the Court's pretensions to establish new law are not universally accepted.

The latter judgement stated in part : " the Community constitutes a new legal order in international law for whose benefit the states have limited their sovereign rights, albeit in limited fields". It should be noted that this "new legal order" is not presented in the EC Treaty, but was formulated by the ECJ as a result of its interpretation of the Treaty's overall objects and purposes. It is one of the earliest and most blatant examples of "competence creep". The ECJ is notorious for continually seeking to extend its own reach and the extent of supranational powers through an incremental "federalisation" of Community law.

So these judgements lacked Treaty authority and consequently were subjected to rejection by the courts in states like Italy, Britain and Germany. Nowhere was the rejection so emphatic as in Germany. There, the German Constitutional Court in the 1994 case, Brunner v The European Treaty, found that : "if the EU institutions were to treat or develop the Union Treaty in a way that was no longer covered by the Treaty in the form that was the basis for the Act of Accession, the resultant legislative instruments would not be legally binding within the sphere of German sovereignty". And so the situation remains today, and though the principle of EU Court supremacy may be long established, it is by no means accepted amongst all Member States, but is rejected by what is arguably the most important one.

Furthermore this claimed primacy of European Community law can only extend to the powers and competencies conferred to date on the Community by its Member States. These powers are grouped under the present "first pillar" - broadly speaking the economy and some related social issues. Under the proposed Union Constitution these powers would be extended to major "second and third pillar" issues, like foreign affairs and defence, crime, justice and domestic affairs, which at present are outside the boundaries of Community law and where Member States retain their sovereignty.

So if we accept the proposed EU Constitution we would for the first time be constitutionally bound to accept the primacy of Union, not Community, laws, whether through rulings of the ECJ or from the EU institutions themselves. We would greatly extend the Union's areas of competence and would give the Union the legal and constitutional character of a Federal State, and Ireland the legal-constitutional character of a mere province of that State.

The purpose and essence of the proposed EU Constitution is to establish a new European Union that is qualitatively, legally, constitutionally and politically different from what we call the European Union today. It does not seek to establish something which is "close to", or "almost", or "virtually" a Federal State but it does establish what is legally and constitutionally a Federal State in its proper legal form. That is what it should be called and is what advocates such as Guy Verhofstadt for instance, call it. This is particularly important if one is to explain properly to the electorate what is proposed.

What we call the European Union at present is a descriptive term for various different forms of co-operation between its Member States. One form of this cooperation is the acceptance of supranational law in certain areas - called the European Community, where sovereignty is "pooled". The other form co-operation occurs where States retain their sovereignty. This is where they make all the laws themselves and where the Commission does not operate because there are no laws it can propose. It is also the area where supranational EC law does not prevail, and where Member States cooperate with one another "inter-governmentally", as independent equal sovereign partners.

The purpose of the Constitution is to change this.

Article I-10 specifically seeks to undo the reservations of national Constitutional Courts and Supreme Courts regarding the supremacy of EU law and replaces national law with EU law as the supreme source of constitutional authority. This amounts to a Constitutional revolution. But it is the logic of giving the Union legal personality separate from its Member States and extending supranationalism to all areas of government.

A relevant point here is that European governments accepted the ECJ's assertion of the primacy of EU law in the 1960s, when the then EEC dealt with a far narrower range of issues than the EU does today. It is one thing for Member States go along with a principle established by the EU Court and applied to a restricted range of matters like customs duties or tariffs. It is quite another to concede national sovereignty to an EU Constitution whose writ covers everything from tax policy to criminal law to foreign policy and fundamental human rights.

Article I-23 (1) provides that the terms "European laws"- regulations- and " European framework laws"- directives - shall replace the words "regulations" and "directives" used at present. This is only a change of name, for EU regulations and directives are of course laws, but the use of the more common word "law" is another indication that this is meant to be the Constitution of an EU State, for only States make laws.

In the light of the these radical changes it is hard to understand how Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern can say that the draft Constitution " does not fundamentally change the relaionship between the EU and its member-states." (Irish Times 24-10-2003).

- download full paper as word document: fkeoghan04.doc (77 Kb)

Frank Keoghan (Secretary) People's Movement: www.people.ie

People's Movement paper

by Kate Hudson

The war on Iraq continues to dominate British politics especially after the government has committed 850 extra troops to be deployed as part of a US marine expeditionary unit to take so-called 'decisive action against insurgents in Iraq'. This is despite the fact that opinion polls show that increasing numbers think the war was a mistake and that the occupation should be ended, with around 70% supporting the setting of an early date for withdrawal of British troops. The deployment of additional troops is widely seen as electoral support for Bush, against Kerry's statement that the US is isolating itself over its position on Iraq.

The view that the war on Iraq was wrong is widely and increasingly shared across the world - one of the most recent to take this view is Kofi Anan, Secretary General of the UN who has concluded that the war was illegal. Public disapproval in Britain has been demonstrated not only via mass demonstrations against the war and occupation, but also through the ballot box in recent elections. Anti-war parties - particularly the Liberal Democrats - have performed well against Labour, and there are concerns within the Labour Party about going into an election under Blair.

The Prime Minister continues to attempt to lay the matter to rest. He has acknowledged that he had been wrong on weapons of mass destruction, but crucially he has still refused to apologise for the war, insisting that the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein. Few people, if any, in the UK would prefer to see Saddam Hussein at liberty, rather than in prison, but Mr Blair's problem is that he is avoiding the real issues, which are widely accepted as the following:

the war was supposedly entered into over wmd and Iraq's non-compliance with disarmament resolutions and treaties
so-called evidence to justify this was hyped up, manufactured, or embroidered - and it is not clear that the prime minister was unaware of the fabrication and deceit. Indeed it is widely believed that he knew and condoned it.
there was not support for war from the UN Security Council - it was an illegal war
Mr Blair had apparently already agreed that he would support President Bush in a war against Iraq in any case.
if the actual motive was regime change this is also illegal under international law.

Mr Blair's failure to respond adequately and honestly to these real issues has led to a massive loss of confidence in his leadership amongst the British population.

Mr Blair also likes to suggest that this is a war of survival by the west, for democracy, against global terrorism, but as was made clear in US security reports, there were no links between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. As was reported in the papers recently, the White House received warnings in January 2003 that a war on Iraq could unleash a violent insurgency and raise anti-US sentiment in the Middle East. This warning came from the US National Intelligence Council which also warned Bush last month that the violence ion Iraq could descend into civil war. President Bush has dismissed these assessments and has asserted that the situation in Iraq is improving, although the US administration is finally being forced to agree that the opposition to occupation has many more fighters and resources than it has previously acknowledged.

The real tragedy of the war, of course is that the situation is getting worse in Iraq. The decisions of the UK government, whether made knowingly on the basis of fabricated evidence, and wilfully breaking international law, or through the most serious possible errors of judgement, have devastated the lives of the Iraqi people, bringing death, suffering and destruction on a terrible scale. Over 17,000 civilians are estimated to have died so far. More are killed on a daily basis as a result of military actions by US and UK forces. The UK government claims that the forces act only against hostile insurgents and terrorists, yet innocent civilians are killed and injured on a daily basis. Ambulances have been shot at in Fallujah, peaceful demonstrators have been fired on in Baghdad. There is also a myth perpetrated by our own government that somehow in British occupied territories everything is sweetness and light. That is clearly not the case. In Basra, British servicemen have been killed. Over a hundred thousand rounds of ammunition have been used by British troops in Basra which does not suggest a peaceful occupation. But we lay no blame on the British troops - they should not be there, and the loss of every service man or woman is to be deeply regretted. Rose Gentle, mother of Gordon Gentle, the 19 year old British soldier killed by a bomb in Basra in June, has spoken out against the war and occupation. She is working with other service families to ensure their voice against the war is heard.

The occupation - which is tainted by the brutality and abuse revealed at the Abu Ghraib prison - is not solving any of the problems of Iraq. It is creating an escalating cycle of violence and must be ended rapidly. Huge areas of Iraq are out of the control of the occupying forces. There is real mass opposition to the occupying forces from the Iraqi people, and Blair's attempts to characterise them all as terrorists is wrong. Terrorists are a terrible feature of the situation in Iraq, but they are a direct result of the war and occupation, a result of our government's policies in cooperation with the Bush administration.

In addition to those killed in the fighting, it is also the case that people are continuing to die as a result of the munitions used by the aggressor forces. Cluster bombs, which spread small bomblets like land-mines, have been widely used, and are a great danger to civilians, particularly children, who pick up the small canisters when at play, then suffer death or severe injury as a result. Many have suffered loss of limbs as a result of cluster bombs.

Depleted uranium munitions have also been used extensively. These are usually shells tipped with depleted uranium to give them extra armour piercing weight. On impact they spread radio-active dust, which on inhalation or ingestion irradiates the person from inside, giving rise to leukaemia and other forms of cancer. Depleted uranium was widely used in Yugoslavia and Iraq during the first Gulf War and there are major cancer clusters and terrible birth deformities as a result. The indiscriminate nature of both these types of munitions - unable to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants - gives strength to the argument that our government leaders are guilty of war crimes and underpins a case that is being taken to the International Criminal Court to that effect.

A huge clean up operation will be essential, but it is likely that the effects cannot be eradicated. This is a deadly legacy for the Iraqis for generations to come.

There have been other major social and economic effects for the Iraqis too - 60% unemployment, massive destruction of the infrastructure, people barely surviving through scavenging, great personal risk and insecurity, particularly for women, collapse of education affecting children of all ages. Truly it is a devastated society. We take a strong view that companies from aggressor nations should not profit from the rebuilding process. The occupation is tainted by asset-stripping and profiteering by the occupiers.

The consequences of the UK government's policy are a catastrophe for Iraq, but we believe that it is also necessary to consider the wider policy implications, for a number of changes have become apparent during the war and occupation, and they are changes which are fundamentally at odds with the values of the majority of people across the world, which are the values of peace and social justice. Furthermore they are policy positions which are taken by the UK government in conjunction with the US administration and which isolate Britain from the rest of the international community. There is a danger that Blair takes an ideological position vis-a-vis the US and will support US wars in any context. Indeed there is even a concern that Blair has adopted the US neo-con framework.

Firstly the policy of pre-emptive war. Under international law, except under the most exceptional circumstances, war is only legal if it is defensive. To wage aggressive war is illegal. This is what was done to Iraq. Earlier this year in a speech in his Sedgefield constituency, Mr Blair suggested that international law should be changed, to make wars of intervention legal. Given the current balance of forces in the world, this would be a recipe for the US and UK, or potentially any other country, come to that, intervening militarily in any country where they objected to the regime, or had economic or resource interests, under the guise of 'humanitarian' or other forms of intervention. This is not a policy that should be accepted or supported by the peace movement.

Secondly, the question of the use of nuclear weapons. For decades, there has been a basic agreement that nuclear weapons should not be used, as their impact is so disastrous. In particular that they should not be used against non-nuclear weapons states. In the run up to the war on Iraq, UK Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon stated that the government would consider using nuclear weapons even against non-nuclear weapons states. This is a very dangerous direction and is linked closely to the US policy outlined in their US Nuclear Posture Review two years ago - that nuclear weapons should be part of a whole useable arsenal. This is part of the US military's strategic vision for US military 'full spectrum dominance' on land, sea, air and space.

This links to my third point, which is the UK government's likely development of new nuclear weapons. Even though we supposedly went to war on Iraq to prevent proliferation of wmd, our government is currently itself planning to proliferate. Developments are taking place at the atomic bomb factory in Aldermaston in Berkshire to research and develop new useable nuclear weapons. The government may also decide to produce a replacement for the Trident nuclear weapons system, in spite of the fact that we are committed under international treaty to abolish our nuclear weapons. The hypocrisy of our government on these issues is extreme. And beyond that, what use are nuclear weapons against a terrorist threat? They do not deter terrorists in the US or Russia and the very possession of nuclear weapons offers a target to terrorists and offers the potential of terrorists getting hold of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are not appropriate to meet the security challenges of the 21 st century.

These views are very widely shared. At the recent European Social Forum in London, with an attendance of over 20,000, many participated in debates and discussions on the questions of peace and disarmament. We were able to hear Mordechai Vanunu in a live telephone link up. Much of the discussion centred on strategies for achieving our aims. We generally shared the view that the most immediate threat to world peace is the US drive for global domination, which takes the form of neo-liberal globalisation and war. This is currently dressed up as the Project for the New American Century, which is based on the notion that the US has the moral obligation to dominate the world for its own good. In reality it is global impoverishment and the drive to war which has already seen in recent years the wars on Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. We know the US has its sights on other countries that don't comply with its political and economic goals. We must be vigilant to prevent further wars and to prevent increased militarisation as a response to that, via EU or any other way, which will only compound an escalating cycle of violence.

There was also broad agreement on how we can move forward on our shared aims:

against pre-emptive war
against the increasing militarisation of the EU
for global abolition of nuclear weapons and compliance with NPT obligations
to strengthen international anti-base campaigning
for a world of peace and social justice

We also shared views on how to work together:

greater international cooperation and links between movements
streamline activities at bases and at NPT for global abolition of nukes
cooperation against the militarised constitution
sharing of information via websites
support for cross national lobbying initiatives
development of inclusive movements which welcome all, irrespective of faith, political affiliation or any other factor.

The watchwords for the movement for peace and disarmament must be unity, diversity and international cooperation. Working together we will win a world of peace and justice, free from the fear of nuclear annihilation.

by Kate Hudson,Peace & Neutrality Alliance.

by Cllr. Deidre De Burca at the Desmond Greaves Summer School

Good afternoon. I have been asked to speak about democracy and the EU and I’m in the unenviable position of having to follow Andy’s Storey’s presentation, which was excellent, insightful and well researched as always. As many of you are aware, the Green Party intends to promote a vigorous internal debate in the party before arriving at an agreed position on whether to support the ratification of the new EU Constitution or not. The views I am presenting here today are therefore my own personal views, rather than any official Green Party position.

The problem with speaking about the subject of ‘Democracy and the EU’ is that firstly the issue is such a huge one it’s hard to know where to start, or to finish. Secondly, a lot has already been said about the democratic deficit that characterises the EU and how it functions, so I am keen to avoid repeating familiar arguments. The context in which the Summer School is being held this year is one in which the Draft EU Constitution has been agreed by all 25 EU Heads of State at their most recent IGC. However, I do not intend to touch on the subject of the new constitution in any depth today. Rather, I wish to return to a theme that I raised in my talk to this Summer School last year which is the democratic deficit of the European Union, the neo-liberal economic policies that are increasingly being embraced and promoted by the Union, and the relationship which I propose exists between the two.

I will begin by making the assumption that a there is a general consensus about the existence of a democratic deficit in the EU. I believe this is a fairly reasonable assumption to make, as even the most ardent Euro- enthusiasts and indeed the political leaders who have continued to forge ahead with the process of European integration have generally accepted that this deficit exists, and that it is one of the major challenges that continues to face the EU. Michael J. Baun in his book "An Imperfect Union" refers to the democratic deficit in the EU as "the growing gap between the power and authority of the EU". Essentially, as more aspects of national sovereignty are transferred to the European level, the ability of citizens to influence and supervise this new power base has declined significantly. Those who are strong advocates of deeper European integration tend to emphasise the opportunities inherent in what has been described by Habermas and Derrida as the EU’s potential for being a model of ‘post-national governance’. This model is seen as a means of reconciling national identity with a wider, regional identity that supercedes national allegiances and dilutes national rivalries. The EU, it is argued, provides a unique model for how people can live together simultaneously within and beyond nations, thus removing a perennial source of conflict between peoples. Those who subscribe to this view frequently assert that European integration has delivered fifty years of stability, peace and economic prosperity, that it has raised living standards, built an internal market, strengthened the Union’s voice in the world and achieved results which would not have been possible by individual Member States alone.

In fact, it is often asserted that the undeniable peace and economic dividends yielded by the process of European integration require a pragmatic approach to be taken to the corresponding loss of national sovereignty on the part of member states. Indeed many people are satisfied to sacrifice a certain amount of national sovereignty in the interests of jettisoning some of the less appealing features of nationalism, considered responsible in part for the occurrence of both World Wars in the first half of the twentieth century. Little is said however about whether an equally pragmatic approach should be taken to accepting the accompanying reduction in, and impoverishment of, the quality of democracy traditionally enjoyed by citizens within the framework of the sovereign nation state. Those of us who are critical of the current process of European integration see the issue of its democratic deficit as one of central and critical importance, beyond any pragmatic political trade-offs or considerations of ‘realpolitik’. The rapid pace of globalisation has meant that the emerging polity that is the EU has experienced a highly accelerated rate of development. Its citizens have seen a considerable amount of the competences of the nation state transferred to this supranational body by means of dense and complicated legal treaties that are not easily understood. New institutions have been established that operate in unfamiliar ways, and that fail to meet the basic standards of transparency and accountability. Many people are rightfully concerned that the quality of democracy that traditionally has quite successfully been delivered within the framework of the nation state and national constitutions has been weakened and reduced through the construction of the European Union.

The question of whether this diminution in our democracy, resulting from the creation of the EU, should surprise us or not, is one that needs to be asked. Mathias Koenig Archibugi, Research Officer at the London School of Economics and Political Science, in his paper ‘The Democratic Deficit of EU Foreign and Security Policy" states the following: "In the EU, the prospect of democratisation seems particularly problematic because the main actors threatened by it are precisely those in charge of determining the pace and shape of the Union’s institutional change, that is, the governments of the member states". In this paper, Archibugi refers to a theory currently popular in the field of international relations known as "collusive delegation" and he hypothesises that the frequently lamented "democratic deficit" of European governance is actually one of the purposes of integration, and not merely an unfortunate by-product. He refers to various authors who have argued that participation in international policy-making can increase the independence of a government from the domestic actors that are supposed to check its behaviour. He quotes Karl Kaiser who thirty years ago observed : "the intermeshing of decision-making across national frontiers and the growing multi-nationalisation of formerly domestic issues are inherently incompatible with the traditional framework of democratic control".

Kaiser asserted that concerted policymaking within international institutions allows national governments to elude parliamentary control, at least to some extent, since they can refer to the collective character of the decision taken and to the high costs for the country if the parliament rejects the agreement negotiated by the governments. Moreover, governments can use the complexity and lack of transparency of international negotiations to prevent unwelcome intrusions by parliament or public opinion before an agreement is concluded. The parliament’s capacity to control government negotiating behaviour is generally limited by the (real or alleged) need for secrecy and by parliament’s dependence on information provided by the government itself. Further on in his paper Archibugi states : " To succinctly describe the democratic deficit problem : policy-making functions are increasingly performed by European institutions and the resulting diminution of national parliamentary control is not offset by democratic controls at the European level. The collusive delegation thesis accepts this diagnosis but adds a crucial element: it maintains that the democratic deficit is not merely a by-product of the transfer of powers to supranational institutions, but also one of the purposes of this transfer. Governments pool their authority in order to loosen domestic political restraints". Archibugi also quotes Karl Dieter Wolf who argues that states have a priori interest in expanding their autonomy with respect to society. According to Wolf, states used to help each other mainly by perpetuating a threatening external environment, but he suggests that they now tend to achieve the same effect by creating binding intergovernmental arrangements. Now, as then, he argues, "states can co-operate against societies".

As one example of "collusive delegation" Archibugi refers to a section of the detailed history of the European Monetary Union as set out by Kenneth Dyson and Kevin Featherstone "The Road to Maastricht: Negotiating Monetary and Economic Union". These authors describe the situation in Italy at the time where a group of officials within the Italian Central Bank and key ministries conducted the Maastricht negotiations and, according to the authors, "sought to bind Italy by external ties and obligations- in order to secure domestic reforms of an essentially liberal character". These reforms were considered unattainable otherwise because of domestic opposition. Guido Carli, Italy’s Treasury Minister and chief negotiator at the Intergovernmental Conference on EMU came close to openly acknowledging the logic of collusive delegation when he remarked "our agenda at the table of the Intergovernmental Conference on European Union represented an alternative solution to problems which we were not able to tackle via the normal channels of government and parliament".

I would like to propose here today that the creation of the complex polity that is the European Union has generally been subject to the process of "collusive delegation" and that the democratic deficit experienced by its citizens has been largely designed into its architecture rather than being an unfortunate by- product of agreements reached by its well-meaning political leaders and officials. While it appears to be in the nature of politicians and the political class generally to accrue as much power to themselves as possible and to tend to view any process of meaningful democratisation as conflicting with the highly valued objective of ‘political efficiency’, in the case of the European Union I would argue that these natural political tendencies to limit popular democratic involvement have been significantly exacerbated by the growing commitment of its political leaders to transform the European Union into a dominant regional player in the emerging neo-liberal or free-market global economy, without being constrained by popular democratic opinion. Let me explain what I mean. In order to do this, I will have to look briefly at the process of neo-liberal economic globalisation, the parallel development of the EU, and finally the way in which the democratic deficit evident in the way the EU functions serves to advance this economic agenda within the Union, while minimising the possibility of popular democratic opposition.

As far as globalisation is concerned, while there may be divergent opinions amongst experts on the point at which the current process of globalisation actually began, few experts will argue with the fact that the creation of the international institutions such as the Bretton Woods institutions (the World Bank and the IMF) and what eventually became the World Trade Organisation following the second world war was a significant stage in the evolution of the neo-liberal global economy that is now emerging. While the founding rationale for these powerful international institutions was a benign one, it was through them that American free-market economic doctrine gradually became institutionalised and transmitted throughout the world. The combined impact of the lending policies of the World Bank, the Structural Adjustment policies of the IMF and the various trade international trade agreements negotiated through the WTO and its predecessor GATT have meant that formerly separate national economies are increasingly being fused into a single, integrated global free market economy where the rules are largely being dictated by the wealthier countries and multi-national corporations are being given optimal room for manoeuvre on the global stage, free from any meaningful form of international governance or regulation.

How does this relate to the development of the European Union, and in particular to its democratic deficit? A very brief overview of its development shows that that the European Coal and Steel Community was set up in 1952 by six member states with the objective of putting the coal and steel sectors under supranational control, given their importance to the armaments industry and the desire to restrain Germany’s ability to build up its military capacity. The European Community was then established in 1957 and the Common Market was established - a free trade area with its own customs union, which guaranteed free movement of goods, persons and services. However, it was not until thirty years later and the introduction of the Single European Act in 1986 that I believe the European Community visibly began to shape itself in direct response to the imperatives of the process of neo-liberal economic globalisation that was in the ascendancy. The Single European Act essentially amounted to a significant political recommitment to the common market, (now called the single market, or the internal market). It involved a commitment to dismantle trade barriers between the states, harmonise their trade rules and introduce majority voting in new areas. The Single European Act was, in my opinion, a huge ideological project, driven to a large extent by Jacques Delors who worked closely with corporate representatives from the European Roundtable of Industrialists to hammer out the details of the Act. The Maastricht Treaty followed five years later in 1992. This Act established Economic and Monetary Union within the Community, set up a European Central Bank independent of political control and tied Member States in to a Growth and Stability Pact that essentially imposed conditions of budgetary restraint on them and obliged them to adhere to strict limits on public expenditure. It is important to point out that the sense of urgency or momentum which gave rise to the Single European Act also ensured that a new European treaty was ratified every five years after that, in the face of on the one hand, a poorly informed and increasingly apathetic general populace, and on the other hand increasingly effective pockets of what might be termed ‘organised resistance’ to the EU project itself. Finally, the Amsterdam and Nice treaties that followed were, I would argue, to a large extent about facilitating the institutional reforms necessary to make decision-making within the EU more "efficient", and less prone to be hostage to the policy preferences of individual member states or their electorates.

What kind of Europe has this left us with, and how much have these developments contributed to the infamous democratic deficit of the EU? Well, I’d like to use three brief examples to highlight what I would consider clear manifestations of that democratic deficit, but all of them woven into the institutional design of the EU and essentiall to the promotion of the neo-liberal economic agenda within the Union. The first is the powerful role of the politically independent European Central Bank which controls economic and monetary policy within the Union. The ECB’s establishment as part of the Maastricht Treaty was bitterly contested at the time, as Central Banks are typically features of fully-fledged states. The European Central Bank was given the power to introduce and manage the EU’s economic and monetary policy and has been fully operating since 1998. Since it was established, its overriding policy priority has been to maintain price stability across the single market, as price stability is one of the key prescriptions of the neo-liberal economic policy agenda. The ECB’s anti-inflationary mandate leaves little or no room for concerns about issues of growth and employment, despite the fact that these are, or should be, key policy concerns of member state governments. Furthermore, fiscal monitoring by the EU Commission of the Stability and Growth Pact seeks to limit to 3% of GDP states’ capacity to run fiscal deficits, even when these might appear justified by the need to lift an economy out of recession. The central involvement of the ECB and the Commission in these key areas means that Economic and Monetary policy has truly been removed from beyond any real kind of democratic control. It is also worth mentioning that the Common Commercial policy as set out in the new EU Constitution makes a liberal market economy, maximization of economic competition, free movement of capital and the liberalisation of public services into constitutional principles that, if ratified, will be immune to legal challenge because of the superiority of EU law over national law. In effect, a commitment to the neo-liberal economic model will be enshrined in the constitution and regardless of what political shade of government is elected by the citizens of any member state, that government will be obliged to comply with the same neo-liberal economic prescriptions. Meaningful political choice will therefore become a thing of the past as governments of member states find themselves ‘locked in’ to a particular economic agenda, with little room for manoeuvre.

A second example of the way in which the EU’s institutional arrangements appear to have been specifically designed in order to allow for the promotion of democratic deficit serves to promote the neo-liberal economic agenda is the exclusive responsibility that has been given to the European Commission in relation the initiation and negotiation of EU trade policy. The unelected Commision, whose members are appointed by the governments of member states, has no mandate whatsoever from the people and yet has the substantial power and responsibility of proposing and forming laws. The 1957 EEC treaty gave the Commission responsibility for trade policy or what was known as "commercial policy". The scope of the EU’s commercial policy has broadened significantly since the early days of the European Economic Community from its original concentration on manufactured goods to almost every aspect of economic life. With the growing push towards economic liberalisation internationally, most sectors of domestic economies, many of which were traditionally the preserve of the State, can now be opened up to international trade and delivered on a commercial basis by privately owned multi-national companies. This in turn has put great pressure on the EU to expand its own definition of what falls within the remit The Commission was initially given the power to conduct external negotiations within the WTO on behalf of member states in any policy area where it had internal competence and the Council of Ministers then voted by QMV to accept or reject the outcome of the negotiations. Through successive treaties the Commission has extended its competence, and the Treaty of Nice saw trade negotiations in the sensitive policy areas of Health, Education and Cultural/Audiovisual being the last areas to retain the protection of a national veto. The new Constitution will largely remove the existing power of veto on the commercialisation of Health, Education and Cultural services that Member States have in the Council of Ministers. It shifts decisions on trade in these services to QMV and only allows for exceptional circumstances in which states will be able to block the opening up and liberalisation of trade in these services. The burden of proof will rest with the State and it is difficult to imagine how states will manage to successfully protect these areas of their economies from liberalisation should they so wish.

No details of voting will be published so Irish citizens will not know how Irish representatives in the Council of Ministers voted. The European Commission will then have exclusive right to make agreements at the WTO which could liberalise international trade in these services and only inform the public after the deals have been done. Opening key public services such as Health and Education to trade means restructuring them so that they can be run on a commercial basis. The upshot is that infrastructure like schools and hospitals will be privately provided at a high cost to the state and to the taxpayer. And two-tier services emerge - private and high quality services for those who can afford it; and low quality state services for those who cannot. And this will happen regardless of the support or otherwise of the voting public. The European Parliament has had no role whatsoever to date in approving or making amendments to trade agreements being negotiated by the EU, despite the fact that the US Congress has quite significant powers in this regard. The realm of trade policy within the EU is clearly not subject to any kind of satisfactory level of democratic control.

The final example I want to use of the democratic deficit in the EU and the way in which this serves to promote the neo-liberal economic agenda is the way in which its institutions generally function. I don’t have time to deal with this is any great detail but suffice it to say that the unelected and powerful Commission, which has been described as "part civil service, part government" has the jealously guarded the right to initiate legislation. It implements community policy, manages the EU budget, conducts external relations on behalf of the European Union and is widely regarded as the "guardian" of the euro federal ideal. Dinan describes it as a "strategic authority established by the founding fathers to ‘guarantee continuity of the integration project despite the political or geopolitical hazards’. While this may explain the unusual powers given to such an unelected body by the early architects of the EU, the extent to which the Commission as a body appears to have become an ideological champion of neo-liberal economic policies, without reference to the ordinary people of Europe or their ideological preferences, must now be a matter for concern. Charlie Mc Creevey’s recent appointment as EU Commissioner for Internal Affairs highlighted yet again this particular issue. It is widely believed that Mc Creevey’s right-wing, neo-liberal economic policies as Minister for Finance here in Ireland, caused him to become a liability for the Fianna Fail party and contributed to their poor recent election performance. And what happened? He was jettisoned by Fianna Fail in order to improve its domestic electoral prospects but instead was appointed to a very powerful position within the Commission where he will have an opportunity to continue to implement his economic policies in a broader political sphere, but beyond the reach of any electorate. The recent appointment of Mandelson and Barroso to the Commission makes its strong neo-liberal bias very explicit.

As to other institutions, the Council of Ministers appears to be both executive and part legislature, to date has met behind closed doors and the results of its discussions are not readily publicly available. The directly elected European Parliament, the only institution with Europe-wide legitimacy, finds itself excluded from critical legislative and policy decisions that affect the whole of Europe, although its powers have gradually been increased over the last number of EU treaties. Finally the European Council has to be the most undemocratic institution of the Union. It is composed of the Heads of State of all of the member states - 25 in all at present. It evolved from originally being a rather informal gathering of Heads of State to discuss issues pertaining to the Union to an institution that now has legal status within the treaties. This is an extremely powerful body to which matters are often referred for resolution that cannot be resolved by the Council of Ministers. It gives overall policy direction to the Union and has formal power over all fields of external relations. It is the body that agreed to adopt the Lisbon Agenda that sets out the broad parameters of the neo-liberal direction in which the Union intends to continue developing. However, despite its power, the European Council is not subject to any discipline or procedures within the Union. It does not have to consult with any particular bodies or receive an opinion from anyone. While the individual Heads of State are accountable to their own electorates at home, the European Council as a body is not answerable to anyone in the European context.

I will have to finish shortly but am aware that there will be some listening to me who will find it hard to recognise the European Union they support in the rather negative caricature that I have presented. Ivana Bacik spoke with me at this summer school last year, and she, like other Labour Party representatives, is a strong believer in a Social Europe. Unfortunately I don’t have time to seriously challenge that viewpoint but fortunately Andy Storey has written an excellent paper on the subject in which he has called " The European Project : Dismantling Social Democracy, Globalising Neo-liberalism". In it he refers to Apeldoorn’s work which traces the historical trajectory of European regionalism and suggests that the European Project was originally based on a neo-mercantalist vision of a strong European home market, serving as both a stepping stone to conquer the world market as well as a protective shield against outside competition. He proposes that under the protective banner of the neo-mercantilist framework, social democrats envisaged a ‘united Europe (as offering) an opportunity to protect the ‘European model of society’ and its traditions of the mixed economy and high levels of social protection, against the potentially destructive forces of globalisation and neo-liberalism’ (van Apeldoorn, 2001; 76). However, he contends that the vision was not realised and as the internal barriers came down no external barriers were erected and the Internal market provided as much opportunity for US and Japanese as for European firms. It is impossible to deny, however, that the strong social democratic political traditions of many of the continental European countries have greatly influenced the emergence of progressive social, employment and environmental policymaking within the European Union. Those who choose to focus on these positive aspects of the Union are often reluctant to acknowledge that the political and economic dynamics of the Union have been shifting significantly over the past two decades and that the somewhat idealised Social Model of the EU is being gradually undermined.

So, drawing towards the end of my presentation, I suppose the overriding question that needs to be answered is "how do we democratise the EU". I have no magic answers but would just like to point out that any concessions towards greater democratisation that have been made by those driving the process of European integration have been a direct response to public displays of opposition to the process itself. The first Danish rejection of the Maastricht Treaty, the narrow margin of success of the French vote on the same treaty and the first Irish rejection of the Nice Treaty have served as important wake up calls to those who continue to push for more and deeper integration. Critical engagement, resistance and opposition to the more unacceptable aspects of the current process of EU integration are important and as a Green Party councillor, I take great pride in the role that my party has played in critiquing the direction in which the European project has been developing over the past two decades. If there are any ardent Euro enthusiasts in the audience, I’m sure I run the risk of being written off as an out- and- out Eurosceptic who is deliberately distorting an account of the development of the EU in order to support a particular ideological position. It is unfortunate that there only appear to be two positions that one can take when it comes to any kind of debate about European integration – for or against the current model of integration. This kind of crude simplification leaves no room for the growing body of intelligent and engaged citizens who passionately want to believe in a positive and politically progressive Europe, a democratic and globally engaged Europe, a Europe which can provide global leadership in relation to sustainable development, social and environmental protection, human rights, migration, international conflict resolution, fair trade, but these same people have deep concerns about issues such as the economic policies of the EU, its Common Foreign and Security policy, its policies on Immigration and the continuing democratic deficit which characterises its institutions.

The forging of a new economic and political entity that binds together, in close co-operation, countries that have formerly been at war with one another is a very ambitious undertaking. If successful in the long run, this model can serve as a regional model of peaceful political and economic co-operation between states that can set an example for the rest of the world. However for anyone who considers themselves a democrat, the future of this new polity cannot just be left to the politicians and the technocrats. It is our democracy, and essentially our ability to determine our own future that is being transformed and changed in the process of creating this new polity. If we value it enough, we will fight very hard to make sure that the new political entity being created offers us the same, and even an enhanced level of democracy to that which we have already experienced. If we tolerate anything less, the entire basis of the European project is fatally flawed.

I would like to thank the organizers of the Desmond Greaves Summer School for the invitation to speak. The Desmond Greaves Summer School has always been the only summer school that really challenges the establishment. I look forward to the establishment of a DGS web page containing all the papers given over the years. Such a web page would show the influence of the Summer School over the years and the continuing influence of the democratic values of Desmond Greaves.

The Peace& Neutrality Alliance was established to advocate an Independent Irish Foreign Policy, Irish Neutrality and a reformed United Nations.

The reason why PANA was established was because the Republic of Ireland was being integrated into US/EU military industrial structures through the militarisation of the European Union and a move towards NATO membership via Irish membership of the Partnership of Peace. The six counties of Northern Ireland are already in NATO, so these developments would consolidate all Ireland integration into the established EU/US military structures.

A number of people in 1996 with a background in the Irish peace movement decided there was a need for a broad based alliance that would oppose these developments by focusing on militarisation, the weakest link in the integration process and advocate an alternative future than that on offer from the Irish political elite. Over 30 groups are now affiliated to PANA. Our objective is to ensure the establishment of an all Ireland Republic, with a government implementing its own foreign policy, outside any military alliances, and pursuing that policy through a reformed United Nations where the Security Council, instead of being dominated by the victors of the 2nd World War, was genuinely inclusive and representative of the world’s states.

However, what is happening in Ireland cannot be examined without first outlining the global context in which Irish Independence and Democracy are being destroyed.

The background for the attack on Irish Independence, neutrality and democratic has the steady rise in power of the neo-liberal ideology of many of the global corporations throughout the world, especially in the western states, and the belief by a significant section of them, that the decline in oil stocks would need the sustaining and development of military capitalism and the restoration of direct Imperial domination to ensure their continuing wealth and power. Ireland was being integrated into their economic structures, so it was inevitable that in due course they would seek to integrate Ireland into their military structures as well.

The effect of the growing power of the corporations on the world, especially the poor have been stark.

The total export debt of developing countries rose from $90 million in 1970 to $2,000 billion in 1998.
2.8 billion of the world’s poor live on less than $2 a day.
1.2 billion of the worlds 6 billion people live on less than$1 a day.
30-35,000 children die every day from preventable diseases.
The gap between the richest 20% of the world’s population and the poorest 20% has doubled over the last 40 years.
The assets of the world’s top 3 billionaires exceed the GNP of all the population’s of the least developed countries, which have a total population of 600 million.
80% of the world’s income goes to the top 20% of the world’s population.
60% of the world’s population has only 6% of the world’s income.
51 of the largest 100 economic global entities are corporations.
$1.5 trillion are traded every day in foreign exchanges.
Basic food and raw material prices, the staple income for the majority world, fell by 50% in real terms in the last 20 years.

Russia, a state that adopted neo-liberalism, encouraged by the US Treasury Dept. and the IMF, saw its industrial production fall by 60% between 1990-99 and the percentage of its people living in poverty rise from 2% to 24% (living on less than $2 a day) and more than 40% living on $4 a day.

While Bush and the neo-liberals want to keep it that way, these facts go a long way to explain why he has relatively little support in South America, Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Russia and the peoples if not all the governments in Europe for his decision to invade and conquer Iraq because he wanted the oil and to strengthen Israeli/US military domination of the region.

An example of the lack of support was a recent Pew global survey showed only 7 of 20 nations (Britain, Israel, Kuwait, Canada, Nigeria, Italy and Australia) had a favorable view of the US.

Yet through organizations like the Trilateral Commission, the Bildergerg Group, and the European Round Table, the global neo-liberal elite work together, not in any conspiratorial way, but by and large in an open confident manner, using their domination of the mass media to maintain their control (i.e., every Irish newspaper supported the Irish governments decision to destroy Irish neutrality). They know that neo-liberalism has made them rich and powerful. They believe that war; especially an atmosphere of fear generated by permanent war, consolidates their wealth and power. Bush, Blair, Ahern and Co has nothing to learn from Orwell.

They are aware that conflicting ideologies are necessary to ensure the justification for the massive military expenditure that provides the backbone of the American Empire and the aspiring EU Empire. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, they needed a new enemy, especially that section of the corporate elite in arms production. They found it in what they now call Muslim Fundamentalism and the so-called war on terrorism, which provides the justification for the destruction of international law, institutionalized and systematic torture, and the erosion of civil liberties. Huntington’s book, "The Clash of Civilizations" provided the intellectual justification. The concept that there is a Judeo/Christian civilization, which is superior to the Muslim civilization and that war, was inevitable between the two civilizations, was just what the US/EU arms industry corporations wanted to hear.

It might be said that fact that the US/EU supported the colonization and occupation of Palestine by millions of European Jews and are now occupying Afghanistan and Iraq and are threatening to invade the Sudan might be a factor in alienating millions and millions of Arabs and Muslims does not appear to have occurred to them. But of course it has, which is why they do it. They need war, they want war, and they love war. It’s great for business.

If the US/EU really wanted peace they would withdraw for Iraq and Afghanistan and impose sanctions on Israel until it withdraws to its 1967 borders. In fact, the EU states and US support Israel, the latest example being their opposition to the role of the International Court of Justice on the issue of the legality in International law of the Israeli wall. Those states that voted against the ICJ issuing an advisory opinion included Ireland, Israel, the USA, Germany, France, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, the UK and the EU. Those in favour included the Palestinian Authority, Cuba, Indonesia, South Africa and the Arab League.

That is not to say Muslim Fundamentalism does not exist, it does, just as does Christian Fundamentalism or Hindu Fundamentalism. Neither is it surprising that many millions of the oppressed people of the world will seek in Muslim Fundamentalism an answer to their oppression, especially since the leaders of Western Imperialism like Bush and Blair and Ahern, who are largely responsible for their oppression, are Christian Fundamentalists and much of their popular support base is explicitly based on mobilising Christian Fundamentalism.

In Ireland, where the exploitation of religious hate and fear by unionism has played such a key role in our domination by Imperialism, Irish Republicans, have long experienced the power of religious bigotry and the use of that power by the rich to divide the people so they stay rich. We should, like Tone and the United Irishmen in a previous generation reject any role for religious fundamentalism in the struggle against Imperialism.

However, it is the US where military capitalism is concentrated, where the use and abuse of Christian Fundamentalism is strongest, and with such power mobilised, is an integral part of the ideology by which the elite retain their wealth.

The American Empire is the power centre of neo-liberal corporate elite. Their power in that state is virtually absolute. Their domination of their own people can be seen by the following facts;

13% of American companies in the US no longer pay paid leave, an increase of 5% from 1997
25% of workers in the United States no longer take an annual holiday.
Of those that do, they typically receive 8 days after one year and 10 days after 3 years.
Only 13% of workers in the US are unionized.
The ratio of the annual income of US Chief Executives to the average workers annual income increased from 42 times in 1980 to 500 in 2000.
43 million Americans have no health care.
The American political parties will spend $1.3 billion on advertising in 2004.
Forty-seven million Americans work for less than $10 an hour.

Yet it is these facts that are providing the backbone to a major challenge to the corporate elite within the US and the anti-globalisation demonstrations in Seattle was a major turning point in the struggle against Imperialism. The growth of the Internet, especially in the US has massively undermined the power of the corporate information giants of Fox, CNN etc. If the printing press led to a transformation in culture and politics then the Internet is having an even more powerful effect. For example, the net provides the mechanism by which Dean, a leading ant-war candidate, propelled the anti-war issue centre stage, it ensured the success of Michael Moore’s book, Stupid White Men, has spawned a growing number of web sites, such as z net, which are replacing the establishment media as the real source of information, and most importantly it is providing a cheap and effective method for those opposed to the neo-liberal elite to build a coalition against them.

The power of Imperialism within the US however cannot be underestimated. Ralph Nader, the only Presidential candidate calling for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq only has the support of 2% of the electorate. Many progressives therefore believe that defeating Bush is a priority and in effect have joined the Democratic Party coalition.

Kerry was selected as the Democratic candidate in the Presidential election this year and the coalition he has built reflects the successful fight back by progressive political forces in the United States. Kerry is a supporter of neo-liberalism, but in the context of the US, a Kerry victory would be a defeat for Bush and his version of military capitalism.

While Kerry’s selection was a defeat for the American anti-war movement but is really a reflection of the fact that not all corporations have an absolute commitment to war capitalism. Many of them are in sectors; such as entertainment where having the rest of the people of the world hating America is not good for business. Other CEO’s of these Corporations would rather make money that die for George W. Bush. The fact that last year the figures show that US corporations invested more money in France than in previous years provides evidence that many did not buy into the anti-French hysteria of the right wing US media.

That large sections of capital, in the US, and even more strongly in other regions such as South East Asia, that have done well out of globalisation largely by ignoring the harsher neo-liberal solutions of the IMF, do not support Bush is indicated by a recent poll of global fund managers that control $940 billion, the majority of whom thought Kerry would win, although the British and US managers thought Bush would win. The reality is that large sections of capital believe war causes instability, such as hugh increases in oil prices, and is not good for business.

Also many people in the elite are aware that the US, with only 4% of the world’s population is not as strong economically as it once was as these figures show:

In 1950 the US supplied 50% of the world’s gross product. It is now 21%.
In 1950 the US was responsible for 60% of manufacturing production, and it’s now 25%.
Of the top 100 corporations ranked by foreign-held assets, only 25 are American.
In 1960, 47% of the world’s stock of direct investment in other countries was American. It’s now 21%.
In global finance, in 1981, 67% of private savings in the world was American. It is now 40%.
In 1971 the US had a deficit in its trade in goods for the first time in 78 years. To date the deficits were offset by trade in services and borrowings. But by 2002 the US was borrowing $503 billion from abroad, 4.5% of GDP and by 2003, foreigners owned 41% of US treasury marketable debt.
The federal budget surpluses of the 1998-2001 are now projected to be budget deficits of $450 billion for 2004-6. The federal government is slashing spending on education, health, transport, etc. Only the military industrial complex is receiving state investments. Federal aid to state government is being cut, and state governments now face deficits of $65-85 billion leading to deeper cuts local expenditure on everything from public safety to libraries.

In short, the American Empire no longer has the economic power to sustain its military domination of the globe. Like all previous Empires, it’s due for a fall. It will be defeated in Iraq, as it was in Vietnam and the sooner the better.

Building the Alliance for Peace (part 1)

There is even very strong opposition to Bush from within the heart of US power structures. Richard Clarke, a central figure within US state put the anti-Bush case very well when he said invading Iraq after 9/11 was like invading Mexico after Pearl Harbour.

It is true Kerry supported the conquest of Iraq, and that the coalitions that make up the Democratic and the Republican Parties are similar. But they are not the same. Clinton was better for the world, especially Ireland and Kerry, warts and all, will be better than Bush. A Kerry victory will be a victory for all those forces opposed to war capitalism. A Bush victory will mean the majority of Americans support Imperialism. A Bush victory will mean an attempted military conquest of Cuba, Iran and any other state that opposes the rule of the American Empire. A Kerry victory will not, or at least is less likely.

It is therefore crucial that powerful and growing anti-war movement coalition in the US, continues to grow and ensures that Kerry wins. If Kerry wins, he will seek to get more troops from other states to go to Iraq especially in Europe to help maintain their Empire.

The peace movement coalitions throughout the world ensure their states do not send troops to Iraq. The reality is the economic figures show that on their own, the American Imperialism has only defeat to look forward to and that without global support the American Empire is finished whether Bush or Kerry leads it.

In short, the global progressive forces need to agree to be part of the coalition than brings together as broad an alliance as possible, including corporations that do not support Bush, to in effect isolate, the war capitalists. Defeat Bush first. Then move on, to ensure Kerry withdraws the US army from Iraq.

After the US withdrawal, there could be a role for a peacekeeping force directly under the auspices of the United Nations, which could play a similar role that it did in East Timor after the withdrawal of the Indonesian army of occupation. The credibility of the UN has suffered by its decision to endorse the illegal conquest of Iraq. A reformed United Nations, reflective of the 21st century, rather than the mid 20th, is needed to create global governance. A global institution is the required institution for global peace and security. A regional grouping, such as the EU/US block will not provide security. It only provides instability as other regional groups are formed to act as counterweights. Any lasting peace must be based on the concept of inclusive and agreed global institutions.

It is this process of global coalition building that is central to the defeat of war capitalism.

When Bush visited Ireland on his election campaign, PANA helped to organise major demonstrations against him. The fact is that in this globalised world, the outcome of the election in the US will have a profound effect on the rest of the world, including Ireland, and it was important to Americans, especially Irish Americans, to see that unlike Clinton, Bush was not welcome here by except the Irish elite.

In Ireland the elite are already strongly supportive of the US version of neo-liberalism. Harney has openly supported the Boston rather than the Brussels version of capitalism, McDowell has stated his support for inequality and Ahern has destroyed Irish neutrality by turning Shannon airport into a US airforce base. The Ahern led FF/PD Government is the most right wing, neo-liberal incompetent in history.

Our purpose in the longer term (say 12 years) in Ireland is to ensure the formation of a government in an all Ireland Republic committed to Irish Independence, neutrality and democracy. We seek to ensure that this Irish Republic would be part of a EU, which a Partnership of Democratic States, legal equals, without a military dimension. That objective is only worth it, if it is part of a struggle for global justice and democracy.

It is to develop an alternative to the institutionalized war economy now on offer from the neo-liberal elite, not just in Ireland, but also globally, by linking up with similar organizations throughout the world. Their vision is global, and if their vision is to be defeated, then our vision has also to be global. The massive demonstrations of over 15 million people that took place on the 15th of February 2003 throughout the world, was their first indication of the potential of our future, the first indication of their weakness, the first indication of our capacity to win.

PANA was one the groups that helped to organise the 125,000 strong march in Dublin. It was a real indication of the potential for building an alternative political coalition throughout Ireland that would defeat Ahern and the rest of the Irish war capitalists. Before the march, PANA had also played a role in gaining a 38% No vote to the Amsterdam Treaty and a 54% no vote to Nice 1 and a 38% no vote to Nice 2 Treaties, treaties that were steps towards integrating Ireland into the EU/US military structures.

On the 11th of June 2004, Fianna Fail (or should it be Fianna Bush) suffered it worst electoral defeat since the 1920’s. The Fianna Fail/PD government, the most right wing neo-liberal and incompetent government in our history suffered a hammer blow. They have lost control of local councils throughout the country and have only 4 MEPS in the European Parliament. Even more important, the political parties that led the opposition to the Fianna Fail decision to support the imperial conquest of Iraq; the Green Party, the Labour Party and Sinn Fein, as well as radical independents, overall increased their vote.

Since PANA’s objective is to seek an Independent Irish foreign policy and Irish neutrality for all of Ireland it is worth looking at the results of the EU Parliament elections on an all-Ireland basis, as our objective can only be achieved if it supported by the majority of the Irish people, from whom all power derives.

FF: 523,000 (23%)
FG:495,000 (22.4%)
SF: 342,000 (15.5%)
Labour: 188,000 (8.5%)
GP: 82,000 (3.7%)
SP/SE: 32,000 (1.4%)
Ind.: 345,000 (15.6%)
DUP: 176,000 (7.9%)
UUP: 91,000 (4.1%)
SDLP: 88,000 (3.9%)

These figures show that while FF has suffered its worst electoral defeat in decades it remains a formidable political force, as is Fine Gael. Sinn Fein has decisively replaced the Labour Party as the major political party on the left, and the Green Party, the SDLP and the far left retain small but significant support from the electorate.

While the DUP has replaced the UUP as the largest party. Together, they have the support of a significant 12% of the electorate. In an all Ireland context they would be a major political force, far greater than they now are within the British state.

Independents also constitute a sizable percentage of the electorate and while it is difficult to categories them on an imperialist/anti-imperialist spectrum, a 50/50 divide is probably reasonable.

The figures also show that to gain the support of the majority of Irish people for a United Independent Irish Republic with its own foreign policy remains a formidable task. Yet power derives from the people. No group can claim the right to speak for them, and they express that power by voting in elections and referendums. Those of us, who wish to establish the Republic, have to gain their support through the democratic process.

On the crucial issue of support for the Imperial war of conquest of Iraq, only the neo-Redmondites of FF/PD alliance and the unionist’s parties actively supporting it. FG formally opposed the war, although they refused to take part in the marches because to quote Gay Mitchell, "it was organized by PANA and Sinn Fein".

A breakdown of 54% against the war and 46% in favour is probably accurate; it also probably is not coterminous with party affiliation as many FF/PD and unionists supporters oppose the war while many FG supporters support it. One way or the other however, there is enough evidence from the marches, elections and public opinion polls to suggest that a majority of the Irish people do not support this Imperial war and that the Green Party, the Labour Party, Sinn Fein, the SDLP, and radical Independents that led the campaign against it have largely benefited by increased electoral support already and as the war continues, can confidently expect that support to grow at the expense of the FF/PD’s and unionist parties.

The nearest historical parallel is when Ireland supported an Imperial war was 1914-18. At the commencement of that war the political parties that opposed the war and that supported the Irish Neutrality League’s foundation in October 1914, only had the support of a small minority of the people, about 5-10%, but by 1918 they had formed an alliance that replaced the Home Rule Party that had dominated Irish politics for decades.

Ahern’s Fianna Fail, however is not the same as Redmond’s Home Rule Party. They have been in power much longer via state structures. Their supporters are in positions of power and influence throughout every level of society. They have integrated and co-opted the trade union leadership and whole layers of NGO’s and community groups through partnership agreements and financial donations via the state. It will be a lot tougher to destroy them.

However, they have made their decision. They supported the conquest of Iraq. Fianna Fail is now an Imperialist party. The Irish Imperialist tradition has been restored, and in the person of Ahern, Redmond has been reborn. FF is the party of war capitalism in Ireland. Imperialism in Ireland cannot be defeated until Fianna Fail has been removed from power. The results of the elections of the 11th of June needs to become the first major step in ensuring that Fianna Fail suffers the same fate as the Irish Home Rule Party.

However, the major opposition party, Fine Gael also openly advocates the destruction of neutrality and the integration of Ireland into the EU/US military structures. They only opposed the Iraq war because they decided to support the then dominant opposition to the war by the then majority of the EU states. Until there is a coherent anti-Imperialist alliance, which has a creditable possibility of providing an alternative government, or at least providing a majority in a coalition government as a stepping stone, then the option of voting for Fianna Fail rather FG will always be the least worst option for many people who otherwise would vote for parties that opposed the war.

Therefore the real question is can the parties, the Green Party, the Labour Party, Sinn Fein and independents that oppose war capitalism, form a government? Can the parties and Independents to the left of the Labour Party substantially increase their electoral support to ensure that a left majority government is an option at the next election rather than the FG/Green/Labour government that is the favoured option of FG and of many in the Labour Party?

Our short tem objective is to build an alliance so that:

An Irish Government in the 26 county Republic that would be committed to adding a Protocol to the proposed EU Constitution, similar to that achieved by Denmark that would exclude Ireland from involvement with the ERRP,
Enshrine Irish neutrality into our Constitution
Withdraw from the PfP
Focus on a reformed US as the institution through which Ireland would pursue its security concerns.
Terminate the use of Shannon airport by the US and its allies.

Since the Green Party, Sinn Fein and radical independents already support these objectives, the key question is can the Labour Party alter its current support for a militarized EU? Can it revert to its critical attitude to the EU it had in the late 60’s, early 70"s? Will its opposition to the Iraqi war result in its willingness to take part in a broad anti-war alliance including Sinn Fein, the Greens and Independents on a more formal basis? Can such an alliance gain the support of the majority of the people so it can form a government?

While the election results show it is not now an option, as the war drags on and on, the possibility of such an option becomes more and more real. As the war capitalists in EU, seek to gain support and send more troops to Iraq, such an option becomes more and more a realistic. It is in building opposition to the militarisation of the EU and in again and again pointing out the EU/US military links that will undermine the imperialists within the Irish Labour Party and gain more and more popular support both within it, and among the general population, for the formation of a Green/Labour/Sinn Fein/Independents government.

The first campaign fought by the Peace & Neutrality Alliance was the Amsterdam Treaty referendum held at the same time as the Good Friday Agreement. Both referendums played a significant role in the process towards achieving our objective. For while the elite saw the Agreement as an end in itself, a defeat for Irish Republicanism, a mechanism of drawing Republicans into supporting the EU/US military structures, the rise of the No vote to the Amsterdam Treaty together with the result of the Good Friday Agreement, instead, strongly indicated a growth in support for Irish Independence, in the desire for structures that would deliver, peacefully and democratically, an Independent and United Irish Republic. This growth of support among the people for National Independence and Democracy increased in subsequent referendums.

In the context of Irish integration into the emerging European Empire the Amsterdam result was a major blow for the EU Empire Loyalists, especially in the context of growing support for Irish Independence and when compared with previous referendums.
Year: No vote
1972: 16.9%
1986: 30.00%
1992: 30.9%
1998: 38.3%
2001: 53.1%
2002: 37.1%

Thus Amsterdam marked a decisive shift towards Irish Independence and while we went on to win Nice 1 and lose Nice 2 it created new plateau of 37/38% electorate support for anti-imperialists, and it was one in which the issues of Irish neutrality, Independence and democracy rather than religious divisions which were central to the debate on the future.

Now we are not only to have another referendum on the EU Constitution, but for the first time there will be a referendum in all 32 counties, and hopefully at the same time.

The EU Constitution creates the legal framework for the creation of an Imperial nuclear armed, neo-liberal, centralized superstate. The EU Constitution, rather than our own Constitution will be the "fountainhead of all law", and the European Court of Justice rather than the Irish Supreme Court will the final arbiter in interpreting the EU Constitution. To date, as each of the EU Treaties were ratified, only the provisions of those treaties became part of the Irish Constitution. This EU Constitution is a completely different concept. The EU itself, as distinct entity, acquires legal personality. The EU itself, rather than the member states will be the sovereign legal authority via the EU Constitution.

It legalizes the transfer of power from, not only the Irish people, but also all the people’s of Europe to a EU political elite. A EU elite that makes decisions in secret in the EU Commission and at meetings of the Council of Ministers. A EU elite that is building its own distinct army via the European Rapid Reaction Force. It is why they support it. It is why all democrats in Ireland and throughout the EU should oppose it.

The EU Constitution is another Act of Union. It destroys the legal basis for Irish National Independence in the same way the Act of Union with the British Empire did at the end of the 18th century. It is the European Union, rather than the British Union, which is now the main opponent of Irish Independence and democracy.

However, just as the Act of Union did not destroy the desire for Irish National Independence, neither will the EU Constitution. It is merely another battle between Irish people that support Irish Independence, Irish Democracy and Neutrality on one side and Irish people that support Imperialism on the other, another battle in a conflict that has raged for generation after generation, and will continue no matter who wins the referendum on the EU Constitution.

Our objective is to defeat the EU Constitution, while accepting that some affiliates are still discussing their attitude to it. Since the latest MRBI survey showed that 51% of the people in the 26 county Republic want more independence from the EU and since the vast majority of the people living in the 6 counties support parties that have declared their opposition to the EU Constitution, then a victory, as in Nice 1, a decisive no vote in all Ireland referendum, is a perfectly reasonable and achievable objective.

We need to continue to build a broad alliance of all those progressive forces, including those sections of business, which do not have a vested interest in war. Such an alliance, like in the US should be based on progressive and inclusive values. There is no doubt that there are political forces that oppose the EU from a reactionary perspective. Political groups that seek to stir up religious or racial hatred and division in opposition to the emerging EU Empire. Political forces that look back and seek inspiration from old Imperial values. Any coalition we participate in will have no role for reactionary elements.

However, we have to accept that many of those who will be supporting those opposing the Empire from a reactionary position are our potential allies. Unionists might see they are supporting a British state, that like the 26 county state, is to become only a small part of a European Empire to which they, no more than Irish Republicans are willing to die for. The British Union, a state to which they give their allegiance, is ceasing to exist. In that context, a United Independent Irish Republic in which they would be 12% of the electorate could become a more attractive alternative than an European Imperial state, where the Irish, will be the cannon fodder in Iraq and elsewhere, for the EU/US elite.

In Ireland PANA has co-operated with two other broad based alliances, the NGOPA and the IAWM both of which, like PANA reject religious or racial hatred. It was this broad based alliance and all the groups affiliated, which provided the leadership to opposing the conquest of Iraq. PANA would seek to ensure that a similar broad based alliance by in the first instance gaining their support to opposing the militarisation of the EU, by opposing the EU Constitution. A Constitution which would bind Ireland into supporting the progressive framing of a EU defence compatible with NATO’s defence policy, more arms production and appoints an EU Foreign Minister.

We need to continually point out that the concept that the EU can develop as an alternative centre of power to the US is not a realistic option. Even if it were, it’s not an option for any progressive forces in Ireland or any other EU state. If history teaches us anything, there is no such thing as a "good Empire". One can be better than the other, as there is no doubt that the 3rd German Empire under Hitler was worse than the American Empire under Roosevelt, but they both remained Empires and the victims of Hiroshima would not have appreciated any great distinction.

A EU State, which includes states such as Belgium, Britain, France, Holland, Italy, Germany, Portugal, and Spain, which have such strong Imperial traditions, cannot but be tempted to revive their imperial traditions. It could be a case of "Empires, united, Shall never be defeated".

Since the EU leaders have just elected Barroso, a strong supporter of the Imperial war in Iraq and a hard line neo-liberal, President of the EU who has in turn appointed neo-liberals to the three economic Commissions and is a strong supporter of the US/EU alliance, there is no evidence that the majority of EU elite want to oppose US Imperialism. The fact that the EU states Britain, The Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Holland, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Slovenia have troops in Iraq supporting the US occupation shows that there is ample evidence that a majority of the EU elite now support Imperialism and neo-liberalism and collaboration with, rather than opposition to, American Imperialism.

This is not to say we should not recognize that EU is not the US. The political forces that seek to develop social market capitalism as distinct from the neo-liberal version are much stronger in the EU than it is in the US.

We should recognize that many political activists involved in seeking woman’s rights, as well as trade union and environmental activists are well disposed to the EU that has been for many decades very supportive. We also should recognize that the Imperialist governments in Europe do not have the support of their peoples. It is not just PANA that opposes the EU Imperialist project.

We need to make it clear that we support environmentalists, trade unionists and woman’s rights activists. We have to make it clear that we believe these rights are best protected and developed by promoting Irish Democracy, rather than by destroying it. We have to make it clear their environmental rights, their trade union rights, their woman’s rights, their civil rights, will be destroyed if they support the institutionalization of EU militarism if this EU Constitution is accepted. The neo-liberal Imperialist agenda of the EU is no friend of democratic rights.

We need to ensure that we build an opposition alliance to the militarisation of the EU via this EU Constitution throughout the EU by building up links with similar groups throughout Europe. PANA is already affiliated to TEAM and the European Peace & Human Rights Network. Our slogans in the campaign are, Yes to Europe-No to Superstate, as well as, Support Irish Neutrality, Democracy and Independence. To PANA, the European Union should be a partnership of Independent Democratic States, legal equals, without a military dimension. By advocating such a vision of Europe is to be truly European, but Europeanism that rejects its imperial traditions.

A victory would mean that a different future for the European Union is possible. If we can successfully be part of a EU coalition that has rejected militarisation and Imperialism then we can help build an alternative future for Europe, we can become part the dominant pro-European political alliance.

Even if we defeat the Imperialists, defeat the Empire Loyalists, and win the referendum on the EU Constitution, that victory will not ensure the formation of a Green/Labour/Sinn Fein/Independents government, but it would go long way. For once the broad framework of a vision of a future, United, Independent, inclusive and democratic Irish Republic, a member state of the EU, which is a Partnership of Democratic states, has been seen to have the support of the majority of Irish people, then the formation of a government based on those principles becomes an option. Gaining majority support for such a government would not be easy. All the parties have to develop policies on heath, education, transport, housing and other issues within an economic framework that rejects Imperialism and neo-liberalism. These are major tasks but achievable But since the alternative on offer would be the neo-liberal Imperialists of Fianna Fail and Fine Gael, victory is an a real possibility.

Finally, may I again repeat that this campaign on the EU Constitution is just another battle against Imperialism, and in favour of Irish Independence, Irish Neutrality and Irish Democracy. Win or lose, it is a struggle that has been waged for generations, and we, in waging that struggle are only standing on the shoulders of giants such as Desmond Greaves.

Internationally, the issues of democracy and Independence, of Imperialism and war go back for generations, to ancient Greece, Egypt and what is now Iraq.

In our generation, we are unique, in that we the first to live in an era of weapons of mass destruction, first used in Hiroshima. Now that more and more states are acquiring such weapons, war and Imperialism, which were once able to kill millions, can now obliterate all life on this planet.

If Imperialists like Bush, Blair, and their lackeys like Ahern are not rejected people, then there might not be next generation. It would be more than ironic if all civilization came to an end as a result of a war where in a region where civilization began. So lets hope we win and they lose.

Roger Cole (Chair),Peace & Neutrality Alliance
Speech to the Desmond Greaves Summer School, August 2004.

Building the Alliance for Peace (part 2)

Support for Irish neutrality has been a core republican value since the time of the United Irishmen. But it has never been more relevant than in the 21st century.

Irish military neutrality has been a source of our unique position in the world, a source of strength and legitimacy. Through the pursuit of an independent foreign policy in the past, Ireland has built an internationally respected reputation in UN peacekeeping, promotion of anti-nuclear initiatives and the development rights of postcolonial societies. Our international stature has also been enhanced by our experience of building a peace process at home.

A militarily neutral Ireland actively pursuing a global social justice agenda through peaceful means has more to offer than ever before at this time of volatility in international relations. Since the establishment parties have demonstrated that they are either not fully committed to neutrality or are opposed to it, republicans recognise our responsibility to show leadership in this regard.

Sinn Féin therefore proposes "Positive Neutrality in Action" as an independent policy alternative for expanding Ireland’s role in international affairs.

We see Positive Neutrality in Action not only as a policy with immediate relevance for the 26 county state, but also propose that it should form the heart of the international relations policy after reunification.

Recent developments have confirmed the need for such a policy. We offer this document as a clear statement of what Positive Neutrality in Action would entail.

SUMMARY OF SINN FÉIN PROPOSALS
Sinn Féin proposes an independent and progressive Irish international relations policy that opposes military alliances and works for international co-operation and conflict negotiation leading to democratic social change and respect for human rights, universal demilitarisation and nuclear disarmament.

Such a policy of "Positive Neutrality in Action" would require:

Neutrality to be enshrined in the Irish Constitution and codified in legislation;
Withdrawal from the EU Rapid Reaction Force and NATO's Partnership for Peace;
Irish troops to train and serve abroad only under the auspices and leadership of the United Nations, and only with prior Dáil approval;
No use of Irish airports, airspace, seaports, or territorial waters for preparation for war or other armed conflict by foreign powers;
An end to Irish involvement in the arms trade and profit from war;
Clear recognition and legal protection through a binding Protocol of Irish neutrality in any new EU Treaty;
Active promotion of demilitarisation of the EU;
Formation of alliances with other progressive, neutral states to promote a Human Security approach to international relations;
Active promotion of UN primacy, UN reform and capacity-building to create a revitalised UN which is capable of fulfilling the promise of the Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and of upholding international law.

Download the full document in PDF format: sf-neutralitydocument.pdf (1.1MB)

Positive Neutrality in Action

In a special anti-war issue of Hot Press, (published Thursday 3rd June), Richard Boyd Barrett and other prominent voices in music and politics set the stage for the protests against George Bush and the forthcoming anti-war gig at Dublin's Point Theatre.

In the special issue of the magazine, which is a co-sponsor of the Point event, many prominent figures in the Irish Music and political scene openly criticise the Irish Government for allowing the use of Shannon Airport by the US army, en route to Iraq. They also express their opposition to George Bush's visit to Shannon for the forthcoming summit with Europe, in what is widely perceived to be an effort to secure the Irish American vote in the November US Presidential election. According to Green MEP, Patricia McKenna, "in the interest of peace and global security, it is vital that President Bush is not re-elected."

Referring to the torture of prisoners in Iraq, Boyd Barret says that he blames Bush and the people who started the war rather than the individual soldiers. "It's becoming more apparent that what was going on in that prison wasn't an aberration," he asserts, "but was a policy that came from the top and was a culture that impressionable, young, ill-educated soldiers became immersed in."
Concern is expressed by contributors to the special issue about the fact that the Irish government has failed to respect Ireland's neutrality, Boyd Barrett believes that "there's a longer term strategy to jump on the coattails of US power globally and to become a junior partner in the domination of the world economy."
Labour Candidate Ivana Bacik says there will be a political fall-out from this here. "I think there will be a backlash from younger voters and also from George Bush's visit, the imposition of him coming here and the fact that we seem to be bending over backwards to facilitate him. It seems he invited himself, that he suggested to the Government that he come here".

Presented by the Irish Anti-War Movement, in association with SIPTU and Hot Press, the When Bush Comes to Shove gig takes place at the Vicar Street, Dublin on June 19th. It is the latest in a number of events designed to protest against the war in Iraq. However, it is the first occasion for which musicians have come together to explicitly support the anti-war movement. Headed by Christy Moore, the bill also includes Damien Rice, who recently toured very successfully in the US, Mary Black, Kila, the Revs, Katell Keinig and comedian Barry Murphy from Apres Match – all of whom have agreed to give their services free of charge, because they personally believe in the anti-war cause.

For Damien Rice, "doing a gig is a personal thing, it's a peaceful way of saying 'I live in a democratic country and id like to make my voice heard and help others to be heard, and say we don't agree with something', simple as that. Letting people know we don't agree".

For further information, contact: Deborah Cogley 01-2411500 or 086-3916640 email deborah@hotpress.ie website www.hotpress.ie

HOT PRESS Goes to War with WAR

Vote taken on Neutrality Bill - PMB on Neutrality - (Feb '03)
Private Members' motion re Iraq and Ireland's (supposed) neutrality
Aengus Ó Snodaigh on Brian Cowen's response to his question re Ireland's neutrality
Challenging the EU Common Defence

Vote taken on Neutrality Bill - PMB on Neutrality - (Feb '03)

Total Tá: 35
Total Níl: 100

Tá
Boyle, Dan.; Broughan, Thomas P.; Burton, Joan.; Costello, Joe.; Cowley, Jerry.; Crowe, Seán.; Cuffe, Ciarán.; Ferris, Martin.; Gilmore, Eamon.; Gogarty, Paul.; Gormley, John.; Gregory, Tony.; Harkin, Marian.; Higgins, Joe.; Higgins, Michael D.; Howlin, Brendan.; Lynch, Kathleen.; McGrath, Finian.; McManus, Liz.; Morgan, Arthur.; Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.; Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.; Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.; O'Shea, Brian.; O'Sullivan, Jan.; Pattison, Seamus.; Penrose, Willie.; Quinn, Ruairi.; Rabbitte, Pat.; Ryan, Eamon.; Ryan, Seán.; Sargent, Trevor.; Sherlock, Joe.; Shortall, Róisín.; Stagg, Emmet.

Níl
Ahern, Dermot.; Ahern, Michael.; Ahern, Noel.; Allen, Bernard.; Andrews, Barry.; Ardagh, Seán.; Aylward, Liam.; Blaney, Niall.; Brady, Martin.; Breen, James.; Breen, Pat.; Brennan, Seamus.; Browne, John.; Bruton, Richard.; Callanan, Joe.; Callely, Ivor.; Carey, Pat.; Cassidy, Donie.; Collins, Michael.; Connaughton, Paul.; Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.; Coughlan, Mary.; Coveney, Simon.; Crawford, Seymour.; Cregan, John.; Cullen, Martin.; Curran, John.; Davern, Noel.; Deenihan, Jimmy.; Dempsey, Tony.; Dennehy, John.; Devins, Jimmy.; Durkan, Bernard J.; Ellis, John.; Finneran, Michael.; Fitzpatrick, Dermot.; Fleming, Seán.; Fox, Mildred.; Gallagher, Pat The Cope.; Grealish, Noel.; Hanafin, Mary.; Haughey, Seán.; Hayes, Tom.; Hoctor, Máire.; Hogan, Phil.; Jacob, Joe.; Keaveney, Cecilia.; Kelleher, Billy.; Kelly, Peter.; Kenny, Enda.; Killeen, Tony.; Kirk, Seamus.; Kitt, Tom.; Lenihan, Brian.; Lenihan, Conor.; Martin, Micheál.; McCormack, Padraic.; McCreevy, Charlie.; McDaid, James.; McDowell, Michael.; McEllistrim, Thomas.; McGrath, Paul.; McGuinness, John.; Mitchell, Olivia.; Moloney, John.; Moynihan, Donal.; Moynihan, Michael.; Mulcahy, Michael.; Murphy, Gerard.; Naughten, Denis.; Neville, Dan.; Nolan, M.J.; Ó Cuív, Éamon.; O'Connor, Charlie.; O'Donnell, Liz.; O'Donovan, Denis.; O'Dowd, Fergus.; O'Flynn, Noel.; O'Keeffe, Batt.; O'Keeffe, Jim.; O'Keeffe, Ned.; O'Malley, Fiona.; O'Malley, Tim.; Parlon, Tom.; Perry, John.; Power, Peter.; Power, Seán.; Ring, Michael.; Ryan, Eoin.; Sexton, Mae.; Smith, Brendan.; Smith, Michael.; Stanton, David.; Timmins, Billy.; Treacy, Noel.; Twomey, Liam.; Wallace, Mary.; Wilkinson, Ollie.; Woods, Michael.; Wright, G.V.

Government must seize opportunity to challenge EU Common Defence
- 3rd October 2003

Sinn Féin Spokesperson on International Affairs and Defence Aengus Ó Snodaigh TD has welcomed the confirmation by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Dáil today that the Common Defence provisions of the draft EU Constitutional Treaty will be revised. Deputy Ó Snodaigh said: "Ireland must now seize this opportunity to show progressive leadership in the EU and to exercise its responsibility as a militarily neutral state, by seeking changes to draft Article I-40 on Common Defence, the provisions of which significantly further militarise the EU and undermine Irish military neutrality by association with and complicity in the European militarist project.

"Today I urged the Government once again to instruct the Irish negotiators to protect Irish independence in defence policy, and specifically the traditional policies of military neutrality and UN primacy, by at minimum securing a specific article explicitly recognising the rights and duties of neutral states within the Union and explicitly recognising the right of those states requiring a UN mandate for military operations.

"I also urged the Government in line with its policy on nuclear disarmament to take up Sinn Féin's challenge of Positive Neutrality in Action and use the opportunity of the IGC negotiations to argue for a new Treaty Article committing to the objective of a Nuclear Weapons-Free EU, as a concrete step towards making this world genuinely safer for all.

"We want Government commitment to activism on the issue of neutrality and demilitarisation, in the same way that they have actively campaigned for the retention of unanimity in decision-making on taxation. There is no reason why the Government shouldn't fight as hard to protect Irish neutrality as Spain and Poland have to protect their favourable voting weights in Council. And I don't accept the false choice offered by the Government-Fine Gael-Labour axis – that an EU Common Defence is inevitable, and the only option before us is to either fully commit by sending troops or else limit our participation to EU defence policy making. There is another way, and that is to actively campaign against an EU Common Defence and in favour of UN primacy and a demilitarised EU, and to also ensure that Ireland and other militarily neutral states are accorded equal status and explicit recognition in the Union." - ENDS

Ó Snodaigh calls on Government to "admit that Irish neutrality is a lie"
- 9 April 2003

Sinn Féin spokesperson on International Affairs Aengus Ó Snodaigh this afternoon called on the Irish Government to "come clean and admit that Irish neutrality is a lie". Deputy Ó Snodaigh was responding to comments made by Minister Brian Cowen in response to a question on Ireland's neutrality in the Dáil today. Deputy Ó Snodaigh said: "The Government has claimed that they have not breached Irish neutrality but the Irish people have a right to know exactly how the Government defines it and whether it even exists? For many weeks now I have been attempting to conduct what I would call a neutrality audit. I have asked a number of different Ministers a range of questions designed to ascertain to what extent our so-called neutrality is being breached by facilitating foreign military aircraft and ships on their way to war. So far the Government have refused to provide a comprehensive account.

"Again today the Minister refused point blank to answer my specific questions.

However he did acknowledge that the Irish Government, alone amongst the international community, has a different definition of military neutrality to everybody else. He specifically said that he does not accept the Hague Convention definition of neutrality. But rather than provide the Governments alternative definition he claimed that in Irelands case it was best to keep it vague. And in an attempt to try and confuse the matter further he mischievously suggested that a UN Charter had since negated the 1907 Hague Convention in terms of defining the rights and duties of neutral states.

"It is clear from the Ministers response today, or the lack of it, that this Government has long since abandoned any desire or wish to respect and defend what most people regard as a positive aspect of Ireland's foreign policy.

"I am calling on the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs to come clean and to explicitly admit that Irish neutrality is a lie, and has been a lie under successive Fianna Fáil Governments. The time for hiding behind evasive answers, misinformation has long past. It is time to stop treating the people with contempt and to confirm what is the reality – that is, we are not a neutral state." - ENDS

Ó Snodaigh accuses Government of hypocrisy over war on Iraq
- 29 January 2003

Speaking at the Private Members debate on Iraq Sinn Féin spokesperson on International Affairs Aengus Ó Snodaigh said: "This Government has deliberately and repeatedly misled both the Dáil and the Irish people on the use of Shannon Airport to transport troops and munitions on their way to prepare for war on Iraq.

"They have been complicit in war preparations in the absence of a United Nations Security Council resolution.

"The Taoiseach and Minister Cowen have repeatedly assured this House since early October that they consider the UN to be supreme in these matters, and that they will abide by Security Council resolutions.

"Since October the Taoiseach has insisted that no deal exists with the US to allow Shannon to be used for war preparations. But they have also been very evasive in their answers to direct questions put by myself and numerous other Deputies in this House as to whether the Government has offered cooperation with the US Government in their war preparations.

"Yet according to recent revelations the Government has allowed Shannon to be used as a pit-stop on the way to war by both civilian and military aircraft. BUT The Security Council has NOT authorised force, and any facilitation of the current US-led war build-up is NOT in keeping with current Security Council policy. Therefore, they have deceived the Dáil and the public about their true position.
These war preparations have taken place in violation of:

the Air Navigation (Carriage of Munitions of War, Weapons and Dangerous Goods) Order, 1973, section 6, paragraph 2 (a) (i) (ii), which states that it is against the law to carry munitions of war on an aircraft. We now know with certainty that this has happened.
The Air Navigation (Foreign Military Aircraft) Order 1952, at paragraphs 3, and 4, states that no foreign military aircraft shall fly over or land in the state without the express permission of the Minister. To my question of December 10, Cowen said that no routine applications for overflights or landings had been refused, because the government had confirmed that the aircraft did not carry arms or ammunition, and were not part of a military exercise or operation. Yet we know these things have happened. He also said that no applications were made for Ministerial exemption of these conditions. If this is so, then either the Government has already extended permission, so that applications for exemption are not required, or else they have been derelict in their duty to enforce the law. We deserve full disclosure as to which is the case.
the Defence Act, 1954, section 317, paragraphs 1 and 2, states that no one can enter or land in the state while wearing any foreign military uniform, save with the express permission in writing of a Minister. Yet we know these things have also happened.

"This Government have therefore breached the obligations of neutral states as defined by Article 2 and 5 of the Hague Convention V Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land. (Article 2 states that "belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war OR supplies across the territory of a neutral power," and article 5 states that it is the responsibility of the neutral power itself to ensure that this does not occur.

"They have done all this without the assent of the Dáil, in violation of Article 28 (3) (1) of the Constitution (and not to mention, contrary to the spirit of Article 29.2 of the Constitution).

"Minister Cowen, in answer to my question of December 3, reassured me that the Government would "at all times act in accordance with its Constitutional and legal obligations" with respect to the granting of overflight and landing permission. They have not done so.

"I must put protest on record that this Government, despite repeated (at least 5) requests by myself and by SF since September 10, has refused to allow a proper and full debate of these issues. It is their responsibility to ensure that this debate happens.

"Why have they refused? They cite Article 29.4 of the Constitution on executive powers allowing for Government and Ministerial discretion in these matters. They don't intend to consult the Dáil, nor to answer to the Dáil until absolutely necessary. Yet at the same time, they claim over and over that they are in compliance with the relevant laws and the Constitution, and they are not.

"They are hypocrites and I will continue to expose their hypocrisy and deceit.

"This Government is systematically abandoning neutrality by stealth:

it joined NATO's PfP despite promises to the contrary
it refused to seek a legally binding neutrality Protocol to the Nice Treaty despite public outcry
it set the precedent of Ministerial authorisation for war complicity without the assent of the Dáil in the case of the US-led war on Afghanistan (pursuant to UNSC resolution 1368)
it failed to use its position on the Security Council and in the EU to avert war on Iraq

"I will finish by demanding the immediate cessation of military overflights and landings by foreign powers preparing for or participating in war, in keeping with our laws, Constitution, and rights and responsibilities as a Neutral Power." - ENDS

Sinn Féin Press Office, 44 Parnell Square, Dublin 1.
Tel: 01 - 8722609 // Fax: 01 - 8733441
Press Officer: Michael Nolan // 086 2477694 // Email: mnolan@oireachtas.ie

Sinn Féin Press Releases on Ireland's neutrality and details of Vote taken on Neutrality Bill - PMB on Neutrality in Feb '03

A draft Discussion Document for the Peace and Neutrality Alliance.
- May 2004

Introduction:
The Peace & Neutrality Alliance was established in 1996 to advocate an independent Irish foreign policy, Irish neutrality and a reformed United Nations as the institution through which Ireland should pursue its security concerns. PANA seeks to ensure that the future of the EU is as a Partnership of Independent, Democratic States, and legal equals, without a military dimension.

Therefore PANA has opposes the militarisation of the EU and campaigned against the Amsterdam and Nice Treaties. It played a key role in defeating the Nice Treaty the first time it was placed before the Irish people, and gained some important concessions from the Irish Government. Firstly, the Government was forced to ensure that there would be a Constitutional obligation to have a referendum before Ireland joined a EU mutual defence pact; secondly, Irish troops would only participate in the ERRF if it had a UN mandate. And thirdly, it made the Seville Declaration confirming Irish neutrality.

PANA, while welcoming these concessions, believed they did not go far enough. Our minimum demand was that a Protocol, which would be legally binding, similar to that which already applies to Denmark, which would exclude Ireland from any involvement with the ERRF, would be added to the Treaty. PANA therefore opposed the Nice Treaty the 2nd time it was placed before the Irish people. They voted in favour the 2nd time, which showed the concessions had some effect in swinging people to vote in favour, even though the Treaty itself was exactly the same. Yet other factors such as the massive disparity in financial expenditure (a 10-1 ratio would be a conservative estimate, and no state expenditure) between the political forces advocating a yes vote and those advocating a no vote also played a major part in the outcome of the 2nd referendum. Even then, 38% of the people voted no.

Since then, the Government has terminated the policy of Irish neutrality by allowing the US to use Shannon airport as a military base in its illegal invasion, conquest and occupation of Iraq, thus making the Seville Declaration on Irish neutrality utterly meaningless. The major opposition party, Fine Gael, has already declared its decision to destroy Irish neutrality and to declare Irish troops should participate within the ERRF without a UN mandate.

Now a draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe is being negotiated, even though the Laken Declaration of January 2001 envisaged a EU Constitution, "in the long run". PANA again demands a rejection of the Constitution for the EU unless a Protocol, which unlike a Declaration is legally binding, to exclude Ireland from participation in the militarisation of the EU, in particular the ERRF, becomes part of the Constitution. Such a Protocol is our absolute bottom line. However the draft Constitution has major implications for the Irish people on issues far wider than Irish involvement with the ERRF and this discussion document therefore covers a wider range of issues than just the militarisation of the EU. The figures show there are massive scope for demilitarization, yet instead the EU Constitution calls for more military expenditure.

An examination of the draft Constitution shows that that it formalizes the establishment of a centralized state structure and institutionalizes a neo-liberal ideology, the kind of laissez faire economic values that were dominate in the mid 19th century when Ireland was part of the British Union. The EU Constitution, as it stands, represents a EU with a strong military dimension, closely aligned with a nuclear military bloc (NATO), and committed to increased arms spending, and support for the arms industry. It also takes several giant steps towards a fully-fledged military alliance, armed not just with a military capacity but also with mutual solidarity commitments and, in some cases, mutual defence commitments between member States, all within the structures of the EU. There is no apparent room for a neutral state in such a Union.

The recent TSN/MRBI poll (9/1/04), which showed 47% support for EU Constitution, did not ask the people had they read it. Since the Irish media gave no coverage to the PANA press statement on the draft EU Constitution, it is clear that the people have not heard any debate on the content of the draft EU Constitution, they have only heard the case for an EU Constitution, and a distorted one at that.

Since the same poll showed that a majority (51%) of the people now wants to ensure that Ireland should do all it can to protect its independence from the EU, we should be confident that if the EU Constitution is ever placed before the Irish people as it is now drafted, and there was a campaign for Irish Independence, it could be defeated.

Those political forces that wish to destroy Irish Independence, Democracy and Neutrality and to restore the Imperial traditions of the British Union will not find it an easy task. The main reason why the political elites of the different states in the EU wish to support the proposed EU Constitution is because it transfers power to themselves and takes it away from their respective peoples and their National Assemblies. The Irish political elite regards their own people as not worthy of having power and that they, together with the elites of the other states of the EU should wield power. PANA however believes all power in Ireland derives from the Irish people, and that they, not an elite, should retain it. The elite have won some battles and we have won others. Next time, we win.

Thanks to the courage of Raymond Crotty, the Irish elite was forced to have referendums every time they transferred power to the EU elite several years ago. Now that Britain has been forced to join Ireland and other states that will have referendums, there will be pressure on all EU states have referendums on the EU Constitution. Our own experience in winning as we did for Nice 1, will allow Ireland to play a significant role in ensuring the defeat of this EU Constitution which seeks to establish a centralized Imperial Superstate. Through our affiliation to the European Peace & Human Rights Network and TEAM, we have already established links with other peace and democratic groups throughout Europe. There needs to be a call for every state to have a referendum and greater co-operation to ensure the defeat of the political forces advocating the creation of a European Imperial State. There defeat, and the building of links with other democratic and anti-imperial groups will allow us to help build a Democratic Europe, a Partnership of Democratic States. This discussion document is a contribution to the building of such a Democratic European Union.

The EU can have a future as such a Partnership. Yet PANA accepts that much of the history of the EU has been benign. Indeed, if the core reason for the foundation of the EU was to ensure that the states of Europe, in particular, Germany, France and Britain no longer were responsible for the deaths of millions of people through imperial wars in Europe, then its establishment must surely be welcomed. Yet anybody with a knowledge of the imperial traditions of Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Portugal, and Spain have every reason to oppose the rapid development of a military dimension of the EU.

The fact that Britain, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Holland, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain (up to recently), all have troops in Iraq to support the illegal invasion, conquest and occupation of Iraq is clear and positive proof that the European Imperial tradition is not just history, but is alive and well. That virtually the entire political elite in Ireland actively supports the conquest of Iraq is absolute proof that PANA is totally correct to see the creation of the EU as the restoration of the Irish Imperial tradition, the restoration of Empire. Fianna Fail (or should it be Fianna Bush), Fine Gael, the PD's, a reasonable section of the Irish Labour Party form a neo-Redmondite alliance and are committed to the creation of a centralized Imperial super state. We need to build up an alternative alliance, a government that seeks a Democratic Europe, a Partnership of Democratic states.

Establishing a Constitution for Europe or the Foundation of an Imperial European Superstate

A GREEN PARTY discussion document.
- April 2004

Foreword
Uniquely among Irish political parties, the Green Party will consult its membership on the Party's attitude to the new European Constitution. We have already held one seminar which was attended by Dr. Garrett FitzGerald and Mr Ben Tonra, and we hope to hold at least two more seminars once the Inter-Governmental Conference has concluded negotiations.

The Party will then hold a special convention on the issue, where party members will have the opportunity to debate the issue and come to a conclusion by way of preferendum or vote.

This document offers a brief overview of the key issues in the Constitution. It outlines the pros and cons, and should be seen as the starting point for our internal party debate. The document is availabe in '.pdf format' eu_const_greenparty04.pdf and there will also be a discussion forum on the issue, which will be open to party members, on the green party website - www.greenparty.ie. Those outside the party who wish to participate can do so using e-mail.

We want to see a full, open and honest debate on these issues. There may be arguments which we have overlooked, but we would be more than happy to include all points of view in the discussion forum.

On the 22nd of February 2004 the Irish Green Party celebrated along with our other European colleagues the formation of a European Green Party. As European Greens we have made it clear that the Constitution, if it is to have real democratic legitimacy, should be ratified in a European-wide referendum.

We look forward to the debate within the Irish Green Party, the European Greens and amongst the people of Europe about the future shape of the European Union.

Download full Document: eu_const_greenparty04.pdf (.PDF format, 220 Kb)

John Gormley, T.D.,
Green Party Chairman & Foreign Affairs Spokesperson,
Irish Representative on the European Convention.
The Green Party / Comhaontas Glas
5a Fownes Street, Temple Bar, Dublin 2.
Tel: 01 679 0012
Email: info@greenparty.ie
Web: www.greenparty.ie

A Constitution for Europe

by Andy Storey (Centre for Development Studies, UCD)

Pierre Defraigne, Deputy Director General for Trade at the European Commission, professes himself puzzled by Europeans' attitudes towards the phenomenon of globalisation:

"Today, Europeans are ambivalent as regards globalisation. How is it that a people that ‘discovered the world’ at the time of the Renaissance and, for two or three centuries, colonised four continents, can fail to see the many benefits that the conquest of new markets and the emergence of new producers present for their own well-being?" (Defraigne, 2002).

While Defraigne is baffled by the inability of Europeans to correctly perceive where their own best interests lie vis-a-vis globalisation, other commentators are exasperated at the inability of some to recognise what it is that Europe can and does contribute to the world. According to Senator Martin Mansergh (2003), the EU is not a "a neo-liberal militarised superstate" in the making, but rather "a force for peace, development and social and environmental progress".

There are two important arguments at work here: first, globalisation is good for Europe (Defraigne); second, Europe is good for the world (Mansergh). But do the best interests of Europeans truly lie in the more thoroughgoing embrace of globalisation, as currently constituted? Is the EU, as Senator Mansergh claims, a force for good in the world? More broadly, what is the relationship between the regional project that is the European Union (EU) and wider issues of globalisation and global governance? And how should those concerned with issues of social justice – both within Europe and globally – respond to the current pattern of European interaction with globalisation?

These are the questions that this paper addresses. Download:
» european-project.04.pdf (PDF file, 188Kb) or
» european-project.04.doc (WORD file, 112Kb)

The European Project: Dismantling Social Democracy, Globalising Neoliberalism

Deaglán de Bréadún’s article in the Irish Times January 12 says that Neutral Ireland will have key role in implementing EU security strategy. In some respects he is right, but on one key matter his article is misleading. Ireland is no longer neutral by any credible definition of neutrality. This was a clear and definitive finding by Mr Justice N Kearns in the High Court on 28th April 2003 in the Horgan v. An Taoiseach, et al.

For the record, neutrality is a legal status and obligation in international law that applies only in time of war. In peacetime, a state that wishes to be considered neutral in future wars must establish credibility in order to have its neutrality respected by belligerents. Ireland established its credibility as a neutral state during World War II.

It was arguably far more neutral than either Sweden, Portugal or Spain, and minor infringements such as its treatment of captured British personnel, compare very favourable with much more serious infringements by Sweden and others. In the intervening period Ireland has maintained its credibility as a neutral, by insisting on curtailing military transit through Ireland even in times of peace. Ireland remained strictly neutral during the Korean, Vietnam and Afghanistan/USSR wars. This is borne out by documents discovered by me before the High Court.

The critical change in our neutrality status came during the Kosovo war when Ireland allowed US armaments, including Cruise type missiles to pass through or over its territory while the US was engaged in an attack on Serbia, without UN Security Council approval. Further serious violations of Irish neutrality occurred during the US-led war against Afghanistan, even if the UN status of this war was less clear-cut. In the ongoing war against Iraq, the Irish government allowed the passage through Ireland of over 100,000 heavily armed US troops in the preparation for and the conduct of the US-led war against Iraq. The independent MEDACT report has confirmed that up to 30,000 people were killed in this war. No definition of neutrality allows countries such as Ireland to facilitate military operations to that extent. Ireland is therefore not a neutral country under international law at present and its credibility as a neutral country in the event of future wars can only be restored by including a clear neutrality clause in the Irish Constitution.

Deaglán de Bréadún’s assertion that fears for Irish neutrality have been ‘... allayed, to some extent, by the new constitutional provision that there will be no Irish participation in a common European defence without a further referendum’ is also misleading. This refers to the arguably bogus clause inserted in the Irish Constitution (Article 29.4.9) in the second Nice referendum to mislead Irish voters that they were enshrining neutrality into the Constitution. Our participation in Iraq war in the meantime proves the extent to which the Irish people were misled.

Now we are being told that Ireland has a role to play in EU common security strategy. Notice the way the weasel words "security strategy" have conveniently replaced "common defence" to get around the new Article 29.4.9. The Irish people should be alerted also that Mr Justice Kearns ruled that Article 29.1, 2 and 3., of the Constitution was purely "aspirational" anyway, in his ruling in Aril 28 last, thereby effectively re-writing our constitution.

The arguments for Ireland abandoning its neutrality in favour of joining a common EU defence (sorry, security strategy) are as bogus as Article 29.4.9 of the Constitution.

UN collective security and support for the institutions of international law are now being replaced by the weasel word "multilateralism" in EU-speak and Irish Foreign Affairs lingo. Let me remind readers that multilateralism means three or more countries deciding to attack another country, and killing thousands of people, innocent or otherwise.

Tony Blair has used the term with this meaning repeatedly to justify British involvement in Iraq. All such talk of unilateralism and multilateral action has the effect, intended or otherwise, of undermining the UN and international law, and avoiding the necessary reform, or transformation of the UN.

Why waste time reforming the UN when we can trust the US instead? Indonesia, East Timor, Chile, Central America, Vietnam and Cambodia could tell us why not to trust the US. The European Union, as it drifts erratically towards becoming a super-state now wishes to challenge the US superpower militarily as well as economically.

This is the crazy logic of school-yard bullies and those that will suffer will be innocent victims of resource-wars like that in Iraq, fought on the bogus lies about weapons of mass destruction, against US erstwhile ally turned poacher, Saddam Hussein.

Other collateral victims will be poorer class Western conscripts fighting for the Clinton’s and Bushes who conveniently manage to avoid such war.

Ireland lost some 50,000 your men in the mud and blood fields such as the Somme, in that most useless of wars, World War I. Ireland has been playing its part with UN peacekeeping in important missions such as Lebanon, East Timor and Liberia, and brave Irish soldiers have justifiable fallen in the cause of global peace and justice.

Let those who want to fight energy-resource-wars fight them themselves. Ireland should harvest the wind and its renewable energy resources and stop participating it the exploitation of the poorer peoples of the world. The old truism inter arma, silent leges, "in times of war, the law is silent", must be proved wrong. It is in times of war that law is needed most, as the people of Srebrenica, Rwanda, Iraq and elsewhere could tell us, if they were still alive.

Raphael Lemkin who lost his family in the Holocaust warned ‘large countries can defend themselves by arms: small countries need the protection of the law’ Caveat emptor. Let the buyer of European security ‘pigs in a poke’ beware. The European Union is great idea but a militarised European super-state is not. Neutrality of small states such as Ireland is one way of keeping Europe from reverting to imperialism and supporting UN reform against US multilateralism.

Edward Horgan, Newtown, Castletroy, Limerick.
Phone 061-330567

Bio: Edward Horgan is a retired army Commandant, and expert on neutrality and international affairs. He is currently a Government of Ireland Scholar, researching towards a PhD. on the topic of United Nations reform, at the University of Limerick.

Neutral? Ireland on the slippery slopes back to the Somme?

The General Features of the New Constitution in Relation to Public Services
The proposed new EU Constitution is meant to incorporate all of the existing Treaties of the EU but it goes much further than that. The Constitution not only sets out how the EU should be run but it also determines what economic and social policies should be followed in the Member States.

The new EU Constitution must be viewed in the context of the evolution of the social and economic policies of the Union. As it stands, the new Constitution signals the abandonment of the ‘social’ or ‘Welfare State’ model of the EU – in which state provision of high quality public services, protection against unemployment, citizens and workers rights, environmental protection, etc. were the priority. A framework for the further advance of neo-liberal globalization, which clearly points to this abandonment, is embedded in the new Constitution. Key to this framework are the changes which will allow the European Commission to negotiate trade agreements involving the commercialization of public services at the World Trade Organisation through the mechanism of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).

The new Constitution would remove the existing power of veto on commercialisation of Health, Education and Cultural Services that Member States have in the Council of Ministers. It shifts decisions on trade in these services to Qualified Majority Voting (QMV). No details of voting would be published, so Irish citizens would not know how Irish representatives in the Council of Ministers voted. The European Commission would then have exclusive right to make agreements at the WTO through the GATS agreement which could liberalise international trade in these Services, and only inform us of the details after the deals have been done.
The Irish State is already part of ongoing GATS negotiations, making offers to other WTO members on what services it will agree to open up to competition. None of this can be monitored by Citizens / Opposition Parties / The Dáil / The Social Partners etc. It is done in secret by the Article 133 Committee, which has Irish members. In the aftermath of the Nice Treaty referendum, thirty two Freedom of Information requests were made about the activities of the Irish members of the Article 133 Committee: only one was granted.
The exclusive right given to the European Commission to make trade deals in all Services, combined with the commitment in the common commercial policy to liberalise trade in all Services, means that the new Constitution would prepare the way for commercialising Education, Health and Cultural / Audiovisual Services. It would put a framework for commercialising these Services into basic EU law – a framework that democratically elected governments would be powerless to change in the future.
To those who say that Member State control of Education, Health and Cultural / Audiovisual Services is protected by various Articles in the Constitution, we say this: protection by such Articles is contradicted by giving the EU exclusive rights to make international agreements to open trade in these Services. If democratic control is to be retained, decisions must remain unanimous: any Member State must have the right to use a veto in the Council of Ministers against proposals to open trade in these Services.
Some regional governments are critical of the powers that the Constitution gives the EU. The Austrian Lander are opposed to decisions on how public services should be provided being determined by EU ‘framework law’. They argue that giving exclusive rights to the EU to make trade agreements for these services means the rights of Regional Governments – subsidiarity – are at an end; and that considerations other than commercial values should be taken into account in the provision of public services. In this they are defending democratic accountability and a ‘social’ model for the EU - as against the commercial framework in the new EU Constitution. The Irish Government are happy to make complaining noises about the loss of the veto in the areas of Foreign Policy and Taxation Policy but have completely ignored the implications of the loss of a veto when it comes to the possible forced liberalisation of core public services.

The New Constitution and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)
At present, public services are still provided by the state in some of the countries of the EU. But steady pressure from the Commission via the Common Commercial Policy, the new Constitution, and the GATS agreements, will progressively bring that to an end. The state which carries out the most commercialization of public services will set the agenda for all the other Member States – note the British experience. So rather than providing protection against globalization, the EU – and especially the new Constitution – is actually advancing the agenda of neo-liberal globalization. The new Constitution is designed to create the optimal conditions for big business, while removing mechanisms for democratic accountability and control.

Why is the GATS so important? "The GATS is not just something that exists between governments. It is first and foremost an instrument for the benefit of business." - European Commission (1998). Agreements at the WTO, in negotiations on the GATS, to open services to trade on the international market are irreversible, binding commitments. Opening services to trade means restructuring public services so that they can be run on a commercial basis, for a profit. The upshot is that infrastructure like schools and hospitals are privately provided at high cost to the state and the taxpayer. And two tier services emerge – private and high-quality services for those who can afford it; and low quality state services for those who cannot. When it comes to having high-quality public services, democratically accountable and available to all, who provides them does matter.

The Proposed New Constitution
The Irish government will hold the EU Presidency for six months starting on January 1, 2004. During the Irish Presidency, the Member States of the EU, and the ten new Accession States, will be working to get final agreement on the proposed new EU Constitution. The Constitution is scheduled to be formally agreed by the Heads of State on May 9, 2004. It must then be ratified by all states before December 31, 2005. Ratification in Ireland will be by referendum, but no date has been set.

There are conflicting commitments within the Constitution in relation to the Common Commercial Policy, Art III 216 and 217, and to the competencies of the EU versus the member states as laid down in Art 16 – which says the EU may take Supporting, Coordinating or Complementary action in relation to education, health and culture, industry and civil protection; and that such action may not harmonise laws or regulations. The common commercial policy is one of the fundamental elements of the EU, based on "uniform principals" in relation to "the conclusion of tariff and trade agreements relating to trade in goods and services" and "uniformity in measures of liberalisation" (Art. III 217-1). In practise this means that the State which pushes the furthest with liberalisation – and the Commission is also actively promoting liberalisation - will set the terms for all of the others.

While Art 16 formally restricts EU input to a ‘supporting’ role, it also gives the EU a significant input into these areas of policy. But the common commercial policy will take precedence in any aspects of the provision of health and education and cultural services that are regarded as commercial – e.g.: catering, cleaning, transport, maintenance, and even operational management – as in Britain.

Common commercial policy is decided exclusively by the EU. The Commission takes the initiative, and the Council of Ministers decides on policy by Qualified Majority Vote (QMV). Present proposals are that any aggregate of States’ votes representing more than 60% of the population of the enlarged EU will constitute a majority. No details or minutes of Commission / Council debates and voting are published – citizens of the Member States cannot find out how their representatives vote or call them to account.

At present, Article 133 of the Nice Treaty states that any changes in common commercial policy on Education, Health and Cultural Services have to get a unanimous vote in the Council of Ministers. They are exempt from QMV – so a veto is available to Member States if they don’t agree with a particular policy.

Liberalisation and Commercialisation Under the New Constitution
Dr. Stummann of the Assembly of the European Regions argues that failure to get unanimity for further liberalisation of Education and Health in the GATS negotiations earlier this year was the reason that the Commission was unable to make more offers to open these services up to trade at that time. He also notes that those pushing hardest for liberalisation in these services - Britain, the Netherlands, and chief EU negotiator at the GATS Pascal Lamy - are also pushing strongly for QMV to determine policy on Health and Education. They evidently think they can get a majority vote for liberalisation, where they could not get a unanimous vote. So some States will have liberalisation forced upon them.

The present exemption of Education and Health from QMV is not included in the proposed new Constitution. Under the new Constitution, the Commission would make proposals to the Council of Ministers, which could decide by QMV to open up trade in the commercial aspects of Education and Health Care.

This can include almost anything – from catering to full operational management, as in Britain. The Commission and the Council of Ministers would decide by QMV what constitutes ‘commercial aspects’ of these services. So attention should be paid to the commercialisation of these Services in Britain; and to what parts of these Services are already up for trade in the GATS.

As more and more aspects of public service provision in Europe, such as health and education, are opened up to commercial forces, the greater will be the influence of the common commercial policy on the provision of these services. The increasing use of public private partnership (PPP / PFI) contracts, allowing private operators to design, build, maintain and sometimes manage schools is a case in point. Member States would only be allowed to formulate general policy with regard to these services, not how or by whom they should be delivered, despite the provisions of Articles 179 on Health and 183 on Education.

Articles Providing Protection Against Liberalisation?
It might be argued that Articles 16, III-179-7 on Health, III-181 on Culture, III-183-1/4 on Education, III-217-4 of the common commercial policy on cultural and audiovisual services, and III-217-5 of the common commercial policy on the delineation of the competences of Member States as against those of the EU - protect the rights of the Member States to determine policy on Health, Education and Cultural / Audiovisual Services.

But these Articles offer little legal protection against the provisions of Article 12-1 which gives the Union exclusive right to determine common commercial policy; and thence 217-1 of the common commercial policy, which includes the right to make ‘trade agreements in relation to trade in goods and services’. This element of the common commercial policy allows the Commission, after a QMV vote in the Council of Ministers, to make deals in the GATS and the WTO on what the Commission itself defines as the ‘commercial aspects’ of these Services. The commercial aspects of these Services are not defined in the Constitution or elsewhere. So a Member State would have to go to the European Court of Justice to challenge the Commission, arguing a defence that would have to show that the Commission was opening trade in non-commercial aspects of these Services.

This would be a very difficult legal argument to make, since many parts of these Services can be broken into individual functions and contracted out. Examples of this can be seen in Ireland and in especially in Britain.

Formal ‘harmonisation’ of laws and regulations would be unnecessary, since it would take place in practise through the application of trade agreements.

In practise the so-called protection Articles are but a fig-leaf covering the overriding drive towards uniform liberalisation of trade in Services contained in the common commercial policy. If those who cite these Articles are serious about protecting Health, Education, and Cultural / Audiovisual Services from commercialisation, they should at least press for the retention of the unanimity requirement in the Council of Ministers on decisions to open trade in these Services.

Cultural and Audio Services
With regard to culture, Art III 217-4 of the Constitution gives a veto on changes in the common commercial policy only in ‘the conclusion of agreements in the field of trade in cultural and audiovisual services, where these risk prejudicing the Union’s cultural and linguistic diversity’.

How such risk is defined, when it is defined, and by whom it is defined, is open to interpretation. Would a general opening up of the University sector, or of the primary school sector (as is happening in Britain), to unlimited competition pose a threat to cultural and linguistic diversity? Would the same levels of support to linguistically specific radio and TV – like TG4 and projects it supports – also have to be given to private commercial channels like TV3? How would defenders of linguistic diversity establish, in advance - rather than when deals have been made and the damage is done - that certain trading agreements pose risks to culture? Who decides what constitutes a risk is not defined, so those who might see their culture as being at risk will not have veto powers. In practise the European Court will determine which services should be protected and which should be commercialised.

Subsidiarity and Regional Policy
‘Subsidiarity’ and EU Regional Policy will be heavily undermined by the new Constitution. In Austria subsidiarity means a choice by the communities as to how public services are provided – people can vote for different political parties and proposals. The Länder, the regional and local territorial authorities can freely decide whether they provide public services themselves, by means of a hived off structure (possibly in the form of in-house allocation), or – after the completion of a public allocation procedure - by means of a third party.

The Austrian Länder are against the introduction of a general obligation for open competitive tendering in the ‘services of general interest’ (public services) in Europe. But Art III-6 states that in relation to the ‘principles and conditions’ whereby these services are provided, ‘these principles and conditions are laid down by European law’. The Länder argue that this goes against the principle of subsidiarity and would give the Union a competence that at present it does not have in some services - such as drinking-water supply, waste and wastewater disposal, social services as well as education and culture. Similarly, giving the Union exclusive right to negotiate trade agreements in Services means that regions, such as the Länder, lose their rights to determine policy for those Services. Subsidiarity would be made meaningless. The people of these regions would lose their democratic right to control how their Services are structured and delivered.

Art III-6 also undermines Regional Policy. Art III-117 states that the Union’s policies and action should take into account the objectives of reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions. Determining policies on the basis of ‘European law’ - as provided for in Art III-6 – would give primacy to competition rules and thereby undermine measures to reduce regional inequality - such as providing subsidies for regional transport links that would not be comm