Lisbon Treaty: An International Perspective
Rizwan Ghani
June 11, 2008
Lisbon Treaty (another name for EU Treaty) is set to be voted ´No´ by the 4 million Irish voters on Thursday despite claims of three-point lead on 42% compared to 39% for ´no´ side. The main reasons cited for a No vote include: 1) new presidential job for Tony Blair [wanted: Plan C, the Guardian dated June 07]. 2) EU monopoly over justice, defense and foreign affairs of EU member states undermining the individual state constitutions. 3) The vote on Lisbon Treaty without circulating detailed text of the Treaty http://forums.ec.europa.eu/debateeurope/viewtopic.php?t=947&sid=a3997d0ec386a3b415ff32621178d4eb.
4) Avoid collapse of economy. UK is experiencing worst poverty under Labor where children are worst hit (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jun/11/socialexclusion.children). 5) It is global capital and global companies that need EU States not otherwise. 6) The Euro has not become stronger under EU. It is stronger against US dollar but on ground, the buying power of Euro has weakened within Europe. The case in point is Euro breaking inflation-top records under European Central Banks. It is greed that is growing stronger not Euro. 7) There is no need for one Europe to compete with the US. The stronger economies under ´great game´ are ´colonizing and monopolizing´ the economies. The policies are increasing ´impoverishment´ and ´ever increasing working hours´.
8) Treaty by imposing ´positive discrimination´ immigration policy is forcing ´cultures´ on member states that creates the inevitable language gaps; background clashes; the consequent disharmony; lack of understanding within the work teams resulting in reduced economic effectiveness and denying freedom to the EU-countries to choose their own ways of seeking social harmony among their citizens via an organic bottom-up development of social groups, with members of common interests, values and roots.
The Treaty´s immigration plan will tear up families and friends and scatter them all over Europe – to make Europe´s economy "more efficient". It will produce opposite results including undermining social stability through increased social tension and despair all over Europe, which in turn will result in further economic slowdown.
9) The calls for EU to increase internal security and to fight terrorism in Europe´ is a myth. The fact is the ultimate threat to Europe´s security is the Treaty´s attempt to establish a federal state-the forced EU-integration. In Europe it is opined that the solution is not to close the EU borders to rest of the world but to let each EU-country handle and solve their "security" problems. The argument that "terrorism" does not know borders is another false justification for the need of creating one country of the EU-states. "Terrorism" does not know continent borders either. EU and US cannot turn the world into a one giant country to fight "terrorism".
The reports about Bush administrations doctoring of Iraq war and controversial plans to continue its occupation with fifty bases to protect private energy sector and pay for Iraq war has moved pro-human rights Europe away from America. It has hurt America´s image as beacon of democracy and human rights in rest of the world. Almost 70 percent Germans during Bush´s visit as part of his farewell visit to Europe said they would vote for Obama because he is not Bush http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/10/usa.germany. In America itself Rep Kucinich has called for Bush´s impeachment for deceiving citizens and Congress into supporting Iraq war Kuhttp://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008611story_11-6-2008_pg4_2. Bush has himself voiced regret for macho rhetoric in run up to Iraq war during is ongoing Europe visit http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/11/georgebush.usforeignpolicy.
A serious outfall of Iraq war is compromise of US Bill of Rights resulting in White House´s standoff with Congress over 8 dismissed US Attorneys. The reports of wiretapping, torture and undermining of relevant laws are self-explanatory. The standoff between Congress and White House over removal of last US Attorney General. The national media gag over injuries and covering coffins returning from Iraq. All these complex issues have not only undermined efficacy of democratic institutions within US but across the world. The judicial standoff in Pakistan is a case in point http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008611story_11-6-2008_pg1_6. There is general perception in Pakistan that developed world and corporate sector instead of promoting democracy are keeping democratic institutions weak to protect business, political and security interests. In turn leaving public exposed to corrupt practices, denial to access to justice and exploitation at hands of state machinery and private setups.
10) Europe should instead address poverty increase and economic downturns. It should lead the way to penalize those responsible for stagflation (era of out-of-control prices with no growth, growing joblessness etc) in developed economies by helping to make new laws to prevent it in future. However, the increasing food and energy prices, the protection of the non-productive (private) capitals and monopolies hidden behind economic oligarchies, and suppressing the interests of the overall value-adding production sphere, reflect the exact opposite direction both within and beyond the EU.
Republicans micromanaged by corporate America are unwilling to implement New Deal upheld by US Supreme Court in 1936 to protect average American to set precedent for rest of the world. The clueless Democrats despite running a successful primaries campaign are nowhere close to offering an economic roadmap to address bread and basket issue of average American. The fact of the matter is barrel of oil price has to be frozen at 46 dollar but no one is ready to do it-both Republicans and Democrats. They are upholding fundamentals of economy instead of providing relief to humanity across the globe. In simple words, Wall Street is more important than Main Street. UK as staunch supporter of free market economic model is struggling to cope with growing cost of living http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jun/11/socialexclusion.welfare1. It leaves little to imagination about the fate of average person living below two dollars a day in rest of the world.
11) There is no need for united Europe to act as military competitor in global world. Individual European States are capable enough to join UN to ´save´ the world. It is opined that the Treaty carefully creates the structures for armed intervention abroad-militarization. It demands increased military spending, and organizes an EU armaments industry under the newly formed European Defense Agency. It also allows groups of the more powerful military powers within the union to form military alliances among themselves, which may then be authorized to act abroad on behalf of the EU. The EU states should reject militarization and instead adopt a foreign policy that is to the benefit of European workers and working people, the oppressed and the impoverished millions around the world http://forums.ec.europa.eu/debateeurope/viewtopic.php?t=947&sid=a3997d0ec386a3b415ff32621178d4eb
12) Lisbon promotes privatization by supporting a system in the ´internal market´ to ensure ´that competition is not distorted´ and calls for ´uniformity in measures of liberalization.´ This is code for hiving off to the corporate sector important parts of public services, the most profitable parts of course. The alternative to the neo-liberal policies in the Lisbon Treaty is a socialist approach. The fact of the matter is the main corporations and major financial institutions in Europe using state owned infrastructures to rake in huge profits at the cost of ordinary people should be put under public ownership (nationalize) and democratic workers´ control. The failing health care, insurance and education systems in USA and UK are cases in point.
In short, the ´yes vote´ for Lisbon Treaty will leave the political leadership of individual member states an empty ´egg shell´ while EU headquarter occupied by the non-representative office holders will dictate the policies to the member states and make decision on their behalf without caring for the consequences. It will relegate unelected EU body to the level of a dictator- undermining democratic will of the people in democracies, leaving ballot boxes useless and contribute to radical loss of decision making in parliaments. Keeping in view the population of Ireland, it will come down to 1.5% in EU from 100% in their own country.
In case of Treaty adoption, it is opined that EU member states will lose their national sovereignty in economical, political, social, sectors. It will have countless negative consequences, such as the loss of military neutrality. The cases in point are controversial employment of British troops in Iraq despite protests of million plus people in London, split in EU allies over deployment, role and collateral damage incurred by NATO forces in Afghanistan and coalition troops in Iraq.
In terms of independent tax regime, etc. it will also transfer actual government and parliament functions currently performed by the national state officials to the respective EU-institutions. The anti-Lisbon Treaty groups in Ireland are calling for ´No vote´ to protect national interests and public´s constitutional rights and privileges.
In broader perspective, Treaty is yet another effort to undermine the constitutional strengths of Europe protecting human rights, labor and constitutional rights of average Europeans. British PM Brown´s struggle to get support for extension of terror law in face of resistance by civil societies supporting human rights reflects the extent of damage done to the foundation of modern world based on writ of law instead of individual policies. Thereby reviving past attempts to control China under the garb of ´democratization´ and post Soviet Union Russia through ´corporatization´ as part of ´economic colonization´ of rest of the world for the super rich/globalization/free market economy or whatever.
In contrast to the tough to sell Treaty-policy aimed to gain control of democratic Europe for stakes, it is lot easier to use dictatorships/quasi democracies to colonize developing countries; ´economically, politically and socially´ because they lack independent institutions, good governance and strong democratic practices. Pakistan is no exception. It explains global community´s failure to out rightly support stronger and functional judiciary in Pakistan to avoid country´s insulation against: a) outside interference, anti-democratic and anti-competitive global practices. b) protection of citizens civil and constitutional rights. c) Enforcement of international charters, conventions and treaties including human rights. d) holding of political, economic leadership and the establishment accountable.
It can therefore be argued that foreign influences are thwarting Pakistan´s struggle seeking independence of judiciary, protection of judge´s right to exercise judicial review and suo moto powers. The public largely believes that stronger judiciary doesn´t serve global players because it can block martial laws, corruption and nepotism, which allows manipulation. The stronger judiciary will strengthen culture of accountability, transparency and strong democracy which is taken as threat to globalization. Thus, it can be argued that supporters of global stakes are consistently undermining public interests across the globe for vested stakes. The Lisbon Treaty in Europe, Iraq occupation, stalled ME process , Afghanistan occupation and judicial standoff in Pakistan are cases in point.
Finally, there is a fear that the EU could well ignore Ireland´s ´no vote´ and use ´ratifications´ of other parliaments to ´move on´. However, had it been so easy the EU Treaty would not have been re-cooked as Lisbon Treaty and put up for vote for third time in the hope that voters might swallow the bait after its failures in France and Netherlands? Ireland is all set to vote ´No´ however there is an urgent need to bring a permanent end to Lisbon Treaty to protect public interest in Europe and rest of the world.
4) Avoid collapse of economy. UK is experiencing worst poverty under Labor where children are worst hit (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jun/11/socialexclusion.children). 5) It is global capital and global companies that need EU States not otherwise. 6) The Euro has not become stronger under EU. It is stronger against US dollar but on ground, the buying power of Euro has weakened within Europe. The case in point is Euro breaking inflation-top records under European Central Banks. It is greed that is growing stronger not Euro. 7) There is no need for one Europe to compete with the US. The stronger economies under ´great game´ are ´colonizing and monopolizing´ the economies. The policies are increasing ´impoverishment´ and ´ever increasing working hours´.
8) Treaty by imposing ´positive discrimination´ immigration policy is forcing ´cultures´ on member states that creates the inevitable language gaps; background clashes; the consequent disharmony; lack of understanding within the work teams resulting in reduced economic effectiveness and denying freedom to the EU-countries to choose their own ways of seeking social harmony among their citizens via an organic bottom-up development of social groups, with members of common interests, values and roots.
The Treaty´s immigration plan will tear up families and friends and scatter them all over Europe – to make Europe´s economy "more efficient". It will produce opposite results including undermining social stability through increased social tension and despair all over Europe, which in turn will result in further economic slowdown.
9) The calls for EU to increase internal security and to fight terrorism in Europe´ is a myth. The fact is the ultimate threat to Europe´s security is the Treaty´s attempt to establish a federal state-the forced EU-integration. In Europe it is opined that the solution is not to close the EU borders to rest of the world but to let each EU-country handle and solve their "security" problems. The argument that "terrorism" does not know borders is another false justification for the need of creating one country of the EU-states. "Terrorism" does not know continent borders either. EU and US cannot turn the world into a one giant country to fight "terrorism".
The reports about Bush administrations doctoring of Iraq war and controversial plans to continue its occupation with fifty bases to protect private energy sector and pay for Iraq war has moved pro-human rights Europe away from America. It has hurt America´s image as beacon of democracy and human rights in rest of the world. Almost 70 percent Germans during Bush´s visit as part of his farewell visit to Europe said they would vote for Obama because he is not Bush http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/10/usa.germany. In America itself Rep Kucinich has called for Bush´s impeachment for deceiving citizens and Congress into supporting Iraq war Kuhttp://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008611story_11-6-2008_pg4_2. Bush has himself voiced regret for macho rhetoric in run up to Iraq war during is ongoing Europe visit http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/11/georgebush.usforeignpolicy.
A serious outfall of Iraq war is compromise of US Bill of Rights resulting in White House´s standoff with Congress over 8 dismissed US Attorneys. The reports of wiretapping, torture and undermining of relevant laws are self-explanatory. The standoff between Congress and White House over removal of last US Attorney General. The national media gag over injuries and covering coffins returning from Iraq. All these complex issues have not only undermined efficacy of democratic institutions within US but across the world. The judicial standoff in Pakistan is a case in point http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008611story_11-6-2008_pg1_6. There is general perception in Pakistan that developed world and corporate sector instead of promoting democracy are keeping democratic institutions weak to protect business, political and security interests. In turn leaving public exposed to corrupt practices, denial to access to justice and exploitation at hands of state machinery and private setups.
10) Europe should instead address poverty increase and economic downturns. It should lead the way to penalize those responsible for stagflation (era of out-of-control prices with no growth, growing joblessness etc) in developed economies by helping to make new laws to prevent it in future. However, the increasing food and energy prices, the protection of the non-productive (private) capitals and monopolies hidden behind economic oligarchies, and suppressing the interests of the overall value-adding production sphere, reflect the exact opposite direction both within and beyond the EU.
Republicans micromanaged by corporate America are unwilling to implement New Deal upheld by US Supreme Court in 1936 to protect average American to set precedent for rest of the world. The clueless Democrats despite running a successful primaries campaign are nowhere close to offering an economic roadmap to address bread and basket issue of average American. The fact of the matter is barrel of oil price has to be frozen at 46 dollar but no one is ready to do it-both Republicans and Democrats. They are upholding fundamentals of economy instead of providing relief to humanity across the globe. In simple words, Wall Street is more important than Main Street. UK as staunch supporter of free market economic model is struggling to cope with growing cost of living http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jun/11/socialexclusion.welfare1. It leaves little to imagination about the fate of average person living below two dollars a day in rest of the world.
11) There is no need for united Europe to act as military competitor in global world. Individual European States are capable enough to join UN to ´save´ the world. It is opined that the Treaty carefully creates the structures for armed intervention abroad-militarization. It demands increased military spending, and organizes an EU armaments industry under the newly formed European Defense Agency. It also allows groups of the more powerful military powers within the union to form military alliances among themselves, which may then be authorized to act abroad on behalf of the EU. The EU states should reject militarization and instead adopt a foreign policy that is to the benefit of European workers and working people, the oppressed and the impoverished millions around the world http://forums.ec.europa.eu/debateeurope/viewtopic.php?t=947&sid=a3997d0ec386a3b415ff32621178d4eb
12) Lisbon promotes privatization by supporting a system in the ´internal market´ to ensure ´that competition is not distorted´ and calls for ´uniformity in measures of liberalization.´ This is code for hiving off to the corporate sector important parts of public services, the most profitable parts of course. The alternative to the neo-liberal policies in the Lisbon Treaty is a socialist approach. The fact of the matter is the main corporations and major financial institutions in Europe using state owned infrastructures to rake in huge profits at the cost of ordinary people should be put under public ownership (nationalize) and democratic workers´ control. The failing health care, insurance and education systems in USA and UK are cases in point.
In short, the ´yes vote´ for Lisbon Treaty will leave the political leadership of individual member states an empty ´egg shell´ while EU headquarter occupied by the non-representative office holders will dictate the policies to the member states and make decision on their behalf without caring for the consequences. It will relegate unelected EU body to the level of a dictator- undermining democratic will of the people in democracies, leaving ballot boxes useless and contribute to radical loss of decision making in parliaments. Keeping in view the population of Ireland, it will come down to 1.5% in EU from 100% in their own country.
In case of Treaty adoption, it is opined that EU member states will lose their national sovereignty in economical, political, social, sectors. It will have countless negative consequences, such as the loss of military neutrality. The cases in point are controversial employment of British troops in Iraq despite protests of million plus people in London, split in EU allies over deployment, role and collateral damage incurred by NATO forces in Afghanistan and coalition troops in Iraq.
In terms of independent tax regime, etc. it will also transfer actual government and parliament functions currently performed by the national state officials to the respective EU-institutions. The anti-Lisbon Treaty groups in Ireland are calling for ´No vote´ to protect national interests and public´s constitutional rights and privileges.
In broader perspective, Treaty is yet another effort to undermine the constitutional strengths of Europe protecting human rights, labor and constitutional rights of average Europeans. British PM Brown´s struggle to get support for extension of terror law in face of resistance by civil societies supporting human rights reflects the extent of damage done to the foundation of modern world based on writ of law instead of individual policies. Thereby reviving past attempts to control China under the garb of ´democratization´ and post Soviet Union Russia through ´corporatization´ as part of ´economic colonization´ of rest of the world for the super rich/globalization/free market economy or whatever.
In contrast to the tough to sell Treaty-policy aimed to gain control of democratic Europe for stakes, it is lot easier to use dictatorships/quasi democracies to colonize developing countries; ´economically, politically and socially´ because they lack independent institutions, good governance and strong democratic practices. Pakistan is no exception. It explains global community´s failure to out rightly support stronger and functional judiciary in Pakistan to avoid country´s insulation against: a) outside interference, anti-democratic and anti-competitive global practices. b) protection of citizens civil and constitutional rights. c) Enforcement of international charters, conventions and treaties including human rights. d) holding of political, economic leadership and the establishment accountable.
It can therefore be argued that foreign influences are thwarting Pakistan´s struggle seeking independence of judiciary, protection of judge´s right to exercise judicial review and suo moto powers. The public largely believes that stronger judiciary doesn´t serve global players because it can block martial laws, corruption and nepotism, which allows manipulation. The stronger judiciary will strengthen culture of accountability, transparency and strong democracy which is taken as threat to globalization. Thus, it can be argued that supporters of global stakes are consistently undermining public interests across the globe for vested stakes. The Lisbon Treaty in Europe, Iraq occupation, stalled ME process , Afghanistan occupation and judicial standoff in Pakistan are cases in point.
Finally, there is a fear that the EU could well ignore Ireland´s ´no vote´ and use ´ratifications´ of other parliaments to ´move on´. However, had it been so easy the EU Treaty would not have been re-cooked as Lisbon Treaty and put up for vote for third time in the hope that voters might swallow the bait after its failures in France and Netherlands? Ireland is all set to vote ´No´ however there is an urgent need to bring a permanent end to Lisbon Treaty to protect public interest in Europe and rest of the world.
Print
Email
