The Lisbon Treaty and why Leftists Should Oppose it

[Coggeh]

The Lisbon Treaty is back on the table for voters in Ireland .I decided to make this thread in order to clear up an confusions about where we should stand on this . Last time around some users (a small minority) either didn't have a position or supported the Yes side . I hope what I'll write below can help users in arguing against the treaty but also in confirming their own suspicious against the treaty.

Anyway . After its defeat in the Summer of 2008 the EU have once again pushed the Irish voters to 'try again' in order to make the right choice . It is key that leftists of all sects should oppose this as the ramifications for European countries and the wider world are dyer .

The Treaty Itself:
The Lisbon treaty is a basic replica of the EU Constitution which was rejected by Dutch and French Voters overwhelmingly in 2005 and thus was not passed.The new treaty however will have no such battles to face with these voters as will be explained later on .

In regards to this being a 'new' treaty which is constantly said by yes campaigners to all intents and purposes it is the same as the original Constitution minus a few ‘cosmetic’ changes such as references to flags and emblems. Even Bertie Ahern(Former Irish Taoiseach) has admitted this when he said that ‘90 percent [of the EU constitution] is still there’.


The Aim of the treaty is seen when we quote the Belgian Foriegn Minister Karel De Gucht 'The aim of this Treaty is to be unreadable....it is a success'. Reading the treaty is virtually impossible , every bit of text refers to changes made to 2 other treaties so to read one we must read 3 ,which, without an education in legal frameworks are unreadable.This is all done in the mind of yet another quote by Former French President Giscard d'Estang: ''Public Opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it , the proposal that we dare not present them directly''


On The Issues:

Privatisation

The Lisbon Treaty seeks to promote the neo-liberal agenda of privatising public services such as health , education , transport and water supply etcetc.

Article 188c.4 means that a majority on the European Council of Ministers will be enough to impose trade deals negociated between the EU and the world Trade Organisation that could open up ''services of general economic interest'' (e.g health-care, education,water ,transport) to privatisation by financial capitalists and speculators.

These can now only be vetoed if '' risks seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudices the responsibility of member states to deliever them''. However a quick glance and it is clear by the pro big buisness policies of the Irish government and that of other EU countries, as well as the EU itself that the above clause is a sham as they argue that privatisation doesn't cause such problems.

Articles 104.9 and 104.11 give the EU powers to make national governments reduce budget deficits- i.e cut public spending. This will be used as an excuse by national governments for public cuts and also be used to push their scheme for privatisation as we have seen in Ireland and other western countries already . For the private system to work , the public one has to fail first .

The Charter of Fundamental Human Rights and Workers Rights Under Lisbon

Lisbon will promote a Race to the bottom which means it aims at driving down wages and boosting profits for big business.It strengthens the European Court of Justice's (ECJ) power in determining issues of class conflict.

This may sound good and is regularly used by Yes campaigners as a reason to vote yes for leftists but the ECJ has clearly demostrated its bias in favour of employers in thge past. In Decemeber 2007 it ruled that unions whad been in breach of European law when they picketed sites controlled by the Latvian company Laval in Swedden in 2004 in protest at the company paying 9euro an hour when it agreed to the industry rate of 16euro an hour.The court ruled that the only legally enforcable rate was the Swedish minimum wage and no more - that the normal employment agreements could not be imposed.

Proocol 6 of the treaty states '' The internal market as set out in Article (1-3)... includes a system of ensuring that competition is not distorted'' and Article 189 mandates the EU to ensure '' the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade and foreign direct investment''. The ECJ Ruffert Judgment earlier this year said the right to unrestricted services took priority over collective wage agreements when it ruled that it was acceptable for a Polish subcontracteor operating in Germany to pay less than half the hourly rate.

Lisbon does nothing to hinder the ability of this court to hand down such judgments which iphold the right of capitalists to exploit workers throughout Europe.

Supporters of this treaty claim the inclusion of the Cgarter of Fundamental Human Rights will protect workers' rights. The social rights offered by the charter are not absolute and merely conditional and can be overruled by the ECJ in the interests of the ''market''. The charter also states that it ''does not establish any new power or task for the union''.Therefore the status quo in Ireland- for example the two-tier health system - is not affected by this treaty.

Even more undemocratic

Contrayto what yes supporters are stating that this will make the EU more democratic the reverse is true.

It allows 68 areas of policy to be dealt with by Qualified Majority voting where previously unanimity was required.It shifts power away from national parliements to EU strutures in 105 cases. Both these changes make it more difficult for mass protest and popular pressure to effect change.This is all aimed at making it easier to push through the agendas of privatisation and militarisation (which i will get onto later)

The process of ratification is also extremely undemocratic.This treaty has been defeated twice once as the lisbon treaty and once as the EU constitution but now it is only Ireland that can vote on this treaty . 550,000million Europeans are without a say on this treaty which can affect a huge part of daily life for all citizens of Europe.The reason Ireland is the only country to vote on Lisbon is because of a court case taken in 1986 by a person named Raymond Crotty(A case fought against every step of the way by the Labour party and Fine Gael)

Militarisation

Lisbon gives a huge impetus in the area of preparation of a new EU army which would be in the future involved in attacks and wars possibly similar to Afghanistan and Iraq.It is important to remember that 15 EU countries have had troops in Iraq during the occupation.

Article 27.3 states that ''member states shall undertake progressivly to improve their military capabilities''. This shows their priorities, the one area where governments will be compelled more to increase their spending is , not on health , not on education , but on military spending!

Lisbon crushes member states right to conduct an independent foreign policy that would disagree with the majoirity EU position .Paragraph 27 states '' The member states shall support the union's external and sexurity policy actively and unreservedly in the spirit of mutual solidarity and shall comply with the union action in this area.

This provides a mechanism for the EU to intervene internationally to protect the interests of EU corporations just like the US does in places such as Latin America and Africa. It is clear from this that in a very real way the Irish state could be part of assisting the respression of people, for example in some African countries at the behest of selfish interests of the major European powers.

Climate Change

Yes supporters constantly bring up the notion that the treaty will does a huge deal of good for tackling climate change , in reality it does nothing . Infact their is just six words in the entire treaty (hundreds of pages long) that refer to climate change none of which promote any action whatsoever.




In conclusion As internationalists we must always show that we are not against a united Europe but against a united undemocratic capitalist europe . As leftists we must fight back against any attempts for the EU to force their neo liberal ideas on workers of all countries.

[pastradamus]

Well I have some updated news about who's supporting what:

Its good to see the Irish Fishermans Organisation (IFO) supporting a No vote.

Its bad to see that self absorbed narcissist O'Leary tell everyone in Ireland on the News that Ryanair supports a Yes vote. He also skillfully distanced himself from mainstream politician's by saying "they cant do their job in Dail eireann, so we cant rely on them to get this treaty passed", he continued " its good for our country and good for Ryanair".

[Hoggy_RS]

Good post Coggeh. I'm so sick of hearing people say 'we have to vote yes, sure think of everything the eu has done for us?'. Its as if people believe this is a referendum to see if we leave the EU or stay in it. Unfortunatley I think the masses will vote yes as they are terrified of upsetting the EU in this time of recession.

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/8633/nomeansno.jpg (http://img213.imageshack.us/i/nomeansno.jpg/)

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

The eurocrat imperialists just don't know when to stop, they have already been rejected, and they just start it all again, hoping to influence non-critical voters and push them to vote yes.

[Madvillainy]

Bascially anyone who took part in the referendum, whether they voted yes or no, sided with a faction of the bourgeoisie. Communists should be calling on workers to abstain from this shit, not telling them to line up behind one side of the ruling class.

[pastradamus]

Bascially anyone who took part in the referendum, whether they voted yes or no, sided with a faction of the bourgeoisie. Communists should be calling on workers to abstain from this shit, not telling them to line up behind one side of the ruling class.


And whats that going to achieve?

[Post-Something]

Bascially anyone who took part in the referendum, whether they voted yes or no, sided with a faction of the bourgeoisie. Communists should be calling on workers to abstain from this shit, not telling them to line up behind one side of the ruling class.

What the fuck!? I don't want the EU's unnaccountable, undemocratic ass having any say in my life, and will take the appropriate measures to stop it thanks very much.

[Revy]

Bascially anyone who took part in the referendum, whether they voted yes or no, sided with a faction of the bourgeoisie. Communists should be calling on workers to abstain from this shit, not telling them to line up behind one side of the ruling class.

So if someone votes no, they side with a faction of the bourgeoisie. Despite the fact that they're voting against something which tramples on workers and militarizes the EU, that they're voting on a very important issue, and communists don't have the illusion that their vote will shake the foundations of capitalism.

Abstaining from a vote doesn't do much. Because plenty of people already do that! It's called apathy.

[n0thing]

So they're just going to keep on pushing re-votes until the Irish finally accept it? Then what? Will it be put up for vote every year so they can abstain from it? Somehow, I doubt it.

Is there a good summary of the entire Lisbon Treaty anywhere? It would probably take a few days of solid reading to separate the relevant bits from the mountain of political jargon in that thing.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Despite it being posted before, here it is again: Referendum in Ireland: No Choice for the Working Class (http://en.internationalism.org/node/2534)


And whats that going to achieve?

Only by abstaining from the referendum, pointing out the bankrupt and mystifying nature of capitalist democracy and refusing to give support to any bourgeois faction can communists draw an independant class line.


What the fuck!? I don't want the EU's unnaccountable, undemocratic ass having any say in my life, and will take the appropriate measures to stop it thanks very much.

How does this differ in any way with the line of any of the European nationalists? For socialists, the problem with the EU is not that it's unnaccountable and undemocratic. In saying this you also implicitly counterpose the 'accountable' and 'democratic' Ireland, an idea which is completely anti-worker. Also, I would love to know how the referendum ballot box can be an 'appropriate measure' for the working class to stop the attacks the Lisbon Treaty brings (let alone in any other case).


Abstaining from a vote doesn't do much. Because plenty of people already do that! It's called apathy.

Apathy to the vote amongst the working class is a real expression to the bankruptcy of bourgeois democracy.

However, as communists we are not apathetic. Abstention for us means a recognition of the real character of bourgeois democracy and a call for struggle by workers on their own class terrain. Not apathy, antipathy!

[yuon]

In general, so far as it goes, I support United Europe. A democratic, socialist one for preference, of course.

But, heck if I can't understand a treaty (not that I've read the Lisbon one), I would suggest voting against it 100%. I don't trust the bloody politicians at all!

Err, oh, and yes, well. Not voting? If you like.

[bosgek]

Bascially anyone who took part in the referendum, whether they voted yes or no, sided with a faction of the bourgeoisie. Communists should be calling on workers to abstain from this shit, not telling them to line up behind one side of the ruling class.
Then vote blank.

This treaty is ridiculous, I have voted, now they ignore it. This isn't about contents any more, this is about democracy (even if it's in the form of elected aristocracy) in Europe. Ample grounds to call for a complete reorganisation of the EU and putting all Lisabon conspirators on trial. Realistically, this won't happen, let´s hope the Irish are smart enough.

[Post-Something]

How does this differ in any way with the line of any of the European nationalists? For socialists, the problem with the EU is not that it's unnaccountable and undemocratic. In saying this you also implicitly counterpose the 'accountable' and 'democratic' Ireland, an idea which is completely anti-worker.

Huh? The Lisbon Treaty would empower EU law even further, which is mostly decided by the EU commission (not elected). If somebody voted yes to this thing, that's taking even more power from the average workers hands, and is even more undemocratic. If that's not an obvious issue for a socialist, how about the idea of a European army? An unelected president and foreign minister?


Also, I would love to know how the referendum ballot box can be an 'appropriate measure' for the working class to stop the attacks the Lisbon Treaty brings (let alone in any other case).

Well what do you propose other than protests and voting against it? We sit and do nothing and not vote, and then when the majority have voted yes, we expect the EU to turn round and say: "Fuck, not that many people voted,..we must be a bankrupt bourgeois system! I hereby renounce all power to the working class!"

[pastradamus]

Only by abstaining from the referendum, pointing out the bankrupt and mystifying nature of capitalist democracy and refusing to give support to any bourgeois faction can communists draw an independant class line.


How ridiculous. Communists and leftists In Europe have been pointing out that for a long time now and it has not achieved anything. Do you really think the EU superstate that it is gives a flying fuck how many people turn out and vote? All they want is that this thing gets passed after failing to do so the first time, the EU drop this back onto us by pressuring our government into holding a second and more undemocratic election. Just take these quotes as an example:

“Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly … All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.” - Former french President who helped draw up the treaty V.Giscard D’Estaing.

“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.
- Karel de Gucht, Belgian Foreign Minister, Flandreinfo, 23 June 2007

I want to use my democratic right, to vote against this treaty, to prevent Lisbon being passed and to prevent more of my democratic rights been taken away by this treaty - Its damage limitation basically with this referendum, We must defend workers rights. Realistically, What do you think will be achieved by abstaining from this? The answer is simply, a more undemocratic, more unjust and much more corporate society. If this referendum can be used as a weapon, by the left to prevent these circumstances arising then as leftists we have an onus to see this bill gets defeated.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Huh? The Lisbon Treaty would empower EU law even further, which is mostly decided by the EU commission (not elected). If somebody voted yes to this thing, that's taking even more power from the average workers hands, and is even more undemocratic. If that's not an obvious issue for a socialist, how about the idea of a European army? An unelected president and foreign minister?

You make an incorrect assumption here, namely that the curtailment of democracy (in this case, through the mechanisms of the Lisbon Treaty) represents in any way "taking even more power from the average workers hands". This is a cowardly submission to liberal bourgeois democratic ideology. The same applies to your latter examples also.


Well what do you propose other than protests and voting against it? We sit and do nothing and not vote, and then when the majority have voted yes, we expect the EU to turn round and say: "Fuck, not that many people voted,..we must be a bankrupt bourgeois system! I hereby renounce all power to the working class!"

Not at all. On a side note, do you really think "Fuck, not that many people voted,..we must be a bankrupt bourgeois system! I hereby renounce all power to the working class!" is my position, or do you think misrepresenting my argument and being a sarcastic about it contributes to the discussion?

I do not offer up any alternate proposal for how workers should vote. The struggle against the Lisbon Treaty is not the struggle of the working class, it is off the class terrain. It is task of communists, as the most politically advanced and intransigent defenders of the working class, to draw and defend the class line in this situation; to uphold and advance the revolutionary programme.


Communists and leftists In Europe have been pointing out that for a long time now and it has not achieved anything.

So abandon the revolutionary position on the nature of bourgeois democracy and the role of elections and go over to the side of one or another faction of the bourgeoisie? This is nothing but opportunism.


Do you really think the EU superstate that it is gives a flying fuck how many people turn out and vote?

Yes and no. The bourgeoisie does take account of electoral participation as a signal of dissillusionment in the capitalist system. This is why the bourgeoisie throw so much money and time into their efforts of sustaining the democratic ideology. However, abstention is not being advocated here as a means to 'send a message' or 'make a statement'. As I made clear above in reply to PS, abstention will not cause the EU to 'back down'. This is a stupid argument and not my own.


I want to use my democratic right, to vote against this treaty, to prevent Lisbon being passed and to prevent more of my democratic rights been taken away by this treaty

I asked before where PS's line differed and rhetoric differed in any way from that of common nationalists. Here I must ask the question again, but this time with reference to common liberals.


If this referendum can be used as a weapon, by the left to prevent these circumstances arising then as leftists we have an onus to see this bill gets defeated.

The role of leftists, certainly. Communists, however, realise that this referendum, like any other, can not be used as a weapon of the workers. As communists we have to maintain and uphold a class line.

[Post-Something]

You make an incorrect assumption here, namely that the curtailment of democracy (in this case, through the mechanisms of the Lisbon Treaty) represents in any way "taking even more power from the average workers hands". This is a cowardly submission to liberal bourgeois democratic ideology. The same applies to your latter examples also.

Marx envisioned the socialist form of democracy as the extension and completion of the process of democratisation initiated with the introduction of liberal democracy, in which freedoms and rights are preserved and extended. Your statement, however, implies socialist democracy is an alternative to liberal democracy, which will supercede and replace it.

The fact of the matter is that this organisation called the EU is demanding more power. I understand what you mean about doing nothing and denying it's legitimacy, but not every worker is a communist, nor will they all appreciate that line of thought, and it's inevitable some will vote. This means no matter what the turn out, the politicians will uphold it as final proof of legitimacy. The nationalists don't want to grant the EU any more power because they don't want their state to be accountable to and regulated by the EU; whereas I don't want to grant the EU any more power because, for one, the EU commission is made up of a bunch of unelected people, who only got their because they represent the interests of a couple large industries (coal, steel etc.).

Or, I'm not sure, maybe I still don't understand your argument.



I do not offer up any alternate proposal for how workers should vote. The struggle against the Lisbon Treaty is not the struggle of the working class, it is off the class terrain. It is task of communists, as the most politically advanced and intransigent defenders of the working class, to draw and defend the class line in this situation; to uphold and advance the revolutionary programme.

So, just because it's off this abstract class terrain, does that mean I shouldn't vote against it as a communist?

Or are you saying that it's not got anything to do with communism and therefor people should make their own minds up on the topic regardless of class?

Because neither of these positions makes any sense. The EU is becomming a very powerful organisation, and could actually be quite useful to workers in many countries if they want to improve their working conditions, and simply want to override their government. Take the Common agricultural policy for example, I know theres a lot wrong with it, and spending put towards it has gone down, but the idea was to subsidize farmers so that they don't have to be rejected by the market every other year. It would be much more beneficial if we all had a say in what goes on in Brussels, and could at least choose who represents us, if anything.

[Q]

I do not offer up any alternate proposal for how workers should vote. The struggle against the Lisbon Treaty is not the struggle of the working class, it is off the class terrain. It is task of communists, as the most politically advanced and intransigent defenders of the working class, to draw and defend the class line in this situation; to uphold and advance the revolutionary programme.
What an utter bullshit. The Lisbon Treaty is a direct attack on the working class in respects of democracy, workers rights, jobs and more. The implementation will mean a lower standard of living of working class people. How can you possibly maintain it is "off the class terrain"?


So abandon the revolutionary position on the nature of bourgeois democracy and the role of elections and go over to the side of one or another faction of the bourgeoisie? This is nothing but opportunism.
So speaks the sectarian. This issue is seen by the working class as a live issue and for that reason alone we, as communists, should deal with it and wage a defensive struggle at the very least. In this case, it practically means to defend a No-vote.


The role of leftists, certainly. Communists, however, realise that this referendum, like any other, can not be used as a weapon of the workers. As communists we have to maintain and uphold a class line.
"Truth is concrete". Our playing field here is this referendum, which is being triggered because the Irish constitution says it must. The fact that no other EU-country has started a referendum on this refurbished EU-constitution gives a very clear signal that the bourgeoisie is in a defensive mode here and are aware of their minority position on this issue. So yes, this referendum can be used as a working class weapon. The more people that vote No, the stronger the point is taken. Ireland here is the concrete battleground for the whole working class of the EU.

What is needed in this case however is a generalised campaign to declare the treaty illegal in all countries by leftists in general and communists in particular. This is needed because the danger exists that Ireland will be isolated when they vote No again.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Marx envisioned the socialist form of democracy as the extension and completion of the process of democratisation initiated with the introduction of liberal democracy, in which freedoms and rights are preserved and extended. Your statement, however, implies socialist democracy is an alternative to liberal democracy, which will supercede and replace it.

I'm not sure where the distinction is, both between the idea of 'extension' and 'supercession' and between myself and Marx. Maybe you could elaborate on this point. Either way, I don't see how it's particularly significant or relavent to this thread.


I understand what you mean about doing nothing and denying it's legitimacy, but not every worker is a communist, nor will they all appreciate that line of thought, and it's inevitable some will vote.

No where am I advocating 'doing nothing'. I, of course, realise that 'not every worker is a communist' (matter of fact, I actually made this clear above when I noted that communists are a tiny minority of the class, it's most militant and intransigent sections) and that the referendum will inevitably have a voter turn out.


The nationalists don't want to grant the EU any more power because they don't want their state to be accountable to and regulated by the EU; whereas I don't want to grant the EU any more power because, for one, the EU commission is made up of a bunch of unelected people, who only got their because they represent the interests of a couple large industries (coal, steel etc.).

Whilst you may oppose the Lisbon Treaty for reasons other than those of nationalists, it is apparent (even from this thread) that the rhetoric employed is often the same and that you are in the same camp.

For communists the problem with the European Commission is not that it is unelected. By this logic, if it were, would the Lisbon Treaty be worthy of support (as an 'extension of the process of democratisation')? Further, do you image bourgeois democracy as anything other than the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie? If you did your objection to the European Commision as representative of the interests of industry, one has to wonder why you don't also apply this to democracy at home.


So, just because it's off this abstract class terrain, does that mean I shouldn't vote against it as a communist?

It means that this referendum offers no choice for the working class. As communists we much combat the mystifications of democracy and refuse to line up with any faction of the bourgeoisie against the workers.

[Niccolò Rossi]

What an utter bullshit. The Lisbon Treaty is a direct attack on the working class in respects of democracy, workers rights, jobs and more. The implementation will mean a lower standard of living of working class people. How can you possibly maintain it is "off the class terrain"?

I can understand your objection. My comment was ambiguous and inaccurate. I should say that the struggle against the Lisbon Treaty through the ballot box is off the class terrain.

Workers' should and must defend themselves against the attacks that the Lisbon Treaty heralds, as with all offensives of capital. The question is how and on what basis the struggle is waged.


So speaks the sectarian.

Sticks and stones may break my bones...


This issue is seen by the working class as a live issue and for that reason alone we, as communists, should deal with it and wage a defensive struggle at the very least. In this case, it practically means to defend a No-vote.

On the contrary it means defending abstention from the electoral circus of the ruling class. Yes the Lisbon Treaty represents an attack on the working class. Yes they must defend themselves against it. However, we must tirelessly uphold and defend the communist perspective; that bourgeois democracy is nothing other than the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and that today it is utterly impossible for the working class to utilise in defense of its own interests.

[Post-Something]

I'm not sure where the distinction is, both between the idea of 'extension' and 'supercession' and between myself and Marx. Maybe you could elaborate on this point. Either way, I don't see how it's particularly significant or relavent to this thread.

I was getting the impression that you don't view voting, or any cooperation with these institutions as legitimate because they are dominated by the bourgeoisie. In all honesty, I don't think liberal democracy is that bad, it's capitalism I don't like. I also think that liberal democracy can be reformed for the better. The best way we can make these institutions realize that they're not appreciated is to consistantly vote against their interests, and to demand for progressively more accountable government.


No where am I advocating 'doing nothing'. I, of course, realise that 'not every worker is a communist' (matter of fact, I actually made this clear above when I noted that communists are a tiny minority of the class, it's most militant and intransigent sections) and that the referendum will inevitably have a voter turn out.

Wait, sorry for misunderstanding then. What exactly are you advocating?


Whilst you may oppose the Lisbon Treaty for reasons other than those of nationalists, it is apparent (even from this thread) that the rhetoric employed is often the same and that you are in the same camp.

If you're going to object to anything at all because you don't like the rhetoric, I suggest you don't waste anymore time looking into politics ;)


For communists the problem with the European Commission is not that it is unelected. By this logic, if it were, would the Lisbon Treaty be worthy of support (as an 'extension of the process of democratisation')?

Support is the wrong word I think.. Look, you have to admit that the EU can be used for our benefit. For example, citizens of the EU can move freely throughout the member states now, the EU has enacted legislation on sexual, age and racial discrimination, and as I said before, farmers are getting paid much more fairly. These are things that they have done without us having any real say in what goes on. If we wrote the agenda, then Id probably support it.


Further, do you image bourgeois democracy as anything other than the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie?

I assume you mean liberal democracy? Social democrats have actually thought of ways to curb this class effect as much as possible. Let's take Finland for example, a capitalist country I'm sure you will agree? Ok, now you tell me if the following is purely class dictatorship:

In Finland, a party that wants to run a campaign must be publically funded, and state exactly where they are getting their money. By imposing monetary limitations, they reduce elections down to the core ideas being discussed. In Finland, the Social Democrats and the communists do consistently well in elections. Finlands' also meant to be one of the most uncorrupt countries in the world, the trade unions are enormous, the newspapers are notoriously objective and was the first country to give women the vote. Furthermore, it's pretty much guaranteed that government will be a coalition government, so different interest groups do get portrayed (possible due to the monetary limitations).


It means that this referendum offers no choice for the working class. As communists we much combat the mystifications of democracy and refuse to line up with any faction of the bourgeoisie against the workers.

What kind of a "mystification" is "Yes or No"? Either you want to give power to these guys or you fucking don't. How simple can it possibly be?

[Niccolò Rossi]

I was getting the impression that you don't view voting, or any cooperation with these institutions as legitimate because they are dominated by the bourgeoisie.

Not because they are 'dominated by the bourgeoisie' per se, but that they can not be used by the working class to defend or advance their interests.


In all honesty, I don't think liberal democracy is that bad, it's capitalism I don't like. I also think that liberal democracy can be reformed for the better. The best way we can make these institutions realize that they're not appreciated is to consistantly vote against their interests, and to demand for progressively more accountable government.

I think this really speaks for itself. I'm not sure how you can call yourself a marxist or a revolutionary of any sort with this line.


What exactly are you advocating?

I am advocating no electoral strategy of either support or opposition. The referendum has no choice for the working class. As such we oppose all parties who seek to drag the workers off the terrain of the class struggle and line them up behind one or another faction of the ruling class. I advocate class struggle against all the attacks of the ruling class on the living and working conditions of the proletariat.


If you're going to object to anything at all because you don't like the rhetoric, I suggest you don't waste anymore time looking into politics ;)

I'm not objecting to the position because of the rhetoric, though I think these concessions to reactionary ideology and backward consciousness are part-and-parcel of participating in the electoral circus.

Either way, I'm not sure what your point is. Also, I would hope that I'm doing more than 'looking into politics'.


Support is the wrong word I think.. Look, you have to admit that the EU can be used for our benefit. For example, citizens of the EU can move freely throughout the member states now, the EU has enacted legislation on sexual, age and racial discrimination, and as I said before, farmers are getting paid much more fairly. These are things that they have done without us having any real say in what goes on. If we wrote the agenda, then Id probably support it.

I also think this speaks for itself.


I assume you mean liberal democracy?

I mean bourgeois democracy. You can prefer to call it what you like, I think its clear that all this does (and attempts to do?) it obscure its class nature.


What kind of a "mystification" is "Yes or No"?

The type that portrays the referendum as somehow a choice for the working class, a potential weapon to express its interests, and in doing so, draw the struggle of the workers off the class terrain.

[Post-Something]

Ok, clearly we are both convinced of our own positions, and I doubt that's going to change with any further debate. Thanks for your time, and for offering me an insight into why you abstain from voting in these circumstances :)

[pastradamus]

So abandon the revolutionary position on the nature of bourgeois democracy and the role of elections and go over to the side of one or another faction of the bourgeoisie? This is nothing but opportunism

I was talking about the leftist policies of abstentionism in the past when it came to such bills. When one goes through this EU reform there is something very uncomfortable in relation to labour and working rights coming from this act. Its not just a political party thing its a workers rights thing as two days ago we saw Unite and its 60,000 member advocate a No vote for this. It is very much a workers defense initiative and not a "siding with the bourgeois" issue and nor is a treachery to the working class - Very much its to the contrary.



Yes and no. The bourgeoisie does take account of electoral participation as a signal of dissillusionment in the capitalist system. This is why the bourgeoisie throw so much money and time into their efforts of sustaining the democratic ideology. However, abstention is not being advocated here as a means to 'send a message' or 'make a statement'. As I made clear above in reply to PS, abstention will not cause the EU to 'back down'. This is a stupid argument and not my own.


Then what do you hope to actually achieve by this? Earlier you said "pointing out the bankrupt and mystifying nature of capitalist democracy and refusing to give support to any bourgeois faction", but NR, thats exactly what most of the No Campaign are in fact doing. An echoing aspect of this is the pointing out of the failings of large EU-Supported Business and Enterprise and most of all, the left in Ireland is complaining hugely about the state of Banking both in Ireland and in the EU and not to mention the fact that the Lisbon treaty is presented as a means of giving more powers to large corporations and Indeed banks.


I asked before where PS's line differed and rhetoric differed in any way from that of common nationalists. Here I must ask the question again, but this time with reference to common liberals.

You can slant me with all the titles you want, but either way this treaty is not good for the proletariat so we can all sit in our armchairs and smoke cigars and carry on with all the pseudo-Intellectual tripe (that has been so present in the liberal-left throughout history) or we can get up off our arse's study the outlying aspects of this treaty and work to defeat it.


The role of leftists, certainly. Communists, however, realise that this referendum, like any other, can not be used as a weapon of the workers. As communists we have to maintain and uphold a class line.

Indeed the left here are in fact doing this - upholding a line. We talk about working class people who are suffocated by debt and unemployment and are not receiving any support off their bourgeois government and so this bill only serves to stain the Irish and indeed the EU working class in a more thorough way. I said it already, This treaty is openly attacking workers right and as Leftists we have a duty to defend it.

[Coggeh]

TEEU have come out in support of a NO vote

The country's largest engineering union has called for a rejection of the Lisbon Treaty claiming it would support the interests of business over workers.
The Technical Engineering and Electrical Union, which rejected the charter last year, said it would reconsider if safeguards were put in place to protect employees. The union said recent decisions by the European Court of Justice showed workers' rights were being eroded.
"Unfortunately, the Lisbon Treaty will ensure that the interest of the market will always have precedence over the rights of workers," the union said in a statement.




http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jMsZ5e2gG27Oj8TBf6zEhN2YJHig




Good stuff.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I was talking about the leftist policies of abstentionism in the past when it came to such bills.

Yes, and I was pointing out that this logic is opportunistic.


When one goes through this EU reform there is something very uncomfortable in relation to labour and working rights coming from this act. Its not just a political party thing its a workers rights thing as two days ago we saw Unite and its 60,000 member advocate a No vote for this. It is very much a workers defense initiative and not a "siding with the bourgeois" issue and nor is a treachery to the working class - Very much its to the contrary.

As I've already said, yes, we can agree that the Lisbon Treaty in no way serves the interests of the working class and is infact a veiled attack upon it. The issue I have to keep comming back to is whether or not participation in the referendum represents a real means of struggle for the working class.

The fact that Unite has endorsed the No vote is in my opinion, not particularly relevant at all.


Earlier you said "pointing out the bankrupt and mystifying nature of capitalist democracy and refusing to give support to any bourgeois faction", but NR, thats exactly what most of the No Campaign are in fact doing.

I'm sure there are many of well intentioned workers' advocates who see this as their task and believe they are achieving this through their activity endorsing the No vote. Matter of fact, if it wasn't for these people, the No vote campaign would be rendered much less potent. However, there is a difference between intentions and reality.

The No campaign is not advocating or assisting workers in breaking from the democratic mystification and struggling on a class terrain. It is doing the opposite; perpetuating the illusion, dragging workers off the terrain of class struggle, atomising and dispersing their strength through the ballot box and ultimately, rallying them behind a faction of the bourgeoisie.


either way this treaty is not good for the proletariat so we can all sit in our armchairs and smoke cigars and carry on with all the pseudo-Intellectual tripe (that has been so present in the liberal-left throughout history) or we can get up off our arse's study the outlying aspects of this treaty and work to defeat it.

Again, we can agree that the treaty is in no way worthy of the support of the working class. Equally, rejecting the No vote does not mean 'sitting in armchairs and smoking cigars', no more than it did for the internationalists who broke with the social chauvinists in defending the class line opposing all warring bourgeois factions during WWI.

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

The Lisbon treaty is a disgrace. It is spitting on the graves of our glorious ancestors who fought for this great nation.

[Madvillainy]

The Lisbon treaty is a disgrace. It is spitting on the graves of our glorious ancestors who fought for this great nation.

Are you taking the piss?

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

Are you taking the piss?
No.

[pastradamus]

Yes, and I was pointing out that this logic is opportunistic.

Refute?


As I've already said, yes, we can agree that the Lisbon Treaty in no way serves the interests of the working class and is infact a veiled attack upon it. The issue I have to keep comming back to is whether or not participation in the referendum represents a real means of struggle for the working class.Then the working class owes it upon itself to understand this bill and ultimately defeat it. Of course the participation in itself mean's little in the way of struggle - but it is however a means of fighting the EU superstate and therefore, against capitalism.



The fact that Unite has endorsed the No vote is in my opinion, not particularly relevant at all.Its extremely relevant. You have no Idea of the strength of the IRISH union movement. It has 60,000+ members and growing of strongly anti-Lisbon advocacy. I can honestly say, even though im a member of an opposing union that generally speaking Unite is a good union. It doesn't matter how a non Irish citizen who is an Australian feels on Irish Trade Union matters anyway.



I'm sure there are many of well intentioned workers' advocates who see this as their task and believe they are achieving this through their activity endorsing the No vote. Matter of fact, if it wasn't for these people, the No vote campaign would be rendered much less potent. However, there is a difference between intentions and reality.


As I earlier said - Damage limitation. This threatens jobs if it comes in. You have yet to refute anything on this issue. You neither agree or disagree with this but rather ***** on about people participating in it. So what are your views on workers rights? - Very Little.How do you refute your views on the Irish Trade Union Movement in this sense? Or are you going to continue to ignore the treaty and stick to the stupid, ridiculous and ultimately out-of-touch manifesto your organization stuck you with?


It is doing the opposite; perpetuating the illusion, dragging workers off the terrain of class struggle, atomising and dispersing their strength through the ballot box and ultimately, rallying them behind a faction of the bourgeoisie.Come again?. . . . No seriously read what you just said and consider your own position.



Again, we can agree that the treaty is in no way worthy of the support of the working class. Equally, rejecting the No vote does not mean 'sitting in armchairs and smoking cigars', no more than it did for the internationalists who broke with the social chauvinists in defending the class line opposing all warring bourgeois factions during WWI.The treaty is WHAT WE MUST DEAL WITH weather you like it or not. Abstaining from it wont work for the Irish worker as the EU has so much to exploit from us. Basically this is 100% not an option. I wish to fuck, a guy in my position didnt have to contend with this treaty, I wish we didnt have to agree with the socialists or Youth Deference for that matter. Unfortunately we're stuck on the same side.