Europeans-Lisbon Treaty Yes or No??

[RedFlagComrade]

Calling all Europeans-Is the Lisbon Treaty good or bad for the people of Europe?

Im from Ireland and were the only country thats getting a referendum on this issue in all of Europe.

So what way should we vote?

[Herman]

Vote a clear and resounding NO. Europe must be built throught socialist principles, and not neo-liberal ones.

[TheDifferenceEngine]

Vote a clear and resounding NO. Europe must be built throught socialist principles, and not neo-liberal ones.

I dont care what principles it's built on so long as the world gets a counterweight to the US.

[RedAnarchist]

To be honest, I haven't really been interested in it. It seems like just another treaty amongst capitalists.

[RaiseYourVoice]

I dont care what principles it's built on so long as the world gets a counterweight to the US.
you mean somebody else to invade and occupy countries?


Well this is clearly no different from the EU constitution treaty under a different name and without all the annoying democracy. Neo-liberal economy, increased militarisation, increased privatisation, better shutdown borders murdering refugees etc.

Of course against.

[An archist]

I dont care what principles it's built on so long as the world gets a counterweight to the US.

That would be great! Another Liberal economic and military superpower.
Seriously, if you have a chance to vote, vote no.

[RedFlagComrade]

Should have put up a poll on this.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I have been debating about this extensively. I have to say that I have not been convinced to vote No. I have been advocating a Yes vote on Politics.ie, in class and amongst friends, quite successfully I must add.

[RaiseYourVoice]

I have been debating about this extensively. I have to say that I have not been convinced to vote No. I have been advocating a Yes vote on Politics.ie, in class and amongst friends, quite successfully I must add.
What argument would there be to vote for this?

[Herman]

What argument would there be to vote for this?

Probably that he wants to see a more "unified Europe".

[RedAnarchist]

Should have put up a poll on this.

You still can. You just go to the top post, click on "Thread Tools" and select the poll option.

[Philosophical Materialist]

definitely a 'NO'.

Capitalists are seeking to implement more strident neoliberal policies through a top-down approach. This is through a reformed EU superseding national boundaries.

The Lisbon treaty seeks to institutionalise "flexibility" that is to promote temporary agency jobs where employers can hire and fire workers at will. It also is an attack on organised labour, and invites employers to race to the bottom through lower wages to achieve higher profits.

If the EU was progressing towards a united democratic republic, then I would support it as a more progressive situation than the status quo. But rather than a pooling of sovereignty and a promotion of democracy, they are seeking to give more power away from workers to the ultra-wealthy.

[bolshevik butcher]

Vote a clear and resounding NO. Europe must be built throught socialist principles, and not neo-liberal ones.

This the correct approach exactly. Of course I stand for a united Europe, a united socialist Europe as part of a united world socialist federation but this is not going to be achieved by so called integration on the terms of the ruling class.

Philisophical materialist is right when he argued that this constituation/treaty contains several reactionary clauses designed to casualise work further and destory organised labour. However I would be wary of your last commnets, the EU is a bosses club and the idea of a more united Europe under a captialist basis is in my view really a farce.

[BOZG]

A resounding No. The content of the Treaty and it passing isn't all that significant in itself, considering that the European Union is already pushing for neo-liberal policies, privatisation, increased militarisation of Europe and the formation of an EU army. The Treaty will legally merely further entrench them in EU legality. However, using the Treaty as a point of propaganda and outlining the policies contained in this Treaty and all the other treaties and laws of Europe is the real issue at hand.

[Zurdito]

NO to an imperialist European superstate built in the image of the USA.

[chegitz guevara]

What is this treaty?

[An archist]

I have been debating about this extensively. I have to say that I have not been convinced to vote No. I have been advocating a Yes vote on Politics.ie, in class and amongst friends, quite successfully I must add.
Why on earth would you vote for essentially a neoliberal, closed-borders Europe?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Why on earth would you vote for essentially a neoliberal, closed-borders Europe?
I'm not voting for a neoliberal Europe; we already live in a neoliberal Europe and that's something that I obviusly greatly disagree with, but it is going to be the case regardless of how I vote in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.

As for it being a closed-borders Europe, again a vote for the Lisbon Treaty is not a vote to close borders. Within Europe the borders are actually extremely open, and the free movement of workers is one of the four fundamental freedoms held dear by the EU. Lisbon further enforces this.


A resounding No. The content of the Treaty and it passing isn't all that significant in itself, considering that the European Union is already pushing for neo-liberal policies, privatisation, increased militarisation of Europe and the formation of an EU army. The Treaty will legally merely further entrench them in EU legality. However, using the Treaty as a point of propaganda and outlining the policies contained in this Treaty and all the other treaties and laws of Europe is the real issue at hand.
Unfortunately it's not very good propaganda to be seen to be complaining incessantly about and opposing a treaty the passing of which even you believe "isn't all that significant". We just come across as whinging for the sake of it.


Capitalists are seeking to implement more strident neoliberal policies through a top-down approach. This is through a reformed EU superseding national boundaries.
If you think the EU is neoliberal you should take a look at the Irish government.


What argument would there be to vote for this?
Reasons include increasingly open borders and freedom of movement of workers between member states and the preservation of peace between European nations (reasons to support the EU generally, though the first one is further streangthened by the Treaty), the granting of legal status to the European Charter of Human Rights, more power to European courts and judges which are much more progressive than Irish judges, the establishment of a European Director of Public Prosecutions to conduct prosecution of cross-border criminals, the erosion of national barriers and increased internationalism, a committment to combat climate change, a reduction in size of the EU bureacracy which means less government spending on bureaucracy and less delays in the decision-making process and increased proportionality and democratic accountability in the way we elect MEPs, to name but a few.

[Philosophical Materialist]

If you think the EU is neoliberal you should take a look at the Irish government.


I already know the 26-county government is very neoliberal. What's your point?

[BOZG]

I already know the 26-county government is very neoliberal. What's your point?

Is the 6-Counties government a bastion of socialism or something? :D

[PRC-UTE]

A resounding No. The content of the Treaty and it passing isn't all that significant in itself, considering that the European Union is already pushing for neo-liberal policies, privatisation, increased militarisation of Europe and the formation of an EU army. The Treaty will legally merely further entrench them in EU legality. However, using the Treaty as a point of propaganda and outlining the policies contained in this Treaty and all the other treaties and laws of Europe is the real issue at hand.

That's the Republican Socialist position as well.

[BOZG]

Unfortunately it's not very good propaganda to be seen to be complaining incessantly about and opposing a treaty the passing of which even you believe "isn't all that significant". We just come across as whinging for the sake of it.

And many would have said we were whinging for the sake of it during the boom but we were correct to do so and have proven correct. Sometimes you have to swim against the stream.

[RaiseYourVoice]

As for it being a closed-borders Europe, again a vote for the Lisbon Treaty is not a vote to close borders. Within Europe the borders are actually extremely open, and the free movement of workers is one of the four fundamental freedoms held dear by the EU. Lisbon further enforces this.
Yes open borders INSIDE of europe. Nevermind about Refugees who die in thousands at our borders.


Reasons include increasingly open borders and freedom of movement of workers between member states and the preservation of peace between European nations (reasons to support the EU generally, though the first one is further streangthened by the Treaty),
preservation of peace? where do you even see signs of war? the problem is NOT that european countries might go to war with each other. The problem is that the european union acts increasingly imperialistic to the outside. Military improvement, mobile special units, thats this treaty.


the granting of legal status to the European Charter of Human Rights, more power to European courts and judges which are much more progressive than Irish judges
Dont know about the irish ones, the european judges are definetly more reactionary and neo-liberal then the german constitutional court.

And legal status of human rights? are you fucking kidding me? we dont live in happy happy land where people care about treaties when they interfere with capital interessts.


a European Director of Public Prosecutions to conduct prosecution of cross-border criminals,
how on earth is cross-border repression good for us? because if i go to the G8 meeting in italy next year its easier to catch me back in germany? awesome really.


the erosion of national barriers and increased internationalism,
As stated before its not the erosion of national borders as such but only that INSIDE of europe. The outside borders solidify more and more (see frontex). Thus this europe CANNOT create internationalism, only euro-nationalism.


a committment to combat climate change,
ha ha.... seriously what the fuck is going on in your mind...


a reduction in size of the EU bureacracy which means less government spending on bureaucracy and less delays in the decision-making process
If you want less bureacracy why not abolish the EU in its todays form, because thats essentially what it is. A in no way democratically justified bunch of beurocrats.

[Philosophical Materialist]

Is the 6-Counties government a bastion of socialism or something? :D

He was referring to the "Irish Government" and I don't think he was referring to the 6 counties.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

And many would have said we were whinging for the sake of it during the boom but we were correct to do so and have proven correct. Sometimes you have to swim against the stream.
The thing is though that we were complaining about things like the health service, which was an extremely important and relevant problem even during the boom, and capitalism, which in spite of the boom is inherently flawed and unjust, a significant problem I think you'll agree. You even said yourself that the Lisbon Treaty isn't that important.


Yes open borders INSIDE of europe. Nevermind about Refugees who die in thousands at our borders.

And that's going to stop of we vote No to Lisbon is it?

Without the EU you could add millions of eastern Europeans to that list of dying refugees to that list as well. Would that make you happy?


preservation of peace? where do you even see signs of war? the problem is NOT that european countries might go to war with each other. The problem is that the european union acts increasingly imperialistic to the outside. Military improvement, mobile special units, thats this treaty.

Before the EU was founded, it was rare that a few decades would go by without the European powers knocking the shit out of each other. The EU has made intra-European war a virtual impossibility.


And legal status of human rights? are you fucking kidding me? we dont live in happy happy land where people care about treaties when they interfere with capital interessts.
:rolleyes:

Legal rights are actually quite important you know. If you don't think so, try living life without them.

Obviously human rights are not as widely respected as the should be. That is not a reason to vote down an attempt to further enforce their recognition.


how on earth is cross-border repression good for us? because if i go to the G8 meeting in italy next year its easier to catch me back in germany? awesome really.
Sorry, I should have specified that this would originally only apply to mass fraud, and may be extended in the future to serious crimes only, such as murder and rape. It promotes consistency in prosecution and sentencing.

And the law relates specifically to prosecution, not arrest.


As stated before its not the erosion of national borders as such but only that INSIDE of europe. The outside borders solidify more and more (see frontex). Thus this europe CANNOT create internationalism, only euro-nationalism.
Again, this has nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty. And without the EU we would have the same thing, except without the freedom of movement of workers within Europe.


ha ha.... seriously what the fuck is going on in your mind...
The treaty. I've read it, have you?

What exactly is wrong with combatting climate change?


If you want less bureacracy why not abolish the EU in its todays form, because thats essentially what it is. A in no way democratically justified bunch of beurocrats.
Voting No to Lisbon won't abolish the EU.

This just highlights one of the major flaws in the left's analysis of the Treaty; the assumption that Lisbon is to blame for everything that is wrong with the EU. It is not.

[RedAnarchist]

A definate no.

[Keyser]

NO.

If we have the chance to vote on this or any other EU treaty in Britain, I'll vote against it.

Philosophical Materialist makes some very good points on this issue.

[RaiseYourVoice]

And that's going to stop of we vote No to Lisbon is it?

Without the EU you could add millions of eastern Europeans to that list of dying refugees to that list as well. Would that make you happy?First of all, no of course its not going to stop. Guess what by going to a demonstration capitalism isnt going to stop either. If you meassure fights by stopping something right now, you can aswell shoot yourself.
The point is, that this is part of the fight. The fight for a demilitarized, open border, socialist europe can only go AGAINST the european union and not within it. The EU was born out of the capital interesst not to fight enemies to close to home, on the same level, with nuclear weapons and NOT for the prosperity of human kind.


Before the EU was founded, it was rare that a few decades would go by without the European powers knocking the shit out of each other. The EU has made intra-European war a virtual impossibility.You really account the more or less peacefull europe (58 years at best, 18 years realistically at peace) only to the EU, to treaties and capitalist politics? very materialist.


Legal rights are actually quite important you know. If you don't think so, try living life without them.You sound like a jackass capitalist telling me "how about you live without the states protection". I could answer, explicitly why we always had human rights in practise (see nurnberg trials, the trials against the GDR wall guardsmen) or why human rights as ALL LAWS are only politics and a result of class struggle. About how Human rights are bendable, are weight against other basic rights or law goods (the most lovely counter weight to basic rights is national security, which is a good also.) But even though i could do all that as i am studying law, i rather replace my argument with a smilie

:rolleyes:


future to serious crimes only, such as murder and rape.and terrorism?


And without the EU we would have the same thing, except without the freedom of movement of workers within Europe.No. The European Union is a huge advancement in terms of kicking unwanted refugees out. Its the so called "third state" policy. Here in germany it means... if a refugee comes here from a country we cannot send him back to because our understanding of human rights wouldnt allow it, a few years ago that was a problem. Nowadays its different if the refugees passed some "safe" state in europe. Say he passed poland on its way, means we can deport him to poland, poland though might not have the same opinion on the human rights situation in the persons home country. Which leads to effectlivly deporting him back there. THANKS EUROPE.

And again Frontex is a programm to combine the European forces to combat refugees, if that is not an "improvement" to before then i dont know.


What exactly is wrong with combatting climate change?Nothing, wrong is to believe that capitalist countries actually have the ability to combat climate change.


This just highlights one of the major flaws in the left's analysis of the Treaty; the assumption that Lisbon is to blame for everything that is wrong with the EU. It is not.No one ever assumed that, outside of your head. The fight against this treaty is two sided. On the one hand its a real threat (militarisation of europe, neo-liberal economic standarts) and on the other hand its a fight against europe as a growing imperialist power as a whole. Its a symbolic fight and a practical fight at the same time.

I also go and protest against the G8. Will that abolish the G8? certainly not. Are the G8 the world conspiracy behind everything bad in the world? no. Is there 1000 good reasons to go fight against them on the streets? certainly.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

First of all, no of course its not going to stop. Guess what by going to a demonstration capitalism isnt going to stop either. If you meassure fights by stopping something right now, you can aswell shoot yourself.
The point is, that this is part of the fight. The fight for a demilitarized, open border, socialist europe can only go AGAINST the european union and not within it. The EU was born out of the capital interesst not to fight enemies to close to home, on the same level, with nuclear weapons and NOT for the prosperity of human kind.
The problem is though that opposing Lisbon isn't going to get us one step, or even one inch closer to an open-border socialist Europe, that's ridiculous. All Lisbon does is make some minor improvements within the inherently flawed system that is capitalism. You want to get rid of these flaws, target capitalism.


You really account the more or less peacefull europe (58 years at best, 18 years realistically at peace) only to the EU, to treaties and capitalist politics? very materialist.
Not only the EU, but to disregard the EU as an important source of that peace is just retarded.


You sound like a jackass capitalist telling me "how about you live without the states protection". I could answer, explicitly why we always had human rights in practise (see nurnberg trials, the trials against the GDR wall guardsmen) or why human rights as ALL LAWS are only politics and a result of class struggle. About how Human rights are bendable, are weight against other basic rights or law goods (the most lovely counter weight to basic rights is national security, which is a good also.) But even though i could do all that as i am studying law, i rather replace my argument with a smilie
Oh shit. Fuck. YOU STUDY LAW?!?! OH FUCK I AM ABSOLUTELY FUCKED!! I AM SOOO SORRY I DIDN'T KNOW YOU STUDIED LAW, YOU MUST KNOW YOUR SHIT THEN MAN!!

In fact, what you said doesn't relate in any way to law. You're just ranting and raving about how even though human rights are a good thing they're also a bad thing because of capitalism, or some stupid shit like that.


and terrorism?
Terrorism would probably come under the heading of murder. What's the problem, you and your anarcho-sk8r boiz pissed off that you can't pipe-bomb your local school and get away with it?


No. The European Union is a huge advancement in terms of kicking unwanted refugees out. Its the so called "third state" policy. Here in germany it means... if a refugee comes here from a country we cannot send him back to because our understanding of human rights wouldnt allow it, a few years ago that was a problem. Nowadays its different if the refugees passed some "safe" state in europe. Say he passed poland on its way, means we can deport him to poland, poland though might not have the same opinion on the human rights situation in the persons home country. Which leads to effectlivly deporting him back there. THANKS EUROPE.
That exists pre-Lisbon. What Lisbon does is further enforce high standards of human rights in all EU countries, effectively combating that problem.


Nothing, wrong is to believe that capitalist countries actually have the ability to combat climate change.
Yeah only you and your buddies smoking weed outside the G8 can do that.

The fact of the matter is that capitalist countries have the technical ability to reduce carbon emissions. To think otherwise is anti-materialist.


No one ever assumed that, outside of your head. The fight against this treaty is two sided. On the one hand its a real threat (militarisation of europe, neo-liberal economic standarts) and on the other hand its a fight against europe as a growing imperialist power as a whole. Its a symbolic fight and a practical fight at the same time.
Except for that it's not actually a real threat at all, that threat is based on what the left imagine might be in the Treaty.

[RaiseYourVoice]

Except for that it's not actually a real threat at all, that threat is based on what the left imagine might be in the Treaty.Increased militarisation of an imperial power is not a threat? talk about euro-centric world view.


Not only the EU, but to disregard the EU as an important source of that peace is just retarded.For what? For european countries maybe, for all others its threatening peace.


In fact, what you said doesn't relate in any way to law. You're just ranting and raving about how even though human rights are a good thing they're also a bad thing because of capitalism, or some stupid shit like that.Uhm no. I just pointed out why
a) human rights in the EU is nothing new
b) human rights arent as awesome as one might think


Oh shit. Fuck. YOU STUDY LAW?!?! OH FUCK I AM ABSOLUTELY FUCKED!! I AM SOOO SORRY I DIDN'T KNOW YOU STUDIED LAW, YOU MUST KNOW YOUR SHIT THEN MAN!!You realize that neither caps not polemic ranting actually replace arguments... i mean even on the internet?


Terrorism would probably come under the heading of murder. What's the problem, you and your anarcho-sk8r boiz pissed off that you can't pipe-bomb your local school and get away with it?Yea its so nice that my comrades are injailed for trying to burn army vehicles in northern germany. Yes with terrorism laws. Its also nice that terrorism laws are used to investigate against the whole left wing movement. Seriously i should stop this argument right here because you are just a reactionary shithead. I fight for people who get jailed for years because they defended an occupied house against cops and you tell me that better connection between european organs of repression is actually a good thing, that police of course only target evil mass murdering terrorists.
you are nothing but a joke, not a revolutionary leftist who is actually involved with real life struggle.


Yeah only you and your buddies smoking weed outside the G8 can do that.No its you from your armchair talking like a reactionary idiot and pretending to be a progressive leftist.


The fact of the matter is that capitalist countries have the technical ability to reduce carbon emissions. To think otherwise is anti-materialistThe fact of the matter is that capitalist countries have the technical ability to feed 12 Billion people, while children still starve to death. To think otherwise is anti-materialist. To think they would shows a lack of understanding how capitalism works.


EU as an important source of that peace is just retarded.


[/i]Please do not use this term as a pejorative to insult others- it's prejudiced language and is not acceptable on RL.

[Herman]

I think Ron supports or is indifferent to the Lisbon treaty because it helps unite the European countries, getting closer to a European federation, which can be changed from the inside (as the same structures that France, Germany or Britain has are applied to Europe - European parliament, European president, etc).

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Increased militarisation of an imperial power is not a threat? talk about euro-centric world view.No, it's just that there isn't really any militarization in the Lisbon Treaty. Most member states of the EU already have armies, and will already act through UN and/or NATO. So it's not like these nations cannot be imperial powers without Lisbon.


For what? For european countries maybe, for all others its threatening peace.How?


a) human rights in the EU is nothing newLisbon further enforces human rights, giving the ECHR the same legal status as the Treaties.


b) human rights arent as awesome as one might thinkFrom this I can tell that you are someone who has never suffered a human rights abuse.


You realize that neither caps not polemic ranting actually replace arguments... i mean even on the internet?Neither does a smily face.

I just thought it was a bit stupid for you to play the credibility card by saying that you study law, especially when I study it too (moron).


Yea its so nice that my comrades are injailed for trying to burn army vehicles in northern germany. Yes with terrorism laws. Its also nice that terrorism laws are used to investigate against the whole left wing movement. Seriously i should stop this argument right here because you are just a reactionary shithead. I fight for people who get jailed for years because they defended an occupied house against cops and you tell me that better connection between european organs of repression is actually a good thing, that police of course only target evil mass murdering terrorists.
you are nothing but a joke, not a revolutionary leftist who is actually involved with real life struggle.
Okay, your view of the DPP and its functions are waay out.

What do you think a European-wide DPP would actually do?

Do you think it would make it easier to catch criminals in other countries? Because it wouldn't.

Do you think it would strengthen terrorist laws? Because it wouldn't.

Do you think it would apply to crimes like the ones you mentioned, which are not cross-border? Because it wouldn't.

So do you actually study law?


The fact of the matter is that capitalist countries have the technical ability to feed 12 Billion people, while children still starve to death. To think otherwise is anti-materialist. To think they would shows a lack of understanding how capitalism works.
Lol, irrelevant?

[Marsella]

Guyz need to chill out. -_-

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I think Ron supports or is indifferent to the Lisbon treaty because it helps unite the European countries, getting closer to a European federation, which can be changed from the inside (as the same structures that France, Germany or Britain has are applied to Europe - European parliament, European president, etc).
That's exactly it. It's internationalism. Obviously it doesn't erode all national borders, but it erodes some, which is a start.


Guyz need to chill out. -_-
I'm more annoyed because my laptop keeps crashing >.<

[An archist]

That's exactly it. It's internationalism. Obviously it doesn't erode all national borders, but it erodes some, which is a start.


But if the goal is to get rid of borders to form a neoliberal superstate, as leftists, it's pretty obvious we should be opposed to that.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

But if the goal is to get rid of borders to form a neoliberal superstate, as leftists, it's pretty obvious we should be opposed to that.
I dunno, we can have a neoliberal state without borders, or neoliberal states with borders. In my view, while removing borders isn't going to bring about socialism directly, it will lead to a larger and more united proletariat which will ultimately help the struggle for socialism.

[TheDifferenceEngine]

Would It help If I mentioned that the EU alone accounts for around half of the entire world's humanitarian aid budget?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHO_%28European_Commission%29

[TheDifferenceEngine]

But if the goal is to get rid of borders to form a neoliberal superstate, as leftists, it's pretty obvious we should be opposed to that.

I honestly prefer Neoliberal social democracy to Neo-conservatism or state capitalism (the US and China Respectively).

[RedFlagComrade]

-The climate change article in the lisbon treaty is something like just six words long-put in to please greens and to put a good beneficial face on this treaty-but nevertheless meaningless

-The EUs borders are being eroded regardless of this treaty through the Shengen system-which Irelands neo-lib gov naturaly didnt approve so were not getting the benefits anyway, so all the treaty does for us is tighten immigration controls for refugees and asylum seekers into the EU.Whats more Irelands neo-lib gov have opted out of most of the positive immigration and amnesty laws-like the Blue Card that was to be based on the US green card.

-We've already seen the damage anti-terrorism laws can do to human rights-The Patriot Act etc.

-The most important point against the treaty is that it turns the EU into an imperialist super-state based on the US with a president and an unelected foreign minister for all major foreign policy decisions, with mandatory increases in military expenditure with taxpayers money, and the creation of an EU army-battlegroups-in which every EU state including neutral Ireland must join. It not only increases the Eu as a global military force-never a good thing-but it also decreases the national independance of member-states.Irelands say in the EU parlamint will be reduced to less than 1 percent.In the name of efficency and streamlining only half of all countrys will be represented in the parlaimint at any time-decisions that could affect our countries could be made with none of our representatives there

french and dutch voters voted against the original treaty in a referendum, yet all that changed was the wording of the treaty so that the treaty could be made law through stealth, without going through national referendums again. Ireland is the only country in the EU to get a vote on this issue all other states have made this treaty into law already without a mandate from the people.Doesnt that say something about the democratic righteousnous of the treaty.Irish voters-vote no-not justfor yourselves but for all citizens of the EU who werent given a choice.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

-The climate change article in the lisbon treaty is something like just six words long-put in to please greens and to put a good beneficial face on this treaty-but nevertheless meaningless
It may only be a short article, but it bestows an entire new competence on the EU so the meaning it carries is actually quite large.


-The EUs borders are being eroded regardless of this treaty through the Shengen system-which Irelands neo-lib gov naturaly didnt approve so were not getting the benefits anyway, so all the treaty does for us is tighten immigration controls for refugees and asylum seekers into the EU.Whats more Irelands neo-lib gov have opted out of most of the positive immigration and amnesty laws-like the Blue Card that was to be based on the US green card.
How does Lisbon do that exactly? The Lisbon Treaty does not mention anything about a Blue Card.

As for Schengen, it's not the EU's fault we opted out of that. Realistically though by voting to move closer to Europe we are voting to move away from the UK, which is the only thing keeping us out of Schengen really. I think that one day Ireland will choose to opt into Schengen.


-We've already seen the damage anti-terrorism laws can do to human rights-The Patriot Act etc.

How is this relevant?


-The most important point against the treaty is that it turns the EU into an imperialist super-state based on the US with a president and an unelected foreign minister for all major foreign policy decisions, with mandatory increases in military expenditure with taxpayers money, and the creation of an EU army-battlegroups-in which every EU state including neutral Ireland must join. It not only increases the Eu as a global military force-never a good thing-but it also decreases the national independance of member-states.Irelands say in the EU parlamint will be reduced to less than 1 percent.In the name of efficency and streamlining only half of all countrys will be represented in the parlaimint at any time-decisions that could affect our countries could be made with none of our representatives there
Actually any foreign policy decisions require unanimity in the Council, which means that all members have a veto on foreign policy decisions, including Ireland which enshrines neutrality and peace in its Constitution.

And battlegroups already exist by the way. Ireland is a member of one.

Regarding the reduction of Ireland's number of MEPs in the EU Parliament, I think this is a good thing. Currently Irish people's voices are worth more than French people's voices simply because there are less Irish people around, this does not make sense. Lisbon makes EU democracy more proportional.


french and dutch voters voted against the original treaty in a referendum, yet all that changed was the wording of the treaty so that the treaty could be made law through stealth, without going through national referendums again. Ireland is the only country in the EU to get a vote on this issue all other states have made this treaty into law already without a mandate from the people.Doesnt that say something about the democratic righteousnous of the treaty.Irish voters-vote no-not justfor yourselves but for all citizens of the EU who werent given a choice.
Well, the French and Dutch chose this model of representative democracy for themselves after centuries of trial and error. It would be a bit chauvinistic of you to say that they were wrong and must practice your preferred model of democracy. In fact, in the last French presidential election, Nicholas Sarkozy supported parliamentary ratification of EU treaties while Segolene Royal favoured referenda, and Sarkozy won. Furthermore, French law dictates that only a 40&#37; blocking minority is needed in the French parliament to force a referendum on an issue. However, this 40% never materialized because more than 60% of elected French leaders, including the Socialist Party, support the Treaty.

[Zurdito]

Ron Burgundy: the european bourgeoisie are trying to create an imperialist super-state to rival the USA. This means trampling on workers both in Europe and the semi-colonies. This project is a huge danger to humanity and we must oppose it at every step.

I link you to an SWP article on the topic, please read it very carefully. Here's an example:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13339


<H1>Eight reasons to reject the EU treaty

by Simon Basketter

Gordon Brown has made it clear there will be no referendum on the European Union (EU) reform treaty.
Yet page 84 of the Labour Party’s 2005 manifesto says of the original EU constitution: “We will put it to the British people in a referendum.”
They should be a referendum over the EU treaty – and we should campaign for and win a no vote. Here are eight reasons why.

1 – A repackaged version of the rejected consititution

The EU treaty is a repackaged version of the EU constitution thrown out by French and Dutch voters who rejected its neoliberal social and economic policies in 2005.
Proposals for a European anthem and flag have been dropped but everyone except Gordon Brown agrees that the new treaty is just the constitution without the window dressing.
“The substance of the constitution is preserved,” gloated Angela Merkel, the German chancellor. “That is a fact.”
Valery Giscard d’Estaing, architect of the rejected constitution, said, “The European governments have agreed on cosmetic changes to the constitution to make it easier to swallow.”
In many respects the treaty is worse than the constitution. For example, the “right to a job” has been replaced by the “right to look for a job”.
The treaty will mean more layoffs, more unemployment, more working poor, and more attacks against public services.
The constitution made no reference to Christianity. But the new treaty explicitly invokes Europe’s “religious heritage” – a gesture designed to pander to anti-Muslim prejudice.
2 – Privatisation and lack of workers’ rights

Article 188c of the treaty calls for “uniformity in measures of liberalisation”. This means pressing for privatisation at the pace of the quickest EU country.
Protocol 6 of the treaty states that “the internal market... must be based on a system whereby competition is not distorted”. It also gives the EU permission to “take action” to end these “distortions”.
“Undistorted competition” is code for not allowing the state to put extra investment into public services – even though such services carry a “social obligation”.
The treaty gives formal backing to a European Commission discussion paper on “modernising labour law” that erodes existing employment protection.
The treaty also increases pressure across the EU to compete by increasing hours, boosting productivity still further and holding down wages.
3 – The truth about Gordon Brown’s ‘red lines’

Brown claims to have ensured safeguards in the treaty. He has – but his “red lines” in fact give us even fewer rights!
He wants Britain to keep national control of foreign and security policy – so Labour’s ability to fight wars is secure.
Brown has a “cast iron guarantee” that the EU’s charter of fundamental rights will not alter British social legislation – so there will be no new right to strike under a Brown government.
The EU charter enshrines the right to strike, the right to union recognition, a limit on working hours and a ban on child labour. Brown is determined that Britain will not sign up to it.
He insists that Britain must be offered an “emergency brake” on any social security measures. This enables Britain to put a stop to any future welfare measures before they become EU directives.
4 – Democracy will be further eroded across Europe

Despite frequent rhetoric about closing the “democratic deficit” in Europe, at the moment only Ireland will get to vote on the treaty in a referendum – probably in spring next year.
The treaty gives the unelected European Commission extensive powers to force through the privatisation of public services.
It takes powers away from the elected parliament and gives them to the commission. It creates a new, more powerful, unelected EU president.
Approximately 15,000 professional lobbyists work in Brussels with over 70 percent of them employed directly or indirectly by corporations.
Over the past two decades they have promoted a series of EU directives which have paved the way for privatisation. Under the treaty more and more will be decided by these directives.
5 – A blueprint for the militarisation of Europe

The proposals on EU foreign policy will lead to a more militarised Europe. It commits the EU to Nato and to “a renewed Atlantic alliance”. It creates an EU foreign minister in all but name – the
so called “high representative”.
The treaty also commits all EU members to “undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities”.
While this is not quite a single European army, it is still dictating that member countries should invest more in arms.
The treaty’s signatories pledge to enhance their military capabilities in order to mount more missions abroad to “contribute to the struggle against terrorism”. There is a mutual defence clause in case one EU state is attacked.
6 – Unelected bankers will control economic policy

The treaty also insists on the independence of the European Central Banks (ECB) from any kind of democratic control.
Instead the bank will remain answerable to the needs of financiers who want “price stability” and lower state spending.
So while the ECB warns governments not to release any surplus funds in social spending, it was able to inject over 100 billion euros into the banking system to shore up speculators who made fortunes from mortgages on overpriced property.
It reaffirms that the unaccountable ECB has the sole duty of combating inflation – unlike, for example, the US Federal Reserve Board, which also has to maintain full employment.
7 – The treaty is an attack on the global poor

Support for the current World Trade Organisation policy of neoliberal globalisation is expressed in Article 188b of the treaty.
This states the EU “shall contribute to the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade and on foreign direct investment, and the lowering of customs and other barriers”.
“Other barriers” refers to non-tarriff barriers such as environmental standards or consumer protection regulations.
The treaty demands the “progressive suppression of all restrictions on international trade and foreign direct investment”.
It encourages the EU to press for “non-discriminatory agreements” which stop African governments imposing restrictions on capital flight or policies which favour local industry in government procurement.
8 – We can use a referendum to defend workers’ rights

We should oppose the treaty, not out of a “little England” spirit, but because it is, in the words of Unison general secretary Dave Prentis, “a borderless blueprint for privatisation”.
We want the best pension rights, the highest minimum wage, shortest working hours, the right to free education and the most stringent controls on pollution applied in every EU state.
Thousands of working people demonstrated in Lisbon, Portugal, on Thursday of last week outside the EU summit, calling for this kind of radical vision of Europe.
Campaigning against the treaty strengthens the radical left’s challenge across Europe to the neoliberal consensus championed by Brown and Merkel.
</H1>How could any revolutionary accept a treaty with any liberalisation and pro-state measures contained within it?