Lisbon Treaty - Aid and Trade

by Feeling sick Thu Apr 24, 2008 21:43

"She (Deirdre de Burca) said that if the Green Party were in opposition that they would probably be campaigning against the Treaty but pointed out that this was her personal opinion."

"A speakers from the floor asked why Deirdre de Burca has changed her mind about the Treaty form when she campaigned against the Constitution. She replied that being in government has changed her mind..."

It's not exactly rare to see someone in Ireland sell out their principles. What is rare in general is to see them state is so bluntly and so publically.

by John Meehan - CAEUC (Vote No to the Lisbon Treaty) Fri Apr 25, 2008 18:26

That's another good report from Liz - it would be good if activists going to similar meetings followed her good example.

Here's a statement issued at this meeting by the CAEUC (Vote No to the Lisbon Treaty)

VOTE NO to the Lisbon Treaty

Reasons to Reject an Anti-Development Deal

Will the Lisbon Treaty change Irish participation in European Union and related structures for the better or for the worse?

The treaty has loads of fine words.

Article 10a(2) explicitly lists amongst the objectives of the Union’s external actions “sustainable economic, social and environmental development of developing countries, with the primary aim of eradicating poverty”. Article 208 states that “Union development cooperation policy shall have as its primary objective the reduction and, in the long term, the eradication of poverty”

If you think about it, there were some lovely words in Fianna Fáil’s 2007 general election manifesto about a “world class health system” – but that’s a sick joke for people on today’s lengthening hospital waiting lists.

We should not be hoodwinked by fancy talk – we should ask ourselves : does the EU practice what it preaches when it comes to its external actions and development policy?

What are the EU’s goals, especially in relation to developing countries?

A significant signal in the Lisbon Treaty concerning the EU’s relations with developing countries is contained in Article 56, which states that “within the framework of the provisions set out in this chapter, all restrictions on the movement of capital between Member States and between Member States and third countries shall be prohibited.”

In other words, the central thrust of EU policy towards the global South is to ensure completely unfettered capital mobility regardless of the impact on poor countries (or on the people of Europe itself). If the Treaty is ratified, free movement of capital could not be challenged no matter what the end results are for development.

The overarching commitment to liberalization is made very clear by Article 188b, which commits the EU “to the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade and on foreign direct investment, and the lowering of customs and other barriers”. The point is further emphasized by Article 188d: the EU’s negotiating stance will be based on “the achievement of uniformity in measures of liberalisation.” Constitutionally ensuring that the EU’s negotiating stance in international trade negotiations must be exercised in the pursuit of liberalization (of capital and of trade in goods and services), will not advance the interests of poor countries.

The overall thrust of EU external policy is based on a narrow concept of economic self-interest and a commitment to neoliberal (often anti-developmental) principles.

VOTE NO to the Lisbon Treaty

Campaign Against EU Constitution (Vote No to the Lisbon Treaty) :

Find out more about the Lisbon Treaty. Visit our website, or come to our meetings, get involved in the campaign. Help us by contributing to our poster fund.

Next meeting: Wednesday May 7, 20.00 in the Teachers’ Club, 36 Parnell Square.

www.caeuc.org

by liz c - CAEUC Fri Apr 25, 2008 20:41

I've remembered a few more questions and answers. Someone asked why the EU needs to increase its military capacity. Deirdre de Burca replied that it will be necessary for humanitarian intervention and that Climate Change is going to cause problems. I wasn't too clear on this one, Deirdre maybe you can reply because it seems to me that when climate change causes mass migration the aim of the EU army will not be to assist but to lock Europe down and prevent migrants from entering. Andy Storey said that the EU army will be used to fight future resource wars and that we will find ourselves increasingly tied to NATO.
(The way I see it Europe doesn't have much in the way of energy sources and one of the stated competences of the EU in the Lisbon Treaty is 'securing energy supply.' How exactly does the Commission plan to do that? It appears that like the U.S. the EU heads of state are looking at an energy crisis combined with mass migration and have decided that the best policy is to seal their borders and grab the remaining resources at the expense of the world's poorest people. a more rational response might be to attempt to alleviate the effects of climate change and drastically cut-back on energy usage while engaging in fair trade and giving useful untied aid to the poorest countries while actually dropping their illegitimate debt.) Someone else pointed out that the Irish government is using the EU as an excuse for pushing through unpopular legislation. Someone asked how developing countries feel about further trade liberalization.Barry read out a statement from a number of Latin American groups rejecting it and a statement from a group of UK NGOs rejecting the Lisbon Treaty because of liberalization provisions. Someone asked for suggestions on how to decide what way to vote on the Treaty. The speakers agreed that it is a judgement call for every individual. ( the great thing about a referendum is that it goes beyond party politics. there is no party whip. it's an individual conscience decision.) I know there were more questions but I don't remember them all. please add them if you were there. This meeting was filmed so will hopefully end up online.

by Nostradamis Fri Apr 25, 2008 21:41

One only has to look at the EU's fisheries policy in relation to West Africa to see were things are headed. For a tiny proportion of the EU's fisheries budget, handed over to some dodgy governements in the region, factory ships from europe (including ireland) have been given a green light to to wipe out the regions entire marine fisheries through ruthless uncontolled industrial fishing practices that have wrought well documented destruction to these valuable natural resources elsewhere around the world. Already coastal communties from Morroco to Benin are feeling the affects of this with the local small scale. sustaineable fishing industry noticing a steep decline in catches which is causing a signficant increase in poverty. Ironically this has lead to an increase in numbers of emigrants fleeing these countries trying to get into europe by any means possibly

by Alan Bunbury Sat May 03, 2008 20:44

I think that a lot of the left are missing this important qualification on the pro-competition clauses in the Lisbon Treaty; that a State will not be obliged to abide by the pro-competition clauses if it can prove that doing so would damage the ability of the State to provide a public service. In fact, it would appear that a State may be obliged to intervene in order to prevent a public service from failing. the Lisbon Treaty amends the Treaty on the Function of the Union (I think it's that treaty anyway) to read as follows:

"Without prejudice to Article 3a of the Treaty on European Union or to Articles 73, 86 and 87 of this Treaty, and given the place occupied by services of general economic interest in the shared values of the Union as well as their role in promoting social and territorial cohesion, the Union Community and the Member States, each within their respective powers and within the scope of application of this Treaty, shall take care that such services operate on the basis of principles and conditions, particularly economic and financial conditions, which enable them to fulfil their missions."

What this section says to me is that member states must make sure that "services of general economic interest" (public services) do not fail or become ineffective due to financial conditions or restraints. It basically obliges member states to prop up public services financially where there is a danger of these public services failing.

by Tech1.0 Tue May 06, 2008 23:44

Undistorted competition (leading to privatisation of purposefully underfunded public services) is re-introduced via Protocol 6.

Protocol 6 is a text of an equivalent reach to the treaties and makes more explicit the objectives of the Union:”the interior market as it is defined in article 3 of the treaty on the European Union is equipped with a system guaranteeing that competition is undistorted”.

This is how undistorted competition is reintroduced in the Union’s objectives from where it had seemingly disappeared.

Also, the so-called “fundamental” rights remain subordinate to such dispositions as “free and undistorted competition”, as these ‘rights’ do not create “any competence or any novel task for the Union”

check out,

http://www.voteno.ie/resources/attaccritiqueofreformtre...y.doc

"Competition

The press made a big deal of Nicolas Sarkozy’s “success” in getting the reference to “free and undistorted competition” taken out as an EU goal. This is certainly a symbolic victory for those fighting for the No against the TECE, and symbolic victories have their significance because they legitimize a struggle. But will this have any concrete consequences whatsoever?

The principle of free competition remains embedded in numerous articles of the treaties. Let us take, for example, Article 105 of the TFEU, which remains as it is, and which underlines the “principle of an open market economy with free competition.” It is also at the heart of most European legislative agreements that are still in effect, especially those to liberalise public services.

Finally, to avoid any ambiguity, Protocol 6 of the Reform Treaty restates clearly the applicable principle: “the internal market as set out in Article [I-3] of the Treaty on European Union includes a system ensuring that competition is not distorted.” Article [I-3] is about the objectives of the Union. Undistorted competition is thus reintroduced in the Union objectives, from where it had seemed to have disappeared.

To drive the point home further and to underline that this is not a theoretical objective, Protocol 6 provides that “the Union shall, if necessary, take action under the provisions of the Treaties.”

It is clear that the right to competition remains as powerful as ever. It remains the organizing principle of the Union, a prescriptive part of the standards, a real “constitutional” right that mostly degrades the other European texts to mere declarations of intent without any practical operational impact."

also,

The Charter of Fundamental Rights ( Part II of the proposed
http://www.tuaeuc.org/charter.doc

Fundamental rights may be limited in the interests of the market

[...]

But in a democratic society politics is connected with the contestability of what counts as the common good. On the EU level, however, the common good is identified instead with the good of the market and a fixed idea of utility. The market becomes in effect the substitute for democracy, and human rights become marketised.

[...]

The right to strike is not guaranteed

[...]

A real threat to public services and state companies

The Charter guarantees “freedom to conduct a business in accordance with Community law.”1

This is qualified in the Union’s objectives: “The Member States and the Union shall act in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition.”2

In effect, this imposes a treaty obligation to establish a neo-liberal economic model, something that is normally the subject of contestation between competing political parties or ideologies.

This neo-liberal stricture is further strengthened by the Union’s commitment to “the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade and on foreign direct investment, and the lowering of customs and other barriers,”3 and by the legally binding Protocol 6, which states that, “considering that the internal market as set out in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union includes a system ensuring that competition is not distorted . . . the Union shall, if necessary, take action under the provisions of the Treaties, including under Article 308 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.”4

And, just to ensure undistorted competition, the Council can do what it likes and can extend the scope of the Treaties in all areas, with the exception of common foreign and security policy, as long as the European Parliament approves.5....