Our future under a ratified Lisbon Treaty

June 2, 2008

The Lisbon Treaty research – continued:
The conceptual analysis of democracy, the rule of law and the examination of the extent to which these concepts are realised in practice have become our last defence against the power-grab performed by the political class of Europe under the Lisbon process. Instead of – or in addition to – the approach of legality, when being confronted with the issue of the Lisbon Treaty, the objective definition of democracy, constitutionalism and rule of law have remained our last resort to preserve the freedom of Europe.

The essay is published in three parts:

Our future under a ratified Lisbon Treaty – I.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87683

Our future under a ratified Lisbon Treaty – II.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87712

Our future under a ratified Lisbon Treaty – III.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87730

Abstract

With regard to the real meaning of the rule of law and the genuine principles of democracy, it is the proposed agenda of the elected that has been accepted by an electorate, therefore the elected should follow their agenda forming the very basis of their democratic legitimacy, rather than adjusting their agenda to their personal preferences. Furthermore, it is the law – and any constitution – that needs to be adjusted to the principles of democracy, rather than adjusting the law to the personal ambitions of the elected leaders.

However, the Lisbon process is a process of altering the original political agenda of the elected and altering the domestic and international laws to support the personal preferences of a small federalist political oligarchy. As a process redefining the principles of democracy into its exact opposite: dictatorship, the pre-Lisbon process has led to the popular fallacies deeming the Lisbon process as a “legally, democratically and internationally acceptable” process in Europe.

The false reasoning in such view – embedded in a circular reasoning combined with a series of contradictions – can be summarised as follows:

1) An act of a political leadership is legal, because it is said to be “legal”.

2) An act of a political leadership is democratic, as long as it is legal, even if the law itself contradicts the principles of democracy.

3) A political leadership is assumed to have democratic legitimacy as long as it has been elected, even if the elected representatives overthrow a national constitution, abandon their electorate and contradict their political agenda.

Because the current dictatorial leadership claims its monopoly for exercising constitutional powers, political theory calls this form of regime “constitutional dictatorship”.

The essay “Our future under a ratified Lisbon Treaty” (published in three parts) explains in detail how the main conceptual pillars of democracy have collapsed in the EU-countries during the pre-Lisbon process and it presents how the post-ratification scenario would stabilise the current status of constitutional dictatorship in Europe.

In the final analysis it is a NO vote to the Lisbon Treaty on June 12
THAT CAN SAVE EUROPE FROM THIS TOTALITARIAN TREATY AND CAN SAVE THE WORLD FROM SUCH A FATAL TURN IN HISTORY

Contents of the essay

Part I.
1. Our last defence against Lisbon: restoring the conceptual pillars of democracy
2. The collapse of democracy through the collapse of domestic and international laws

Part II.
3. The collapse of democracy through the collapse of meaningful elections

Part III.
4. Our future under a ratified Lisbon Treaty: no sovereignty, no freedom
5. Our future under a ratified Lisbon Treaty: no choice of systems = system of no choices
6. Our future under a ratified Lisbon Treaty: spinning into the dark

What does the government hide by hiding the Lisbon Treaty?

May 18, 2008

Because the Lisbon Treaty is a constitution, the decision on the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty means no less than an equivalent of parliamentary elections on an essential level: the voters’ decision on whether Ireland would keep its current government and parliament or accept the government and parliament and other state offices in Brussels. By not providing information on this fact, the current government campaigns to promote a ‘yes’ vote on the referendum, amounts to the deprivation of the Irish voters of their constitutional-democratic right to fair and free elections.

The propaganda recently launched by the government in support of the new federal EU constitution nicknamed as “Lisbon Treaty”, has failed to actually attach the text of the Treaty to their claims on what this treaty is about. The voters of Ireland will be called to submit their votes on an international treaty that is not available for them as of today, less than a month before the referendum.

The ca. 300 pages on the widely advertised website http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie include only the instructions and extra texts to be applied to the existing EU treaties; however the website does not offer the text-base to be modified by these amendments, nor does it offer a consolidated presentation of these texts. How can the voters of Ireland be expected to make a decision on a treaty that they will never even see in full, only scattered fragments of it? Or every citizen of Ireland is expected to know all the existing EU treaties by heart, then to perform the necessary puzzle-game of insertions, deletions and modifications of these scattered texts?

Instead of the actual text subject to the referendum what the voters can see are instructions for deletions, insertions, renumberings and other modifications. Here are some examples of the many:

GENERAL PROVISIONS
64] Article 61 shall be replaced by the following Chapter 1and Articles 61 to 61 I. Article 61 shall also replace the current Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 61 D shall replace Article 36 thereof, Article 61 E shall replace Article 64(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community and the current Article 33 of the Treaty on European Union,
Article 61G shall replace Article 66 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and Article 61 H shall take over Article 60 thereof, as set out in point 62 above:

BORDER CHECKS, ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION
65] Articles 62 to 64 shall be replaced by the following Chapter 2 and Articles 62 to 63b. Article 62 shall replace Article 62, paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 63 shall replace points 1 and 2 of Article 63, paragraph 3 of Article 63 shall replace paragraph 2 of Article 64 and Article 63a shall replace points 3 and 4 of Article 63:

JUDICIAL COOPERATION IN CRIMINAL MATTERS
67] Article 66 shall be replaced by Article 61 G, as set out in point 64 above, and Articles 67 to 69 shall be repealed. The following Chapter 4 and Articles 69 A to 69 E shall be inserted. Articles 69 A, 69 B and 69 D shall replace the current Article 31 of the Treaty on European Union, as set out above in point 51 of Article 1 of this Treaty:

POLICE COOPERATION
68] The following Chapter 5 and Articles 69 F, 69 G and 69 H shall be inserted. Articles 69 F and 69 G shall replace the current Article 30 of the Treaty on European Union, and Article 69 H shall replace Article 32 thereof, as set out above in point 51 of Article 1 of this Treaty:

It is obvious that the voters cannot be expected to know the contents of the referenced articles nor the location from where they can download the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community (the text-base amended by above instructions).

The voters are especially not expected to understand immediately what the above mess actually means when applied to the respective parts of the existing treaties.

What the government and all pro-Lisbon groups hide by hiding the Lisbon Treaty is:

– The inability of the “yes” side to justify their statements on the very basis of the text itself.

– The contradictions between the actual content/implications of the Lisbon Treaty and the official statements of the EU and the Irish government on the treaty.
Actual truth by the text of the treaty : abolishment of democracy and transparency by elevating non-elected bureaucrats to the top of the decision hierarchy over all Europe, abolishment of the current voting and other citizens’ rights of ca 500 million citizens, loss of national sovereignty of the member states by the primacy of the Union law over the legislative decisions of the national parliaments, exclusion of the voters of 26 EU-states from the most essential decision of establishing the federal EU state itself, etc.
False statements held as the official ‘truth’ : “improved democracy”, “more transparency”, “increased role of the national parliaments in the EU’s decisions”, “increased involvement of the people in the EU’s decisions”, etc.

– The direct consequences of ratifying the constitutional Lisbon Treaty (“Conceptual map: the Lisbon Treaty is a constitution”), such as the loss of national sovereignty in economical, political, economical, social, military and other perspectives, and the countless further negative consequences, such as the loss of military neutrality and loss of an independent tax regime, etc.

– The fact that as soon as the Lisbon Treaty would be ratified in all member states and the treaty would come into effect, the actual government and parliament functions currently performed by the national state officials will be transferred to the respective EU-institutions. In this regard the decision on the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty means no less than an equivalent of parliamentary elections on an essential level: the voters’ decision on whether Ireland would keep its current government and parliament or accept the government and parliament and other state offices in Brussels. By not providing information on this fact, the current government campaigns to promote a ‘yes’ vote on the referendum, amounts to the deprivation of the Irish voters of their constitutional-democratic right to fair and free elections.

To make a decision on switching to a new constitution is a decision that most generations in the history of humankind never had to make and will never have to.

A constitution, especially one that enabled Ireland to realise its highest potentials, therefore is seen by most of us as a given, the value of which will be really seen only when it is lost.

A new constitution holds the key to our and our children’s future in every sense.

An undemocratic constitution like the Lisbon Treaty, – which is a constitution to cheat and deprive 500 million of their voting rights, by its very introduction – is depriving us of something the loss of which is unknown for most of us: political freedom.

Ultimately this is the very fact that the government and the EU-leadership hide by hiding the Lisbon Treaty.
Without political freedom we will be at the mercy of the further decisions of those who now are cheating the whole of Europe.

On the other hand, a consolidated version has been offered for the voters to download on a website of a “NO to Lisbon campaign”-group, “Libertas”: http://www.libertas.org/content/view/233/128/

The obvious reason for the openness of the “NO-groups” is that they have nothing to hide. They have provided objective information on the Lisbon Treaty, therefore the text itself only proves their justified stance against the treaty.

Top Reasons to Vote NO to Lisbon Treaty (updated)

May 13, 2008

Summary

1. The Lisbon Treaty is an incomprehensible document, which is NOT readable in a linear way. It was NOT meant to be read by anyone, just to be blindly accepted. It is against basic common sense and against the sense of responsibility to sign any treaty or contract without fully knowing its contents and understanding its consequences.

2. The Lisbon Treaty is a constitution, therefore entails the loss of national sovereignty of the member states.

3. The Lisbon Treaty is the same as the former EU Constitution in disguise. The new constitution was designed as a plain “reform treaty” with the purpose to avoid referendums in the member states and to enable the leadership of Europe to circumvent the will of Europe’s peoples.

4. The Lisbon Treaty has been drafted and is being implemented via a profoundly undemocratic process.

5. The Lisbon Treaty is a profoundly undemocratic constitution laying down the foundation of an undemocratic federal state, with the non-elected European Commission on the top of the decision-making hierarchy.

6. For smaller EU countries like Ireland, the Lisbon Treaty means a radical loss of the voters’ influence on the nationally elected EU-bodies.

7. The Lisbon Treaty means the loss of permanent representation of the member states in the European Commission, which signifies an increased centralisation of the EU-leadership and a further departure of the EU federal state in exercising its powers over the nations of Europe.

8. Voting NO does NOT mean losing EU membership. The Lisbon Treaty and the current leadership of Europe has an alternative – a new plan and constitution for a free alliance of Europe developed by the EUDemocrats.

Details

1. Incomprehensible document

The Lisbon Treaty is an incomprehensible document, which is NOT readable in a linear way. It was NOT meant to be read by anyone, just to be blindly accepted. The leaders of Europe have signed and ratified the Treaty without ever having read the entire text and without the opportunity of having analysed its implications from all perspectives. The incomprehensible, unreadable and too complex text cannot be read and understood within a reasonable time frame. The fundamental constitutional provisions of the Lisbon Treaty are hidden in scattered fragments of complex, renumbered, and cross-referenced amendments. The advocates of the “yes campaign” claiming their monopoly for the “official truth” disregard or are ignorant of the fact that the 272 pages offered for downloading as the “full text of the Lisbon Treaty” only contains the modifications, deletions and additions to the existing treaties, which altogether add up to ca 3000 pages (!)
It is against basic common sense and against the sense of responsibility to sign any treaty or contract without fully knowing its contents and understanding its consequences. This is especially true in the case of making a decision regarding a new constitution, which will ultimately determine our and our children’s future, with implications affecting all the relevant aspects of our life.
(Note: most of the advocates of the treaty admit that they have NOT read the text.)

2. Loss of national sovereignty
Since the Lisbon Treaty is a constitution that lays down the foundation of a new federal state of the European Union, ratifying the treaty implies the loss of national sovereignty of each EU-state, in legal, political and economical terms. Most of the main negative consequences, such as the tax harmonisation, will be secondary consequences following from the loss of national sovereignty.

3. A document to mislead the peoples of Europe
The text of the Lisbon Treaty is the same as that of the former EU Constitution, under different name and with different presentation. Since the EU Constitution was meant to establish a new federal state, the Lisbon Treaty serves the very same purpose in a disguised form, thus depriving the nation states of their sovereignty. The European Commission and the national governments of the EU countries deny the loss of national sovereignty in order to avoid putting this Treaty on referendums. By the act of misleading and making the voters unknowingly give up their national sovereignty, the political class of Europe forcefully imposes new citizens’ rights and obligations onto nearly 500 million citizens by a grand-scale deceit, and deprive the voters of Europe of their current voting competencies.

4. The undemocratic process of Lisbon
Propaganda of distorted facts and deceit are by definition methods of undemocratic forces rather than of democracies.

“Dictatorship is one of the two chief forms of government in use today. Modern dictators usually use force or fraud to gain power and then keep it through intimidation, terror, suppression of civil liberties, and control of the mass media.” (Encyclopædia Britannica)

The implementation of the Lisbon Treaty by means of deceit is the end of the nation states of Europe, end of political freedom and the end of democracy in Europe.
Because the Lisbon Treaty is a constitution the referendum on this treaty in all of the EU-states would be the absolute requirement of the democratic foundation of a new federal state. A new constitution is the fundamental set of laws defining the rights and obligations of the citizens and defining the type of the system (democratic or other) they will be governed by; therefore the citizens’ direct approval of the new system would be the a priori requirement to satisfy the principles of democracy in the process of constitutionalisation. However, in the case of Lisbon Treaty, the citizens of 26 EU countries out of 27 countries are not granted the democratic constitutional right for general elections to express their decision on the new federal constitution.
Rather than following the democratic process of constitutionalisation, the leaders of Europe have utterly contradicted the voters’ voice expressed via the former French and Dutch referendums. With the European Parliament having ratified the Lisbon Treaty long before the results of the Irish referendum on the Treaty, the EU has revealed its utter disrespect for the voice of the Irish voters as well.
It is a contradiction in terms to guarantee a region of democracy, security and rule of law, and to establish a new political system in the respective region by the very act of abolishing the voters’ ultimate right to have a say on the system to be implemented. While the EU and the national political class resort to totalitarian means to pursue their ambitions, they use derogatory labels like “nationalism”, “xenophobia”, and the false application of the terms “terrorism” and “racism”, etc. to suppress the voices of democracy, and to neutralise the European voters’ rightful and lawful self-defence against the undemocratic process of Lisbon.

5. Undemocratic constitution – wide gap between promises and realisation
The Lisbon Treaty itself and its supporters claim that the treaty’s provisions will actually implement a democratic system, and the treaty will even “improve democracy”. However, based on the very text of the Lisbon Treaty, the exact opposite is true. So far only the “NO to Lisbon” groups could substantiate their claims by the actual text and by an objective analysis of the implications of the Treaty. As opposed to the statements of the advocates of Lisbon Treaty, this treaty is a profoundly undemocratic constitution designing a profoundly undemocratic political system, in which the essential legislative powers of the national parliaments are transferred to a distant, unaccountable and unelected group of bureaucrats, the European Commission. The Lisbon Treaty is a constitution with provisions protecting the new federal state against its citizens, rather than protecting the citizens against the abuse of powers by the state. The system the treaty designs is without effective checks and balances of powers, which would be required as per the principles of democracy.

6. Radical loss of actual influence of the voters on the political decisions
For all EU-countries, especially for the smaller countries like Ireland, the loss of national sovereignty under Lisbon implies a further loss of democratic influence on the political decisions. As of today the voters of each EU-country delegate ALL of their representatives by general elections into their national parliament. The electorate is represented with 100% coverage of the decisions made by their respective national parliament. However, under the Lisbon Treaty the voters of each EU-country can delegate by general election only a fragmental representation into the European Parliament and the Council, the members of which will however exercise powers over ALL citizens of Europe. This fragment equals the percentage determined by the country size divided by the entire size of the EU. In the case of Ireland, this percentage will be 12/751 =1.6%. The Irish voters’ ability to influence the overall decisions made by their political lead will therefore be reduced from 100% to 1.6%.

7. Loss of permanent representation in the Commission

After 2014 the EU-states lose their right to a permanent Commissioner. In any 5 year term only two-third of the EU-countries will be represented in the Commission, in the ultimate decision-making body, which will shape the all-time strategies and the very direction of the EU. Because smaller countries like Ireland will not have significant say via other EU-institutions either, for Ireland the loss of permanent commissioner entails the absolute lack of influence on the decisions of the EU.
The loss of permanent representation of the member states in the European Commission signifies an increased centralisation of the EU-leadership and a further departure of the EU federal state in exercising its posers over the nations of Europe.

8. Voting NO does NOT mean losing EU membership and does not mean rejecting alliance among the countries of Europe; it means a demand for restoring the voters’ rights and other guiding principles of democracy, rule of law and constitutionalism in Europe. It means asking for an accountable political lead, and for a transparent and truly democratic system established on a genuine debate and factual agreement between the leaders and voters of Europe. The optimal alternative of the Lisbon Treaty is to retain the sovereignty of the nation states and to design a truly democratic European system in which a strong yet free alliance among the countries of Europe is developed under the constitutional control of the voters over their own national governments and over the decisions of the EU. (See the EUDemocrats’ website under the References.)

Main references

The research articles and references on this blog:
“The Lisbon Treaty Blog
Facts about the Lisbon Treaty – what political science tells us”
https://howardh.wordpress.com/2008/04/25/summary-on-the-lisbon-treaty-research/

“Lisbon Treaty Irish Referendum Blog – National Platform”
http://nationalplatform.wordpress.com/

“Defend Sovereignty – Neutrality – Democracy: Vote No to Lisbon!”
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87547

EUDemocrats – the alternative of the current EU-leadership
http://www.eudemocrats.org/

Selected references, readings and videos posted on this blog:
https://howardh.wordpress.com/selected-references/
https://howardh.wordpress.com/other-readings-and-videos/

Summary of the Lisbon Treaty research

April 25, 2008

In each EU member state where the Lisbon Treaty, a new constitution, is ratified without an electorate base (i.e.without referendum), the government has committed the unconstitutional act of overthrowing the constitution.

A constitution by its own definition never allows the act of overthrowing it. Not even a sovereign parliament with elected representatives and legislative supremacy has been authorised by the electorate to overthrow and invalidate the constitution under any circumstances, unless such parliament and the domestic law specifically claim to foster a system of “rule of man” rather than “rule of law”.

By overthrowing the constitution that has been the basis of their mandates with electorate legitimacy, the elected representatives have invalidated the basis of their legitimacy, thus terminated their mandates and elected status.

Abstract

This research is based on directly comparing the Lisbon Treaty to a theoretical (generic) constitution. The conclusion of the research is that a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty should be a requirement in each EU-state because:

1) The Lisbon Treaty has all the substance to satisfy the criteria of being a new constitution, [Article 1]
2) A constitution never allows the act of overthrowing it [Article 2]
3) Democratic constitutionalisation process requires referendum as the basis of accepting a new constitution. [Article 3]

This approach is built on the objective definitions of political concepts, such as “democracy”, “constitutionalism” and “rule of law”; therefore the objective meanings of these political concepts are matched with the case of adopting a constitutional treaty of a new federal state, the “European Union” [Article 1], which claims to be guided by -both as per its existing treaties and in the Lisbon Treaty itself- democracy and rule of law. (10A). The first study [Article 1] provides a conceptual map between the contents of a theoretical constitution and the Lisbon Treaty itself. The findings in this article are that the Lisbon Treaty contains all the elements (provisions) of a generic constitution. Among the treaty’s provisions we find that the treaty abolishes our national borders, and this is just one of the main constitutional aspects.

Following the first conclusion that the Lisbon Treaty is a constitution, the second article [Article 2] provides conceptual evidence that the parliamentary ratification of the Lisbon Treaty – as an attempt to replace (overthrow) the national constitution – is an act of treason, an equivalent of coup d’état. Therefore the legal aspect of adopting the Lisbon Treaty – which has made the issue of the Lisbon Treaty a very complicated legal issue in the member states – should also be examined from the perspective of the condition if the law and certain parliamentary decisions satisfy the criteria of the concepts of democracy, rule of law and constitutionalism. [Article 3]

The democratic constitutional requirement is a concept that has primacy over the legal aspect, for the following reasons:

1. The constitutional requirement is not per se the written laws of a constitution – especially if a constitution is not codified, partly written and/or subject to change – but the very fact that a constitution, and the political system founded upon it, are not supposed to be altered in a manner that contradicts the fundamental concepts of constitutionalism and the mandate legitimacy of parliamentary sovereignty.

2. A constitution by its own definition never allows the act of overthrowing it. Not even a sovereign parliament with elected representatives and legislative supremacy has been authorised by the electorate to overthrow itself and the constitution under any circumstances, unless such parliament and the domestic law specifically claim to foster a system of “rule of man” rather than “rule of law”. (Regarding the specific case of the UK: the former promises of the PM are irrelevant, because a former promise of not overthrowing the constitution is be considered self-evident.)

3. The domestic laws can serve the constitutional aim to satisfy the principle of rule of law only as long as the laws support the principles of parliamentary democracy, i.e., as long as the laws do not undermine the most fundamental law of the constitution, which is the guarantee of the constitution to be the constitution and to maintain the current constitutional state of matters, i.e.
1) to be the law for all other laws
2) the guarantee that the parliament is obliged to act upon the constitution rather than overthrow it. These constitutional guarantees stand above all other laws, and it is not a legal but a conceptual guarantee, because it is a guarantee inherent in and derived from the objective, scientific principles of constitutionalism.

4. The requirement of constitutionalism exists even prior to founding a state and before recording any laws, because this requirement determines if the very process of adopting a new constitution is constitutional at all. [Article 3]

5. Another reason why the fundamental political principles and the conceptual/ philosophical basis of a political system has primacy over the legal aspects is because the domestic law itself in any country can be designed or altered to foster a totalitarian (rule of man) establishment as well.

Conclusions

Since this approach is based on the objective definitions of political concepts, such as “constitutionalism” and “rule of law”, to satisfy the objective meanings of these political concepts, i.e. to satisfy the constitutional criteria of the process of adopting a new federal constitution, in each EU-state, a referendum would be required. This is a general requirement and holds true with or without any member states actually observing these principles.

A referendum on the Lisbon Treaty is required in all EU-member states also because the concept of national sovereignty and citizens’ rights/obligations are attached to the legally binding state-founding concepts, such as the legally binding agreements on new common borders, and the Lisbon Treaty is the first EU treaty that includes constitutional provisions, such as common borders and other legally binding state-founding provisions [Article 1]. Without a referendum the citizens would be arbitrarily deprived of their current voting and other citizens’ rights and would be arbitrarily exposed to new obligations toward the authorities of a new state.
The justification of parliamentary ratification of the EU-elites stating
1) that the act of surrendering the member states’ sovereignty to the EU has been a gradual process rather than an abrupt action
2) that the former EU-treaties have been accepted without referendums

is invalid for the following reasons:

Within the new common borders of the new state, the citizens of the member states, would for the first time be legally bound to obey the directives of the new federal state (EU) that is being founded by the Lisbon Treaty, even though many of these directives will be imposed upon the citizens in the future and gradually -as projected by the self-amending nature of the treaty, and unnoticeably, via the mediation of the national parliament, which -as per the treaty- will be obliged to follow the EU’s decisions. Furthermore, many of these new citizens’ rights and obligations will be subject to future amendments by the EU’s authorities, due to the Treaty’s general self amending competence.

[Article 1] Conceptual map proving that the Lisbon Treaty is a constitution

[Article 2] Lisbon Treaty explained by political science: an equivalent of coup d’état

[Article 3] The main constitutional aspect of constitutionalisation: the requirement of referendums on a new constitution

Selected links and references:
https://howardh.wordpress.com/selected-references/

Lisbon Treaty: explained by political science

April 25, 2008

an equivalent of coup d’état

I. Initial statements supported by scientific knowledge of political concepts

1. The Lisbon Treaty is a constitution; it is the same as the text of the rejected EU Constitution after omitting the state symbols of the new federal state. The Lisbon Treaty is a federal constitution granting essential powers to the federal EU-state (superstate) over the EU-member states.

2. A country can have only one constitution in effect at a time, the provisions of which have primacy over all other laws. In the case when a state is arranged as a federal union, the federal constitution enjoys primacy over the provision of the dependent state constitutions.

3. A constitution is the fundamental set of laws, a social contract concluded between citizens and the state. Being the fundamental set of laws, the provisions of a constitution should be strictly followed by both the state officials and by the citizens.

4. It is the absolute requirement of democracy, rule of law and people’s sovereignty that a state’s constitution, as the foundation of all other laws, institutional arrangements and state powers of a country, is NOT to be replaced without a referendum, without the approval of the citizens themselves.

5. Being the fundamental set of laws, a constitution does not allow being replaced with another set of fundamental laws, i.e. does not allow the act of overthrowing it. On the contrary, such act is normally known and punished as treason. (Britannica: “treason = offence of attempting to overthrow the government of one’s country or of assisting its enemies in war.) Overthrowing a constitution can take different forms, as a gradual process known as “constitutional/institutional engineering”, or sudden, (violent or non-violent) forms of power-grab. When the unconstitutional status needs to be sustained by military force, it is called coup d’état. This act – both in violent and non-violent forms – may also be called revolution, describing a significant change that usually takes place in a short period of time. Aristotle described two types of political revolution: 1. complete change from one constitution to another, 2. modification of an existing constitution. Note: the very act of overthrowing a constitution and replacing it with another makes the consideration of the actual content of the overthrown constitution irrelevant.

6. Representatives elected to perform the duties on behalf of the state are elected on the basis of the provisions of a state’s constitution. Representatives of democratic countries have been elected to act according to their constitution rather than overthrowing it. If elected representatives commit overthrowing a constitution, their status of having been elected does not justify their deed, on the contrary. By overthrowing the constitution that has been the basis of their mandates with electorate legitimacy, the elected representatives have invalidated the basis of their legitimacy, thus terminated their mandates and elected status. By accepting a new constitution they have abolished the constitutional status of their country and introduced a status that lacks electorate legitimacy.

7. The constitutional duty of the independent courts would be to ensure that the fundamental laws of the constitution are followed by the state and are not replaced with a new constitution. Their duty also includes preventing governments to gradual constitutional engineering altering the fundamental laws of a constitution. If the courts do not perform their constitutional duty, the lack of their act does not validate the new constitution. This merely indicates that in such case the courts are collaborators in the unconstitutional transformation of a state.

8. The EU, according to existing treaties, is an international organisation that commits itself “to develop and consolidate democracy and the rule of law and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. “The main EU’s institutions are the European Commission, European Council, Council, European Parliament and European Court. The European Council is an EU institution comprising the country leaders of the EU member states (prime ministers and presidents). The Council of Ministers is an EU institution comprising selected ministers of the EU member states.

9. The members of the European Council and Council have agreed in advance to ratify the Lisbon Treaty in each member state without referendums – with one exception: Ireland.

II. Conclusions from above regarding the parliamentary ratifications of Lisbon Treaty

1. To satisfy the principles of democracy, constitutional status and rule of law and people’s sovereignty in any EU member state, it is a requirement that the Lisbon Treaty is ratified by referendum in each state.

2. If a member state’s elected representatives accept a new constitution on behalf of the state’s citizens without the approval of its citizens, it is an act of overthrowing the nation’s constitution, a non-military equivalent of coup d’état. The ratification of the Lisbon Treaty on behalf of a member state means a complete change from one constitution to another.

3. Elected representatives who have been using their election period for overthrowing their states’ constitution, have committed treason and breached the constitution on the basis of which they had obtained their election mandates. The very act of overthrowing a national constitution and replacing it with the Lisbon Treaty makes it irrelevant to consider the actual content of the overthrown constitution. By the act itself, regardless of the content of the overthrown constitution and their formerly elected status, the national governments have given up their electorate legitimacy-based mandates, invalidated their elected status and have terminated the constitutional status of their country.

4. The members of the European Council and Council have agreed in advance to pursue parliamentary ratification of the Lisbon Treaty because the referendums hold the “danger of a negative outcome“. Such an agreement is a premeditated plan to organise overthrowing constitution in the EU member states (in all except Ireland). The European Commission’s hastening, encouraging and greeting the parliamentary ratification in the member states is an act of collaborating in the state-level coup d’état and promoting the abolishing democracy in the member states.

5. The EU, which in theory commits itself “to develop and consolidate democracy and the rule of law, and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms“ is the organisation under which the plan of the EU-wide power-grab is being executed. The members of the European Parliament who ratified the Treaty without referendums and the members of the Commission, who have encouraged the unconstitutional power-grab in the member states, are collaborators in this plan. The Lisbon Treaty was drafted and translated in a manner that would facilitate the process of constitutional engineering, i.e. altering the existing constitutions of the member states. The EU has even started to implement the Treaty in the member states, and exercises its arbitrary powers even without the appearance of legitimacy. The premeditated constitutional engineering, the acceptance and implementation of the Lisbon Treaty by the Union’s institutions long before the ratification is completed in all member states, are all parts of the prearrangement (or conspiracy) of the dictatorial transformation of the EU member states. The assumption of conspiracy is also reflected in the fact that the European Parliament itself takes it for granted that the result of the Irish referendum will be ‘yes’ and the EP has ratified the treaty long before the ratification is completed in all of the member states. From both the perspectives of the states and of the Union, the acceptance of the Lisbon Treaty by parliamentary means is by definition a revolution or arbitrary power-grab over the EU-countries of Europe.

6. In order to restore democracy, rule of law and the constitutional status in Europe, all national governments which took part in the unconstitutional takeover of Europe as described above are required to immediately invalidate the parliamentary ratifications and commit themselves to referendums, or immediately resign from both national and/or EU-level political office.

7. If the political leaders collaborating in the EU-takeover remain in office sustaining the parliamentary ratification of the Treaty, it is the duty of the peoples of Europe to restore democracy and constitutional status of Europe by forming temporary governments to replace their unconstitutional regimes, immediately terminate membership with the EU and defy the officials of the EU, i.e. any members of any institution thereof, legislative and executive acts, laws, law-enforcements, regulations, military duties, taxes and any other measures pertaining to EU membership.

8. In lack of performing step 7, after the state-level power-grab has been performed in all member states, the dictatorial transformation would be realised on the level of the whole European Union and EU-takeover would be completed, which would result in the foundation of the federal EU-state as a dictatorial federal regime. The political oligarchy of the EU would occupy the nations under their federal control by unconstitutionally imposing the Lisbon Treaty on Europe’s nations. By exploiting the self-amending features of the Lisbon Treaty, the European political class would continue the ongoing process of constitutional and institutional engineering, dictatorial transformation of the EU-institutions, and concentration of the EU powers.
In case of protests the EU would most likely use military forces, security measures and other dictatorial powers it vested in itself by the Lisbon Treaty to stabilize its totalitarian rule with a justification of its rule “to ensure internal security“.

The main constitutional aspect of constitutionalisation

April 25, 2008

the requirement of referendums on a new constitution

Experience suggests that the consolidation of democracy occurs if [*]:

1. An assembly is convoked for the explicit purpose of drafting a constitutional document;

2. The members of this assembly are elected, not selected, but not automatically empowered to convert themselves into a regular parliament;

3. The decisions of this body are taken by the largest possible margin and not by some “minimal winning majority” according to the short-term, a historical logic of individualistic rational choice;

4. Its product is widely publicized and ratified by the citizenry as a whole, usually in a referendum;

5. Once it has been popularly ratified, the constitution is ceremonially promulgated, placed on public display and subject to periodic interpretation by a specialized juridical process.

In contrast with the case of democratic constitutionalisation, in the case of the Lisbon Treaty we find the following:

1. An assembly has NOT been convoked for the explicit purpose of drafting a constitutional document. None of the EU’s institutions have been publicly authorised to act so. The product of the former constitutional convent was rejected and it has never been declared that with the Lisbon Treaty the EU constitution will be redrafted in a new form. The drafting of the constitutional Lisbon treaty has been carried out in secrecy, not even revealing the very fact that it is a constitution.

2. The members of the assembly drafting the Lisbon Treaty were NOT elected but selected.

3. Neither the European Parliament nor any other body of the EU has been elected or specifically authorised by public voting to act as a constitutional assembly and to pass a decision regarding a constitution on behalf of the affected citizens.
None of the bodies of the EU have been authorised by the public to act as a constitutional assembly.

4. It is NOT publicised at all that the product drafted and accepted by the EU -the Lisbon Treaty- is a constitution. What is widely publicised by the “official” sources of the EU are statements desperately hiding the fact of the federal constitutionalisation by the Treaty. The presentation of this constitution hides its constitutional content and hides the system it designs.

5. Since the Lisbon Treaty has not been popularly ratified -on the contrary, it has been ratified against the popular will of the French and Dutch- any related ceremony is only to “celebrate” the abolition of Europe’s democracy.

[*] “Contrasting approaches to political engineering: Constitutionalisation & Democratization“, by Philippe C. Schmitter (European University Institute February 2001)

Conceptual map: the Lisbon Treaty is a constitution

April 25, 2008

Fact 1: The definition of the word “constitution”:
Set of doctrines and practices that form the fundamental organizing principle of a political state. It may be written (e.g., the Constitution of the U.S.) or partly written and uncodified (e.g., Britain’s constitution). Its provisions usually specify how the government is to be organized, what rights it shall have, and what rights shall be retained by the people. A constitution is also referred to as a social contract between a state and its citizens.

Fact 2: The definition of a political “state”:
Political organisation of society, or the body politic, or -more narrowly- the institutions of government. The state is distinguished from other social groups by its purpose (establishment of order and security), methods (its laws and their enforcement), territory (its area of jurisdiction), and sovereignty. In some countries (e.g., the U.S.), the term also refers to non-sovereign political units subject to the authority of the larger state, or federal union.

Fact 3: The definition of “federal union” :
Federal: 1) of or relating to a compact or treaty, 2 a): formed by a compact between political units that surrender their individual sovereignty to a central authority but retain limited residuary powers of government b): of or constituting a form of government in which power is distributed between a central authority and a number of constituent territorial units c): of or relating to the central government of a federation as distinguished from the governments of the constituent units.
Union: the formation of a single political unit from two or more separate and independent units; a political unit constituting an organic whole formed usually. from previously independent units, which have surrendered their principal powers to the government of the whole or to a newly created government (as the U.S. in 1789).

Fact 4: The definition of “state’s rights” within a federal union:
All government rights or powers held by the individual states of a federal union under the provisions of a federal constitution. In some federally organized countries, these powers are those that remain after the powers of the central government are enumerated in the constitution. In others, the powers of both levels of government are defined in their respective constitutions. The federal government can influence state policy even in areas that are constitutionally the purview of the states (e.g., education, local road construction) through withholding funds from states that fail to comply with its wishes.
(All definitions are from the Encyclopædia Britannica.)

After matching the Lisbon Treaty to the definitions above the result is the following:

Fact 1: The Lisbon Treaty is a constitution, because it is a written set of doctrines and practices that form the fundamental organizing principle of a political state . The Lisbon Treaty is a constitution because its provisions specify how the EU-state as a federal government is to be organized, what rights it shall have, and what voting and other rights shall be retained by the people. The Lisbon Treaty lays down the provisions for the political organization of the society of the current member states, the body politic of, or -more narrowly- the institutions of a new government. The Lisbon Treaty is a social contract between the EU as a state and its citizens, the citizens of the Union. A country can have only one constitution in effect at a time, the provisions of which have primacy over all other laws. In the case when a state is arranged as a federal union, the federal constitution enjoys primacy over the provision of the dependent state constitutions.

Fact 2: As per the constitution called Lisbon Treaty, the European Union is to become a state because it is distinguished from other social groups by its purpose, by its establishment of order and security, by its methods, by its own laws and their enforcement, by its own territory or area of jurisdiction, by the borders specified as per the Schengen agreements, and its sovereignty. The European Union will be a sovereign state in terms of its physical borders, its sovereign foreign policy representation in international matters by the “high representative”, its own domestic market regulated by the Union, its own currency and central bank, its own monetary policy regulating the Union’s economy as a whole, its own citizens with obligations to the EU as a central authority, by its own representation of the Union citizens, by the European Parliament, by its own security policy, its own defence strategies based on its own perception of “international threats and security”, etc. This treaty gives the EU the constitutional form of a state. These are the ten most important things the Lisbon Treaty does: 1. It establishes a legally new European Union in the constitutional form of a supranational European State. 2. It empowers this new European Union to act as a State vis-à-vis other States and its own citizens. 3. It makes us all citizens of this new European Union. 4. To hide the enormity of the change, the same name – European Union – will be kept while the Lisbon Treaty changes fundamentally the legal and constitutional nature of the Union. 5. It creates a Union Parliament for the Union’s new citizens. 6. It creates a Cabinet Government of the new Union. 7. It creates a new Union political President. 8. It creates a civil rights code for the new Union’s citizens. 9. It makes national Parliaments subordinate to the new Union. 10. It gives the new Union self-empowerment powers.” [1]

Fact 3: The Lisbon Treaty is a federal constitution establishing a new political organisation in the form of a federal union and on the basis of an international agreement, incorporating 27 currently sovereign nations. As per the provisions of the federal constitution called Lisbon Treaty, the new state to be established is a federal union (note: “superstate” is a term the EU denies to cover the issue of federalisation ) by a compact between political units that surrender their individual sovereignty to a central authority but retain limited residuary powers of government. The EU constitutes a form of government in which power is distributed between a central authority (the EU institutions) and a number of constituent territorial units (the member states). The central government of the federation is called “federal“, as distinguished from the governments of the constituent units (“states“).
The federal hierarchy of laws is established by the FINAL ACT (2007/C 306/02) Declaration 17 (“Declaration concerning primacy”), which contains a declaration that the Union laws enjoy primacy over domestic laws due to precedence and due to the inherent nature of community laws. The further extension of the Union laws in the future as a specific consequence of the general self-amending feature of the Treaty is possible as well. Declaration 18 of the Final Act: “in accordance with the ordinary revision procedure provided for in Article 48(2) to (5) of the Treaty on European Union, the EU authorities may decide to amend the Treaties upon which the Union is founded, including either to increase or to reduce the competences conferred on the Union in the said Treaties.”

Fact 4: In accordance with the above, if the Lisbon Treaty would be ratified, the member states would lose their national sovereignty , and accordingly, the citizens would lose their current citizen rights and would be subject to obligations to a new authority. In such context the term “state“, whenever used for the EU member states, would refer to non-sovereign political units (e.g., similarly to the states of the U.S.) subject to the authority of the larger state, the federal European Union. The Lisbon Treaty, as a federal constitution, stipulates all government rights and powers held by the individual states of the European Union. Typical of the federally organized countries, these powers are those that remain after the powers of the central government are enumerated in the constitution. (In others, the powers of both levels of government are defined in their respective constitutions.) The federal government of the EU can influence state policy even in areas that are constitutionally the purview of the states (e.g., education, local road construction) through withholding funds from states that fail to comply with its wishes.

Conclusions: The Lisbon Treaty is a constitution laying down the foundations of a new political state under the name of “European Union”. This new political state founded by the Lisbon Treaty is a federal union, in which the member states would become non-sovereign political units. A nation’s constitution stipulates the rights and obligations pertaining to the status of being a citizen of the respective nation. When national sovereignty is surrendered to a higher authority than the one representing the nation, this implies the direct and indirect, gradual or abrupt loss of rights and privileges attached to a particular citizenship of a formerly sovereign state. The concept of national sovereignty is attached to the legally binding state-founding concepts, such as the legally binding agreements on common borders.

Note that the rights and obligations specified for the citizens of the Union are not only specified in the Charter of Fundamental Rights but also in the Lisbon Treaty, one of the footnotes of which stipulates the primacy of the Union law over the state laws, which implies that the rights and obligations pertaining to the Union citizenship will indeed override the current national citizens’ rights and obligations. Therefore, in order to meet the minimal requirement of a lawful and democratic process of the establishment of a new federal state, i.e. in order to respect the rights of the citizens as per the current social contracts (national constitutions) between the citizens and their state, the citizens -whose new voting rights and other constitutional rights would be enforced by law under the Lisbon Treaty within new borders of a new state -should be asked by a referendum if they approve of surrendering their current constitutional rights to those specified by the new constitution, the Lisbon Treaty.