Posts Tagged ‘Vote no’

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.

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/