Will the Irish save the World against the Lisbon-treaty ?

8.juni 2008 * Modstanden mod Lissabon-traktaten – en sminket udgave af den EU-traktat – Nice-traktaten som ikke var så nice og derfor blev nedstemt i folkeafstemninger i både Frankrig og Holland i 2005; øger lavinartet på den grønne ø.
Irerne som i århundreder har kæmpet mod britisk koloni-herredømme organiserer nu modstanden mod den Lissabontraktat som de som det eneste folk i Europa får en lovlig chance at siger nej til – senere i denne uge.

Debatten raser nu i Irland : Her er et udpluk : “Martha” henviser – helt relevant – til FN´s menneskerettighedsdeklaration i et indlæg“:

Article 29.2 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads as follows:

“In the exercise of his (and her) rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a DEMOCRATIC society.”

How can the European Union claim be a genuine “democratic society” when the vast majority of its population is being prevented from voting on an issue so important as the Lisbon Treaty? ”

Stuart fra JA- siden forsøger at narre de uvidende ved at henvise til EF-domstolens godkendelse af den lettiske skruebrækker-virksomheds LAVAL´s dumpning af lønningerne på skolebyggeriet i Vaxholm, hvilket har bragt selv de mest indbidte socialdemokratiske EU-tilhængere på oprørets rand: Samtidigt som han forsøger at bilde de irske læsere ind at LAVAL lønnede arbejderne i Vaxholm ifølge den svenske byggeindustri-overenskomst hvilket er en løgn, skriver han følgende:

“The facts about the Swedish building contract are that a Latvian company, Laval & Partneri, won a Swedish public tender and completed a school construction project using labour engaged in Latvia, at Latvian rates of pay and in contravention of Swedish government-union agreed rates and working conditions (http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2005/01/feature/lv0…f.htm). The ECJ upheld the Latvian employers right to engage labour according to Latvian law and upheld the workers free right of engagement anywhere in the EU (http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/3264). It is widely unreported that the dual judgement of the ECJ also required compliance with all Swedish legislation (i.e. the law, not government-union agreement) and required full rights for all employees recruited within the country of employment.”

Stuart´s stærkt “EU-positive” påstande blive modgået af en kvinde fra Galway:

In Sweden an employer hired workers from another EU state to work in Sweden, but refused to give them Swedish working condition. This case ended up in the European Court of Justice (!), which declared that it was illegal to strike against a company who imported workers, and refused to adhere to registered agreements on conditions in that country in which they were to be employed!

This was because the Court claimed that the action the Swedish Trade Union took, to force the employer into an agreement, was likely to make it more difficult for the company to carry out construction work, so that the Union action constituted a restriction on the company’s freedom to provide services.

So in other words the “free market” and “right” of a company to make money by exploitation, was put above the workers rights of collective bargaining and trying to defend standards.

This means hard-won gains in working standards and rights could be eroded rapidly. This could also lead to employers deliberately pitting workers in one country against workers in another, in order to further reduce standards and rights. If this happens, this could also lead to the displacement of frustration on to “foreign” workers, rather than on those who may seek to exploit them in the first place.

The Lisbon Treaty will give its support to this anti-worker and anti-union ruling through its rules on “undistorted” competition and pro free market economy stance.”

There is a short leaflet here that mentions some issues to do with the EU and workers rights (or lack of them)

Modstanden er omfattende og organiserer sig stadig bedre og når ud til stadig bredere masser i blandt irerne, Sådan skriver de selv :

A broad spectrum of campaigners from Health, trade Unions, mental health campaigners, councillors, academics, writers and community activists came together today to offer their vision of Europe and to challenge the neoliberal anti-woman and anti human agenda. Ailbhe Smuyth ably chaired a thorough and concise platform of speakers who addressed many parts of the treaty and how it is being sold to us. Rita Fagan of St Michaels Estate outlined the devastating consequences of privatisation on communities whose housing needs are not being provided for by market led policies. Bríd Smith, on behalf of Unite argued that because of the Laval case workers, in particular women swill not benefit when capital has more rights over people. Cathleen O Neill a veteran campaigner highlighted the neglect in particular within the health service while Maire O’Connor described the American health companies who have been caught as fraudsters in the States now swooping in on the galloping pace of health privatisation in Ireland. Sinead Kennedy noted how the Women for a yes vote at their press conference yesterday had rewritten womens history in Ireland and the EU claiming that the EU brought about positive change, neglecting the fact that women and men had campaigned and fought vigorously for equality, including many of those at the press conference. Catherine Connolly described reading the treaty, which costs €42 to buy, a reason in itself to vote no another commented, and how so much of it was vague except for the 20 pages on militarism which used phrases like ‘we shall’ rather than vague intentions which have no legal meaning when it came to other issues.

Chairing the press conference, Ailbhe Smyth said: “Women should not be bullied into saying Yes to Lisbon because ‘Europe has been good for us’. We are voting on the Lisbon Treaty, not on past benefits of EU membership, and Lisbon places the interests of the market, not people, at the heart of the European project.”
Lisbon would harm the interests of women in Ireland and throughout the EU in the following ways:
* It would accelerate the opening up of essential social services such as health and education to privatisation, with disastrous consequences for the welfare of families, and for women who are at the frontline as both users and workers.

Pro kapitalistiske Murdoch-kontrollerede Wall Street Journal – som ser EU som en konkurrent til USA skrev om den irske lektie:

An Irish Education
Irish voters struck a blow for democracy in Europe this week, stopping a power play by the Continent’s political elites. On the ballot was the Lisbon Treaty, which European Union grandees in Brussels pitched as a tidying-up exercise to make the bloc’s institutions work better. Most everyone else saw Lisbon for what it really was: An attempt to sneak through a dolled-up version of the failed “EU Constitution.”

That constitution was hailed as Europe’s entrée to a U.S.-size presence on the world stage, complete with a nonelected president and a beefier defense and foreign policy. It was rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005. Rather than respect that decision, Brussels simply made cosmetic changes and asked governments not to put such a major EU overhaul before voters.

Twenty-six EU members sent the treaty to their legislatures. But Irish law mandates referendums for international treaties to maintain the island nation’s neutrality. And in Thursday’s referendum, 53% of the Irish voted “no.”

Where does the EU go from here? There will be hand-wringing from those who dream of one EU superstate not under God, and jubilation from those who’d like to kill the entire project. Both emotions are exaggerated. The current arrangements are satisfactory for the EU to function, and the Lisbon Treaty won’t be missed. The lesson from Ireland is that European politicians need to sell their grand plans in the open, not via stealth, especially when those plans dilute national sovereignty.

The EU doesn’t need a new treaty to play an important role in the world. It needs political will, whether on terrorism or free trade. On this score, the EU has done better of late. Stronger leaders – Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy – have replaced Gerhard Schröder and Jacques Chirac. Labor laws and tax codes have been liberalized. As President Bush’s European tour this week shows, EU nations are eager to work with the U.S. even if they don’t love its leader. They recognize more clearly of late that shared values and interests are the glue of the trans-Atlantic alliance.

Europe has tough choices to make that weren’t on the ballot in Ireland. It must summon the nerve to keep moving the Union’s zone of stability eastward, to Ukraine, Georgia and Turkey. The EU is also debating immigration, mainly from Muslim Arab lands. The Continent is saddled with enervating environmental policies (the Kyoto Protocol and carbon cap and trade), low birthrates and unsustainable social-welfare burdens.
. . . . .
– – – – June 14, 2008


Skriv et svar

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

Du kommenterer med din WordPress.com konto. Log Out / Skift )

Twitter picture

Du kommenterer med din Twitter konto. Log Out / Skift )

Facebook photo

Du kommenterer med din Facebook konto. Log Out / Skift )

Google+ photo

Du kommenterer med din Google+ konto. Log Out / Skift )

Connecting to %s