EU Lisbonn constitution

[Legendary Apophis]

I heard some people here are against it. I'm curious to know, what are your reason(s)? (if you are in favour, what are your reasons?)
I was too young when vote came in my country and I didn't receive the constitution back in time, therefore my knowledge of said constitution is limited.
I am more likely to consider/listen to pro-EU people's arguments (them being for or against the treaty), naturally...

[Juliette]

I have 14 basic arguments against the Lisbon Treaty/Union Constitution. As follows:

1. The Lisbon Treaty is incompatible with the Constitution of almost every democratic nation. It infringes the irrevocable principles of structure of those nations, i.e. the democratic principle, the principle of rule of law, the social principle, which are not at the disposal of politics, not even to those of the people, because this would put an end to the freedom and equality of the people of a nation as well as to their brotherhood or solidarity to each other, ie the constitution which is born with man, the dignity of the nation.

2. In consequence of the principle of democracy, the individual nation must not transfer her existential statehood or existential tasks and competences of the state to an European Union who has no independent democratic legitimation and no original sovereignty, since power of government in most European nations is derived “under God from the people”.

3. As federal state by Treaty, the Union is provided with the tasks and competences of an existential state, without having been legitimated for these by a European people who had constituted itself to an existential state. The peoples of the member states are only able to legitimate joint exercising of the transferred rights of sovereignty, if the principle of restricted empowerment is observed. This principle alone makes possible democratic accountability of Union politics through national parliaments. The wide and open empowerments of the Union disregard the democratic principle of most democratic nations insofar as this principle is irrevocable in a community of freedom, equality and fraternity. The principal of restricted empowerment is the “life-lie” of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany. This principle is only laid down in the Lisbon Treaty in German version. The English version speaks of “principle of conferral”.

4. The economic and monetary union brought about a neo-liberal constitution of markets and competition. The resulting denationalisation is incompatible with the principle of social welfare, and especially with the principle of economic stability which would include an obligation for effective employment policies. The social principle of welfare is predominantly emphasised most individual national Constitutions, thus reflecting Christian social ethics. It is an irrevocable structural principle. Due to the Fundamental Freedoms (free movement of goods, services, capital, persons, meaning freedom of movement for workers and freedom of establishment) the Court of the European Union has enforced deregulation of the economic structures of the member states. With its judicature it has given over responsibility for the economy to the European and global markets and to an unlimited competition without consideration of regional and above all ethical aspects. It does not give any real chance to national employment politics. It is in particular the free movement of capital which led to the deterioration of the economy location of various 'border nations' (as opposed to the infrastructural Western-European core) despite having had a temporary boom. As a member of the European Union, individual nations are not able to protect their people from “unlawful exploitation”. The crisis of the finance market has revealed to everybody the disastrous effects of undemocratic global capitalism.

5. The European Council and the Council control the principles of the economic policy of her constituents in accordance with the economic constitution of the Union, but to the disadvantage of the national economic Constitution with its social considerations, and - as far as seems ‘necessary’ – also to the disadvantage of national economic interests. On these principles multinational supervision of economic policy is based.

6. The principle of country of origin together with the principle of mutual recognition to a large extent removes democracy from the conditions of life in the member states, e.g. in the legislation on foodstuffs, in the legislation on services and labour, on enterprises, on the capital market, because it is not the laws of the country of destination, which have become authoritative, but those of the country of origin.

7. The in no way democratically legitimised Court of the European Union understands itself as an engine of integration. It has usurped the legislation on issues of principles especially regarding fundamental rights, by means of direct and primary applicability of Union legislation which it has executed, but also by transforming the Freedoms of Movement into subjective fundamental rights, resulting in social deregulations. Thus the European Court devalued national responsibility for the law. It has also deprived national politics from power in contradiction to the Constitution of all democratic members of the Union. The 17th Declaration to the Treaty of Lisbon expressively emphasises the primacy of the Treaties and all Acts of the Union, including secondary and tertiary Union legislation, over the whole of the member states, even over their constitutional law. This has been permanent practice of the Court since 1963. It is in contradiction to the Maastricht judgement and the Lisbon judgement of the German federal constitutional court and is incompatible with the existential statehood of the member states.

8. The protection of the fundamental rights against judicial acts of the Union is running idle to a large extent, since the Court of the Union has been responsible for fundamental rights. In more than half a century the Court had declared only one act of Union legislation as opposed to the fundamental rights. The reservation of the German constitutional court demanding that the essence of the fundamental rights must remain sacrosanct in general is without practical consequences.

9. The protection of fundamental rights has come into bad hands, because the Court of the Union neither is democratically legitimised nor possesses the required knowledge of the national systems of law for providing protection for the rights of the people. The European Charter of Fundamental Rights weakens the protection of fundamental rights. Neither do you find it as social liability of property as emphasised in many national constitutions nor as a right of employment. Freedom of the media is only to be respected, freedom of teaching is not mentioned, a.s.o. The Christian constitution of various European nations is totally neglected by the outspoken secular judicature of the Court, in particular regarding protection of the families and of mothers from economic enforcement of having to go to work (in contradiction to the relevant articles in national Constitutions).

10. The Charter of Fundamental Rights permits capital punishment in case of war and in case of immediate threat of war. The death penalty may also be introduced by the Union according to its empowerments regarding defence politics. In order to “legally suppress” an “uprising” or “riot” the permission to kill may be given despite the right to life.

11. The area of freedom, security and justice is an existential territory of state. The security guarantee for it is increasingly being taken over by the European Union without really being capable for doing it. The European state attorney and the European arrest warrant deeply interfere with national criminal sovereignty. According to the Lisbon Treaty the Union is allowed more and more to set criminal rules, too.

12. Member states lose to a large extent their defence sovereignty by integration of their armed forces into Common Defence. Missions out of area of the Union for purposes of making peace, conflict management and strengthening of international security may and will be wars, since the missions are to be authorised to combat terrorism also in third countries. A intervention of this kind is prohibited by the international prohibition of using force. The Union, however, is giving itself the right to war. The traditional neutrality of individual member nations is being respected, but is no longer relevant in the new asymmetrical wars [combating terrorism etc]. It is in fact restricted to armed aggression on sovereignty of a member state.

13. The Lisbon Treaty empowers the Union in a general financial policy clause of art. 311 (TFEU) to provide itself with European taxes and further own resources, without the national parliaments having to agree to this. In the simplified Proceedings for the Alterations of the Treaty {art. 48 par. 6 TEU) the European Council is empowered to change totally or in part all regulations of the Part Third of the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union {TFEU) comprising the internal market, the economic and monetary union, the employment and social union, the area of freedom, security and justice, and most other areas of politics, without the national parliaments, and less so the peoples, having to agree to this according to the Treaty. Also the European parliament and the Commission are only to be heard. In fact the competence of the Union must not be extended but these competences are extremely extensive as stated in articles 3-6 TFEU. For the agreement of the member states that of the governments shall be sufficient, because the Conclusion of the European Council is no international treaty and the empowerment as such changes the constitution of Ireland, thus making a new referendum not compulsory.

14. The principle of subsidiarity is completely devalued through the competence of ultimate decision by the European Court.





After the illegal repeat-referendum -Illegal, because a plebiscite must not be repeated only because the government does not accept the result on pressure exerted by its contractual partners. The people have the sovereignty.-, we all can see where this is going. This 'constitution' will come, whether we want it or not. And if we say we don't want it, we just get asked again, until we 'see the light'.

[Legendary Apophis]

I am surprised about some of criticisms you brought up there. Anyway, that's best criticism I read & heard so far against Lisbonn treaty. *edited*.
[spoiler]

I have 14 basic arguments against the Lisbon Treaty/Union Constitution. As follows:

1. The Lisbon Treaty is incompatible with the Constitution of almost every democratic nation. It infringes the irrevocable principles of structure of those nations, i.e. the democratic principle, the principle of rule of law, the social principle, which are not at the disposal of politics, not even to those of the people, because this would put an end to the freedom and equality of the people of a nation as well as to their brotherhood or solidarity to each other, ie the constitution which is born with man, the dignity of the nation.

[/spoiler]

[spoiler]

4. The economic and monetary union brought about a neo-liberal constitution of markets and competition. The resulting denationalisation is incompatible with the principle of social welfare, and especially with the principle of economic stability which would include an obligation for effective employment policies. The social principle of welfare is predominantly emphasised most individual national Constitutions, thus reflecting Christian social ethics. It is an irrevocable structural principle. Due to the Fundamental Freedoms (free movement of goods, services, capital, persons, meaning freedom of movement for workers and freedom of establishment) the Court of the European Union has enforced deregulation of the economic structures of the member states. With its judicature it has given over responsibility for the economy to the European and global markets and to an unlimited competition without consideration of regional and above all ethical aspects. It does not give any real chance to national employment politics. It is in particular the free movement of capital which led to the deterioration of the economy location of various 'border nations' (as opposed to the infrastructural Western-European core) despite having had a temporary boom. As a member of the European Union, individual nations are not able to protect their people from “unlawful exploitation”. The crisis of the finance market has revealed to everybody the disastrous effects of undemocratic global capitalism.

[/spoiler]
[spoiler]

10. The Charter of Fundamental Rights permits capital punishment in case of war and in case of immediate threat of war. The death penalty may also be introduced by the Union according to its empowerments regarding defence politics. In order to “legally suppress” an “uprising” or “riot” the permission to kill may be given despite the right to life.

[/spoiler]

----

After the illegal repeat-referendum -Illegal, because a plebiscite must not be repeated only because the government does not accept the result on pressure exerted by its contractual partners. The people have the sovereignty.-, we all can see where this is going. This 'constitution' will come, whether we want it or not. And if we say we don't want it, we just get asked again, until we 'see the light'.

That I didn't really agree with when it come up...I mean, what was the point in doing a referundum if result isn't accepted. Rather don't ask people at all.


Well, when I will have received the Constitution (going to find a way to receive it, as I didn't, as I was too young when referundum came), I will give my opinion regarding it.

[Juliette]

Lisbon Treaty Text (french):
http://bookshop.europa.eu/eubookshop/do ... 8-115-EN-C

Consolidated text (french):
http://bookshop.europa.eu/eubookshop/do ... 7-306-EN-C

From:
http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/full_text/index_en.htm

[Legendary Apophis]

Thanks for those...well, I will still have to find a way to get it "properly". I obtained the pdf english version already. But what I meant was, get the constitution in real, as I got my country constitution. Not in pdf file, but as a material book or something like that.
That's what I meant. I don't see myself printing the treaty given its size. Way too much pages. It's already a beginning, and I thank you for that.

[Juliette]

Paper version costs 42€. It's cheaper to print it yourself.

[Legendary Apophis]

Paper version costs 42€. It's cheaper to print it yourself.

I'm willing to spend 42€ then, given fact it's probably organized better, than the utter chaotic result I would get from printing myself those 280 or so pages. I don't have anything where I could place those papers...42€ isn't too much to spend if it avoids me all organisational issues from printing it myself.
Will have a look at amazon.

[Q Man]

well, theres not much i can add except say that in ireland anyway the government had to lie to our faces and disgrace our country to get us to vote yes.


as a previously neutral country i'm slightly worried about what this treaty could do to us.
i've more to say but not the time

[Legendary Apophis]

Hmmm some related books I found don't cost 42€ on amazon, so I'm probably lucky lol...

Until I receive that, I will read the provided links..

[Brdavs]

Universe copy pasted that wall of text from someone that conveniantly sees only what it wishes to see to further its agenda and has his/hers legal theorems about 300 years and a couple of revolutions outdated.


I`d deeply recommend much furter study in the fields of "theory of state", "sovereignty", "legitimacy" etc. etc. A whole lot of flapping of big terms that are flat out misuderstood or puposfully misused.

[Juliette]

Universe copy pasted that wall of text from someone that conveniantly sees only what it wishes to see to further its agenda and has his/hers legal theorems about 300 years and a couple of revolutions outdated.


I`d deeply recommend much furter study in the fields of "theory of state", "sovereignty", "legitimacy" etc. etc. A whole lot of flapping of big terms that are flat out misuderstood or puposfully misused.

*grin* Blame the Irish for writing good pieces.
Ah well.. it's all minor politics.



(Oh, and btw, I copied from: http://no2lisbon.net/2009/10/irish-argu ... reaty.html)

[Legendary Apophis]

Hmm I retract my words I said earlier about that criticism...suspected it was an already "all made up" text, but googling sentences and arguments didn't gave me a consistant result to confirm it. But now I got the link.
This topic was asking why *you* people agree or not with it. Not what some subjective site said.

Thanks brdavs for pointing it out.

Next time I will be even more careful with replies given..

[Brdavs]

Personally I support it because I`m of belief that national states are one of the biggest blunders of history of humanity that have brought little but suffering. That and the fact that the newley forming multipolar world could use with a coherent counterpart to the lunacy of russia china & the US. For all its flaws, the EU is not seen in the world as a beacon of something more without reason.

The prommise of a integration of nations that were once bitter enemies but are now united in a common pursuit of greater prosperity, equality & justice regardless of national origins gives me hope for our race.
(layed it on too thick at the end? )

[Legendary Apophis]

Personally I support it because I`m of belief that national states are one of the biggest blunders of history of humanity that have brought little but suffering. That and the fact that the newley forming multipolar world could use with a coherent counterpart to the lunacy of russia china & the US. For all its flaws, the EU is not seen in the world as a beacon of something more without reason.

The prommise of a integration of nations that were once bitter enemies but are now united in a common pursuit of greater prosperity, equality & justice regardless of national origins gives me hope for our race.
(layed it on too thick at the end? )

Hmm even though we don't agree on some issues, from what I noticed reading your posts; you almost take the words out of my mouth on that particular subject. (anyone familiar with me will remember my position regarding "Europe of Nation[alism]s" as I like to call the Europe before Marshall plan and Rome treaty of 1957.)

[[KMA]Avenger]

Personally I support it because I`m of belief that national states are one of the biggest blunders of history of humanity that have brought little but suffering. That and the fact that the newley forming multipolar world could use with a coherent counterpart to the lunacy of russia china & the US. For all its flaws, the EU is not seen in the world as a beacon of something more without reason.

The prommise of a integration of nations that were once bitter enemies but are now united in a common pursuit of greater prosperity, equality & justice regardless of national origins gives me hope for our race.
(layed it on too thick at the end? )

there are so many flaws in the above i seriously don't know where to start!

maybe i should ask which "bitter enemies?" you are referring to, or maybe ask "whose promise?".

you guys fail to see the puppet master and only see the puppet and his tricks...



"In regione caecorum rex est luscus."
-Erasmus

translation: in the land of the blind, the one eyes man is king.
-Erasmus


[spoiler]i'm 100% positive Jim will agree with that load of crap![/spoiler]


madness!!!