• Recent Posts

  • Really Simple Syndication

  • Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 46 other subscribers
  • Twitter@NatPlat

  • People’s Movement Ireland

  • Archives

  • Posts by Category

  • Blog Stats

    • 43,901 hits

[25/09/2005] What leading EU politicians actually say…

BUILDING THE EU SUPERSTATE: WHAT LEADING EU POLITICIANS SAY ABOUT IT

(The quotations below are in chronological order backwards)

"In the foreseeable future, we will not have a constitution. That's
obvious.  I haven't come across any magic formula that would bring it back
to life. Instead of never-ending debates about institutions, let's work
with what we've got. Political will and leadership are more important than
institutions."

- EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, Rzeczpospolita, Warsaw;
Irish Times, 2 September 2005

_________

"We know our electorate, and if we ask them again we will get the same
reply. We will have to reassess the situation in 2006. At the moment I
cannot see anyone wishing or asking for a second vote."

- French Minister for European Affairs Catherine Colonna, Irish Times, 13
September 2005

_________

"After Nice the forces of political Europe joined others in stoking the
fire. The Commission, the Parliament, the federalists, French proponents of
integration, the media, all found Nice too 'intergovernmental'. Together,
they imposed the idea that Nice was a disaster, that we urgently needed a
new treaty. Soon a 'new treaty'  wasn't enough. It had to be a
'Constitution', and little did it matter that it was legally inappropriate.
When the time came, the result had to be ratified. What tiny national
parliament, what people, would then dare to stand in the way of this new
meaning of history? The results of the Convention, at first deemed
insufficient by maximalists, became the holy word when it was realised that
selfish governments might water it down.

At every stage of this craze, from 1996 until 2005, a more reasonable
choice could have been made, a calmer rhythm could have been adopted, that
would not have deepened the gap between the elites and the population, that
would have better consolidated the real Europe and spared us the present
crisis. But in saying this, I understimate the religious fervour that has
seized the European project. For all those who believed in the various
ideologies  of the second half of the 20th century, but survived their
ruin, the rush into European integration became a substitute ideology.

They planned urgently to end the nation state.  Everything outside this
objective was heresy and had to be fought. This was in the spirit of Jean
Monnet, the rejection of self and of history, of all common sense.
'European power' was a variation, the code name for a counterweight to
America that excited France alone for years and towards which the
'Constitution' was supposed to offer a magical shortcut. And let us not
forget the periodic French incantations for a Franco-German union.

As the train sped on, these two groups, instead of braking the convoy, kept
stoking the locomotive, some to enlarge and others to integrate, deaf to
the complaints coming from the carriages. Since we had to ask for
confirmation from time to time, the recalcitrant peoples were told they had
no choice, that it was for their own good, that all rejection or delay
would be a sign of egotism, sovereignty, turning inward, hatred of others,
xenophobia, even Le Penism or fascism. But it didn't work. The passengers
unhooked the carriagesŠ"

- Hubert Vedrine, French Foreign Minister 1999-2005, Irish Times, 8 August
2005

____________

"I want to believe obstinately that neither the French nor the Dutch have
rejected the constitutional treaty. A lot of the questions in the French
and Dutch debates find answers in the constitution. But the voters - and
this is why we need this period of explanation and debate - did not realise
that the text of the  constitutional treaty, the nature of the
constitutional treaty, aimed to respond to numerous concerns."

- Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg Premier and holder of the EU presidency,
International Herald Tribune, 18-19 June 2005

__________

"Some people have wanted to bury the Constitution before it's even dead. I
am opposed to this, because burying the Constitution would mean burying the
idea of what's behind the Constitution, which is political union."

- Guy Verhofstadt, Belgian Prime Minuster, Agence Europe News Bulletin, 17
June 2005

__________

"It was a mistake to send out the entire three-part, 448-article document
to every French voter, said Mr Giscard. Over the phone he had warned Mr
Chirac in March: 'I said, "Don't do it, don't do it. It is not possible for
anyone to understand the full text.'"

- V.Giscard d'Estaing, interview in The New York Times, quoted in
Euobserver, 15 June 2005

___________

"The agenda must and will continue. Globalization is not something China
imposed on us, but something we have done ourselves.  People must be told
that globalization is our policy. . . I see a clear danger when people are
saying less Europe is better. More integration is not the problem, it is
the solution."

- EU Commission Vice-President Günter Verheugen, International Herald
Tribune, 8 June 2005

__________

"The Constitution is the capstone of a European Federal State"

- Guy Verhofstadt, Belgian Prime Minister, Financial Times, 21 June 2004

__________

"This (drafting an EU Constitution) is what you have to do if you want the
people to build statues of you on horseback in the villages you all come
from."

- V.Giscard d'Estaing, Financial Times, 21 June 2004

__________

"We know that nine out of 10 people will not have read the Constitution and
will vote on the basis of what politicians and journalists say. More than
that, if the answer is No, the vote will probably have to be done again,
because it absolutely has to be Yes."

- Jean-Luc Dehaene, Former Belgian Prime Minister and Vice-President of the
EU Convention, Irish Times, 2 June 2004

_____________

"You cannot ask the citizens to ratify the Treaty of Nice and then say to
them that what they have ratified no longer counts for anything before it
has even come into force.  How could we then ask them to believe in what we
are doing?

- Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, Le Monde, 8 March 2004

_____________

"The Convention brought together a self-selected group of the European
political elite, many of whom have their eyes on a career at a European
level, which is dependent on more and more integration and who see national
governments and parliaments as an obstacle. Not once in the sixteen months
I spent on the Convention did representatives question whether deeper
integration is what the people of Europe want, whether it serves their best
interests or whether it provides the best basis for a sustainable structure
for an expanding Union. The debates focused solely on where we could do
more at European Union level. None of the existing policies were
questioned."

-  Gisela Stuart MP, The Making of Europe's Constitution, Fabian Society,
London, 2003.

__________

"From a Chinese, Indian or  American perspective, the individual countries
of our continent grow indistinct and merge. What people see increasingly is
Europe as a whole.  Just cast your mind beyond our narrow temporal limits:
in the eyes of  history, the integration of the whole continent is our
nation-states' only  chance of survival."

- Romano Prodi, President of the EU Commission, European Parliament, 16
December 2003

____________

"An enlarged Union based on Nice is not in the interest of any Member State
Š This is not a threat. This is a messenger delivering news."

- German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, Irish Times, 14 November 2003

__________

"We've got to be explicit that the road to greater economic success does
not lie in this cosy assumption that you can move from a single market
through a single currency to harmonising all your taxes and then having a
federal fiscal policy and then effectively having a federal state."

-  Gordon Brown, British Chancellor of the Exchequer, The Guardian, 5
November 2003

__________

"There is no Europe without European defence and there is no European
defence without Britain."

-   French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, Financial Times, 16
October 2003

___________

"This is crossing the Rubicon, after which there will be no more sovereign
states in Europe with fully-fledged governments and parliaments which
represent legitimate interests of their citizens, but only one State will
remain. Basic things will be decided  by a remote 'federal government' in
Brussels and, for example, Czech citizens will be  only a tiny particle
whose voice and influence will be almost zero Š We are against a European
superstate."

-  Czech President Vaclav Klaus, Mlada Fronta Dnes,  29-9-2003

_________

"We are 5 per cent from a real European federal state and claims about the
independence of countries will have a more and more hollow ring. I am not
sure the citizens are in any way aware of what is going on. All the changes
are duly labelled in calming phrases."

- Torben Lund MEP, leader of Danish Social Democrats in the European
Parliament and former government minister, Politiken,  12 August 2003

_________

"Defence Europe is an essential dimension of Europe. Without it, the voice
of the European nations won't be heard in the international arena.  Without
the requisite capabilities for military action, Europe will remain impotent
or dependent."

- French President Jacques Chirac, speech at Creil, 30 September 2002

__________

"We need to develop the instinct of acting together. The first reflex is
still national."

-  M.Valery Giscard d'Estaing, President of the EU Convention, The
Guardian. London, 13 September 2002

_________

"If we were to reach agreement on this point (i.e. a consensus proposal
from the EU Convention), we would thus open the way towards a constitution
for Europe. To avoid any disagreement over semantics, let us agree now to
call it 'a constitutional treaty for Europe.'"

-  M.Valery Giscard d'Estaing, President of the EU Convention, Irish Times,
1 March 2002

_________

"When we build the euro - and with what a success - when we advance on the
European defence, with difficulties but with considerable progress, when we
build a European arrest-warrant, when we move towards creating a European
prosecutor, we are building something deeply federal, or a true union of
states Š The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must
become a charter of rights that is applicable and effective Š I wish this
Constitution to be the Constitution of a rebuilt Union, able to reflect its
social cohesion, deepen its political unity, express its power externally."

- M.Pierre Moscovici, French Minister for Europe, Le Monde,28 February 2002

__________

"European monetary union has to be complemented by a political union - that
was always the presumption of Europeans including those who made active
politics before us ŠWhat we need to Europeanise is everything to do with
economic and financial policy. In this area we need much more, let's call
it co-ordination and  co-operation to suit British feelings, than we had
before. That hangs together with the success of the euro."

- German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, The Times, London, 22 February 2002

__________

"Defence is the hard core of sovereignty. Now we have a single currency,
then why should we not have a common defence one day?"

-  Spanish Defence Minister Federico Trillo, European Parliament Committee
on Foreign Affairs, 19 February 2002

__________

"The EU ought to develop into a great power in order that it may function
as a fully fledged actor in the world."

- Paavo Lipponen, Prime Minister of Finland, London, 14 February 2002

__________

"It (the introduction of the euro) is not economic at all. It is a
completely political step Š The historical significance of the euro is to
constuct a bipolar economy in the world. The two poles are the dollar and
the euro. This is the political meaning of the single European currency.
It is a step beyond which there will be others. The euro is just an
antipasto."

-  Commission President Romano Prodi, interview on CNN, 1 January 2002

__________

"The currency union will fall apart if we don't follow through with the
consequences of such a union. I am convinced we will need a common tax
system."

-  German Finance Minister Hans Eichel, The Sunday Times, London, 23
December 2001

__________

"The European constitution that Germany and France wish for will be an
essential step in the historic process of European integration."

- Joint statement of French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor
Gerhard Schröder, Nantes, 23 November 2001

___________

"Let us act in such a way that it (an EU Constitution) becomes a reality in
2004 Š Such a text would unite the Europeans by enabling them, through
their solemn approval, to identify with a project Š What can we do so that
Europe carries greater weight  on the international stage? Š Now we must
define, without timidity, the areas where we want to go towards more
Europe, within the framework desired by France, of a Federation of Nation
States."

-  French President Jacques Chirac, address to French Ambassadors, 27
August 2001

___________

"It (the EU) is one of the few institutions we can develop as a balance to
US world domination."

- Swedish Prime Minister Goran Persson in Gothenburg, New York Times, 15
June 2001

__________

"We need a European Constitution.  The European Constitution is not the
'final touch' of the European structure; it must become its foundation.
The European Constitution should prescribe that Š we are building a
Federation of Nation-States Š The first part should be based on the Charter
of Fundamental Rights proclaimed at the European summit at Nice Š If we
transform the EU into a Federation of Nation-States, we will enhance the
democratic legitimacy Š We should not prescribe what the EU should never be
allowed to do Š I believe that the Parliament and the Council of Ministers
should be developed into a genuine bicameral parliament."

- Dr Johannes Rau, President of the Federal Republic of Germany, European
Parliament,   4 April 2001

__________

"Are we all clear that we want to build something that can aspire to be a
world power? In other words, not just a trading bloc but a political
entity. Do we realise that our nation states, taken individually, would
find it far more difficult to assert their existence and their identity on
the world stage."

- Commission President Romano Prodi, European Parliament, 13 February 2001

___________

"Thanks to the euro, our pockets will soon hold solid evidence of a
European identity. We need to build on this, and make the euro more than a
currency and Europe more than a territory Š In the next six months, we will
talk a lot about political union, and rightly so. Political union is
inseparable from economic union. Stronger growth and European integration
are related issues. In both areas we will take concrete steps forward."

- French Finance Minister Laurent Fabius, Financial Times, London, 24 July 2000

___________

"One must act 'as if' in Europe: as if one wanted only very few things, in
order to obtain a great deal. As if nations were to remain sovereign, in
order to convince them to surrender their sovereignty. The Commission in
Brussels, for example, must act as if it were a technical organism, in
order to operate like a government ... and so on, camouflaging and toning
down. The sovereignty lost at national level does not pass to any new
subject. It is entrusted to a faceless entity: NATO, the UN and eventually
the EU. The Union is the vanguard of this changing world:it indicates a
future of Princes without sovereignty. The new entity is faceless and those
who are in command can neither be pinned down nor elected ... That is the
way Europe was made too: by creating communitarian organisms without giving
the organisms presided over by national governments the impression that
they were being subjected to a higher power. That is how the Court of
Justice as a supra-national organ was born. It was a sort of unseen atom
bomb, which Schuman and Monnet slipped into the negotiations on the Coal
and Steel Community. That was what the 'CSC' itself was: a random mixture
of national egotisms which became communitarian.  I don't think it is a
good idea to replace this slow and effective method - which keeps national
States free from anxiety while they are being stripped of power - with
great institutional leaps Š Therefore I prefer to go slowly, to crumble
pieces of sovereignty up litle by little, avoiding brusque transitions from
national to federal power. That is the way I think we will have to build
Europe's common policies..."

- Italian Prime Minister Giuliano Amato, later Vice-President of the EU
Constitutional Convention, interview with Barbara Spinelli, La Stampa, 13
July 2000

_____________

"We already have a federation. The 11, soon to be 12, member States
adopting the euro have already given up part of their sovereignty, monetary
sovereignty,and formed a monetary union, and that is the first step towards
a federation."

- German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, Financial Times, 7 July 2000,

___________

"We will have to create an avant-garde Š We could have a Union for the
enlarged Europe, and a Federation for the avant-garde."

- Former EU Commission President Jacques Delors, Liberation, 17 June 2000

__________

"The last step will then be the completion of integration in a European
Federation Š such a group of States would conclude a new European framework
treaty, the nucleus of a constitution of the Federation. On the basis of
this treaty, the Federation would develop its own institutions, establish a
government which, within the EU, should speak with one voice Š a strong
parliament and a directly elected president. Such a driving force would
have to be the avant-garde, the driving force for the completion of
political integration Š This latest stage of European Union Š will depend
decisively on France and Germany."

- German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, speech at Humboldt University,
Berlin, 12 May 2000

___________

"To promote the process of European integration, we must improve an
institutional mechanism already existing in the European Union, reinforced
co-operation, by making it more flexible and effective. This approach
allows a few states to move faster and further Š We are all aware that this
mechanism is vital."

- French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin, French National  Asssembly, 9 May 2000

__________

"Common responsibility for the European currency will also engender a
common decision-making instance for the European economy. It is unthinkable
to have a European central bank but not a common leadership for the
European economy. If there is no counterweight to the ECB in European
economy policy, then we will be left with the incomplete construction which
we have today Š However even if the building is not finished it is still
true that monetary union is part of a supranational constitution Š It is
our task for the future to work with the appropriate means for the transfer
of traditional elements of national sovereignty to the European level."

- Italian President Carlo Ciampi, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung,8 Feb.2000

___________

"If you don't want to call it a European army, don't call it a European
army. You can call it 'Margaret', you can call it 'Mary-Anne', you can find
any name, but it is a joint effort for peace-keeping missions - the first
time you have a joint, not bilateral, effort at European level."

- EU Commission President Romano Prodi, The Independent, London, 4 Feb.2000

____________

"We must now face the difficult task of moving towards a single economy, a
single political entitY Š For the first time since the fall of the Roman
Empire we have the opportunity to unite Europe."

- EU Commission President Romano Prodi, European Parliament, 13 April 1999

__________

"It is only natural that the eastern part of the continent will become our
preoccupation for years to come, because Germans see this as  a matter of
historical destiny. The most fundamental priority we have is trying to
integrate all of Europe. But for France the underlying issue is all about
coming to terms with its loss of influence in the world."

- Herr Immo Stabreit, former German Ambassador to France, International
Herald Tribune, 11-12 September 1999

__________

"The euro was not just a bankers' decision or a technical decision. It was
a decision which completely changed the nature of the nation states. The
pillars of the nation state are the sword and the currency, and we changed
that. The euro decision changed the concept of the nation state and we have
to go beyond that."

- EU Commission President Romano Prodi, Financial Times interview, 9 April 1999

____________

"The introduction of the euro is probably the most important integrating
step since the beginning of the unification process. It is certain that the
times of individual national efforts regarding employment policies, social
and tax policies are definitely over. This will require to finally bury
some erroneous ideas of national sovereignty Š I am convinced our  standing
in the world regarding foreign trade and international finance policies
will sooner or later force a Common Foreign and Security Polic worthy of
its name Š National sovereignty in foreign and security policy will soon
prove itself to be a product of the imagination."

-  German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder on 'New Foundations for European
Integration', The Hague, 19 Jan.1999

____________

"Our future begins on January 1 1999. The euro is Europe's key to the 21st
century. The era of solo national fiscal and economic policy is over."

-  German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, 31 December 1998

___________

"The euro is a sickly premature infant, the result of an over-hasty
monetary union."

- German Opposition leader Gerhard Schröder, March 1998

___________

"The euro is far more than a medium of exchange Š It is part of the
identity of a people. It reflects what they have in common now and in the
future."

- European Central Bank Governor Wim Duisenberg, December 31 1998

___________

"Transforming the European Union into a single State with one army, one
constitution and one foreign policy is the critical challenge of the age,
German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said yesterday."

- The Guardian, London, 26 November 1998

____________

"The single currency is the greatest abandonment of sovereignty since the
foundation of the European Community Š It is a decision of an essentially
political character Š We need this united Europe Š We must never forget
that the euro is an instrument for this project."

- Spanish Prime Minister Felipe Gonzalez, May 1998

__________

"Federalism might make eurosceptics laugh but, with the creation of the
euro,the halfway stage would be reached. Four key organisms would have a
federal or quasi-federal status: the Central Bank, the Court of Justice,
the Commission and the Parliament. Only one institution is missing: a
federal government."

- M.Jacques Lang,  Foreign Affairs Spokesman, French National Assembly, The
Guardian, London, 22 July 1997

____________

"As a monetary union represents a lasting commitment to integration which
encroaches on the core area of national sovereignty, the EMU participants
must also be prepared to take further steps towards a more comprehensive
political union."

- Annual Report of the German Bundesbank, 1995
___________

"In Maastricht we laid the foundation-stone for the completion of the
European Union. The European Union Treaty introduces a new and decisive
stage in the process of European union, which within a few years will lead
to the creation of what the founding fathers dreamed of after the last war:
the United States of Europe."

- German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, April 1992

___________

"There is no example in history of a lasting monetary union that was not
linked to one State."

- 0tmar Issing, Chief Economist, German Bundesbank, 1991

___________

"A European currency will lead to member-nations transferring their
sovereignty over financial and wage policies as well as in monetary affairs
Š It is an illusion to think that States can hold on to their autonomy over
taxation policies."
- Bundesbank President Hans Tietmeyer, 1991

___________

"We argue about fish, about potatoes, about milk, on the periphery. But
what is Europe really for? Because the countries of Europe, none of them
anything but second-rate powers by themselves, can, if they get together,
be a power in the world, an economic power, a power in foreign policy, a
power in defence equal to either of the superpowers. We are in the position
of the Greek city states: they fought one another and they fell victim to
Alexander the Great and then to the Romans. Europe united could still, by
not haggling about the size of lorries but by having a single foreign
policy, a single defence policy and a single economic policy, be equal to
the great superpowers."

- Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, who initiated the UK's application to
join the EEC, The Listener, London, 8 Feb.1979

____________

"On the basis of repeated meetings with him and of an attentive observation
of his actions, I think that if in his own way W.Hallstein (ed: first
President of the European Commission) is a sincere 'European', this is only
because he is first of all an ambitious German. For the Europe that he
would like to see would contain a framework within which his country could
find once again and without cost the respectability and equality of rights
that Hitler's frenzy and defeat caused it to lose; then acquire the
overwhelming weight that will follow from its economic capacity; and,
finally, achieve a situation in which its quarrels concerning its
boundaries and its unification will be assumed by a powerful coalition."

- President Charles de Gaulle, Memoirs of Hope, 1970
____________

"The fusion (of economic functions) would compel nations to fuse their
sovereignty into that of a single European State."

- Jean Monnet, founder of the European Movement, 3 April 1952

____________

"The pooling of coal and steel production should immediately provide for
the setting up of common foundations for economic development as a first
step in the federation of Europe."

- Robert Schuman, Declaration on the European Coal and Steel Community,
Europe  Day, 9 May 1950

_____________

"Who controls the currency, controls the country."

- John Maynard Keynes, 1932
______________

"I have always found the word 'Europe' on the lips of those who wanted
something from others that they dared not demand in their own names."

- German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck,Gedenken und Erinnerungen, 1890

[24/08/2005] Euro bank: secretive & sloppy

"SECRETIVE AND SLOPPY" EURO BANK ATTACKED

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Daily Telegraph,23 August 2005

The European Central Bank has been accused of secrecy, ineptitude, and
sloppy use of inflation targeting by one of Britain's leading monetary
experts.

Prof Charles Goodhart, a former member of the Bank of England's monetary
policy committee, said the ECB's claim to manage inflation over the "medium
term" was an empty mantra that let it dodge responsibility for failures.

In an open letter to ECB president Jean-Claude Trichet, published in the
journal, Central Banking, he slammed the "conscious refusal" to be more
precise.

"Is the medium term two years, three years, five years, n years, or what? By
refusing to define the term, you can never be accused of missing your
target. [It] is just an exercise in obfuscation," he said.

He counselled Mr Trichet to have a good night's sleep before handling the
press following key decisions - given past gaffes.

"A meeting of the governing council is likely to be tense, often lengthy,
and almost always extremely fatiguing. You will face the world's media at a
time when you are worn out and stressed. I think it fair to claim that your
predecessor suffered many of his most unhappy occasions at exactly such
press conferences," he said.

Mr Goodhart, emeritus professor at the London School of Economics, said the
ECB should air its internal policy disputes by publishing the minutes rather
than relying on secrecy to give a false sense of unity.

"It is hardly desirable, nor does it lead ultimately to credibility, to
suggest that consensus existed when, in practice, it did not," he said.

An ECB spokesman said secrecy was needed to shield the governors from
national pressure. "Some could be in a hard position in their home countries
if it was known how they argued at meetings," he said. Mr Trichet is
expected to address the criticisms at a press conference on September 1.

The letter was part of a The Euro at Risk series published in the latest
edition of Central Banking.

An article by Henrik Enderlein, a professor at Berlin's Free University,
said the euro's one-size-fits-all monetary regime had blighted Germany from
the outset.

"Germany is the biggest economy in EMU and, as is now becoming obvious, has
suffered most from the current EMU set-up," he said.

Prof Enderlein said interest rates had been 11.2pc too high for German needs
on average since 1999, reaching a peak distortion of 31.2 in early 2001.

He doubted whether structural reform in Germany could be successful until
monetary policy comes to the rescue. "Ultimately, there could be a risk that
EMU splits into two equally-sized groups of countries, one with high growth
and high inflation, the other with low growth and low inflation," he said.

While monetary policy was likely to be wrong for all states, those like
Germany with very low inflation (or high real interest rates) could be
trapped in a "bust cycle".

He said the only solution is for the ECB to drop its one-size-fits all
policy and instead set rates for a homogenous core built around Germany.

[07/07/2005] Bertie’s Papal Visit

Thursday 7 July 2005

******    BERTIE AHERN'S PAPAL VISIT TODAY   **********

The moves to have Bertie Ahern visit Pope Benedict in Rome today were
almost certainly initiated by the Department of Foreign Affairs before the
French vote on the EU Constitution five weeks ago, on 29 May.

Iveagh House, which decides these things, will have been acting on the
assumption of a French and Dutch Yes to the EU Constitution in their
referendums -  in  which case we would all now be readying ourselves for
an Irish referendum on the same Constitution in October.

Bertie's Papal visit will have been designed by the Department of Foreign
Affairs to polish his Catholic credentials in order to appeal to an
important section of voters in that expected Irish EU referendum.

Because of the French and Dutch votes however, the Iveagh House people will
now have had to draft a different article on "What I am going to tell the
Pope"  for the Taoiseach to put his name to in today's "Irish Times".

But Bertie Ahern's Rome visit should almost certainly be seen as  the
aborted remains of what was originally intended as a piece of cynical
referendum engineering.

As originally planned, the Taoiseach's Papal visit will also have been
designed to help get the Irish bishops "on side" for the EU Constitution
referendum then thought likely - just as their Lordships were led by the
noses to back the Treaty of Nice referendums in 2001 and 2003, even though
the  Irish bishops had never taken a partisan position on such secular
political matters in the EU referendums that were held in 1972(EEC
Accesssion), 1987(Single European Act),1992(Maastricht) and 1998(Amsterdam).

It is probable that the European Committee of the Irish Hierarchy, which is
staffed by Eurofanatics who led the Hierarchy as a whole into quite
shameful and counter-productive positions in support of deeper EU
integration in the Nice Treaty referendums, will have been consulted by
Iveagh House in concerting Bertie Ahern's Papal visit with a view to
helping out with Ireland's then expected EU Constitution referendum.

(Signed)

Anthony Coughlan

Secretary

[31/05/2005] Irish Times: Sounding the death knell for the EU Federation

Irish Times, Dublin ... Tuesday 31 May 2005
______________________

SOUNDING THE DEATH KNELL FOR EU FEDERATION

The EU integration project is unlikely to recover from the French vote and
without a State behind it, the euro cannot survive, writes Anthony Coughlan

* * *

The French people's rejection of the proposed EU Constitution is a blow for
democracy  in France and and the whole of Europe. It should open the way to
a saner, more rational way  of organising our  continent.

The reason is that the new EU treaty was an attempt to give the
constitutional  form of a supranational Federal State to the 25 countries
of the present  EU.

One can only be a citizen of a State.  This Constitution aimed to make us
real citizens of a real EU Federation for the first time, such that we
would owe this new entity thereafter the prime duty of citizenship,
namely,  our obedience and loyalty. To attempt to make the citizens of 25
to 30 countries with their different  languages and traditions  into real
citizens of one country called Europe, when there is no such thing as a
single European people except statistically, has never been realistic.

Yet to create such a European Federation  has been the central  aim of the
European Movement since Jean Monnet and  Robert  Schuman  in the 1950s.

Each successive  European treaty - Rome 1957, the Single European Act 1987,
Maastricht 1992, Amsterdam 1998, Nice 2003 -  has been "sold" to citizens
as being necessary for jobs and growth, but has been politically designed
to lead  to ever closer  integration, a  shift of  ever more power from
Nation States to the supranational Brussels institutions,  and a continual
erosion  of the national democracy and political independence of the
different peoples of Europe's  many countries.  This has been "the great
deception" of the EU integration project.

This process was meant to culminate in this EU Constitution, which would
have clamped a rigid politico-economic straitjacket on 25 or more different
countries.  As people found out more about it,and they had a thorough
debate on it in France, they have revolted  at its implications.

That the French people who have been at the heart of the EU integration
process for so long should reject it in this way is a shattering blow to
the project, from which it  is unlikely to recover.  France's vote will
surely  come to be seen as an historical watershed.

One long-term effect is likely to be on the euro. A central aim of the
supranational Federation envisaged by the EU Constitution was to provide a
political counterpart for a single European currency.  What we have at
present is 12 countries, 12 Governments, 12 budgets and 12 tax policies,
all  using the same euro.  Yet  without one State behind it, the euro
cannot survive in the long run.

Countries need maximum flexibility, not rigidity, in the modern world.
The euro-currency has been a political  project from the beginning, aimed
at  reconciling France to German reunification,but  using economic means
that are quite inappropriate for this purpose.

Germany and France's high unemployment rate  is  significantly due to the
euro.  The euro imposes  a one-size-fits-all interest  rate policy  on
quite different economies, and an inflexible  exchange rate  that prevents
States restoring their competitiveness by changing their currency's value.

France's  death-blow to the Constitution means an EU Federation is now
unlikely  to come into being as a political counterpart to the euro.

.. It is  untrue  to say that there is some legal obligation on the
Netherlands or any other EU country to proceed with ratifying the EU
Constitution, despite France's rejection.  There is no such obligation.
Where could it come from? There is a political Declaration annexed to the
"Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe"  which says   say that if
four-fifths of States do not ratify it, they will meet to discuss what to
do.

This is not the same as an obligation on States to proceed with
ratification either individually  or collectively  if  one country says
No.  The  decision of Ireland or other EU States to proceed with
ratification as if a French or Dutch No could be reversed or over-ruled at
a later date,  would be a political  matter, but not a legal imperative.
The political  rationale for such a course would be that the Irish
Government  envisaged engaging in an act  of collective  pressure and
bullying  vis-a-vis France, similar to what  Irish citizens  had to put up
with when they voted No to Nice in 2001. The French however are likely  to
prove less malleable than we were.

The two possible future for our European continent are either  integration
into a supranational  State Federation or cooperation  among  States on the
basis of the balance of power and influence between them.

The balance of power is fine as long as it stays balanced, which is the art
of statecraft.   Europe of the balance of power is now  reasserting itself
again. That  great political realist, France's Charles De Gaulle, who once
said that "Europe is a Europe of the Nations and the States or it is
nothing", would not have been surprised.

*   *   *

Anthony  Coughlan is Senior Lecturer Emeritus in Social Policy at Trinity
College Dublin  and Secretary,  The National Platform EU Research and
Information Centre

[31/05/2005] Rejecting the French?

CAN THE FRENCH REJECTION BE REJECTED?
__________________________________

by Jens-Peter Bonde MEP

Author of the "Reader-Friendly Edition of the European Constitution" and
President of the Independence and Democracy Group in the European Parliament

*   *   *

The French have rejected the proposed Constitution by 56% No-votes with a
surprisingly high 70% turnout. Therefore the proposed Constitution is no
longer a formal proposal.

It has been proposed under the rules of Nice demanding unanimity for EU
treaty change. The only possibility to revive the document is a new
proposal from a new Intergovernmental Conference, deciding by unanimity -
including the support of the French Government. That could happen on 16/17
June when the Heads of State and Goverment meet for their next fixed summit
in Brussels.

RESPECT OR IGNORE

But it is up to the French to decide if they will respect their referendum or
ignore it. On 2 June 1992 the Danish voters rejected the Maastricht Treaty.
Two days afterwards the Foreign Ministers met in Oslo in the fringe of a
NATO meeting and decided formally to continue the ratification process in
spite of the Danish people's No.

It was legally possible because the Danish government ignored the Danish
referendum result and promised that they would come back with a
ratification at a later date. And they did, after a new referendum  on 18
May 1993 in which the
Danes were offered some permanent opt-outs from the Treaty,  which was then
formally ratified by the Danish Government.

When Ireland voted No to the Treaty of Nice the Irish Government also
ignored the No vote and came back at a later date with a new referendum.
The Nice Treaty continued to exist as a formal proposal because the Irish
Government revived it formally.

It is not an obligation on other governments to decide if the  position of
a country is fair or not on this matter. But they need the formal go-ahead
from the French President before proceeding.

The ratification process cannot continue in good faith if it is not revived
by the French.

DANISH AND IRISH EXAMPLES

The Netherlands will vote on tomorrow, Wednesday 1 June. The Dutch
referendum is a voluntary referendum. It has no legal value - but it
certainly has a political.  The Dutch can therefore hold the referendum or
cancel it according to their own choice.

The Danish referendum envisaged for 27 September is different because it is
a legally binding referendum. There has to be a referendum in Denmark if
the EU Constitution is not adopted by 150 of the 179 members of the Danish
Parliament.

The majority in the Danish Parliament must decide to hold the referendum in
a law proposing the ratification of the EU Constitution. Since this
Constitution
is now rejected there is no possibility of a binding referendum being held
in Denmark unless the French President informs the Danish Government that
France intends to ratify the proposed Constitution at a later date.

The Danish Government envisages the adoption of a law on 7 September that
would pave the way  for a 27 September referendum.

The draft Constitution has attached to it a non-binding declaration, No.30,
about a possible summit to discuss the consequences if 20 of the 25 EU
States
have ratified the Constitution after 2 years and one or more countries have
run into difficulties.

This Declaration does not alter the fact that the European Treaties as
amended by the Treaty of Nice demand unanimity for new EU treaty
ratification. There is a new article in the proposed EU Constitution with a
similar content. But this is not law, yet.

The ratification process  has to respect the requirement for unanimity
amongst the 25 States as set out in the Treaty of Nice. After the French
referendum the EU Constitution is therefore dead - unless the French
authorities decide to revive it.

SPLITTING INSTEAD OF UNITING EUROPE

Politically the proposed Constitution does not unite Europe. Instead it
splits it.

Politically the idea of a state constitution is dead.

A better way forward could be in establishing a working-group with an equal
number of members in favour of the Constitution and against it and then
seeing if they could agree on proposing ideas for common playing rules
instead of the existing European Treaties as amended by Nice and the
proposed EU Constitution.

We need a simple basic treaty of 50 articles or so in some 20 pages
covering the necessary aspects of European cooperation. We do not need a
Constitution so
complex that even the French President does not know its precise contents.

President Chirac proved his lack of knowledge of the Constitution's
contents on French television for everyone who can read to see. Now he has
the chance to respect the French vote or reject it. Or perhaps elect a new
French people!

________

Consult  EUABC.com for the "Reader-Friendly Edition of the Proposed
European Constitution", with its 3000-item index and a glossary and
symbol-system that shows the changes the Constitution would make to the
existing  European Treaties.
_________

[27/05/2005] Outside intervention

Czech Prime Minister threatens to ban President Vaclav Klaus's foreign
trips in row over EU Constitution ... For your information from Anthony
Coughlan, with comment below:-

_______________

Dublin, Friday 27 May 2005

This morning's "Irish Times" carries the following report from Reuters News
Agency under the heading  "Not Czech Mates: Prime Minister threatens to ban
President's foreign trips in row over EU treaty":-

Czech Prime Minister Jiri Paroubek threatened yesterday to ban President
Vaclav Klaus from travelling  abroad unless he dropped his opposition to
the EU constitution, heightening their public row. The Czech government
approves the president's official foreign trips in what is usually a
routine decision, but Mr Paroubek, a Social Democrat who took power last
month, said Mr Klaus must follow his pro-EU constitution line or stay home.

Tensions have escalated over the treaty.

"It is a legitimate right of citizen Klaus to express his views. However,as
the president and part of the state's executive power he should cool his
stance. Mainly abroad, where he is not viewed as citizen Klaus but as the
president of the country," Mr Paroubek said during a trip to eastern Czech
Republic.

President  Klaus,one of Europe's  most vocal critics of the constitution,
says the treaty would be a major step towards creating a European
superstate where nation states, especially small ones such as the Czech
Republic, would be marginalised.

"The constitution has been ratified by European bureaucrats and
intellectuals who are exactly the group who will benefit from it," he has
claimed and has complained of "a feeling that steps like the constitution
are threatening democracy, freedom and prosperity in Europe."

The comments provoked Jean-Claude Juncker, prime minister of current EU
president, Luxemborg, to warn that "when a leading politician from one of
the newly accepted countries says 'no'(to the constitution), that's
precisely how you destroy Europe."

Mr Klaus's spokesman said Mr Paroubek had no right to force the president's
hand in such a way. "I am saying again it would be good if Mr Prime
Minister carefully studies the Czech Republic constitution. It is
impossible to agree with the interpretation he is making and I am
fundamentally rejecting it," he said in a statement.

He said Mr Klaus would invite Mr Paroubek for a meeting next week.

- end -

(Reuters)

_________________

COMMENT ON THE ABOVE REPORT BY ANTHONY COUGHLAN,  economist, Senior
Lecturer Emeritus in Social Policy  at Trinity College Dublin and
Secretary,The National Platform EU Research and Information Centre (Tel.:
00-353-1-6081898):

It was in remarks made following a public lecture that I had been invited
to give at the Centre for Economics and Politics in Prague on Thursday of
last week, 19 May, that President Vaclav Klaus referred publicly to the
fact that Czech Prime Minister Paroubek had travelled to France the day
before to campaign for the Yes side in the referendum there on the proposed
EU Constitution.

Dr Klaus indicated in his remarks that he thought that outside intervention
in a domestic referendum by politicians from other countries was against
the traditional norms of political protocol between States. The Czech
President said that he presumed that Prime Minister Paroubek's action now
gave him(Dr Klaus) a license to express publicly his hope that French
voters would vote No to the EU Constitution in their forthcoming referendum
-  for the sake of Europe, for France itself and for the cause of democracy
in the European Union.

Last Friday's Czech daily, Pravo, carried a front-page photograph showing
Czech Prime Minister Paroubek with a  "Oui" button on his lapel, standing
alongside French Socialist Party politician Jack Lang following a Yes-side
campaign meeting in France.

[26/05/2005] EU Constitution & Vaclav Klaus

EU Constitution:   Anthony Coughlan's lecture in Prague under the
chairmanship of  President of the Czech Republic Vaclav Klaus ...Full text
of lecture below for your information:-

__________________.

THE NATIONAL PLATFORM EU RESEARCH AND INFORMATION CENTRE
24 Crawford Avenue
Dublin 9

Tel.:+00-353-1-8305792

Thursday 26 May 2005

Below for your information is the text of the lecture on the proposed EU
Constitution that was given by Irish economist Anthony Coughlan in Prague
last week under the chairmanship of President of the Czech Republic Dr
Vaclav Klaus.

The lecture was sponsored by the Centre for Economics and Politics, Prague,
which was established by Dr Klaus some years ago when he was Czech Prime
Minister. The Centre recently published 14,000 copies of a booklet on the
EU Constitution by Anthony Coughlan, with a foreword by President Klaus.

The lecturer is secretary of the National Platform EU Research and
Information Centre, Ireland,and Senior Lecturer Emeritus in Social Policy
at Trinity College Dublin

The lecture, which was given in the Czech Automobil Klub on Thursday
evening last, 19 May, was attended by a crowded audience which included
representatives of all the political parties in the Czech Republic, by  MPs
and MEPs, by several foreign ambassadors and by the Czech and German media.
It was followed by an hour and a quarter's question-and-answer session
which was moderated by Dr Klaus.

President Klaus, who had received the speaker in his office in Prague
Castle the day before, said in his concluding remarks that while he usually
had points of criticism or disagreement with speakers at Centre for
Economics and Politics seminars, on this occasion he was glad to say that
he found himself entirely "ad idem" with what Anthony Coughlan had said.

One new idea which Dr Klaus said he he had got from the Coughlan lecture
was the political cleverness of those pushing the EU State-building project
in recent decades. Thus the 1992 Maastricht "Treaty on European Union" had
introduced the name "European Union" and the notion of a kind of honorary
EU citizenship  to get everyone used to those terms. This meant that people
would not notice the difference, or think that anything much was happening,
when the constitutional-legal-political essence of  the European Union
itself and of EU citizenship was being changed fundamentally, as was now
proposed in the "Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe".

This constitutional revolution by stealth was being brought about by the
proposed Treaty-cum-Constitution, which aimed to establish what would be
constitutionally, legally and politically quite a new European Union in the
constitutional form of a supranational European Federation.

One can only be a citizen of a State, Dr Klaus said, and the new Treaty
would make us real citizens of this new EU State for the first time, and
would impose on everyone the normal obligations of citizenship, which would
be to obey this new EU's laws and give it our prime loyalty and allegiance.
The proposed constitutional Treaty would therefore be the real "Treaty OF
European Union", whereas the title of the 1992 Maastricht  Treaty was the
"Treaty ON European Union", for the latter did not set up a real Union in
any meaningful sense.

The present EU, unlike the proposed  post-Constitution EU, does not  have
the form of Statehood or even legal personality, and people are not
citizens of it in any real sense. That would all change however in the
post-Constitution European Union if this treaty should be ratified.  The
meaning of EU citizenship would be decisively altered by the proposed
Constitution, as people would in due time discover.

President Klaus went on to say that he thought it quite inappropriate that
politicians from other EU countries should be intervening in the French and
Dutch referendums in favour of the Yes side. This was against all the
traditional norms of democratic behaviour between States. Citizens of  a
country should be allowed to debate and determine these matters amongst
themselves and should not be hectored, cajoled or implicitly threatened
from outside.

The EU elite, the people who  liked to breakfast in Rome, have lunch in
Stockholm and go to bed the same night in Dublin, were desperate to get
this treaty ratified, for it would benefit them hugely, give them more
personal power and make them feel more important.  But trying to turn the
25 EU Member States into one supranational Federal EU State was not  in the
interests of the 450 million people of the present EU. It was not the kind
of Europe they wanted. They wished for and deserved  a different Europe.

President Klaus said that he had just learned that Czech Prime Minister
Jiri Paroubek had visited France to speak at  a Yes-side meeting the day
before, and the Prime Minister's photograph sporting a "Oui"  badge was
carried in the newspapers. He presumed that this gave himself a license to
say publicly that he hoped very much that France's voters would vote No in
their impending referendum for the sake of  France itself, of  a sensible
future for the European Union and to maintain democracy in all the EU
Member States.

N.B. President Vaclav Klaus refused to go to Rome last October to sign the
Treaty Establishing  a Constitution for Europe on behalf of the Czech
Republic,  something the Czech President normally would have done, as he
was fundamentally opposed to the Treaty. This caused the Social Democrat
Czech Government to send its Foreign Minister to sign the treaty instead.

_________

Enquiries re the Centre for Economics and Politics, Czech Republic, may be
made to its Director, Dr Petr Mach, Politickych veznu 10, 110 00 Praha  1;
Tel: +420 /222 192 406 ; E-mail:<cep@cepin.cz> ;  www.cepin.cz

Enquiries to the Office of the President, Czech Republic, may be made to Mr
Jiri Brodsky, Political Department,119 08 Praha-Hrad; Tel.: +420/224 373
582;

****************************
TEXT OF LECTURE ON THE EU CONSTITUTION by Irish economist Anthony Coughlan
***************************

WHAT THE "TREATY ESTABLISHING A CONSTITUTION FOR EUROPE" WOULD CHANGE
-  10 smaller things and one Big Thing

"The EU Constitution is the birth certificate of the United States of Europe."
-  German Minister for Europe Hans Martin Bury, Die Welt, 25-2-2005

"The Constitution is the capstone of a European Federal State."
-  Guy Verhofstadt, Belgian Prime Minister, Financial Times, 21-6-2004

"Creating a single European State bound by one European Constitution is the
decisive task of our time."
-  German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, Daily Telegraph, 27-12-1998

"It is only natural that the eastern part of the continent will become our
preoccupation for years to come, because Germans see this as a matter of
historical destiny. The most fundamental priority we have is trying to
integrate all of Europe. But for France the underlying issue is all about
coming to terms with its loss of influence in the world."
-   Dr Immo Stabreit, former German Ambassador to France, International
Herald Tribune, Sat.- Sun., 11-12 September 1999

____________

The "Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe" consists of 448
Articles, 36 Protocols and 48 attached political Declarations. The most
important thing about it is that it is a Constitution as well as a Treaty.
The proposed Constitution would do many things, including:

1. ABOLISHING 70 OR SO FURTHER NATIONAL VETOES on top of the existing
treaties and transferring law-making powers in relation to them from
National Parliaments and citizens  to the EU Commission, Council of
Ministers, Court and Parliament. Over half of the national vetoes abolished
would be in new areas of  EU law-making. The rest would replace unanimity
by majority voting for making EU laws. These would cover civil and criminal
law, justice and policing; border controls, asylum and immigration;
implementation decisions in foreign policy; diplomatic and consular
protection; trade in  services; public health; energy; tourism; sport;
culture; intellectual property etc. The Constitution does not propose to
repatriate  a single power from the EU to its Member States, although that
was suggested as a possibility by the Laeken Declaration which established
the Convention that drafted the Constitution. (v.Part III)

2.  GIVING THIS NEW EU THE POWER TO DECIDE OUR HUMAN AND CIVIL RIGHTS:  It
would give the 25 judges of the EU Court the power to decide our personal
human and civil rights in    the wide range of policy areas covered by EU
law. This would mean a new tier of lawyers and judges between citizens and
those with final power to decide our rights.  There are wide differences in
human rights standards between EU countries that make a common standard
inappropriate in such areas (v. Part II of the Constitution, Arts.II-61 to
114).

3.  GIVING MORE POWER TO THE BIG STATES IN MAKING EU LAWS:  It would
introduce a mainly population-based system for making EU laws, which means
there would be more of them. It would  increase the influence of big States
like Germany and France, who usually combine together, as well as populous
countries like  Romania, Turkey etc. when they join, in deciding the laws
that we would have to obey as citizens of the proposed new EU. (Art.I-25)

4. CREATING AN EU PRESIDENT, FOREIGN MINISTER AND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: It
would create a permanent EU Political President by abolishing the present
six-monthly rotating EU presidency, as well as an EU Foreign Minister and
diplomatic corps, and an EU Public Prosecutor's Office.(Art.I-22; Art.I-28;
Art.III-274)

5.  NO NATIONAL COMMISSIONER FOR EVERY 5 YEARS OUT OF 15:  It would reduce
the number of EU Commissioners by one-third, so that individual Member
States would go unrepresented for five years out of every 15 on the body
that proposes all EU laws. (Art.I-26).

6. AMENDING THE EU CONSTITUTION WITHOUT FURTHER TREATIES:  It would enable
EU law-making in most areas to be shifted from unanimity to majority voting
by consensus amongst the 25 Presidents and Prime Ministers, without need of
further treaties  or referendums. (Arts. I-40.7 and I-55.4;
Arts.III-210.3; 234.2; 269.3; 274.4 and 422; and Arts. IV-444 and 445)

7. COMPLYING WITH A SUPERIOR EU FOREIGN POLICY: It would make compliance
with a common EU foreign policy constitutionally mandatory, would replace
most of the treaty-making powers of the EU's Member States and pass these
to the new Union based on its own Constitution, and would significantly
militarize this new Union. (Arts.I.16; I-13.2; III-23; I-41)

8. A CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT TO ABOLISH NATIONAL CURRENCIES:  It would
make the adoption of the euro-currency constitutionally mandatory by
providing that "The currency of the Union shall be the euro"(Art.I-8), even
though 13 of the 25 EU Members still retain their national currencies, and
by including Protocol 12 on the Euro-Group, which is an integral part of
the proposed Treaty-cum-Constitution, agreed to by all 25 EU Member States,
and which lays down special arrangements for the eurozone countries
"pending the euro becoming the currency of all Member States of the Union".

9. ESTABLISHING AN IDEOLOGICAL CONSTITUTION: It would erect an extreme
ideological neo-liberalism into mandatory constitutional principles for 450
million people, implemented by an intrusive regulatory apparatus. This is
mingled with the corporatist economic traditions of Big State Germany and
France, which would have greater influence under the new population-based
voting system. A proper Constitution by contrast lays down rules for State
policy-making, but leaves the content of public policy to political debate
between parties of the Centre, Right and Left. Under the heading Economic
Policy, Art.III-178 of the Constitution provides: "The Member States and
the Union shall act in accordance with the principle of an open market
economy with free competition, favouring an efficient allocation of
resources." The Constitution would make mandatory for the indefinite future
the deflationary and monetarist economic policy of the European Central
Bank, which has contributed to the current high unemployment levels of the
core EU economies(Art.III-185). It would make "liberalisation"  of services
constitutionally mandatory(Art.III-147) and  would permit the EU to decide
the boundary between public and private services, which could imperil
publicly-provided health, education, transport and cultural services in the
Member States (Art.III-122).  These are properlymatters  for public policy
debate and contention, not for Constitutions.

10. EURATOM TO CONTINUE INDEFINITELY:  It would continue the European
Atomic Energy Community in being indefinitely. The obligations of the
Euratom Treaty, which favours nuclear power, would be made constitutionally
mandatory on all 25 EU Member States.

BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION WOULD DO WOULD BE
legally to abolish the European Union and European Community that we are
currently members of and establish in their place quite a new Union in the
constitutional form of a supranational European Federation - while still
using the same"EU" name and transferring existing European laws and
institutions into the new Union.

Giving this new EU the constitutional form of a State would, by corollary,
reduce the present EU Member States to the constitutional status of
provinces or regional states within a superior Federal EU. This new EU
would not yet have all the powers of a fully-fledged Federation.
Historically it takes time for these to develop. It could not yet impose
taxes or force its members to go to war  against their will. But apart from
these two, a post-Constitution Union would possess all the main features
and powers of a supranational Federal State, and the Constitution's
advocates are confident of obtaining these remaining powers in time.

THE FIVE STEPS THAT WOULD MAKE US REAL CITIZENS OF THE NEW EU STATE:

The "Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe" would give what would
legally be quite a new EU the constitutional form of a supranational
European Federation and would make us real citizens of such a State for the
first time in five logical legal steps:-

1. ABOLISHING THE EXISTING EU AND EC:  Art.IV-437 would repeal all the
existing treaties and thereby abolish the present EU and EC: "This Treaty
establishing a Constitution for Europe shall repeal the treaty establishing
the European Community, the Treaty on European Union and Š the acts and
treaties which have supplemented and amended them."

2. CREATING A NEW EU BASED ON ITS OWN STATE CONSTITUTION:  Art.I-1 would
replace the existing EU with what would be constitutionally, legally and
politically quite a new European Union: "Reflecting the will of the
citizens and States of Europe to build a common future, this  Constitution
establishes the European Union."  Clearly this would be a different Union
from the existing one. Simultaneously, Art.IV-438 of the Constitution would
transfer the existing Community laws and institutions from the present EU
to the new one.

3. GIVING THE NEW EU FEDERAL STATE POWERS: Art.I-6 would assert the primacy
of this new EU's Constitution and laws over the national Constitutions and
laws of its Member States: "The Constitution and law adopted by the
institutions of the Union in exercising competences conferred on it shall
have primacy over the law of the Member States."  In addition, Art.I-1 of
the Constitution  would give the new Union a coordinating federal  power
over all the policies by which the Member States aim to achieve the
objectives they have in common. These are set out in Art.I-3 and are about
as wide and all-encompassing as could be. Art.I-1 provides: "The Union
shall coordinate the policies by which the Member States aim to achieve
these objectives (i.e. the objectives they have in  common) and shall
exercise on a Community basis the competences they confer on it."
Convention Chairman Giscard d'Estaing has explained what exercising EU
powers "on a Community basis" means: "It wasn't worth creating a negative
commotion with the British. I rewrote my text with the word federal
replaced by communautaire (i.e.'on a Community basis') which means exactly
the same thing."

4. GIVING THE NEW EU LEGAL PERSONALITY LIKE OTHER STATES:  This would
enable the new EU to speak with one voice, to conduct itself as a State in
the international community of States, sign treaties with other States,
have a President, Foreign Minister, Public Prosecutor etc., as well as its
own currency and State symbols, flag, anthem and annual public holiday,
just like other States. Art.I-7 provides: "The Union shall have legal
personality."  The EU's State symbols would be given a proper legal basis
for the first time by Art.I-8 of the Constitution.

5. MAKING US REAL CITIZENS FOR THE FIRST TIME OF THIS NEW EU FEDERATION:
Art. I-10 would then make us real citizens of this new EU Federation,
established by the previous four steps, which would  become our new legal
sovereign and ruler, and to which we would owe the prime duties of
citizenship, namely to obey its laws and give it our loyal allegiance:
"Every national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union Š
Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be subject to the duties
provided for in the Constitution."  This is real citizenship, not an
honorary or "pretend" EU citizenship as at present, for one can only be a
citizen of a State. The pre-Constitution EU does not have real citizens or
citizenship, for the present EU does not have the constitutional form of
Statehood. It does not even have its own legal personality.  The
post-Constitution EU  however would have both. The pretence that we are
already EU citizens in some vague honorary sense is  designed to mislead
people into thinking that the EU Constitution would make no real change to
their legal-political  status, whereas  it would change it fundamentally

The establishment of a supranational European Federation may be judged a
good or bad thing, realistic or misguided, but it would be ludicrous if the
educated, politically sophisticated peoples of Europe were to consent to
turn their countries into provinces or regions of such an entity, and
themselves into real citizens of it - not just honorary or "pretend"
citizens, as with the present EU - without their realising that this is
what they are being asked to do.

Supporters of the "Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe" argue
that in the new EU it would establish, the Member States would still have
primacy of authority because it is they that would have conferred powers on
the Union, under the so-called "principle of conferral"(Art.I-11). They
ignore the fact that this is how the classical Federal States have
historically developed: by smaller political units coming together and
transferring powers to a superior.  The best example is 19th-century
Germany. Others are the USA, Canada, Australia.  Where else after all could
Brussels get its powers if not from its Member States, just as the Federal
States whose capitals were 19th century Berlin, or today's Washington,
Ottawa and Canberra did before it?  In the latter cases however the
political units that came together to form Federal States belonged wholly
or mainly to one nation or people, with a common language, culture and
history once their populations had settled.  That gave these States a
popular democratic basis, and with it a natural legitimacy and authority.
This contrasts with the EU's attempt to establish "a new country called
Europe" organised in an EU Federation, despite the real Europe consisting
of many nations and peoples who desire to make their own laws and elect
their own rulers. Member States would still retain their national
constitutions under the EU Constitution, but they would no longer be
constitutions of sovereign States but of provincial states, just as Texas,
California and New York still retain their own state constitutions within
the Federal USA.

Unfortunately, most of the political leaders of the 25 EU Governments take
a wholly uncritical view of the proposed EU Constitution, because the more
national powers are transferred to Brussels, THE MORE PPOWER ACCRUES TO
THEMSELVES PERSONALLY as they make supranational laws on the 25-member EU
Council of Ministers for 450 million people -  with 150 million more
expected to join them in due time.  Fundamentally, the EU is run by a small
number of top politicians and bureaucrats. The more powers are transferred
to Brussels, the more power these people obtain as individuals.  However
citizens lose thereby their power to decide their own laws in their elected
National Parliaments, their right to choose their own rulers and with that
their national democracy and independence. There is no European people or
"demos" that could confer democratic legitimacy and authority on such an EU
Federation. Which is why this proposed EU Constitution is fundamentally
misguided and why if it should come into force it could not possibly last.
That is why it is sensible  to reject it now.

POSITIVE THINGS IN THE EU CONSTITUTION

There are some positive things in the proposed EU Constitution, although
their importance is much exaggerated by its supporters:

(a) It is proposed that the Council of Ministers should meet in public when
deliberating and voting on draft EU laws, although this would be likely to
be a formality for the TV cameras. The negotiating and bargaining leading
up to those laws, the activity of Brussels' 15,000 corporate lobbyists that
seek to influence EU law-makers, would all still take place in
private(Art.I-24.6);

(b) The Constitution would require National Parliaments to be formally
notified of new laws the Commission proposes. If one-third of the 25
Parliaments thought these laws went too far and violated the so-called
principle of subsidiarity, they could object. The Commission would then
have to review its proposal, but could still decide to go ahead with
it(Protocol 2). Supporters of the Constitution claim that this is a
significant new power for National Parliaments. Yet the provision is not
new, for the Parliaments can object already. It is not a power, for they
can object all they like and the Commission can go on ignoring them.  What
National Parliaments get in this provision of the Constitution is a new
right to be ignored. A proposal in the drafting Convention that if
two-thirds of national Parliaments objected, the law proposal would have to
be abandoned altogether, was dropped;

(c) One million EU citizens could petition the Commission to propose a new
EU law to the Council of Ministers in furtherance of the Constitution, but
neither the Commission nor Council need accede to any such
petition(Art.I-47.4);

(d) The Constitution provides that a Member State could withdraw from the
new Union. Such a provision has featured in other Federal Constitutions.
For example it featured in Josef Stalin's 1936 Constitution for the USSR.
The procedure proposed in the EU Constitution would tend in practice to
discourage withdrawals(Art.I-60).

These are positive proposals, but they could all be introduced without
setting up a new EU in the constitutional form of a European Federation, as
described above, abolishing 70 further national vetoes, giving the EU Court
a wide-ranging competence over our basic human and civil rights, and
creating a much more centralised, undemocratic and militarized  European
Union than the EU that currently exists.

THE ALTERNATIVE TO THE EU CONSTITUTION

If the proposed Constitution is rejected, the present EU will continue on
the basis of the Nice Treaty.  That Treaty was "sold" to citizens across
Europe as being the EU enlargement treaty; whereas now the Constitution is
being sold again as necessary for the "efficient" running of the enlarged
EU.  The voting system agreed in Nice was drawn up with the enlarged EU of
25 or more States in mind and is closer to the notion of the Member States
as equal "partners" than the population-based scheme proposed in  the
Constitution.   The Convention on the Future of Europe which drafted the
Constitution failed to do the job it was mandated to do by the Laeken
Declaration that established it. Before it came together there was
absolutely no discussion in any of Europe's democratically elected National
Parliaments on the principle of whether the EU should have a Constitution
at all, on whether deeper EU integration was desirable, or on what kind of
future relations the peoples and Parliaments of Europe wanted with the EU
or between their States.  By rejecting the EU Constitution citizens can
force a proper debate on the kind of Europe they really want. They would
certainly prefer a more democratic and less centralised EU, with the
restoration of significant powers from Brussels to the Member States, as
mooted in the Laeken Declaration.

[23/05/2005] German “Eurobully” French voters

GERMAN POLITICIANS SEEK TO "EUROBULLY" FRENCH VOTERS ... For your information:
_________________________

" I have always found the word 'Europe' on the lips of people who wanted
something from others which they dared not demand under their own names."

-  German Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck, Gedenken und Erinnerungen,1880

*   *   *

Former German Ambassador to France, Dr Immo Stabreit, summarised how he saw
European integration as follows: "It is only natural that the eastern part
of the continent will become our preoccupation for years to come, because
Germans see this as  a matter of historical destiny. The most fundamental
priority we have is trying to integrate all of Europe. But for France the
underlying issue is all about coming to terms with its loss of influence in
the world" (International Herald Tribune,11-12 September 1999).

In this assessment the retiring Ambassador echoed the views of his
superior, German Foreign Minister Johschka Fischer, whose speech of 12 May
2000 at Humboldt University, Berlin, launched  the process that led to  the
proposed  EU Constitution which French and Dutch citizens will vote on this
coming week.

"Creating a single European State bound by one European Constitution is the
decisive task of our time," said Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer (Daily
Telegraph,London, 27-12-1998).

The "Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe" would  achieve a
central goal of German Foreign policy by establishing a new European Union
in the constitutional form of a supranational EU Federation, of which 450
million Europeans would be made real citizens for the first time. If the
Constitution is ratified we would all owe this new European Union, now
founded on its own State Constitution, the prime duty of citizenship,
namely obedience and loyalty, over and above our own national citizenship.

As German Minister for Europe,  Hans Martin Bury, said in "Die Welt" on 25
February last:  "The EU Constitution is the birth certificate of the United
States of Europe."

A century and a quarter after Bismarck's remark quoted above, it is now
Germany's State interests and German political hegemony  over the European
continent that the proposed EU Constitution would primarily  advance - at
the expense of the national democracy of Germany's own people,and of the
peoples of France, the Netherlands, and all other EU Members. The EU
Constitution  would also serve the interests of a small but powerful
political, bureaucratic and ideological elite in Brussels and other
national capitals.

The completion of Germany's ratification of the EU Constitution by the
German Bundesrat on Friday next 27 May, following approval by the Bundestag
on 12 May last, has been timed to put maximum pressure on French voters to
vote Yes on Sunday next,and Dutch voters on Wednesday week.

It is ironical that German Chancellor Schröder should break the norms of
diplomatic protocol by intervening in France's referendum to call for a Yes
vote  on the eve of his own party being rejected by the voters of North
Rhein-Westphalia by 45% to 37% in favour of the CDU.

If the German people had had a referendum on on the euro-currency as France
had   in 1992, they would almost certainly have rejected it. Now having
denied a vote to the German people on giving the EU the constitutional form
of a supranational Federation, Germany's politicians expect French voters
to follow their lead by agreeing to subsume France's national democracy and
independence in a German-dominated Europe. That this is their ambition, the
sequence of quotations from leading German politicians below makes
clear(The quotations are listed in chronological order backwards):-

___________

"European monetary union has to be complemented by a political union - that
was always the presumption of Europeans including those who made active
politics before us. . .What we need to Europeanise is everything to do with
economic and financial policy. In this area we need much more, let's call
it co-ordination and  co-operation to suit British feelings, than we had
before. That hangs together with the success of the euro."

- German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, The Times, London, 22 February 2002

__________

"The currency union will fall apart if we don't follow through with the
consequences of such a union. I am convinced we will need a common tax
system."

- German Finance Minister Hans Eichel,The Sunday Times, London, 23 December
2001

________

"We need a European Constitution.  The European Constitution is not the
'final touch' of the European structure; it must become its foundation.
The European Constitution should prescribe that ... we are building a
Federation of Nation-States. . .The first part should be based on the
Charter of Fundamental Rights proclaimed at the European summit at Nice. .
. If we transform the EU into a Federation of Nation-States, we will
enhance the democratic legitimacy ... We should not prescribe what the EU
should never be allowed to ... I believe that the Parliament and the
Council of Ministers should be developed into a genuine bicameral
parliament."

- Dr Johannes Rau, President of the Federal Republic of Germany, European
Parliament, 4 April 2001

_________

"We already have a federation. The 11,soon to be 12, member States adopting
the euro have already given up part of their sovereignty, monetary
sovereignty,and formed a monetary union, and that is the first step towards
a federation."

- German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, Financial Times, 7 July 2000,

___________

"The last step will then be the completion of integration in a European
Federation ... Such a group of States would conclude a new European
framework treaty, the nucleus of a constitution of the Federation. On the
basis of this treaty, the Federation would develop its own institutions,
establish a government which, within the EU, should speak with one voice
... a strong parliament and a directly elected president. Such a driving
force would have to be the avant-garde, the driving force for the
completion of political integration ... This latest stage of European Union
... will depend decisively on France and Germany."

- German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, speech at Humboldt University
Berlin, 12 May 2000

___________

"The introduction of the euro is probably the most important integrating
step since the beginning of the unification process. It is certain that the
times of individual national efforts regarding employment policies, social
and tax policies are definitely over. This will require to finally bury
some erroneous ideas of national sovereignty ... I am convinced our
standing in the world regarding foreign trade and international finance
policies will sooner or later force a Common Foreign and Security Polic
worthy of its name. . . National sovereignty in foreign and security policy
will soon prove itself to be a product of the imagination."

- German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder on "New Foundations for European
Integration", The Hague, 19 Jan.1999

____________

"Our future begins on January 1 1999. The euro is Europe's key to the 21st
century. The era of solo national fiscal and economic policy is over."

- German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder,31 December 1998

___________

"The euro is a sickly premature infant, the result of an over-hasty
monetary union."

- German Opposition leader Gerhard Schröder, March 1998

___________

"Transforming the European Union into a single State with one army, one
constitution and one foreign policy is the critical challenge of the age,
German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said yesterday."

- The Guardian, London, 26 November 1998

____________

"In Maastricht we laid the foundation-stone for the completion of the
European Union. The European Union Treaty introduces a new and decisive
stage in the process of European union, which within a few years will lead
to the creation of what the founding fathers dreamed of after the last war:
the United States of Europe."

- German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, April 1992

________

"There is no example in history of a lasting monetary union that was not
linked to one State."

- 0tmar Issing, Chief Economist, German Bundesbank, 1991; now with the
European Central Bank, Frankfort.

__________

"A European currency will lead to member-nations transferring their
sovereignty over financial and wage policies as well as in monetary
affairs. . . It is an illusion to think that States can hold on to their
autonomy over taxation policies."

- Bundesbank President Hans Tietmeyer, 1991

_________

"On the basis of repeated meetings with him and of an attentive observation
of his actions, I think that if in his own way W.Hallstein (ed:first
President of the European Commission) is a sincere 'European', this is only
because he is first of all an ambitious German. For the Europe that he
would like to see would contain a framework within which his country could
find once again and without cost the respectability and equality of rights
that Hitler's frenzy and defeat caused it to lose; then acquire the
overwhelming weight that will follow from its economic capacity; and,
finally, achieve a situation in which its quarrels concerning its
boundaries and its unification will be assumed by a powerful coalition."

- General Charles de Gaulle, Memoirs of Hope, 1970

*******************************

Compiled and disseminated for  the information of French and Netherlands
voters by Anthony Coughlan, Secretary, The National Platform EU Research
and Information Centre, 24 Crawford Avenue, Dublin 9, Ireland, and Senior
Lecturer Emeritus in Social Policy,Trinity College Dublin; +00-353-1-8305792

******************************

[21/01/2005] They don’t like the EU Constitution? Quick, send in the force

THE TIMES, London,  Friday 21 January 2005:  World News

They don't like the EU Constitution? Quick, send in the force

By Anthony Browne, Brussels Correspondent

THE European Parliament is to establish a "rapid reaction force" to address
what it considers to be unfair criticism of the European constitution in any
EU member state.

The move has angered opponents of the proposed constitution, who say that
the rapid reaction force is made up entirely of MEPs who support the
constitution but is funded by taxpayers' money. One leading Eurosceptic MEP
said that the move was reminiscent of totalitarianism.

Jens Peter Bonde, a Danish Eurosceptic MEP, said: "It is a good idea to have
a rapid reaction force, but you must have both sides to clear up real
misunderstandings. You can't have a rapid reaction force with taxpayers'
money and represent only one view - it's a totalitarian tendency."

As part of a campaign by Brussels, to combat Euroscepticism in the Union in
time for a wave of referendums on the constitution, the Parliament has told
its representative office in each country to monitor the press and note
unfair criticism. MEPs will then be asked to write letters to the newspapers
to put the record straight.

The European Parliament is also sending delegations consisting of only
pro-constitution MEPs to parliaments in London and Paris, and last week
spent E375,000 (£260,000) on a pro-constitution rally in Strasbourg.

Richard Corbett, the Labour spokesman for the constitution in the European
Parliament, who helped to set up the new system and who is being paid E2,000
in expenses to promote the constitution, said: "There are a lot of occasions
when people get things totally wrong. We will have a system going to pick
out the stories to respond to."

Jo Leinen, a German Socialist MEP who leads the European Parliament's
Constitutional Affairs Committee, said: "Within three hours, or at least
within the same day, we want to react to lies and distortions about the
constitution."

There is concern that one or more of the 11 countries holding referendums on
the constitution may cause turmoil by rejecting it. There is a high chance
that Britain, Poland and the Czech Republic will vote "no", with rejections
possible in France, the Netherlands, Denmark and the Irish Republic.

Each country has different concerns about the constitution. The Germans and
Irish worry that it may lead to the EU becoming a military pact; the French
fear that the EU may become too free-market; and the British worry that the
EU may become a superstate.

The European Commission has set up a special "communications strategy
committee" and is promoting a website to rebut "Euromyths" spread by
the
British press in the hope of winning the propaganda battle over the next two
years.

Eurosceptic MEPs complain that many of the reaction force's "corrections"
will just be pro-constitution opinions dressed as fact. For example, the
force will leap to defend the constitution if someone says that it will lead
to the creation of an EU president, even though it will indeed lead to the
appointment of a new high-profile and powerful president of the European
Council for two and a half years.

It will also rebut the accusation that the constitution makes EU law supreme
over national law, when national governments have already accepted that fact
as necessary to make the EU work.

The constitution will be the first time that any country has signed a treaty
making EU law supreme over national law, making it almost impossible for
national governments to revoke this principle later.

[20/01/2005] COMMISSIONER CHARLIE McCREEVY AND THE REFERENDUM ON THE EU CONSTITUTION

COMMISSIONER CHARLIE McCREEVY AND THE REFERENDUM ON THE EU CONSTITUTION
______________

Press statement from The National Platform EU Research and Information
Centre, 24 Crawford Avenue, Dublin 9;  Tel:01-8305792

Thursday 20 January 2005

Mr Charlie McCreevy has been appointed an EU Commissioner, yet he stated
last week that he intends to play an active part on behalf of the Yes
Campaign in the upcoming referendum on the "Treaty Establishing a
Constitution for Europe".

While Mr McCreevy, like any civil servant, will have a vote in the
referendum as an Irish citizen, is it really appropriate for him as a
supranational public official to campaign in such a fashion? Is it
compatible with a proper appreciation of his role as an EU Commissioner?

EU Commissioners take an oath to put the EU's interests before any national
interest when they take up their jobs. Whether Commissioners are Irish,
Italian or Danish does not mean they are there to work for Ireland, Italy
or Denmark. They may like to believe that expanding the EU's power and
functions is identical with their own country's interests, but it is not
necessarily so.

The EU Commission has no role in the ratification of EU treaties, which are
exclusively a matter for the Member States. Yet the Commission, which has
the exclusive right to propose European laws, is very much an interested
party.  It will gain a huge increase in its own powers at the expense of
national Parliaments, Member States and their citizens if the proposed EU
Constitution is ratified and a further 60 or so national vetoes are
abolished.

As an EU Commissioner Mr McCreevy is paid a substantial salary for his
services in implementing the existing EC/EU treaties, but surely not to
campaign for ratifying new ones?  If Mr McCreevy can devote his time and
resources that should be spent on Commission business to political
campaigning in the Irish referendum, what is to stop other Commissioners
from doing the same thing?

If the principle of Commission interference of this kind is accepted as
regards Mr McCreevy or his colleagues, what is to prevent the Commission
using its huge financial and personnel resources to interfere in a
one-sided fashion in the Irish and other Member State referendums, against
the principles of constitutional fairness in referendums laid down by the
Supreme Court in the 1995 McKenna case, and quite possibly in violation of
European law as well?

In 1998 it took the threat of legal action by a local citizen, Mr Owen
Bennett, to prevent the European Commission Office in Dublin from
disseminating large amounts of  one-sided pamphlets in the Amsterdam Treaty
referendum under the guise of providing objective information on that
treaty. When the matter was referred to the Commission's Legal Services in
Brussels, they concluded that this action was legally inadvisable. The
Commission's resources, including the salaries of its officials, are
contributed to in part by Irish taxpayers. Those resources should not be
used to forward the ratification of a
Treaty-cum-Constitution that would hugely increase the Commission's powers
at the expense of Irish and other EU citizens who ultimately provide those
resources - a Treaty moreover that may never come into force if it is
rejected by one of the 25 EU Member States.

Irish voters should be permitted to make up their minds on the EU
Constitution without outside intervention of any kind from the EU
Commission or its Commissioners. Commissioner McCreevy should think again.

(Signed)

Anthony Coughlan

Secretary