 |
|
|
Sensation in Irland lanciert in ganz Europa eine neue Debatte über die Zukunft der EU! |
||
|
Young4FUN.ch
gratuliert allen befreundeten Organisationen in Irland ganz herzlich
zur sensationellen Ablehnung (53.87% Nein) der Nizza-Verträge.
Erst vor einem knappen Monat wurde beschlossen, den Iren das Referendum
zu gewähren und alle Meinungsumfragen sowie Politologen gingen
von einem Ja aus. Obwohl die irische Regierung, die EU, sowie die
klare Mehrheit der Parteien und der Medien ganz klar Stellung für
die Verträge nahmen, liess sich das Volk nicht beirren und
lehnte die Verträge ab. Dies ist bereits der dritte Erfolg
in Folge nach der dänischen EURO-Ablehnung und dem enorm hohen
EU-Nein der Schweizer der immer stärker werdenden EU-kritischen
Bürgerbewegungen in ganz Europa.
Weiterführende
Links:
Das Communiqué des NEIN-Komitees aus Irland im Orginal: Statement from The National Platform,Ireland, on the death of the Treaty of Nice 24 Crawford Ave., Dublin Tels: 8305792 / 6081898 Friday 8 June 2001 ____________ LET US NOW HAVE A REAL DEBATE ON THE FUTURE OF EUROPE Let us now have the debate on the future of the EU, "pre-Nice", which we were going to be invited to have post-Nice, if we had voted to ratify this treaty. Post-Nice, the fork in the EU would have been taken, the club of equal partners would have divided into two clubs, and the necessary legal permission to allow Germany and France to hijack the EU for their own purposes and use its institutions to set up a Federation/Confederation inside the EU, would have been given. Yesterday the Irish people refused their permission for that. It is indeed shameful that that the first response of various Irish commentators to the people's verdict on the Nice Treaty is to speak openly of how they are going to try to get the people to change their minds. The Treaty of Nice is dead. It cannot be ratified without Ireland, and the verdict of the Irish people must be respected. Above all that verdict must be respected by the Irish Government, who should now inform their EU partners that the Treaty of Nice cannot be ratified by Ireland. As all EU treaties must be ratified unanimously, Nice cannot come into force for some without coming into force for all. It therefore legally cannot be ratified by others. So the Treaty falls. For other EU States to continue, or to pretend to continue, with the Nice treaty ratification process after one country has rejected it, would be an insult to the people of this country, a violation of EU law and indeed of general international law regarding the ratification of treaties Nice was always an unloved thing. Cobbled together in haste, pushed through last December's EU summit meeting by French President Chirac after four sleepless days and nights, it has been strongly criticised in every EU country. Last week former EU Commission President Jacques Delors called Nice a flop ,and said that he hoped that its institutional proposals would never be enforced. There will be hidden joy in some European chancelleries, as well as open gratification among countless European citizens, that the Irish people made history yesterday by killing the Treaty of Nice. If there are good things in Nice, as there are - perhaps the new statute of the EU Court of Justice, or the proposed new Social Committee? - there is no sound reason why they should not be put together in a separate treaty and sent around for ratification in the normal way. That would almost certainly not require a constitutional referendum in Ireland as no surrender of State sovereignty would be involved. Nice is certainly not legally necessary for EU enlargement, even though some countries, Germany and France in particular, regard it as politically necessary before they would accede to a major enlargement. The Government and its allies have sought to mislead the Irish public systematically on this point over the past month. Governments might say that Nice was an EU enlargement treaty, but the Referendum Commission did not admit that it necessarily agreed. As is recognised widely, the only practical enlargement of the EU that can take place over the next few years is the admission of Hungary,the Czech Republic, Slovenia and possibly Malta, if the Maltese said Yes in their referendum, although they are unlikely to. With Nice rejected, the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam remain in force. They are quite sufficient to admit the countries mentioned to the EU, once the negotiations on their individual Accession Treaties are concluded. These current Applicant States could then take part in the grand debate on the future of the EU which is supposed to culminate in the Year 2004 treaty adumbrated in Nice's Declararation on the future of the Union. In that debate the proposals of the SOS Democracy Inter-group in the European Parliament for a root-and-branch reform of the EU to make it more people friendly and bring it closer to the citizens, have outstanding merit. The National Platform is disseminating these proposals today for the information of Irish opinion-formers and media. It would be utterly foolish of either the Irish or other EU Governments to think that they can fob off the Irish people with declarations and political promises about the future, and then try to send around the Nice Treaty again without making any change to it. Any change in the Nice Treaty makes it a new Treaty, arising from an Intergovernmental Conference(IGC) in which it is open to any State to raise any matter. If the Irish Governmnt and its allies embark on such a course of folly, and attempt to put an unchanged Nice Treaty before the Irish people again, with the connivance of the Brussels Commission and some other EU governments, it is certain they will face an even greater rejection than they have suffered today. (Signed) Anthony Coughlan Secretary (Dublin 8305792 / 6081898) _______________________________________ FURTHER STATEMENT from The National Platform on the Irish Nice referendum campaign __________________ A CITIZENS'VICTORY IN THE IRISH NICE REFERENDUM This campaign has been a victory for the citizens of Ireland. Despite the opposition of almost the entire Irish establishment, people have voted for partnership, equality and democracy in Europe. For years the political parties have provided no critical analysis or leadership on the European Union. Brussels was seen purely as a cash cow, and a chance for Irish politicians to strut and preen themselves on a larger stage. The price paid for this by our political representatives has been decades of an unthinking enthusiasm for the EU. Critical engagement came instead from courageous citizens such as Raymond Crotty, who withstood the tide of abuse from official Ireland and continued to provide information and criticism, swimming against the tide of official opinion and with few resources at their disposal. The last three decades have seen the transformation of the European Union from the free-trade bloc we were led to believe we were joining in 1973 to the nascent Superstate that prominent European politicians are now proposing. All this against a background of silence or sycophancy from official Ireland. One only need to reflect on the Government's lacklustre and increasingly desperate campaign during the last 30 days. The larger Irish political parties failed miserably to arouse even their own membership. There was a severe outbreak of conscientious objection from the ranks of Fianna Fáil. Despite their best efforts, which bordered on the hysterical, Bertie Ahern and Brian Cowen could not get the Soldiers of Destiny out of the trenches. A similar reluctance for the fray could be seen in the non-campaigns of Labour and Fine Gael, the latter being no more than an exercise in self-promotion for Deputies ahead of the general election. So much for the "passionate pro-Europeans". The referendum campaign by the Government and its allies was characterised by a wholesale retreat from serious debate. Time after time Government representatives relied on the tired old mantra of "the EU has been good for Ireland". When that ceased to convince, they relied on the old favourites of vilification and misrepresentation. They produced specious arguments that they insisted were put forward by the No campaign. They fantasised at length about sinister plots and conspiracies from British Tories to American right-wing fundamentalists. This was the highest standard of debate that the people who claim to speak for us could rise to. The independent Referendum Commission was set up at the last minute and given the impossible job of informing the public about three separate referendums.The Referendum Commission was established by the Oireachtas under the 1888 Referendum Act. If there is any criticism about the quality or quantity of information that was produced, it should be directed at the Government, who bear the entire responsibility for rushing the referendum and for mixing together several different unrelated referendum propositions. The relatively low turnout in this referendum is a reflection of how distant the EU is from citizens. No amount of heartfrelt and tearful pleading from politicians can alter this fact. Only thoroughgoing reform of the EU will make the institutions genuinely accountable to its member states and to the citizens of Europe - not further entrenchment of the bureaucracy. This referendum has been a valuable lesson for Irish citizens. The Government, the unlikely coalition of IBEC and the ICTU (the latter with no mandate whatsoever from its constituent organisations), the European Movement, the Institute for European Affairs, The IFA, ICOS, and other specimens of Ireland's "great and the good" have shown scant regard for democracy. They were happy to support the government's attempt to stampede people into this referendum. The media, in particular local media and the tabloid newspapers, have played a responsible part in bringing both sides of the argument to the people. The tabloid press, usually sniffed at haughtily by the Establishment as "comics for the lower orders", have given ample space to advocates of both sides and have attempted to explain the elements of a comlicated treaty to their readers in ways that were rather more comprehensible than the confused ramblings to be seen in some of the broadsheet press. Also significant was the extensive coverage given to Nice in local newspapers. The National Platform's own survey indicated that all local papers gave coverage to the issues in a blanced and comprehensive way. This balance was reflected also in the coverage on local radio, indicating how important local media is in national and international issues. Ireland's so-called "opposition" politicians performed acrobatic feats in turning their criticisms of Nice last December into fulsome praise in the Dáil a few months later. Fine Gael and Labour called for a longer debate on Nice. If they had really wanted this, they could have done what they did with the Referendum Bill on the proposed Judicial Tribunal, and opposed it in the Dáil. That would have postponed the Bill and allowed for a proper and careful debate. Instead, on cue, they voted with the Government. This is the kind of opposition that is all shadow and no substance. They had good reason. As more people found out about Nice. More people decided to vote against it. The "No" side has seen a diversity of individuals and organisations, representing the widest range of Irish public opinion. These were not people from the edges of Irish life nor were they political eccentrics. Is Fergus Finlay, who recommended a No vote in the Irish Examiner, a "No"- freak'? Is John Rogers, the former Attorney General, who criticisms of Nice appeared in many newspapers, a "right-wing fanatic" or merely a crank? The opposition to this Treaty cannot be treated as peripheral, or exceptional. The Government and its allies can no longer get away with the abuse they have employed for years against legitimate criticism of developments in the European Union. Henceforth critics will no longer be dismissed as "isolationist", "selfish" or "insular". There is no suggestion from "No" campaigners that Ireland leave the EU. After nearly 30 years of involvement, such an idea would be irresponsible at this time. Such a movement exists nowhere except in the vivid imaginations of the Government side, who see extremists and conspirators at every turn. The only scaremongering in this campaign has come from the Government and its allies, with apocalyptic visions of international disaster as a result of a "No" vote conjured up by Bertie Ahern at every opportunity. it is profiundly told a plain untruth about the EU Fundamental Rights Charyter having no connection with the Trertay of Nice on RTE rTV news on Tuesday night. There is now many Irish citizens who consider themselves to be good and responsible Europeans, and who support in their different ways, the European Ideal. They have expressed themselves forcefully in this referendum in opposition to a divisive Treaty. They cannot be dismissed with such fatuous and redundant titles as 'Europhobes' or 'Eurosceptics. They wish for a better future for Europe. Concerns about the future direction of the EU and its impact on the wider Europe are shared by many. For decades these genuine concerns were brushed aside. Yesterday the citizens of Ireland served notice on the Irish establishment that they will not go away, that they will not be silenced, and that they will ensure that they will be an active and critical participant in the debate on the future of Europe. ___________________ BELOW ARE THE 13 DEMANDS OF THE SOS DEMOCRACY INTERGROUP IN THE EURPEAN PARLIAMENT, which should form the basis of a democratic and citizens' EU, as against the EU of the bureaucrats and polticila centralisers.The National Platform recommends them to Irish citizens and the internatonal EU community for debate. SOS Democracy's 13 demands 1. The Nice Treaty draft must be renegotiated since it weakens parliamentary democracy in our countries. It could happen as a part of the process leading to a new treaty in 2004. 2. The future EU "fundamental treaty" must not be a Constitution for an European Federation, but an international treaty respecting the parliamentary democracies and the national sovereignty of the Member States, including a recognised right to leave the European Union and clear rules for this. 3. The treaty must include a catalogue of competences and explicitly state that competence to legislate resides in national parliaments, unless the treaty gives this right, in a specified and clearly well defined area, to the European institutions. 4. The competences at EU-level must be limited to trade and common minimum rules for the environment and consumer protection, and such concrete measures which cannot be solved at nation state level because of the international nature of the problem, or the demonstrable extra value added through cooperation. The national parliaments have to decide if they want to move a decision to a higher level. 5. The supranational institutions must never again be able to develop their own competences through the Commission's monopoly in interpreting decision- making processes, and the often revolutionary verdicts of the Court of Justice in Luxembourg. Instead, we could leave community initiatives to a council comprising of e.g. 20 representatives from each national parliament. They could meet twice a year and adopt the rolling program for legislation including the legal bases and eventually propose changes in the catalogue of competences. Decisions and recommendations could be taken through a qualified majority, with negotiated fair opt-outs for those countries not willing to participate in the decided areas for common legislation. 6. When the initiative is moved back to the elected, the European Commission should be accountable to the Council of Ministers and prepare balanced proposals in cooperation with the Member States. The Commission must always be composed of one representative from each national parliament, and each Commissioner must meet before a European control committee in a national parliament once weekly. 7. Negotiations over legislation must take place as public meetings in the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament and the national parliaments. The Council must comprise one minister from each country and each should have only one vote. The European Parliament could continue with the existing format for distribution of seats. To create a law it must be passed with majorities in both the Council and the Parliament, and also in the national parliaments. If a national parliament is not ready to adopt the common law a flexible solution can be found in a balanced opt-out, where it is seen to that the opt-out does not harm the majority of member states whilst the state in question can keep her freedom of choice. 8. The existing EU egislation, comprising more than 20.000 regulations, directives and other legally binding decisions, must be examined in order to: a) Return to the member states all legislation that can not be proven to be of such a nature as to justify cross-border law. b) Introduce more freedom in legislation, and using minimum legislation and/or mutual recognition instead of total harmonisation, directives and deliberate coordination instead of regulations, framework agreements instead of too many detailed regulations etc. c) Introduce a "sunset clause" in most pieces of legislation, making them automatically obsolete, unless they are confirmed after a reasonable period of time. d) Introduce more flexibility so that all laws do not necessarily need to encompass and bind all citizens and countries. For instance detailed regulations on the size of strawberries should only be binding on trans-border trade between grocers without being applied at local markets and supermarkets. e) All new legislative proposals must be subjected to a full Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) conducted at least in accordance with OECD protocols, and no such proposal may proceed unless benefits demonstrably outweigh costs. 9. The EU Charter of fundamental rights must be made more clear and amended with three important provisos attached: a) If there is a conflict in the interpretation of the European Convention of Human Rights between the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and the Court of Justice in Luxembourg, the pan-European interpretation must be binding for the EU. b) If there is a conflict in the interpretation of human rights and ground rules in the national constitutions or bill of rights vis-à-vis EU, the EU authorities must accept the interpretation made by the national high courts or constitutional courts. c) The Charter must only bind the European institutions and those member states that decide to be bound by the charter. 10. The European institutions must adopt a modern administrative code as proposed by the European Ombudsman, which includes clear rules for openness. This includes a right of access to all documents unless a qualified majority has made a reasoned exemption. This exemption can be brought to appeal before the European Ombudsman who would have the opportunity to support a justified claim at the courts. 11. All national representatives in the EU decision-making process must be accountable, paid by and taxed by their national countries to avoid the establishment of a special European elite, looking down upon electorates. 12. All accepted democratic applicant countries must be offered full participation in the European decision making process. They must be offered flexible membership conditions including permanent derogations and long-term transition measures and adequate help to overcome their economic and environmental shortcomings. 13. Future treaties must be put up for legally binding referenda in all countries where the national constitution allows for such.
|
