By Sini Wiren

As of the start of December, my life will be governed by a new constitution. My home country, Finland, will have both a new president and a foreign minister, whose election will have nothing to do with any opinions that my fellow citizens and I express. My resistance towards the new system is not welcome, my tax is. Part of what I pay is going cover the high costs of these new posts. Fortunately, however, unlike those poor people in the backward and authoritarian third world nations, I am lucky enough to live in a democr… wait a second. Something doesn’t sound right here.

Since the Lisbon Treaty was formally ratified by all the member states on November 3, the EU leaders have been in hurry to begin executing its articles. Hence, we the citizens should be in hurry to stop the withdrawal of the political power and decision-making even further from us.

The official information on the EU website declares that the treaty aims at “strengthening democracy” and “increasing openness of the union”. This sounds very contradictory. No matter how hard I try, my understanding of democracy and humanitarian liberty does not match with centralized governance, ignorance towards public opinion, building of a imperialistic army without the soldiers’ consent and increasing collecting of personal data. The tools of power adapted by EU leadership are closer to those of Fascist leaders: intimidation, bribery and attrition. After the treaty was ratified, David Cameron announced that he will cancel his promise of a public referendum. Clearly, he was too scared to risk UK’s relationship with the union. In Ireland, the only country brave enough to have a public vote on the treaty, the result of the first referendum was surpassed and a new one taken. “You bloody people, you vote wrong, let’s try again!” The last man standing against the treaty in the group of the member state leaders, Czech president Vaclav Klaus, finally gave up after his country was promised certain privileges.

The EU constitution was rejected by two member states, France and The Netherlands, in 2007, but the advocates of the document were clever: they changed its name to “treaty” (which sounds much less sumptuary) and made a couple of minor changes in order to get a new round and the constitution ratified. According to the estimation of Irish EU commissioner Charlie McCreevy, 95 percentage of the member states would have would have rejected the treaty if a general votes among the public would have been held (2) . It’s not a surprise that the brains behind the treaty were too scared to even consider a new public referendum. But how on earth could a document that does not bear to go through a democratic process itself could even strengthen democracy in the union?

The first protocol of the Lisbon Treaty declares that decision-making should be brought closer to the public. How come would it, however, get any closer to the public, if it has been moved even more clearly to another continent, in the hands of a few people, who an ordinary citizen is likely to never ever meet or contact? If the national leaders who choose the EU leadership, like Gordon Brown in UK, are not either directly elected by the public, I would say that we are very far from popular democracy. In order create a stronger citizen power more authority should be given to local, municipal governments of the member states. Consequently, there could be more public votes and each citizen would have a chance to attend the political meetings.

A constitution should be easy to understand and easily available to every citizen of a state. The Lisbon Treaty is over 280 pages long. If the Minister of Europe, Caroline Flint, admits not to have read it from cover to cover, how should an ordinary citizen to be able know his rights? The language of the treaty is ridiculously complicated for a layperson to understand without help of a lawyer. Let’s try to understand what this means: “Protocol on the Decision of the Council relating to the implementation of Article 9c(4) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 205(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union between 1 November 2014 and 31 March 2017 on the one hand, and as from 1 April 2017 on the other”. See, even if one would have the time to read the treaty, a full understanding of its content would be likely to take a lifetime. The world’s oldest constitution still in use, the constitution of United States, is also the shortest one: it is printed on approximately 15 pages, and it still manages to cover the law of 300 million people. If the writers of the Lisbon Treaty would have even considered not hiding the true meaning of the articles under political nonsense, approximately 20 pages would have covered the needs of the 500 million EU citizens.

That is not to say that as a network of European co-operation EU would not have been useful. It has helped the movement of the residents in the union area both in the fields of work and study, benefitted international trade and increased people’s understanding of foreign cultures. Thus, it is sad to note that the an organization that was to secure peace, democracy and freedom in Europe will actually break all its promises itself by processing an anti-democratic monster of a document that is to take away all the remains of individual liberty without needing any public support to do that.

The other side of Lisbon

My latest blog at Presseurop.eu

In Catholic societies, bible study is discouraged as a species of Protestant intellectualism. It’s almost inevitable therefore that in holy Ireland the government of Brian Cowen and associated “business leaders” with their “assertive” campaign have not promoted any close readings of the Lisbon Treaty lest the electorate be led astray by their own minds. Failure to say yes shall lead the EU to break off into two lumps one faster than the other and the ECB shall rethink of financial aid to the struggling Irish economy. This is like unto the priests threatening perpetual darkness if the faith is not properly embraced.

Even when they tire of dark prophecies as how we shall be written out of the book of the EU, Lisbonites on a less apocalyptic note assert that 35 years of membership have been good for us. A fair point, but by doing so they are suggesting that on Friday we are being asked to accept or decline membership of the union. This either reflects that they have so internalised the systematic bullying and isolating manoeuvres enacted against Ireland, and now on the Czech Republic, that they believe this to be the case. Else they are just being manipulative. The vote, it must be remembered, is on the Treaty alone. To suggest otherwise, as a priest might say, is immoral.

The soberest defenders of the Lisbon faith say that it streamlines EU institutions, gives some powers to the Strasbourg parliament in exchange for concessions on national sovereignty, creates a single five year EU president and High Representative on Foreign Affairs. But it seems amazing to this ardent Euro-federalist that 269 pages of post-modern meta-text on a far longer EU constitution, are necessary to frame such simple and agreeable notions. Read full article…

EU Commissioner and Gordon D’Arcy at FRS 10 year celebrations

Peter Caslin, Charlie McCreevy and Frank Carr at the 10 anniversary celebrations of FRS

EU Commissioner Charlie McCreevy called for new rules for players in the financial market to successfully reform European financial regulation, at the 10th anniversary celebrations of Irish company Financial Risk Solutions.

“Along with the new general architecture for European financial supervision, we also need updated rules for banks, insurance undertakings, securities and other players in the financial market,” said McCreevy.

“Financial regulation needs to ensure sound prudential standards and investor protection without unduly fettering business and stifling innovation. This is a very difficult balance to strike, and the pendulum may swing too far in either direction. The outcome will never be perfect – financial markets are too complex for that. But we need to keep trying. If that means a Solvency 3 or CRD 4, 5, and 6, so be it.”

Financial Risk Solutions, FRS, is an industry leader in providing software to Life assurance companies. Founded in 1999, the Irish company celebrated ten years in business on Monday 28th September at Dublin’s Westin hotel. 120 insurance executives from across Europe gathered to celebrate the event with special guests EU Commissioner Charlie McCreevy and International Rugby ace Gordon D’Arcy.

Gordon D'Arcy speaks at the event

22 life assurance companies across Europe currently use Financial Risk Solutions’ Invest|Pro™ system as their core investment administration system. Assets Under Management (AUM) on the Invest|Pro™ system across all clients account for over €50 Billion.

The Invest|Pro™ system is a unit pricing and investment accounting system designed for the life assurance industry. The system caries out daily unit pricing, investment accounting and regulatory reporting. FRS currently markets the Invest|Pro™ system to insurance companies in Europe.

“Our initial clients 10 years ago were life assurance companies established in Ireland and selling insurance cross-border under the third life directive,” explains Peter Caslin, CEO of FRS.

J Rothschild International Assurance was the first Invest|Pro™ client in 2000. After that, both cross border and domestic life companies adopted Invest|Pro™. Irish clients include Irish Life International, Aviva International, Eurizon Life, Friends First, Quinn Life, Percana group and IPSI (Irish Progressive Services International)

In 2003, ALICO became the first UK client, followed by BNP Paribas’ Cardiff Pinnacle. LCL became the first Isle of Man Invest|Pro™ user in 2006, while Accenture Insurance Services was the first Italian Invest|Pro™ user, in 2007.

FRS is an example of a company that has benefited from the single European market in the insurance industry. Following the implementation of the Third Life Directive (EC Directive 92/96/EEC) in 1992, Ireland developed a vibrant growing presence of European insurance companies who used the single passport to sell cross border from Ireland into Europe.

“Earlier this year Invest|Pro™ launched an automated trading module. We are confident this will bring significant savings to investment companies dealing in collective funds.” noted Mr. Caslin.

“The next version of Invest|Pro™, version 5, will be web based. This will allow clients expose relevant Invest|Pro™ reports and functionality to brokers, policyholders and other relevant 3rd parties. The web version will also open up a number of potential business opportunities. In particular we believe that this version of Invest|Pro™ will give clients the opportunity to examine the wrap platform business model which has proved very successful in the US, Australia, and more recently in the UK.”

“FRS serves these companies and the industry built around creating excellence in this industry is very significant indeed. In the last five years FRS has been exporting the same software that is used here in Ireland to other countries,” he adds.

Legal – To the editor, the arguments put forward Google access to culture and the educational role of the service are false. Verdict December 18. The violent confrontation was between Google and the publishing Martiniere who filed a complaint against the search for violation of the reproduction right, copyright, trademark counterfeiting and parasitism.  The tone was set by what the lawyer editions of  Martiniere who accuse Google of having digitized and made accessible online 3 000 to 4 000 books in its catalog (found in American libraries) without authorization. “The Google system is illegal, it is dangerous and is damaging to the publishers.” Thundered Master Yann Colin. And to accuse the engine had “slavishly copied works without distinction and without any sort. The damage is considerable, because it is irreversible.” According to remarks reported by Monde. Applications for compensation are to match: the editor not require months of 15 million euros in damages and a fine of 100 000 euros per day per infraction.

From the Google side, the argument remains the same. The engine was first put forward his good faith, explaining that his purpose was the provision of information and culture to many, including print books. An argument rejected by the plaintiffs who see Google Print service primarily commercial. “This service is free for Google, is free to the user, but not for the advertiser,” pleaded Yann Colin. On the other hand, the Mountain View giant said the French court had no jurisdiction in this case because the scan takes place in the United States. He added: “what Google is absolutely legal. We have never denied that the Editions hold rights on paper works, but they never proved they had the rights to digital versions these works. ” The case was set deliberately until 18 December. Symbolic, the case could set a precedent and push Google into a corner. However, the firm still has a lot of strengths in his game. In Europe, the Google project has already received support from the EU Commissioner for Telecommunications. Viviane Reding and Charlie McCreevy, European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services, issued a joint statement after their meeting with Google. They believe that “Europe must open a new chapter in the field of digital books and copyright” lamenting that “only 1% of the books of European national libraries have been digitized. Moreover, in France, the National Library, having been cons, is currently in talks with Google to digitize its holdings. Its limited resources do not allow him to do alone. In the U.S., Google has reached an agreement with the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers to enable it to scan books from their catalog and publish excerpts on its Google Books. The U.S. Department of Justice and the New York court is currently considering the terms of the agreement under which Google will pay 125 million dollars. Germany, France and Italy contest the agreement, fearing it actually applies to all the publishing industry. Faced with such criticism, Google has agreed to combine two European delegates to register rights on the books provided by the agreement concluded in 2008 with the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers.  And the Wall Street Journal, Google will eventually give up European works include in its draft agreement with the U.S. right holders. So books that are no longer available in the United States but are still in Europe will not be added to the catalog of Google Books, unless otherwise requested by the author. A principle that should apply to the catalog of  Martiniere

Charlie McCreevy sends a letter looking for support for the FF candidates in the area.

A flyer from Gerry Brady looking for the Toilets in Maynooth to be replaced (Weren’t they just knocked down in the end?) and saying there’d be no Road Tolls in Kildare.

Today was D-Day, at least in TV3’s words. An Bord Snip Nua (which is surely the worst quango name ever) published its report. And it isn’t easy reading.

So, what happens now? Obviously nothing happens just yet. Can’t let a recession ruin the government’s holidays (the cynic in me is wondering if the timing of this thing was deliberate, as it seems to take a lot of pressure off the government). Still, they’ll soon be reading this thing like it’s the menu in the Dáil bar, deciding who among us should be screwed over the most.

Personally, despite how necessary everyone is saying these cuts are, I don’t see the government taking on much action on them. They don’t have the nerve. Despite the notion that they’re unpopular because of the tough decisions they’re having to make, not many of the decisions they’ve made were really that tough. The pension levy was a soft option. The wider electorate had little sympathy with the affected civil servants. Nama aside, the only one that counts is the medical card for OAPs and we saw what happened there.

Now it’s time to step up and take the toughest decision any government has ever had to face, and I’m not talking about anything in the report. If they want to succeed in selling this bloody thing to us, first they need to come out and admit: “Yeah, we fucked the whole thing up, and how.”

The mealy mouth admissions offered so far don’t cut it. Cowen has already said he would have done some things differently had he know the way things would turn out, but it’s deeper than that. The financial black hole that these guys have created would be impressive in a normal-sized country. For a nation of four million it’s scarcely believable. And no banker or greedy developer can be blamed for this. It’s governments alone that squanders taxes. Likewise references to the global recession ring hollow. No developed nation, with the exception of Iceland and the likes, is facing what we’re facing.

And you know what, despite spending the money, the services they spent it on didn’t improve all that much. Kids are still being taught in prefabs (prefabs that have ended up costing the state more than building proper classrooms would have). Universities and the ITs are still under-funded, which is weird considering our emerging reliance on being a “knowledge economy”. And our health service is not even worth discussing.

If the current government is to survive (and believe it or not, I want them to) and push through these cuts, they need to start by being honest with us. I’m not talking about an apology (though I suppose this is inherent), and I’d rather not go down the road of individual lynchings (reading the report, it’s clear McCreevy, Ahern and Cowen share some personal responsibility). Just open up and admit you blew it, and we’ll figure out where we go from there.

Robbie offside playing
politics

R OBBIE KEANE thinks we
should vote yes in the Lisbon
Treaty referendum re-run, soon to come to a ballot box near you.

Already your nose is twitching as you reach into a quiver of ready-made, obvious retorts: what is a soccer star doing preaching to the rest of us on how we should vote, for a start?

In fact, what is a soccer star who no longer lives in Ireland and is therefore not subject to the laws of the land
doing, preaching to the rest of us?

More in his line to sort out his travails with defenders playing a high line against him: I’d vote for that (and etc and etc).

During the week a radio station even played a spoof interview with Keane, splicing identikit post-game answers into questions supposedly
relating to the European treaty. An obvious opportunity, taken like a tap-in on the goal-line, the sort that Robbie himself specialises in (see? Once you start you can’t stop).

However, we have some sympathy for Robbie. For one thing, if he hasn’t read the Lisbon Treaty, then he’s in good company. By definition the most fervent Euro-evangelising Irish person of all must surely be our Commissioner to the Union.

Charlie
McCreevy hasn’t read the text of the Lisbon Treaty, however.

“I have a document that puts together what it (the Lisbon Treaty) would look like and I have read most
of that,” said
McCreevy last year.

“I would predict that there won’t be 250 people in the whole of the 4.2 million population of Ireland that have read the treaties cover-to-cover. I further predict that there is not 10% of that 250 that will understand every section and subsection.

“But is there anything different about that? Does anyone read the Finance Act?”

(They don’t have to, of course,
because everyone knows what pops up in the budget is enacted in the
Finance Act.

For another thing, Keane isn’t the only person advocating a ‘yes’ vote whose credibility in the pulpit is a little shaky.

It’s a bit rich to take lectures on sovereignty and citizenship from someone like The Edge: U2 have been widely criticised for availing of a Dutch tax shelter since 2006, with one charity spokesperson saying that while U2 may campaign for a better deal for the world’s poor, they are taking advantage of the same tax avoidance schemes that rob impoverished countries of billions.

Speech over. We can hear you say you were expecting to read about puck-out policies or line-out strategies, that you’ll take the bit of geopolitics as everyone could do with some more roughage in their diet but is there any chance of a joke or a yarn at any stage?

F OR all our sympathy for Robbie
you’ve got to worry about
sportspeople getting involved in politics. We’re not so much talking about career politicians — from Jack Lynch to Jesse Ventura, if they commit to the lifestyle they learn quickly it’s a marathon and not a sprint.

It’s more the single-issue spokesman or mouthpiece we’re referring to, which can be a pretty sticky wicket because sportspeople tend to the single-minded and obsessive.

Politics is described in a thousand unflattering ways, but nobody disputes that when it functions properly it showcases the art of the compromise.

By contrast, how many times have you read about a sporting icon that he or she is totally and utterly dedicated to their craft, or that he or she has a hatred of losing that bordered on the psychotic and can’t be approached
after a defeat?

Which leads to the obvious question — how suited is a person who is not willing to compromise to achieve their aims, and who has a seriously distorted view of how the world
operates, to making reasoned political argument?

contact: michael.moynihan@examiner.ie

Twitter: MikeMoynihanEx

McCreevy: 95% of countries would probably have voted No in Lisbon Treaty referendums
Saturday’s Irish Times reported on EU Internal Markets Commissioner Charlie McCreevy’s comments last week, in which he said, “When Irish people rejected the Lisbon Treaty a year ago, the initial reaction ranged from shock to horror to temper to vexation. That would be the view of a lot of the people who live in the Brussels beltway. On the other hand, all of the [political leaders] know quite well that if the similar question was put to their electorate by a referendum the answer in 95 per cent of the countries would probably have been No as well.”

Saturday’s Irish Independent also reported that he said that Irish people should not be ashamed about how they voted, and quoted him saying “I’ve never been ashamed to stand up for the way we do our business here. We do it by referendum. That’s democracy.”

EurActiv quotes Open Europe Director Lorraine Mullally saying that the Irish Commissioner’s “honesty” had “touched a nerve” and that his statement “probably reflects what most other EU leaders think themselves”.

Open Europe blog Open Europe briefing Irish Times Irish Independent EurActiv Economist: Charlemagne blog Telegraph Sunday Telegraph Irish Times 2
___________
Bruce Arnold: Ireland’s “legal guarantees are worthless”
Under the headline, “Government has abandoned democracy to get a ‘Yes’ vote”, Bruce Arnold argued in Saturday’s Irish Independent that Irish PM Brian Cowen was “abandoning democracy the day after the vote. He was then servile in courting European countries, telling them how sorry he was that the Irish people had insulted Europe and assuring them of changed times ahead. He then isolated a few marginal issues, none sufficient for the size of the huge vote, invented a survey of the “real” Irish view on Lisbon and claimed that amending doubts about neutrality, abortion and taxation would do the trick. No need, he said, to look further into the more serious and fundamental EU drawbacks.”

He continued, “The legal guarantees are worthless and do not change the treaty. However, they had the desired effect. A number of foolish and misguided public figures, respected for talk shows on television, selling groceries, writing poetry, went public and said they would vote ‘Yes’.”

In the Irish Independent, columnist Maurice Hayes writes “The clarifications [protocols] in this case are less an explanation of what is in the treaty, than an affirmation of what is not. More nuanced it may be, but the question remains the same — as does the treaty.”
Irish Independent: Arnold Irish Independent

________

EU OBSERVER                                     29.6.09

Irish commissioner says EU Treaty would be rejected in most countries

HONOR MAHONY

Ireland’s EU commissioner, Charlie McCreevy, has said that the Lisbon Treaty would be rejected by most member states if put to a referendum (Irish Times,

With just a few months to go before his own country’s second referendum on the document, the plain-speaking former finance minister said 95 percent of the 27 member states would have said “no” to the new institutional rules if it had been put to a vote.

The commissioner, in charge of the internal market, reckons all leaders know this and it is only officials working in the EU institutions who have unrealistic expectations about the popularity of the treaty, designed to streamline how the EU functions and removing the unanimity requirement for decision-making in most policy areas.

“When Irish people rejected the Lisbon Treaty a year ago, the initial reaction ranged from shock to horror to temper to vexation. That would be the view of a lot of the people who live in the Brussels beltway,” he told the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ireland on Friday (26 June), reports the Irish Times.

“On the other hand, all of the [political leaders] know quite well that if the similar question was put to their electorate by a referendum the answer in 95 per cent of the countries would probably have been ‘No’ as well.”

“I have always divided the reaction between those two forces: those within the beltway, the ‘fonctionnaires’, those who gasp with horror [on the one hand] and the heads of state, who are far more realistic. They are glad they didn’t have to put the question themselves to their people.”

Ireland rejected the Lisbon Treaty in a referendum a year ago. In the run up to that vote, Mr McCreevy stole the headlines by saying he had not read the treaty from cover to cover and that no “sane” person had done so.

His admission prompted Irish journalists to ask other politicians about whether they had done their Lisbon homework, eventually exposing the fact that Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen had not read it either.

This time round, Irish voters, shaken by the devastating effects the economic crisis has had on the country, are thought more like to vote “Yes”. Recent polls have indicated a majority intend to give the green light to the document,
At a summit earlier in June, EU leaders agreed to a set of guarantees on the Lisbon Treaty designed to persuade voters to say “Yes”.

The treaty needs to be approved by all member states before going into force. Ratification has also not yet been completed in Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic, where the president of all three countries have to sign the document.

________

WALL STREET JOURNAL     26.6.09
The EU’s Latest Power Grab

From today’s Wall Street Journal Europe

In some countries they rig votes, in the European Union they repeat votes to get the desired result.

After Ireland last year rejected the EU’s Lisbon Treaty — itself a rehashed carbon-copy of the EU Constitution that Dutch and French voters rebuffed in 2005 — the Irish are being asked to reconsider. There will be another referendum in early October, Prime Minister Brian Cowen said Wednesday, and this time the Irish are expected to get it right. In Europe, they don’t take “no” for an answer.

Proponents say the Lisbon Treaty is key to reforming the squeaky institutions of the 27-member union. Skeptics, including a majority in Ireland, see a significant power grab. The Treaty gives the EU a nonelected president, a quasi foreign minister, a beefier defense and foreign policy and fewer national vetoes in a number of policy areas.

To justify a revote, EU leaders put on a big show at last week’s summit, giving the impression of tough negotiations in which Dublin supposedly won important concessions. The main prize Mr. Cowen took home is a protocol that claims to address Irish concerns, such as worries that the Treaty would allow the EU to meddle in Irish taxation, abortion issues, workers rights and neutrality.

Oh really? According to the EU summit’s own conclusions, the protocol “will clarify but not change either the content or the application of the Treaty of Lisbon.” So the Irish will vote on the same text they previously rejected by a seven-percentage-point margin despite assurances by their government as recently as last month that this would not happen.

In the year since the last vote, the Irish economy has tanked, and a pro-Brussels vote this time is possible if only because many Irish worry that the EU may abandon them in their economic hour of need. It’s a fear the government knows how to exploit. A precondition for economic recovery, Mr. Cowen said Wednesday, is to “remove the doubt about where our country stands in relation to Europe.”

Just a couple of weeks ago the bien pensants in Brussels bemoaned the success of euroskeptics in European Parliamentary elections. This latest run-around on the Lisbon Treaty for the purpose of boosting the power of the EU at the expense of individual states is not the way to create more europhiles.

_________

24 June 2009

Gordon Brown: Irish ‘guarantees’ will “clarify not change” the Lisbon Treaty
Gordon Brown and Conservative leader David Cameron clashed in the Commons last night over the ‘clarifications’ given to Ireland on the Lisbon Treaty. PA notes that Brown insisted that the ‘guarantees’ given to Ireland would “clarify but not change” the Lisbon Treaty. Brown said that a new protocol would in no way alter the relationship between the EU and member states.  He said: “To be absolutely clear, the Heads of State or Government have declared: the Protocol will in no way alter the relationship between the EU and its Member States. The sole purpose of the Protocol will be to give full Treaty status to the clarifications set out in the Decision to meet the concerns of the Irish people. The Protocol will clarify but not change either the content or the application of the Treaty of Lisbon”.

Brown added, “They have received their clarifications. It will be set out in a protocol. It will come to all Houses of Parliament, at the next accession treaty, when that has to be confirmed by these Houses of Parliament.”

Cameron responded saying, “Why are Irish voters being forced to give their views twice when the British people haven’t been asked for their views once?”  He also criticised the method by which Ireland’s ‘guarantees’ are expected to become legally binding: “Will you explain why the protocols won’t be debated or put into place until the next countries join the EU. Isn’t it the case the Government wants to delay this until after the next election. They don’t want the embarrassment of having to vote yet again in the Commons to deny people the referendum they originally promised.”

When asked “do the guarantees have legal effect and if so how?”, Brown answered: “They will be deposited in the way that often happens at the United Nations and will have legal effect from the time that the Lisbon Treaty is in power.”

Meanwhile, writing in the Irish Times, Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen sets out his reasons why Irish people should vote ‘Yes’ in the second referendum.  He claims that “accusations that the outcome of the summit was a pre-cooked charade are wrong and highly insulting to our EU partners.”  He says, “Many member states struggled with Irish reluctance to sign up to what they see as a necessary updating of the union’s rulebook. Some were alarmed at being asked to agree guarantees on issues not even mentioned in the Lisbon Treaty. Others, perfectly legitimately, did not wish to reopen their own democratic ratification processes.”

The paper notes that Cowen will name the exact date for the second Lisbon Treaty referendum when legislation to allow it take place goes through Ireland’s Dáil and Seanad in a fortnight’s time.
Irish Times Irish Times 2 Irish Times 3 Irish Times: Cowen Hansard Open Europe blog

German MEP threatens Ireland with “second class” status and “isolation” if it rejects the Lisbon Treaty again

The Parliament reports that senior German MEP Jo Leinen has warned that Ireland risks being relegated to a “second class” nation if it again rejects the Lisbon Treaty in a referendum scheduled for the autumn. Leinen said, “If there is a ‘No’ vote in Ireland I think we are likely to see a two-speed Europe emerge, with Ireland being in what might be called the ’second class’.
The Parliament

European Commission wants database for all 500 million citizens, raising “big brother” concerns

The European Commission has proposed to set up a new agency to oversee all its large-scale IT systems, thereby bringing together management of three key systems – the Schengen Information System, Visa Information System and Eurodac – plus other related applications, into a single operational structure. Webwereld reports that human right groups have expressed fears for big brother implications, as this would mean that data on all 500 million European Union citizens and all illegal migrants would be merged into a database for “freedom and security”. The cost of the system would be ¤113 million in the first 3 years, and later ¤10 million per year following that.
Computing.co.uk Webwereld

Spain’s ¤2.7bn in EU fishing subsidies accused of exacerbating overfishing

According to the Guardian, Spain has received more than ¤2.7bn in subsidies in the last 12 years for fishing practices which exacerbate overfishing. Markus Knigge, Research Director for Pew Environment Group has said that “rather than encouraging sustainable fishing, subsidies have contributed to ever-greater capacity of fishing fleets and in turn to the depletion of valuable fish stocks”.

According to the paper, similar levels of subsidies exist in the current 2007-2013 budget period, with some of the biggest cash windfalls going to ships notorious for their questionable practices. Greenpeace named a Spanish trawler which has received more than ¤4m in subsidies as “the most egregious offender against vulnerable stocks of Mediterranean blue fin tuna”. A new website, “fishsubsidy.org” has been created to establish greater transparency about EU fishing subsidies.
EurActiv Guardian

__________

Mary Ellen Synon in Irish Daily Mail, 17 June, article entitled ‘The new Stasi’.

17 June 2009
The lives of … all of us
You know what they say about restaurants: there is no such thing as just one rat in the kitchen. It is the same here in Brussels. This week the Irish have finally seen the draft of assurances Brian Cowen’s government want from the other EU members before they make the Irish vote again on the Lisbon Treaty. The draft is a rat, but I’l deal with it later, after I’ve seen what is going to happen to the ‘assurances’ tomorrow and Friday at the European Council. Today I will deal with one of the other rats in Brussels, the Stockholm Programme.

It is unlikely you have ever heard of the Stockholm Programme. It has only just been published. However, a committee known as the Future Group, organised by the justice commission, started planning it in January 2007. The full name of the Future Group is ‘the Informal High Level Advisory Group of the Future of European Home Affairs Policy.’ The British had no representative on it, merely an ‘observer.’

The group’s findings have been bundled up as the Stockholm Programme. Here is how it works. The Lisbon Treaty gives new legal powers to the European institutions over, among other things, cross-border police co-operation, counter-terrorism, immigration, asylum and border controls. The Stockholm Programme outlines how the justice commission will implement these new legal powers for the next five years.

The commission claims the programme covers policy on ‘freedom, security and justice serving the citizen.’ Look closer and you will see it actually covers policy for restrictions on the citizen, surveillance by the European state — yes, your fingerprints, credit card charges, email traffic and health records are now going to be available from Galway to Bucharest — and the destruction of British judicial independence by the European institutions. Stockholm is a rat, and a big one.

If you don’t want to take it from a right-wing libertarian like me, you can take it from a whole pack of left-wing libertarians, the European Civil Liberties Network. The ECLN is made up of groups drawn from across Europe. One of the founders was Gareth Peirce, solicitor for the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six, and more lately for one of the prisoners at Guantanamo. Here is what the ECLN have to say about the Stockholm Programme: the policies outlined in Stockholm ‘constitute an attack on civil liberties and human rights.’ The warn against ‘dangerous authoritarian tendencies within the EU.’

They are right to do so. Under EU legislation, state agencies are already implementing comprehensive surveillance regimes and beginning to  build up what the ECLN calls a ‘previously unimaginably detailed profile of the private and political lives of their citizens.’ This is often done in the absence of any data protection standards, judicial or democratic controls.

‘The EU has gone much further than the USA in terms of the legislation it has adopted to place its citizens under surveillance. While the Patriot Act has achieved notoriety, the EU has quietly adopted legislation on the mandatory fingerprinting of all EU passport, visa and residence permit-holders and the mandatory retention — for general law enforcement purposes — of all telecommunications data (our telephone, e-mail and internet usage records).’

The Future Group and their Stockholm Programme say they foresee a ‘digital tsunami’ that will revolutionise law enforcement. Add this to the fact that, as the ECLN says, ‘EU data protection law has already been left behind, with surveillance all but exempted. Individual rights to privacy and freedoms are being fatally undermined.’

One of the most rat-like things about these new proposals is the plan to set up a ‘Homeland Security’ industry. Billions of euros may be given as subsidies to European corporations to help them compete with US industries in developing security equipment and technology. If you knew how many thousands of uncontrolled, unregistered corporate lobbyists there are in Brussels, you would recognise the hand of European technology corporations in the drafting of this programme. Brussels will give the military-industrial corporations billions in European taxpayers’ money, and in return the corporations will deliver technology that helps all the new European security forces track every one of us.

What is coming out of this will undoubtedly be an EU identity card and population register. Even Dick Cheney didn’t dare try that one. There will be the power of security forces (forget ‘cops,’ what you are going to be hearing more and more about are ’security forces’) to search computer hard-drives. But the security forces won’t be coming through your door with a warrant. The searches will be ‘remote,’ online. This will be a particular threat to lawyers, journalists and any politicians opposing these growing EU powers. The policy of remote hard-drive searches was first proposed for the EU by the German government in June 2008. Yes, the German government want a euro-Stasi. It really is so satisfying when politicians live up to their national stereotype.

Statewatch, another organisation monitoring civil liberties in Europe, is also warning against the Stockholm Programme. In an analysis of the Future Group’s report by Tony Bunyan, he writes: ‘European government and EU policy-makers are pursuing unfettered powers to access and gather masses of personal data on the everyday life of everyone — on the grounds that we can all be safe and secure from perceived “threats.”‘

‘There is an assumption, on this and wider issues in the EU, that “if it is technologically possible, why should it not be introduced?”‘

He notes that the EU’s Schengen Information System (SIS) is to be upgraded to hold more categories of data (including fingerprints and DNA), access to all the data is tobe extended to all agencies (police, immigration and customs).’ The commission has proposed a system to track the names of all passengers in and out of the EU, but some governments ‘do not like limiting the use of data to terrorism and organsied crime and want to extend the proposals’ scope from just in and out of the EU to travel between EU states and even within each state.’ They want to extend it to sea travel and car travel, too: all those specialised cameras developed for reading car registration plates make it possible.

Ah, but ordinary people will be told that if they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear. Ordinary people who believe that  will then never realise, as Mr Bunyan says, ‘why they did not get a job interview because their employer had access to a criminal record based on a “spent” conviction or why their application for an insurance policy failed because the company had access to their health record.’

The final agreement on all this is due to be adopted by heads of state and government at a meeting in Stockholm in December. Between now and then there is nothing any of us can do to stop it — except force David Cameron to give Britain a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, no matter how many other countries have already ratified the treaty. Remember, the legal powers to establish this new techno-surveillance are only delivered to Brussels by the Lisbon Treaty. So demand a referendum, then vote No: or your secret ballot on Lisbon may be the last secret left to you.

17 June 2009 10:52 AM
The lives of … all of us

____________

What the European Community is doing on our behalf.
Brussels, 4.6.2009  COM(2009) 255 final  2009/0073 (CNS)
Proposal for a
COUNCIL DECISION
on the signing, on behalf of the Community, of the Arrangement between the European Community, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein, of the other part, on the modalities of the participation by those States in the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union
Proposal for a
COUNCIL DECISION on the conclusion, on behalf of the Community, of the Arrangement between the European Community, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein, of the other part, on the modalities of the participation by those States in the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0255:FIN:EN:PDF

McCreevy slams “hidden” tax plan – May 2007

Bernard Purcell
in Brussels.

Ireland’s EU Commissioner Charlie McCreevy yesterday broke ranks with his Brussels colleagues and officials in an unprecedented outspoken attack on  their “long-term hidden agenda” for a common corporation tax base.

Mr McCreevy told a business lunch in Dublin  the proposal currently under consideration, and due to become Community law next year, is a “sinister” idea that “refuses to die”.

He attacked the way permanent officials in the Commission  sought to smuggle the proposal through by saying it would be “optional” when it was really “an unworkable charade” and  “underhand tactic to destroy tax competition in Europe”.

NOT WORKABLE

“Optionality is not workable and it is hard to believe the designers of the proposal don’t realise that,” he said

“The deliberately unworkable proposals (for a common consolidated tax base)  amount to a Trojan horse to enable the Commission take control of taxation”, Commissioner  Charlie McCreevy suggested. He said that it  was part of a “long-term hiden agenda”, a “sinister idea that refuses to die”
- Irish Independent, 12 May 2007

Individual member states – especially the smaller ones – would either no longer be able, or have the incentive, to manage effectively their public finances or direct foreign investment.

Ireland has the most competitive corporation tax rate of the EU-15, currently  at 12.5 pc. Some of the larger countries like France, Britain  and Germany have rates of 28 pc and higher.

He added that companies’ tax advisers  would go “regime shopping” between the 27 tax regimes and a 28th “common” base run by Brussels.

Inevitably there would be “leakage” from individual national exchequers leaing to complaints from countries, thus opening the door to “the permanent officials in DG Tax to say optionality should go”.

Another reason “optionality”  woud be pre-determined to fail is because as countries realised they would be writing fat cheques to other members of the “opted in” club, they would stay out, leaving a shrinking pool of states with clear “winners and losers”.

Even more sinister, said the Competition Commissioner, were plans to give the lion’s share of consolidated tax revenues to bigger countries like Germany and France at the expense of smaller natlons.

It was clear from 50 years of history  “and the reality of the institutional continuity of the Commission and its culture” that no matter how often certain proposals might be turned down, the officials sneak them out in different guises, he said.

“What is envisaged by those seeking to foist a CCCTB on Europe is quite different to what appears  on the label,” warned McCreevy. “It is important that Member States understand fully what is going on,” he said.

_______

“The deliberately unworkable proposals (for a common consolidated tax base in the EU)  amount to a Trojan horse to enable the Commission take control of taxation”, Commissioner  Charlie McCreevy suggested. He said that it  was part of a “long-term hidden agenda -  a sinister idea that refuses to die”

Even more sinister, said the Competition Commissioner, were plans to give the lion’s share of consolidated tax revenues to bigger countries like Germany and France at the expense of smaller natlons.

It was clear from 50 years of history  “and the reality of the institutional continuity of the Commission and its culture” that no matter how often certain proposals might be turned down, the officials sneak them out in different guises, he said.

“What is envisaged by those seeking to foist a CCCTB on Europe is quite different to what appears  on the label,” warned McCreevy. “It is important that Member States understand fully what is going on,” he said.

- Irish Independent, 12 May 2007

“Everyone knows that at some vulnerable moments in our history our immediate neighbours have tried to take us on. But they should remember this: They have never managed to take us out. And we must make sure that they never will.”

B’é seo an méid a bhí le rá ag ocáid ag ceannaire sinsearach i bhFianna ÉireannFáil agus é ag labhairt leis an lucht éisteachta ag cruinniú den Rannóg Cháin Ioncaim de Chumann na nArd Stat Sheirbhíseach i gCeatharlach ag an deireadh seachtaine, cruinniú nach luaifeá le caint dúshlánach dá leitheid, cheapfá.

Niorbh ball de Shinn Féin nó de Chomhairle Arm an IRA an chainteoir – iar Aire Airgeadais an chainteoir, fear atá anois ina Choimisinéir sa Bhruiséal, fear atá fios feasa aige faoi cheannairc is réabhlóid [taobh istigh d'Fhianna Fáil], Charlie McCreevy.

Níl a fhios agam cad é an teachtaireacht atá á sheoladh ag an tUasal McCreevy nuair a dúirt sé: ”But they should remember this: They have never managed to take us out. And we must make sure that they never will.”

Tá blúire den fhírinne sa mhéid a deir Charlie McCreevy. Is léir go bhfuil ana dhúil ag na meáin Sasanacha bheith ag spocadh faoi gheilleagar na hÉireann agus iad ag eirí imníoch faoina ngeilleagar féin Sa chás go mbionn tú féin i dtrioblóid tá sé go deas i gcónaí bheith ábalta do mhéar a dhiriú ar dhuine éigean eile atá, dar leat, i dtrioblóid níos measa. Ní Éire an tír is measa – nó féach ar an nGréig….

Agus d’fhéadfadh sé cuidiú leis an Rialtas dá gcothódh siad an Bhreatain mar namhaid i gcogadh nua eacnamaíochta nach bhfuil fógartha. D’fhéadfaí é a chur i láthair mar Éire V Sasana i sacar agus thug mé faoi ndeara go bhfuil ana chuid tagairtí ar RTÉ le déanaí don bhua stairiúil a baineadh amach i Stuttgart i mí an Mheithimh, 1988. Luadh cúl Gary McKay, an imreoir Albanach, in aghaidh na Bulgáire sa chomórtas chaillíochta don Chraobh Eorpach sin mar ‘Great Irish Sporting Moments’ ar Spórt an Satharn ar RTÉ Raidió 1 roimh an chluiche mór a bhí ag ár laochra chomhaimseartha in éadan na Bulgáire.

Ar ndóigh is deacair an rud smacht a chur ar a leithéid de mhothú uair go músclaítear é.

Rud amháin atá curtha ina thost ag an chúlú eacnamaíochta agus an chaint ag leithéidí McCreevy ná an bladar a bhionn ann faoi chuairt ar an dtír seo ó Bhanríon Shasana, Eibhlís Bhindsor, bheith ina theist ar aibíocht phobal na hÉireann.

De ghnath bionn an chaint díchéilleach seo sna meáin Sasanacha agus sna meáin Éireannacha atá faoi scath Shasana. Cloistear é go minic ar RTÉ.

Is é mo thuar go mbeidh níos lú cainte ar chuairt Bhanríon Shasana agus níos mó naisiúnachas bheag na 26 contae as seo ceann tamaill.

Mar a dúirt mé roimhe, is cuma liom Banríon Shasana ann nó as. Má tá sí le teacht, tagadh sí agus imíodh sí ach, ar son Dé, ná cúirimís suas le caint sheafóideach faoi chuairt dá leithéid bheith ina theist orainn. Léiríonn an chaint sin níos mó faoi na cainteoirí ná mar a léiríonn sé fúinn mar thír [cuid de!].

Má cheapann lucht Fhianna Fáil go bhfuilimíd chun a ról sa tubaiste eacnamúil a d’eascair as a gcuid mí-éifeacht is mí-chomhairle [agus níos measa] a ligint i ndearmad, tá dul amú orthu. Ná creidfeadh an pairtí an pobal bhreith ag an deireadh seachtaine a dúirt go raibh ardu 5% ar an dtacaíocht ón phobal – tá votairí ag fanacht ar an deis i mí an Mheithimh cic sa tóin a thabhairt do Charlie, Brian agus na cáirde a fhagfaidh iad gan fonn suí ar feadh tréimhse fada – agus gan suíochán le suí air ach an oiread!

Is féidir an dubh a chur ina gheal ar an bpobal go léir cuid den am agus ar chuid den phobal an t-am go léir ach ní féidir an dubh a chur ina gheal ar an bpobal go léir an t-am go léir.

* OBAMA’S MOVES OVER NEXT 60 DAYS ARE CRITICAL (Terry Keenan, New York Post)

IT’S hard to believe, but today marks President Obama ’s 40th day in office. Yes, two-fifth’s of his precious first 100 days in office have already been spent.

* Regulators and banks ‘helped create super-bubble’ (The Irish Independent)

EU internal markets commissioner Charlie McCreevy has strongly criticised banks and regulatory authorities, saying they had “aided and abetted” the creation of a super-bubble.

* Milan Fashion Week: Prada (Hilary Alexander, Telegraph)

Miuccia Prada introduced the ultimate must-have accessory for the fashionista whose hedge-fund husband has got into deep water in the current financial crisis: waders.

* ‘Global grand bargain’ for Obama: Brown (Mark Silva, Orlando Sentinel)

The first European leader to visit the White House of President Barack Obama this week will arrive offering a “global grand bargain.”

* RBS approaches Kathleen O’Donovan to become audit chief (Mark Kleinman, Telegraph)

Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) has approached Kathleen O’Donovan, a director of Prudential and Trinity Mirror, about taking on the chairmanship of its audit committee amid intense demands for banks to improve boardroom governance standards.

* Economy may cause gold to gleam again (The Financial Times)

Golds rally was halted this week the metals price fell from its peak of more than $1,000 per ounce earlier this month, to trade at $948 yesterday in London.

* MYKONIATIS, 38, AND RETIRO, 37 (Jennifer Tis, New York Post)

Jan. 11 – Joyce Retiro and George Mykoniatis know the early bird catches the worm or, in this case, the wedding. The Manhattan duo wanted a quiet wedding in one of the city’s busiest spots, so they did something most New Yorkers never do: wake up early on a Sunday morning. “We wanted it to be private and intimate, so we were married at the Bow Bridge in Central Park at 7:30 a.m.,” says the brid…

* Gordon Brown insists the European Union is united in response to global economic crisis (Telegraph)

Amid reports of a split between the major economies and members states from central and Eastern Europe, the Prime Minister said: “People neither want protectionism nor do they want to be in a situation where we don’t take the interest rate and the fiscal action that is necessary.

* ‘EU united over economic crisis action’ (Reuters America)

Gordon Brown has insisted the European Union is united in its response to the global economic crisis after joining fellow leaders for an emergency summit in Brussels.

* Investors in India lured by stories of making it big (The Financial Times)

UK investors are to get their first opportunity to buy into an Indian debt market fund of funds in the next few weeks, with the launch of the Kotak Indian Income fund. And while the global financial crisis has hit Indias economic growth, the countrys government and corporate bonds still look attractive.

BOSSES at one of Ireland’s most exclusive golfing hotels are investigating the alleged disappearance of €500,000 from their accounts.

Auditors from accountancy firm KPMG were assigned by managers at Carton House Hotel Golf and Country Club – home to the Golfing Union of Ireland – as a matter of routine to audit the books.

They discovered a chunk of cash ‘missing’ from accounts at the 1,100-acre parkland estate, formerly home to the Earls of Kildare before the 7th Duke sold it in the 1920s to settle a gambling debt. Industry insiders say the amount is about €500,000.

Last night, the managing director of Choice Hotels Ireland – the company which has run Co. Kildare’s 17th century Carton House since it opened in 2006 – refused to confirm or deny this figure, or be drawn on any specific missing amount.

But Frankie Whelehan, who founded Choice Hotels, Ireland’s largest hotel operating company, admitted: ‘We don’t yet know how much, but there is an amount of income unaccounted for.

‘We called in auditors as a matter of routine. This action followed a major restructuring of our operation.’

He added: ‘To the best of my knowledge, the Garda are not involved at this stage. We have no reason to think – or any proof – that anybody has actually misappropriated the money but the moment somebody shows me a book of evidence, we will go after them.

‘It may just be a matter of somebody accidentally mis-allocating funds. Whatever the reason, we have to run various checks.’

Results of those checks at Carton House won’t be known for another eight weeks.

However, bosses insisted that recent events won’t have any effect on the day-to-day running of the hotel though they do admit that times are tough.

Mr Whelehan said: ‘The hotel has only been open for two years. There is a large range of businesses here and we decided to restructure things to make them more economical.’

Property tycoon Jed Pierse, who is one of Carton’s co-owners, said last night: ‘I have nothing to do with the day-to-day running of the hotel.

‘I have a small shareholding and I am very happy with how things are going. Every company in the world is having to make economies. These are extraordinary times for everybody.’

More than €80m has been spent on refurbishing the house and estate, which before it opened as a hotel has played host to guests included Queen Victoria and Grace Kelly.

Host to the 2005 and 2006 Irish Open golf championships, the club won this year’s European golf resort of the year award. One of its two golf courses was designed by British Open and US Masters champion Mark O’Meara, while the other – a favourite of 2008 PGA double Open champion Pádraig Harrington – was designed by Ryder Cup star Colin Montgomerie.

As well as playing host to golf stars, Carton House – in which property tycoon Paddy Kelly has a major investment – is also a favourite haunt for lavish corporate bashes.

The most notable of these was hosted by under-fire jobs agency FÁS, which splashed out €1,637 for flowers at a dinner at the venue – where room prices start at €220-a-night – that cost many times more.

AIB is due to take a group of bankers there this week for a lavish Christmas knees-up. Members of the club include Boyzone singer Ronan Keating – who is also a shareholder – and EU Commissioner Charlie McCreevy. The investigation is not the firstcrisis to befall Carton House.

In 1923, an IRA unit plotted to burn the place down but they were stopped in their tracks when a member of the Fitzgerald family brought a painting of Lord Edward Fitzgerald to the door.

He told them to call off their plot because they would only end up destroying what was once home to a revered Irish patriot.

The Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs must remain the bloc’s number one priority despite the likely concentration of efforts on rescuing the Lisbon Treaty, Graham Watson, the British leader of the ALDE faction in the European Parliament, told EurActiv in an interview.

Although he recognised that progress has been made, Watson considers it unlikely that the EU will reach its target of becoming the world’s most competitive economy by 2010.

“We set ourselves this beautiful deadline of 2010, but we didn’t set ourselves any interim deadlines, for example, the idea of having 3% of gross national income going to research and development,” said Watson, highlighting a key failure.

However, the shortcomings must not be a reason to give up, he said, instead insisting that ”[we have to] redouble our efforts”. “We have to make sure that even if we do not achieve our target by 2010, we are at least well on track.”

The MEP highligted two “dangers” currently facing the EU. The first is that member states may get tied up in in the debate on the Lisbon Treaty and the Union’s institutional workings and take the “eye off the ball” on the economic challenges. Secondly, he fears that rising fuel and food prices may trigger the adoption at EU level of “panic measures that do not fit with the strategy that we have”.

While refusing to play a “blame game”, Watson nevertheless pointed to the Commission’s “slow start” to its mandate, although he praised its latest efforts, highlighting the Social Services Directive and the Small Business Act in particular.

But at least an equal share of the blame must go to the member states, he said. “I think it is very hard laying the blame at any person’s door,” he stated before adding:  “There are certainly a series of governments which have sought to obstruct or delay an agreement on liberalisation of markets.”

Asked what to expect from the French EU Presidency, which has already repeatedly stated its aversion to the open-market philosophy, Watson was not very optimistic: “It is not easy to ask a French Presidency to liberalise markets but if this is really a new start, who knows? [..] Sarkozy claims to be a great pro-European. Is it too much to hope that he might also prove to be a great liberaliser?”

Watson urged all parties to work together, saying the lack of a “political sense of urgency” on the part of national governments was the main obstacle standing in the way of further progress.

A Commission review of the EU single market presented yesterday (9 July), however, points to a strong improvement in transposing internal market rules into national law, seen as crucial to the achievement of the bloc’s growth and jobs target.

Presenting the EU executive’s bi-annual assessment, Internal Market Commissioner Charlie McCreevy said only 1% of internal market directives, for which the implementation deadline has passed, are still not written into national law.

Cyprus, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal and the Czech Republic are lagging behind, most notably in the areas of environment and taxation.

To read the interview in full, please click here.

Links

European Union

• Commission: Background on Lisbon Strategy
• Commission: Progress made so far on growth and jobs

Political Groups

• ALDE: Cross-party initiative to put the Lisbon agenda back on track (8 July 2008)

Vía: Euroactiv

Sono giorni in cui il Paese del pallone assorbe la delusione provocata dall’anziana Nazionale agli Europei, per opera di rigore dei vicini spagnoli poi vincitori del torneo conclusosi ieri. Alcuni giorni fa anche l’Eurostat, l’ufficio statistico europeo, ha contribuito al confronto affondando il coltello acquistato da Berlusconi alla televendita e diffondendo stime preoccupanti che evidenziano la posizione dell’Italia tra le ultime della “vecchia Europa” (vale a dire prendendo in considerazione i primi 15 Paesi Ue pre-allargamento) per il valore del prodotto interno lordo pro-capite, che per il 2007 ha visto aumentare il divario dalla Spagna arrivando a 6 punti percentuali, (107 a 101, fatta base 100 la media dell’Ue) lasciandoci alle spalle solo la Grecia e il Portogallo.

Segnali plurimi di arretramento in Europa. Ma le riflessioni che da alcune settimane più si concentrano sulla tematica europea, spesso trascurata nel dibattito pubblico e dei media, riguardano il suo piano istituzionale e politico. A seguito di una nuova frenata, stavolta pervenuta dall’Irlanda, al processo di ratifica del Trattato europeo di Lisbona e dell’impatto sul suo prosieguo. Il celebre motto “uniti nella diversità” sembrerebbe al momento declinabile in “divisi sulle difficoltà”.     

Focalizzare l’attenzione sulle reazioni al no irlandese del 12 giugno, giorno in cui il 53,4% dei votanti il referendum si è espresso contro la ratifica del Trattato di Lisbona, invita inevitabilmente a leggere non solo il tentativo, da parte dei principali leaders istituzionali europei, di minimizzare e considerare l’outcome negativo come un incidente di percorso, circoscritto all’1% della popolazione europea ma anche il rinfocolare di un sentimento, più diffuso di quanto gli alti gradi vogliano lasciar credere, o credere loro stessi, di contrarietà al compimento di un processo costituzionale europeo che vede nell’entrata in vigore della sua Carta fondamentale il momento della sua realizzazione. La seconda lettura ci indica l’esistenza di un respiro più ampio del polmone irlandese e che consiste in dubbi permanenti e sottesi verso il riconoscimento di un Trattato di regole non sufficientemente chiare, quantomeno non pienamente legittimate secondo il senso della partecipazione più democratica. Perplessità rimaste temporaneamente sospese negli ultimi due anni, dopo il doppio no referendario di Francia e Olanda del 2005 e il conseguente periodo di riflessione e che si sono potute riaffacciare alla prima, nuova misurazione del consenso diretto da parte di un popolo e non dunque attraverso la delega dei suoi rappresentanti.

L’esito del referendum irlandese non ha colto di sorpresa gli analisti; è però plausibile pensare che anche le istituzioni europee avessero coscienza di tale possibilità e che a questi timori fondati non sapessero far fronte se non con la scelta di un metodo di ratifica in sordina, per via parlamentare. Difficile seguire altre vie più partecipate e condivise, devono aver pensato, data la priorità all’imponenza dell’impianto giuridico-istituzionale europeo di ben 27 Paesi. Significativa la difficoltà e oggetto di polemica una dichiarazione, resa nei giorni precedenti la consultazione popolare, dal Commissario europeo al mercato interno Charlie McCreevy secondo il quale il testo sarebbe di difficile lettura per il cittadino comune, in ammissione di averlo letto personalmente solo per sommi capi.

Tenuto al confine di un ambito territoriale nazionale (qui una contraddizione dal sapore nazionalistico maggioritario nell’ambito altrimenti ideale comunitario espresso generalmente dall’Unione) il timore, pur coscienzioso, del rigetto di un referendum, di un Paese sui Ventisette, non aveva mosso le alte gerarchie istituzionali all’elaborazione di un piano B forse perché decise nel voler perseguire il piano stabilito ad ogni costo, fino anche al sacrificio, probabile e plausibile, del criterio dell’unanimità della ratifica. Pur comprensibile perché, dopo l’arrendevolezza manifestata nei compromessi al ribasso raggiunti in sede di stesura del documento, come le clausole opt-out rese a Gran Bretagna e Polonia sul valore giuridico altrimenti vincolante della Carta dei diritti fondamentali e i tanti protocolli aggiuntivi tesi a soddisfare i vari interessi nazionali, come ancora per la Polonia il sistema di voto con clausola compromissoria cosiddetta di Ioannina, i rappresentanti europei non ritenevano opportuna l’elaborazione di nuovi ed ulteriori piani alternativi, con il rischio di minare la riuscita e l’immagine dell’impianto complessivo del progetto.

Lecito pensare ora e in tempi meno sospetti, che la modalità di ratifica en passant per via parlamentare sia stata frutto di un ragionamento strategico teso a celare e respingere le sacche di contrarietà che albergano in non pochi Paesi.

Alla luce del no irlandese e del deludente vertice europeo del 19 e 20 giugno, in cui si è deciso di non decidere, le attuali prospettive del Trattato mostrano dunque elementi d’inquietudine. Esercitàti gli obblighi costituzionali dell’Irlanda, importante sarà l’approccio di altri paesi dove l’euro-scetticismo potrebbe riprendere forza nei mesi a venire. Alla Francia, che assumerà la presidenza di turno del Consiglio dell’Ue a partire da domani 1° luglio, toccherà il compito di guidare un’intesa e raccogliere le proposte, anche irlandesi, in occasione del Consiglio europeo del 15 ottobre a cui si è rinviato il problema. La stessa Francia aveva dovuto apportare modifiche qualche mese fa alla propria Costituzione per evitare un nuovo referendum e un possibile secondo échec dopo l’ondata nonista del 2005. Una proposta, per quanto concerne l’Irlanda, c’è già e consiste nella possibilità che le sia data una seconda chance, a ratifica avvenuta per gli altri 26 Paesi. In caso di nuovo insuccesso o, persistendo lo stato attuale, si potrà pensare ad una forma di partenariato. Per l’entrata in vigore del Trattato nei primi mesi del 2009, prima delle elezioni europee di giugno, si potrebbe procedere solo con gli Stati che avranno ratificato. Qualcuno potrebbe vedere tale prospettiva come una forzatura, essendo stato firmato il Trattato da tutti e Ventisette i Paesi. Sono queste però le linee guida illustrate dal Presidente della Commissione europea, Barroso, dal Presidente del Parlamento europeo, Poettering, dal Primo Ministro della Slovenia e Presidente del Consiglio europeo, Janez Jansa e da diversi capi di Stato tra i quali Sarkozy che, approfittando del momento, ha ribadito da par suo la non opportunità di eventuali allargamenti; il suo Primo Ministro invece, Fillon, si era espresso per la morte del Trattato. La proposta di un’Europa a due velocità non sembra incontrare i favori della cancelliera Merkel. Tra i Paesi che lasciano il fiato in sospeso la Gran Bretagna, dove si sta attuando una forzatura a dispetto di una consistente opinione pubblica, ha comunicato nei giorni scorsi di aver risolto e respinto il ricorso di un 73enne presso l’Alta Corte di Londra, presso cui era stato chiesto che si tenesse un referendum. La Repubblica Ceca resta in attesa del giudizio della Corte Costituzionale sulla conformità del Trattato di Lisbona al suo diritto costituzionale allorché il Presidente ceco, Vaclav Klaus, noto anti-europeista, ha dichiarato all’indomani del no irlandese la morte del Trattato che, dice, non potrà comunque entrare in vigore a causa della ormai fallita unanimità della ratifica. Il giudizio è atteso alla fine del 2008, giusto prima dell’inizio della Presidenza ceca dell’Ue. Altri tentennamenti potrebbero venire dalla firma da parte del Presidente della Polonia Lech Kaczynski, altro euro-scettico. Sono 26 gli Stati ad aver scelto la via parlamentare e 20 di questi, ultima la Spagna nei giorni scorsi, hanno proceduto alla ratifica. L’Italia, secondo le dichiarazioni del Governo, dovrebbe farlo entro l’estate. Sempre che i mugugni della Lega Nord e l’ostracismo di Berlusconi verso la Commissione europea e non solo, più in generale il suo anti-europeismo mascherato, a volte, da europeismo di facciata, non finiscano per provocare problemi. C’è da considerare infatti che l’Europa, di cui i media italiani parlano poco e in maniera scarsamente articolata, è considerata nel nostro Paese a fini di consenso nazionale, secondo una mentalità di retrospettiva provincial-nazionalistica. A questo approccio possiamo attribuire la proposta di parti del Governo Berlusconi, in dialogo con parti dell’opposizione, di cambiare la legge elettorale ed innalzare la soglia di sbarramento per le elezioni del Parlamento europeo al 5% e con liste bloccate. Come se l’Europa, come affermato criticamente e giustamente dal Presidente del Pse, Martin Schulz, in occasione del recente meeting del gruppo socialista europeo a Napoli, fosse considerata un’”Italia allargata”.

Il dubbio è che la via parlamentare seguita, ancora oggi per 26 Paesi su 27, rappresenti la miglior soluzione. O l’esserlo solo in considerazione della volontà di raggiungere il traguardo dell’entrata in vigore del Trattato prima delle elezioni europee del giugno 2009. E’ difficile pensare a cosa potrebbe succedere se si tenesse un referendum nello stesso giorno in tutti i 27 paesi. In caso di consultazione transnazionale, sembrano essere diversi i popoli che potrebbero esprimere il proprio dissenso, forse perché poco informati, semplicemente poco partecipi di un progetto che solo per i numeri è percepito così grande tale che ognuno vorrebbe sentirsene promotore, da un lato, o obiettore, dall’altro.

Ciò che non si può o non si vuol vedere è la sussistenza di un substrato nazional-popolare che ha visto emettere le stesse conclusioni nelle tre consultazioni tenutesi in tre diversi paesi dell’Ue, facendo ripiombare l’Unione europea nella crisi. Si può assumere forse tale dato come effetto della persistenza di una modalità percettiva secondo la quale l’Europa è considerata come un’entità che s’impone dall’alto delle istituzioni e risulta essere ancora troppo lontana dall’affermazione di una vera cittadinanza europea. In tale ipotesi interpretativa l’Irish outcome costituirebbe lo specchio di una crisi endogena, di un deficit democratico irrisolto, venuto alla luce per rigetto. Che si tratti di questo o di altro ancora bisognerà aver chiara l’idea delle difficoltà di legittimazione e diffusione di un testo poco compreso, redatto nel chiuso di sale di tecnocrati e che assomma al concetto di lontananza, (uno dei termini più associati all’Europa nelle ricerche degli studiosi) quello di “paura”, come espressione di un luogo apparentemente aperto, ma in realtà destinato agli invitati prenotati e che siano tali da non intromettersi nelle questioni familiari (nazionali). Una sorta di loft di rappresentanza.

E’ su queste paure e insufficienti conoscenze che si è giocata la campagna del no irlandese e sono queste che hanno fortificato in questi giorni le credenziali del no, ritenute dai sondaggi post-facto più convincenti e persuasive anche dai votanti il si. Paura di una perdita della propria identità e neutralità; di un intervento esterno che possa modificare il sistema fiscale e il ruolo di tigre economica che negli anni il paese verde è andato conquistando, (2° in Europa per Pil 2007) anche grazie agli ingenti finanziamenti europei di cui è stato uno dei maggiori beneficiari. Sono questi i fattori risultati decisivi per la vittoria del no, individuati dall’ Eurobarometro Flash nel sondaggio Gallup condotto nei giorni successivi al referendum. E sono stati soprattutto i giovani ad essersi espressi contro il Trattato; coloro che hanno visto crescere le possibilità lavorative ed il benessere economico nel proprio Paese, con la considerazione di non dover partire a cercar fortuna in casa dei vicini. E’ plausibile che tra i giovani della Bulgaria o della Romania il pensiero sia diverso.

Una tendenza preoccupante risulta tracciabile. Più l’Europa istituzionale sembra trovare dei limiti in un’affermazione auto-referenziale ed elitaria, lasciando ai cittadini un ruolo minore di osservatori-testimoni, più sembra capace di determinarne una reazione contraria e di chiusura nazionalistica. L’Europa dei cittadini e un modello di sviluppo di un’opinione pubblica europea sembrano ancora lontani dall’Europa del Trattato simil-costituzionale.

La pratica istituzionale rischia di chiudersi nell’auto-legittimazione quando si pone come forzatura di una distanza che non riesce a colmare con il corpo elettorale inteso nel senso più partecipativo, anche di un’assemblea costituente. Anche in Europa, democrazia è partecipazione. La più larga possibile.

Le “non irlandais” au traité de Lisbonne ne l’avait pas mis dans une très bonne posture, Charlie McCreevy, le commissaire européen chargé du marché intérieur et des services, irlandais de nationalité, provoque-t-il son éviction de la Commission Européenne présidée par José Manuel Barroso ?

Après avoir été absent de la campagne préférant les courses de chevaux au “oui” dans son propre pays alors qu’il est lui-même haut membre de l’exécutif européen , le “noniste irlandais”, si l’on peut le qualifier ainsi, a prétexté que “tout irlandais sains d’esprit” ne voterait pas pour le oui, et affirmé “ne pas avoir lu dans son intégralité” le traité de Lisbonne, McCreevy réitère ses propos et enfonce le clou ! Interrogé à ce sujet mercredi, il a en effet répondu qu’il “avait l’intention de lire beaucoup cet été…” faisant alors une liste de quelques auteurs tout en évitant soigneusement de parler du traité de Lisbonne !

L’attitude de ce commissaire, qui n’a jamais caché son manque d’intérêt pour la construction européenne, est inadmissible, tout comme son maintien au poste de commissaire européen ! Même si chacun peut comprendre qu’un commissaire n’a pas à être forcément d’accord avec le contenu d’un traité, il fait néanmoins parti de l’exécutif et non du pouvoir législatif. Il est commissaire européen, et donc a priori, jusqu’au plus profond de lui européen… Au regard de son attitude, Charlie McCreevy semble nous indiquer son manque d’investissement, sa préférence pour une passion auquel il a bien sûr le droit : le turfisme ! Mais chacun sait que le poste de commissaire européen doit être effectué dans son intégralité, avec professionnalisme et dans l’intérêt commun, c’est-à-dire dans l’intérêt de l’Union.

En terme d’avenir proche, il serait bien évidemment préférable que M. Barroso assume les actes de ce commissaire et utilise ce qu’il a en sa possession : une lettre de démission en blanc signé de la main de chaque commissaire et donc une de M. Charlie McCreevy ! Le courage politique et les valeurs politiques et morales sont plus importantes que les ambitions personnelles, espérons que M. Barroso en tiendra rigueur.

A lire également :
- “Référendum irlandais : et maintenant, que faire ?”, Toutel’Europe.fr, 2008 June 16
- “Elections Européennes 2009 : quelle Europe de la Défense ?”, Luc Mandret, Ma Vie En Narcisse, 2008 March 27
- Valéry Giscard d’Estaing: ”Il faut adopter le traité de Lisbonne”, propos recueillis par Christophe Barbier, L’Express, 2008 June 26

Crédit Photo : Optical Illusion on Flickr

Votez pour cet article sur

Our recently departed* finance Minister is causing a stir in Brussels by wishing to change the definition of copyright from an economic incentive into a welfare system for musicians. Techdirt doesn’t pull any punches, calling it “a total and complete bastardization of copyright law”. (There are echoes of the Spatial Strategy and Decentralisation here, methinks).

In addition, he supports the implementation of a levy on various recording devices, so that you pay for piracy even if you don’t pirate! Nice..

Copyright is where all the battles seem to be these days, with insufficient people looking at alternative ways of earning money in the Internet era, where copying is what makes the Internet so powerful in the first place.

* to Brussels, that is. Same thing, usually.

Charlie McCreevys förslag att förlänga upphovsrätten för framförande av verk från 50 till 90 år hoppas jag verkligen stöter på rejäl patrull och inte kommer i närheten av att tillämpas. Upphovsrätten blir då, istället för ett tillfälligt monopol som kom till för att uppmuntra skapande, ett välfärdssystem för musiker som inte bara minskar viljan att skapa från deras håll men också försämrar för framtida generationers möjlighet att se nytt skapande utmynna ur det gamla – hur många band börjar inte med att uppträda med covers och skapar sig ett eget musikskapande ur det.

Vad är det för fel att ett verk, vare sig det är musik, text eller bild, blir public domain efter 20-30 år?

Läs gärna Christian Engströms inlägg.

La UE estudia ampliar los derechos de los intérpretes

Pues parece que la unión europea va a ampliar de 50 a 95 años los derechos de los interpretes de obras musicales, al menos lo está estudiando y creo, por cómo pinta el asunto, que va a salir adelante. El de autores al parecer no se va a reformar ya que en estos momentos comprende la vida completa del autor y 70 años más, suficiente para cubrirle toda la jubilación.

Digo esto porque según Charlie McCreevy, comisario de Mercado Interior, el motivo de tal reforma es que muchos de los interpretes realizaron sus obras sobre los 20 años y entonces a los 70, cuando más “desprotegidos” están pierden la fuente principal de sus ingresos. Apelan a nuestra caridad para justificar esta reforma que va a proteger a estos autores que participaron en la grabación de alguna o muchas canciones en su juventud y supuestamente, según la comisión que estudia la reforma, no han vuelto a hacer nada en toda su vida. Por si esto fuera poco cubren un poco más de lo razonable atendiendo a la actual tendencia en la esperanza media de vida por si sus herederos tampoco hacen

nada hasta los 30. Según la comisión el aumento en la esperanza de vida hace necesario esta reforma. Nuestras estrellas del Rock son más longeva.

Y yo me pregunto si esta gente durante su vida no ha recibido los royalties de sus obras y no han podido pagarse, como tenemos que hacer todo el mundo, un plan de pensiones o algo en previsión de nuestra jubilación.

Entre otras muchas cosas esto va a aportar más poder y legitimación aún a las compañías gestoras de derechos de autor para ejercer sus supuestas “lícitas” funciones a la hora de cobrar sus impuestos.

Enlaces:
Noticia en el Pais.com

La Comisión Europea ha pedido a la Generalitat Valenciana que anule los contratos que firmó con ocho empresas urbanísticas mixtas, creadas por el Consejo a través del Instituto Valenciano de la Vivienda (IVVSA). La razón es que incumplen unas cuántas directivas europeas con respecto a la adjudicación de contratos públicos de obras. El comisario Charlie McCreevy considera que los procedimientos de selección de los accionistas privados a las sociedades mixtas presentan irregularidades.

También ha pedido a la Generalitat Valenciana que derogue un párrafo de la LUV (la ley urbanística vigente), que otorga un trato de favor a estas empresas a la hora de hacer viviendas protegidas.

Si no se llevan a término estas demandas de la Comisión, y debe ser el Tribunal de Justicia Europeo que emita una sentencia firme, McCreevy solicitará al ente judicial que suspenda cautelarmente el párrafo de la LUV y pare los contratos públicos otorgados a estas empresas mixtas.

Recordamos que el mes de junio pasado, la Comisión Europea presentó una denuncia contra la ley de urbanismo valenciana ante el Tribunal de Justicia de Luxemburgo, porque consideraba que vulnera la directiva europea en materia de contratación pública. Noticia publicada en VilaWeb. 

Más información en: VilaWeb y Levante.emv.com

Curioso, los que se rasgan las vestiduras gritando que España se rompe, no solo la están vendiendo por parcelas sino que además incumplen las directivas europeas contra chanchullos. Y todo eso sin que el Gobierno de España ni la justicia española digan esa boca es mía. Gracias  mister McCreevy.