The European Journal

"SECRET PLAN FOR EURO INCOME TAX"

The Daily Express reports: "SECRET plans to seize more than £4billion a year from Britain and make its citizens pay taxes direct to Europe emerged last night." The European Commission proposes to scrap UK rebate which "would cost every British family at least £155 a year."

Jim McConalogue of the European Foundation is quoted as saying “It is clear from its so-called ‘reform’ agenda that Brussels is committed to the daylight ­robbery of the British taxpayer.” Read the article here.

Ireland's lost powers over arranged marriages, social security benefits and a 30% corporation tax

James McConalogue @ Centre Right: "It has obvious implications for the next UK Government. Where does the UK stand on those laws, before Lisbon and in a post-Lisbon Europe, and its own legislative powers, for example, over arranged marriages, social security benefits and a substantial rise in corporation tax. Brussels plans for financial regulation over the City are already chasing away business from UK shores.

"However, it has more urgent consequences for the Irish people and they must decide for themselves in a pre-referendum Europe. Do they really want to have given away controls over key areas of Irish social and economic policy, which has seemingly lost much of its independence?" Read the post here.

The European Federal Superstate – how much more will its Irish province agree to?

Jim McConalogue @ Centre Right: "The only real difference between Ireland and the other Member States is that Ireland’s great Constitution allows her people to have a say. Bearing in mind the principles the Irish people are reaffirming in this treaty – in moving from a democratic association of European nation-states to the joining of a European federal superstate – the choice in this referendum to a European outsider, with no opportunity for a vote, is obvious." Read the post here.

The EU Referendum cover-up - how Brussels is deceiving the Irish

Jim McConalogue @ Centre Right: "The Irish have no legal guarantees. They have no different Treaty. It is the same Treaty they rejected last year and, with few exceptions, it is the same as the EU Constitution rejected by France and Netherlands in 2005. Where do the Conservatives fit in with all this? More on that to follow..." Read the post here.

The treaty will be dead if there is a No vote in Ireland

Jim McConalogue in The Irish Times writes: "The Czechs, the Poles and the Germans have still not yet ratified – with the first two awaiting the outcome of the Irish referendum and the third, awaiting this new national law before ratifying the treaty.

"The next UK government is also waiting to pounce after Ireland’s vote. If there is a No vote in Ireland, there will be no overall ratification of the treaty by all the EU member-states. Therefore, the treaty would be abandoned. This would mean that the UK’s Conservative Party commitment to a referendum on the treaty, if the ratification process is not completed across the Union, would create intense pressure for a UK referendum. While the UK has already ratified, a Conservative government would undo this by easily winning a No vote in a UK referendum, and withdrawing the UK’s ratification. The treaty will be dead – as it should have been after Ireland first said No." Read the letter here.

EU referendum cover-up

Jim McConalogue in The Irish Democrat writes: "THE EU Summit strategy dealing with Ireland's referendum marked a distinct cover-up for the Irish people in dealing with the Irish No vote. Their way of dealing with it is similar to the Edinburgh Agreement of December 1992, when Denmark changed its No to Maastricht for full Danish opt-outs from some provisions of that Treaty.

"The Irish 'decision' did not previously exist as a formal legal instrument of EU summits. It was invented as a political tool to get around the Danish No to Maastricht in 1992 by the Head of the Council Legal Service, Jean-Claude Piris.

"It is a meaningless way of giving people the feeling of legal certainty - over abortion, neutrality and taxation - which does not exist. It is not any part of the properly ratified EU treaties and even the most minor of changes must only be validated through new ratifications by all 27 member states in their national parliaments.

"The only difference between Ireland and the other member states is that Ireland's great constitution allows her people to have a say."

Lisbon would be bad for workers rights

Michael McLaughlin wrote in the Slugger O'Toole blog: "One of the more genuine civil society groups to emerge from the Trade Unions is The Charter Group. As the names suggests they see the legal status Lisbon proposes for the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Treaty as a major step forward for workers."

Jim McConalogue from The European Journal replied: I strongly disagree – the Charter Group of trade union activists is arguing for workers to support the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland’s October referendum, but their framework and evidence is perplexing. It has generally put forward the view that Europe has been of enormous benefit to workers and the treaty would further improve workers rights. If you look at the context of this debate, Ireland needs to consider carefully the negative impact Lisbon will have on workers rights.

First, the treaty is a new European Constitution, which by law, will have superiority over the Irish Constitution. If it is accepted, the Irish people will give up their constitutional rights under the Irish Constitution and be subject to very different constitutional arrangements under the European Constitution. This creates a new context – a new European Union, under which workers rights will be placed. Second, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, attached to the treaty, rolls back workers’ rights by failing to include a clause requiring the recognition of trade unions.

Third, ordinary Irish people would be denied their basic rights in the workplace. For example, the European Court of Justice, basing its judgements on the Charter, had recently ruled against Swedish workers’ rights. In the ‘Vaxholm case’, the Latvian company Laval wanted to use Latvian workers in Sweden but would not agree to Swedish pay and conditions. Swedish unions opposed this treatment. The European Court ruled that the union could only act to ensure the Swedish minimum wage was paid and go no further. Other Swedish agreements could not be imposed. It puts pressure on Irish workers to accept minimum wage levels or risk losing their jobs.

At a time when about 450,000 Irish people are unemployed, crushed by cuts, taxes, mortgage payments, on top of public bank-bail-outs, the politicians who brought this upon Ireland are also asking for trust over the issues of workers rights in the treaty.

It is odd, then, that some groups are using those European Court of Justice decisions as evidence for a Yes vote. It is also worth noting that a No vote to Lisbon could be used to obtain a social Protocol which would outlaw these unjust verdicts of the EU Court.

Fourth, Lisbon puts the competition rules of the EU market above the right of Irish trade unions to enforce pay standards higher than the minimum for migrant workers – so whilst it reduces the power of Irish labour, it reinforces the power of migrant workers. The Lisbon treaty allows big business to import cheap labour and undercut Irish workers, in much the same way as it has done in labour disputes in the UK and the Nordic countries.

This comes at a time when Finance Minister Brian Lenihan has said, massive and uncontrolled immigration of EU labour into Ireland helped to cause the economic crash. Overseas workers now make up almost 20% of Ireland’s unemployed.

Fifth, I am glad to note that, in recognition of these aspects of the treaty, the Technical, Electrical and Engineering Union (TEEU) will now be calling for a No vote, stating that its opposition to the policy of the European Court of Justice in interpreting the law in this area was done in “a manner detrimental to the long-term interests of our members”.

In short, Lisbon would be bad for workers rights but it is for the Irish people to decide whether to reject this Treaty again.

Lisbon is not about representing a grand schema of globalisation

David Steven wrote in the Slugger O'Toole blog: "(...) Today’s global challenge recalls the predicament facing the European continent at the beginning of the 20th century. Then, the first period of globalization came to a swift and unexpected end. It took two world wars, and the intervening depression, to put the world back on its feet. The European Union was a response to this devastating failure, fulfilling Churchill’s vision of “a kind of United States of Europe” structured to allow its citizens to “dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom”. Moreover, he said "Now we need the European Union to act once again as a platform for achieving security and prosperity (...)" According to David Steven "Lisbon’s most important reforms will begin to sort out Europe’s ability to interact with and influence the rest of world."

Jim McConalogue from The European Journal replied: Lisbon is not about representing a grand schema of globalisation – if anything it is a regional protectionist arrangement which has closed out developing country markets for decades, particularly through the Common Agricultural Policy. Lisbon will do nothing to help this situation and will only make it worse.

You quote Churchill but his exact words were “We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked, but not combined. We are interested and associated, but not absorbed.” He meant that states be democratically associated, and not absorbed into one superstate. Lisbon is a treaty for the absorption into a European federal superstate. Ireland must of course decide for itself, but Lisbon is a dangerous step towards an enhanced European superstate-building project.

Lisbon has A LOT to do with the current Irish economic situation

Stephen Kinsella wrote in the Sluggerotoole blog: "Lisbon has nothing to do with the current Irish economic situation, nor does it directly provide any help for or hindrance from a viable recovery in the short to medium term."

Jim McConalogue, from The European Journal, replied: I do not agree that “Lisbon has nothing to do with the current Irish economic situation, nor does it directly provide any help for or hindrance from a viable recovery in the short to medium term.”

First, many Yes campaigners say that EU membership has been pivotal to Ireland ’s success story. There is much evidence to support the fact that the substantive parts of Ireland’s growth is due to the fact that she retained control over central aspects of her own economic affairs – the Celtic Tiger was created through her own tax cuts and cuts in regulation. Significant research has established no link between Ireland ’s economic growth rates and EU transfers/subsidies. Over a substantial period of time, Irish growth rates were at its highest when EU subsidies were at their lowest. At its highest level, Ireland ’s subsidies were 4% of GDP, whereas Greece also received 4% of GDP – but its growth rates were nowhere near Ireland ’s. If Ireland hands over controls over central aspects of her own economic affairs, as Lisbon requires, then one can only expect her economic difficulties to worsen.

Second, leading Irish politicians have falsely assured people that on Lisbon, they are protected from EU changes to the law on abortion, taxation and defence, because those assurances are not part of the Lisbon treaty (Judge Frank Clarke, Chairman of the Referendum Commission) and are not EU law – so acceptance of the Lisbon treaty by the Irish people could very freely lead to changes on abortion, taxation and defence.

Third, the Fine Gael leader and Yes campaigners have already insisted that Ireland needed Lisbon because Europe faced challenges from growing economic powers like China, Russia and India, but Lisbon inhibits Ireland from remaining globally competitive. In fact, many of Lisbon’s objectives are already provided in Article 2 TEU, Article 2 and 3 TEC as well as in various Articles of the TEC but most astonishing of all, there is no mention in Lisbon as to whether the Union’s objective is “free and undistorted competition.” Since it is such an essential feature of the internal market, it must be noted that the French President (Sarkozy) was able to negotiate the removal of free and undistorted competition from the Treaty, which represents a real threat to free competition. The reference to undistorted competition was moved to the ‘Protocol on the Internal Market and Competition’, annexed to the Treaties. The Protocol makes no effective legally binding statement that would be able to defend the objective of free and undistorted competition. Ireland will be forced to accept European laws when trading, dealing with or competing with growing economic powers like China, Russia and India . If anything, a post-Lisbon Europe will inhibit Ireland from facing its own challenges that develop from growing economic powers.

Is the downfall of Brian Cowen and Gordon Brown the price of denial over Lisbon?

Jim McConalogue @ Centre Right: Like UK ’s Labour, Fianna Fail’s support plummeted in the European elections in a wipeout in June. Brown denied the referendum outright. Cowen is forced to accept a referendum, through the Irish Constitution, but denies dealing with the European issue at all... Read the post here.