Libertas: Liars

This post has been cross posted at Re:Europa.

During the campaign in Ireland I really should have stayed on top of the issues. I just looked at the Libertas webpage and at there 8 points to say "No". Lets have a look:

1. Creates an unelected President and a Foreign Minister of Europe
The new President and Foreign Minister for Europe will be appointed by the European Council by qualified majority vote. Although many of the terms and conditions of these roles have yet to be decided, they will be committed through the Lisbon Treaty to “drive forward” the agenda of the Council and discussions have already taken place to provide a presidential palace and executive jet for the President.

What a great way to make an objective argument. First misrepresent how the President will be chosen and what is job is then claim some bullshit about where he will reside and how he will travel.

2. Halves Ireland’s voting weight while doubling Germany’s
The Lisbon Treaty would implement a new system of voting by the European Council which is primarily based on population size. This means that Ireland’s voting weight would be reduced from 2% at present to 0.8% if the Treaty was implemented, while Germany’s would increase from 8% to 17%.

Bash Germany. While at the same time lie about the voting system. There is a double majority system (number of countries and population size), therefore there is no single voting weight.

3. Abolishes Ireland’s Commissioner for five years at a time
The Lisbon Treaty proposes to reduce the number of Commissioners to two thirds of the number of member states. This would mean that, on a rotating basis, Ireland would have no seat for five years out of every 15 in the body that has the monopoly on initiating legislation. This would clearly affect a small country like Ireland to a far greater extent than, for example, Germany which is having its voting weight doubled under the Treaty.

Repeat: Bash Germany. And again tell bullshit about how losing a commissioner will affect countries. Every country will have the same amount of time a commissionar irrespective of size. And that is supposed to favor large countries!

4. Opens the door to interference in tax and other key economic interests
Article 113 of the Lisbon Treaty specifically inserts a new obligation on the European Council to act to avoid “distortion of competition” in respect of indirect taxes. The proposals for a common consolidated tax base and the commitment of the French government to pursue it combined with a weakening of Ireland’s voice in Europe through the loss of a permanent Commissioner and halving of its voting weight represent a clear and present danger to our tax competitiveness.

Again: Lie! The council can not change taxes without unanimity. All the other things they write are distractions from this central points.

And this goes on like this in this other points. Libertas are really a bunch of suckers!

How to not write a post

I intended to write a post arguing that the EU cannot start a pro-EU campaign on its own, because in the current situation it would be received as last-minute propaganda by the people and the impression that the EU has to justify its own existence would be supported. Such campaigns have to run on national levels initiated by the national politicians.
It didn't work, but I found this by European Movement:

Jean-Claude Juncker wins "Hero of the week" award

I found this article in EurActive via Kosmoplit and I'm reciting Juncker again, because it is worth doing it:

“Europe is not sufficiently proud of what it does (…) and the reason is that no government in particular can claim the merits from these achievements. Since governments like to attract the public’s attention only on their own achievements and not on common achievements, nobody speaks about common achievements.”

Just being disappointed about what I read

I'm sorry, I'm just very disappointed about what I read on tagesschau.de (the online version of a major German news show), because it just confirms what I have been complaining about in the last days. In the absence of other options to express my disappointment I have to bore you with that:
German chancellor Angela Merkel said at the EU crisis summit in Brussels that she was hoping to find a solution together with Ireland, that she was against any sort of "2-zone-EU" and that she refused to change the Treaty.
That's not exactly what I would have said, but OK.
And now for the opposition: Instead of doing their job and saying something reasonable, like how they think we should proceed and attack the contents of what she shaid, they start an empty attack. Gregor Gysi, head of Die Linke, walked into the TVs of the Germans and said, that Ms. Merkel does not provide a solution and that she is just waiting for Ireland to say something, while at the same time refusing to change the Treaty and that she thus was ignoring the Irish who voted No to the Treaty.
Well, that's true - except for the statement that the Irish voted no to the Treaty. They didn't do that, because they didn't read it. They voted No to something different and it is our task to find out to what.
The problem is that Gysi makes it about Merkel. He is opposition and that's what oppositions do and it is his good right to judge her and everybody's style of government. But obviously Die Linke doesn't even bother to make their own suggestions. They just use The EU as some sort of platform to fight their national fights and European politics don't seem important enough to be addressed in a productive way.
If the people that would like to be a part of our national governments have nothing more to say about a severe crisis of the EU, which might be at a turning point in European history, then you don't have to ask why the EU is in this crisis at the moment. The very same people that are responsible for the fact that Europe doesn't play a role in national politics, by not talking about it, can use this fact to win their own little national fights (ironically also by not talking about it). Why do we always elect those idiots?

I'm feeling slightly better now.

Re: Dublin

I just left a looong response to MNM Dublin on a comment thread on A Northern Perspective
about the question of "Minority Dictatorship" in the EU. I essentially just reformulated what I said below.

Fairy tales from a land over the rainbow

So the people of Ireland rejected the Lisbon Treaty - well, it didn't come that unexpected, did it?
And now everybody is rotating trying to make predictions about what should be the next steps of the other member states and what chances a modified treaty in what form could have.

Of course, it's a discouraging thing to see the EU reform process running into a wall, but we also received an important lesson.
The European Union stumbeled about what I consider one of its largest weaknesses: the unability to explain its own use. The people of Ireland did not reject the Treaty, because they thought it would bring them disadvantages. Well, the single voters maybe thought that, when they made their checkmarks, but the people of Ireland rejected the Treaty, because their government failed to explain to them what the Treaty is. Actually, they shouldn't have tried to explain the Treaty, what they should have explained is the EU. And not only the Irish government failed in doing so, it's just that their constitution doesn't allow for the ratification-shortcut most of the other member states chose.
The Lisbon Treaty is a complicated thing, because the member states form a complicated system. I guess there would be a smarter way to set up the document, but that's not the point here: No matter how complicated the contents and no matter how manifold the areas touched by the treaty, if you consider the history of this document you do not vote for or against special point in the treaty, you vote for or against the EU.
That's the point.
The EU appears to have neither character nor much of a purpose in the eyes of the voters (everywhere in the EU). It is received as an artificial construct build by governments.
And if you do not know what exactly that thing is and how exactly your nation is supposed to fit into, then naturally you'l l become very suszeptive to all those witches and future-tellers, proclaiming that they had foreseen the end of your souvereignity if the european bindings are tightened. It is the fault of the national governments that this is the case. It is them that did not transport the information about their vision of their nation in the EU to their people. And it is them that missed to include this vision into their national election campaigns properly.
In so far, it is no wonder that the Irish just decided to listen to those witches that promised the status quo without caring much about whether they are good or evil. In fact, in the absence of proper information it is the smartest thing you can do.

The important question is whether or not european governments will be able to go back a step and pick up their people on their way to Brussels or whether they decide to leave them in the woods (the dark ones with the witches in them).

What a start!

There's a saying in German (and I guess other languages have an equivalent) which goes like this:
"The beginning of everything is tough."

Yep.
Trying to write a first blog post is tough and trying to get the Lisbon Treaty through appears to be even harder.
Yesterday, on Friday 13th, we learned that the Irish rejected the Lisbon Treaty, the day before that the German team lost the EM-pre-round-soccer match against Croatia.
Those two events don't necessarily have to be related to each other, however, they do have something in common: the outcome sucked and left whole nations puzzled.

The impact of both events upon the future of Europe will be covered in this blog at several, non-equidistant points in the future.

Enjoy reading!