Valéry Giscard d'Estaing: The EU Treaty is the same as the Constitution

Lift the lid and look in the toolbox, and all the same innovative tools are there

The Independent, 30 October 2007

The difference between the original Constitution and the present Lisbon Treaty is one of approach, rather than content. The draft constitution resulted from a political desire to simplify European institutions, rendered inefficient by recent expansions. It was about creating more democracy and transparency within the European Union. It was about opening the way for a "Constitution for the people of Europe".

These goals were reflected in the composition of the treaty-drafting Convention which brought together representatives from the European Parliament and national parliaments, from the governments of member states, as well as from the European Commission. The debates were very public. The resulting draft constitution was a new text and replaced all previous treaties.

For the Treaty of Lisbon the process has been very different. It was the legal experts for the European Council who were charged with drafting the new text. They have not made any new suggestions. They have taken the original draft constitution, blown it apart into separate elements, and have then attached them, one by one, to existing treaties. The Treaty of Lisbon is thus a catalogue of amendments. It is unpenetrable for the public.

In terms of content, the proposed institutional reforms – the only ones which mattered to the drafting Convention – are all to be found in the Treaty of Lisbon. They have merely been ordered differently and split up between previous treaties. There are, however, some differences. Firstly, the noun "constitution" and the adjective "constitutional" have been banished from the text, as though they describe something inadmissible. At the same time, all mention of the symbols of the EU have been suppressed, including the flag (which already flies everywhere), and the European anthem (Beethoven's Ode to Joy). However ridiculous they seem, these decisions are significant. They are intended to chase away any suggestion that Europe may one day have a formal political status. They sound a significant retreat from European political ambition.

The concessions given to French opponents of the constitutional treaty are more symbolic than substantial. The expression "free and undistorted competition" has been taken out at the request of President Sarkozy. It reappears at the request of the British, in an annexed protocol to the new treaty which stipulates that "the internal market, such as is defined in Article 3 of the treaty, includes a system guaranteeing that competition is undistorted".

Far more important are the concessions made to the British. The Charter of Fundamental Rights – an improved and updated version of the Charter of Human Rights – has been withdrawn from the draft treaty and made into a separate text, to which Britain will not be bound. In the area of judicial harmonisation and co-operation, Britain will have the right to duck in and out of the system as it pleases. Having already weakened all attempts at further European integration – such as by refusing the title of Minister for Foreign Affairs – Britain has also been allowed to be the odd man out whenever it feels like it.

Otherwise, the proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary.

The Brussels institutions have also cleverly reclaimed the process from the – to them – unwelcome intrusion of parliamentarians and politicians in the work of the original drafting Convention. The institutions have re-imposed their language and their procedures – taking us even further away from ordinary citizens.

Now comes the ratification process. There should not be any big problems – except in Britain where a referendum would obviously lead to a "No" vote. Elsewhere, the complexity of the new text, and the apparent surrender of all sweeping ambitions, should be enough to smooth over all difficulties.

But lift the lid and look in the toolbox: all the same innovative and effective tools are there, just as they were carefully crafted by the European Convention: a stable Presidency; a streamlined Commission; a Parliament with genuine legislative rights; a Foreign Minister, even if he has been given another inadequate title; decisions taken by a double majority of governments and citizens; and the most advanced charter of fundamental rights in the world.

When men and women with sweeping ambitions for Europe decide to make use of this treaty, they will be able to rekindle from the ashes of today the flame of a United Europe.

The writer, a former French President (1974-81), was president of the Convention on the Future of Europe, which drafted a new constitution, 2002-03

__________

Rory's Comments:

Giscard d'Estaing's comments about the 'concessions' made to the British bear out what I have already said in a previous article, Eurosocialist and Antifascist.

The 'concessions' made to the British government by the Lisbon Treaty are those which will benefit British capitalism and the ruling classes, not the ordinary person. By allowing Britain not to be bound by the new Charter of Fundamental Rights and to duck in and out of judicial harmonisation and cooperation the Treaty of Lisbon has effectually allowed the encroaching British police state an unfettered freedom to do as it will and its judiciary to continue as a law unto itself.

All this amounts to very bad news for the average Brit who, as I have said, was bamboozled by the British right into thinking of a new European Constitution as somehow a danger to it. As always, the British Right was able to turn reality on its head and to use a gullible and misinformed public to serve its own purposes.

__________

Here is what the European Greens had to say about Britain's opt-out of the Charter of Fundamental Rights:



EU Summit : British opt-out from Fundamental Rights Charter is unacceptable
23.06.2007

Commenting on the outcome of the EU summit Johannes Vogggenhuber, MEPand Vice-President of the Constitutional Affairs Committee in the European Parliament, today said:

"Europe has come close to a deep division, which has only been avoided at the very last moment. This summit has shown that the political integration of the continent, which has been pursued for 50 years now, has adversaries within. An alliance of nationalists, neoliberal ideologues and Rumsfeld's New Europe is at work to reduce the continent to an internal market plus NATO. The 18 member states, which ratified the Constitutional treaty, underestimated the determination of this coalition and closed ranks too late.

Despite the absurd menaces and blackmail attempts of the [Polish] Kaczynski twins, the real bad guy of the summit is Tony Blair. The opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights he secured for the United Kingdom is unacceptable. Bearing in mind the universal principle of human and citizen rights', this opt-out is extremely destructive for the credibility of the European Union as a community of shared values both at home and abroad. These values are at the very heart of Europe and if the UK doesn't share in them is it openly putting into question its own Community membership. Instead of allowing an opt-out, the EU should rather accept that the UK leaves the European project for good."

http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/pressr...summit@f r.htm

CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS PDF Version, download it here

Britz: a Commentary

I've just finished watching the second part of Britz on Channel Four. I very rarely watch Channel Four these days due to the unceasing torrent of so-called docudramas on 'terrorism'. Of the little I have watched it was very clear to me that it was all psy ops stuff, propaganda based on the already-established principal of being guilty before having been proved to be so.

Since Tony Blair, taking his orders from the criminal Bush junta, gave the green light to the British mainstream media (MSM) to adopt sly, racist innuendo against Muslims and to demonise them, it is very clear to me that not only is Britain still very much a racist country but that that racism has now come out in the open with a nod and a wink from the Blair/Brown governments.

I watched this movie with interest because it seemed to me to be a brave attempt by predominantly white folk to show to a predominantly white audience just what it is that drives certain individuals in the British Muslim community in different directions, one to join the British establishment's secret services and the other to become a suicide bomber.

Yes, of course the plot presented us with caricatures of reality but that was deliberate and intended to make a point: in this case about a cultural group with immigrant roots that finds itself divided in a western society which, with its own agenda, is now persecuting that group and its British-born children.

And yes, that persecution all results from the need of US and British capital to dominate the planet's Oil and Gas resources leading to a US foreign policy based on all-out aggression and imperialism. A foreign policy which the then Premier of the USA's Number One Vassal State, Britain, adopted in its entirety with no questions asked.

The movie ends with a video recording of the dead suicide bomber warning the British that until they cease to support quisling governments supporting aggressive US foreign policy the bombing will go on.

The bombing will go on as long as the West's bombing goes on. This is a war. An asymmetrical war, but a war nonetheless.

The makers of the movie point to the 7/7 bombers as having had a similar intention. The problem there, in my opinion, is that the 7/7 plot was never proven. To this day it has remained an allegation against a group of Muslims by a British government that is characterised, if anything, by the lies it told its people about why Britain joined Bush's war crime against Iraq.

As an ex-colonial I learnt as a young child never to trust the British (government). No British colonial, whether white or of colour, trusted Whitehall. So treating British governments with suspicion comes as easily to me as it might to the Irish. For that and other reasons I never believed the official conspiracy story about 911 nor 7/7. And the fact that to this day there has been no investigation about 7/7, independent or otherwise, must remain the greatest indicator of the British government's complicity in that event.

Britz hammered out the reality of how Control Orders are being used against British Muslims in a manner reminiscent of White Apartheid South Africa. Even the Irish, who for 800 years were the victims of British imperialism, were never subjected to such oppression. An oppression which was solely the result of one man, Tony Blair, whose very credentials for having joined the Labour Party must themselves remain in doubt and as a thing of suspicion.

For it is a fact that Blair was recruited by MI5 when he was at Oxford University and his track record indicates that his political mission was not only to destroy the foundations of Labour Party social democracy but to tie Britain in a death-pact of "shared values" with US capitalism. The fabricated 'War on Terrorism' which was a straight import from the Bush cabal was part of that death-pact. As for Brown, the foundations of a British police state having been laid for him, all he has to do is to build upon it and to keep steering the ship of state on that course.

It is in that light that Britz should be seen, where Muslims finding themselves at the sharp edge of 21st century British imperialism, are very much the 'canary in the cage', the first societal group in mainland Britain to experience the new fascism of the British state.

The rest won't be long coming because, having used their fake 'War on Terrorism' in order to destroy our freedom, having used the inherent racism of whites to scapegoat a sector of British society of colour, these pretend 'anti-terrorist' laws will be used, sickeningly predictably, against all those, white or of colour, who disagree with government policy.

Indeed, I would go so far as to suggest that this article will be unpublishable within the next five years.

Britz was a warning to the people of Britain what will happen if they continue to turn their heads away from reality. For, in the name of their fabricated 'war on terror' the real agenda of both US and British capital is to turn their societies into internal police states and external aggressors conducting a war against the rest of humanity on a permanent footing.

Rising Islamophobia in UK

Tuesday, 30 October 2007 MPACUK

Islamophobia is increasingly on the rise and new anti-terror legislations are frequently being discussed in Parliament. Muslims continue to be belittled and ridiculed and MPACUK continue to struggle. The media continues with their regular uproar, politicians continue playing with Iran. Israel is still abusing Palestinian rights and Iraq is still being bombed. Afghanistan is still crawling with troops and George Bush still thinks he can hear God. What are the Muslims doing? *Digging their heads deeper into the soil in the hope that no-one will notice them? *Throwing shoes at George Bush when he appears on TV and claiming he is the dajjal? *Seeing a bomb go off in Palestine and switching the TV off with just a murmur of sympathy? *Sitting in the corner of a dark room reading 'la howla wala kua tha illa billa'? *Blinking like dummies while non-Muslim campaigners try to fight for their rights? *Tutting disapprovingly about respect when a sister goes out to campaign when they couldn't be bothered to move their own backsides? Did you know? 1) 'The pre-charge detention refers to the period of time that an individual can be held and questioned by police, prior to being charged with an offence. For individuals suspected of terrorism, the maximum period is currently 28 days – seven times the pre-charge detention limit for someone suspected of murder.'? (Liberty) 2) The current 28-day limit of detention without trial is already the longest in Europe? 3) The UK police terrorism arrest statistics (excluding Northern Ireland) show that from 11 September 2001 – 31 March 2007, 96.6% of those arrested under the Terrorism Act, usually in the full glare of publicity, were innocent of any terrorist activity? (Link) 4) The pre-charge detention consultation by the Home Office admits that the case for further extension does not have any evidential basis stating “…since the 2006 legislation came into effect, there has been no case in which a suspect was released but a higher limit than 28 days would definitely have led to a charge.”? 5) “There is a real danger that the longest periods of pre-charge detention will be used for those people against whom there is the least evidence.” ‘Pre-charge detention in terrorism cases.’ NEW LAW Journal, 20 October 2006? Are Muslims going to do anything about this? THE MPACUK RESPONSE MPACUK are alerting the public of the seriousness of such legislation which as shown above is likely to affect the Muslim community above all others. We must ensure that before Gordon Brown formally proposes a bill to Parliament doubling detention without charge to 56 days, MPs are lobbied to vote against this. If you are living in Manchester or the surrounding areas come to our next campaigns meeting to find out how you can get involved. Join MPACUK North with our talk on the rise of Islamophobia and participate in the Jihad! Date: 3rd November 2007 Timings: 4pm - 7pm Venue: Villa Cafe Wilmslow Road, Rusholme, Manchester. Email us now at info@mpacuk.org for more information. If you can't do anything else, then please at least sign the petition against the 56 day detention here

Rumsfeld flees France, fearing arrest
International News

IPS News, October 30, 2007 --Former U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld fled France today fearing arrest over charges of "ordering and authorizing" torture of detainees at both the American-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the U.S. military's detainment facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, unconfirmed reports coming from Paris suggest.

U.S. embassy officials whisked Rumsfeld away yesterday from a breakfast meeting in Paris organized by the Foreign Policy magazine after human rights groups filed a criminal complaint against the man who spearheaded President George W. Bush's "war on terror" for six years.

Under international law, authorities in France are obliged to open an investigation when a complaint is made while the alleged torturer is on French soil.

According to activists in France, who greeted Rumsfeld, shouting "murderer" and "war criminal" at the breakfast meeting venue, U.S. embassy officials remained tight-lipped about the former defense secretary's whereabouts citing "security reasons".

Anti-torture protesters in France believe that the defense secretary fled over the open border to Germany, where a war crimes case against Rumsfeld was dismissed by a federal court. But activists point out that under the Schengen agreement that ended border checkpoints across a large part of the European Union, French law enforcement agents are allowed to cross the border into Germany in pursuit of a fleeing fugitive.

"Rumsfeld must be feeling how Saddam Hussein felt when U.S. forces were hunting him down," activist Tanguy Richard said. "He may never end up being hanged like his old friend, but he must learn that in the civilized world, war crime doesn't pay."

International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) along with the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), and the French League for Human Rights (LDH) filed the complaint on Thursday after learning that Rumsfeld was scheduled to visit Paris.

UN opposes US blockade of Cuba

UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 30 — The United Nations today, by 184 votes, expressed its opposition to the blockade maintained against Cuba for almost half a century by the United States.

A resolution calling for the end of that economic, commercial and financial blockade gained one more vote since last year (Nicaragua), and the only votes against the resolution came from the United States, Israel, Palau and the Marshall Islands, plus one abstention. (PL)

Translated by Granma International

For the 16th consecutive occasion: International community rejects the economic war against Cuba

By Tomás A. Granados

UNITED NATIONS, October 30, (PL).—Cuba has won a resounding victory in its sustained resistance to the economic blockade imposed by the United States by receiving the virtually unanimous support of the world community to its demand to put an end to that measure.

International community rejects the economic war against Cuba

In the vote on a resolution at the end of the debate in the UN General Assembly on the issue of the U.S. blockade imposed on Cuba, 184 of the 192 member states of this international organization asked Washington to halt that practice.

For Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe Pérez Roque this is a historic victory that has special value given that it took place just a few days after President George W. Bush called on the international community to support his blockade policy.

The resolution passed today for the 16th consecutive time highlights the "Necessity of Ending the Economic, Commercial and Financial Blockade Imposed by the United States on Cuba."

As was the case in last year’s debate, the U.S. vote against the resolution was accompanied by Israel, the Marshall Islands and Palau, plus the abstention of Micronesia.

Last year, the resolution against that coercive measure imposed on Cuba by the U.S. government had 183 votes in favor, in itself a record compared to earlier years.

More than 20 countries and representatives of UN groups, including the Non-Aligned Movement, the G-77, CARICOM and MERCOSUR expressed their positions against the blockade during the debate.

Translated by Granma International

__________

Rory's Comments:

In its usual manner, the 'democratic' Press and mainstream media of the UK declared a near total news blackout on this story with only the Communist MORNING STAR newspaper reporting it.

In its Morning News, BBC News 24 commented upon it in passing, smugly stating that the UN vote "had no legal sanction."

The NEW YORK TIMES disposed of the story in 87 words.

How the capitalist media hates it when things don't go quite their way!