z czterech stron swiata

palmela

What are we doing to stop our beloved Britain being taken over?

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

palmela

palmela · Wysłany: Sob 14:57, 29 Mar 2008 Temat postu:

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

palmela

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

European Parliament to ban Eurosceptic groups
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

palmela

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

This article appears in the April 4, 2008 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
The British Empire Is Up
To Its Old Evil Tricks
by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche is the chairwoman of the Civil Rights Solidarity Movement (BüSo) in Germany. Her article has been translated from German.

While Bundesbank chairman Axel Weber, over Easter, was calling his colleague at the American Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, and other central bank heads, hectically, but without result, in a desperate search for measures by which the meltdown of the financial system could somehow be brought under control, the financial oligarchy escalated its efforts to destabilize many regions of the world, and to strengthen its global control under a new version of the British Empire.

Before the reader rejects this short characterization of the situation in disbelief, with the argument—"But the British Empire doesn't exist any more!" he or she should recall that this is not the first time that old wine was proffered in new bottles. Many apparently separate developing daily events don't make the slightest sense, if you don't look at them in their strategic context. In the face of Orwellian control of the media, it is even more necessary, to judge contemporary developments with the eye of an historian, who has not forgotten the lessons of, for example, the 20th Century.

Spiegel-Online—significantly, only in its English edition—described with rare openness, how hectically Easter turned out for Axel Weber, [German Finance Minister] Peer Steinbrück, other central bankers, and Ben Bernanke, who reported on his own futile attempts to save the insolvent investment bank Bear Stearns. The central bankers allegedly discussed whether they should publicize their secret agreement, that they would never let a bank go under, if its failure could result in a meltdown of the financial system. According to Spiegel, they decided against it, to avoid giving the hedge funds and speculators an incentive. But the participants all knew how explosive this agreement was, because it would mean that the profits would be for the private banks, whereas the general public would have to bear the losses; the rich would be richer and the poor poorer: political dynamite.

Week after week, the outcry about the financial collapse becomes shriller, and threatens the existence of more banks, and thus, will exceed the capacity of the Federal Reserve for rescue actions, which, as Carlos de Benedetti, member of the Board of Directors of the Carlyle Group, warns, has already given out half of the funds it has on its books as assets, namely $400-800 billion. Therefore, the only option the Fed and the other central banks have left is printing money through hyperinflation, in the face of outstanding obligations of hundreds of trillions or more; this would mean hyperinflation à la Weimar 1923, whose current phase is already affecting the poor of this world in the most brutal ways.

When British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, of all people, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy spoke, at their British-French summit on March 26-27, of the establishment of a new "Entente Formidable," for more transparency of the financial markets, and better ways to assign value to complex financial instruments, the German government should really learn the lesson that it doesn't pay to submit to the British Empire, by being more British than the empire itself. Because it was first and foremost the U.S.A. and Great Britain, which blocked Germany's demand for greater transparency at all the past G-8 summits. Now, that would be closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. Transparency can only bring the hopeless bankruptcy of the system to the light of day, and prove that the valuation of the instruments only has the character of toxic waste.

A New 'Entente Cordiale'
And what has German Chancellor Angela Merkel gotten out of so misusing the German presidency of the European Union, by subscribing repeatedly to the basic strategic interests of London, namely the ruinous reduction of CO2 emissions on account of climate change allegedly caused by man; Gordon Brown's anti-Mugabe policy, and the transformation of Europe into an oligarchical dictatorship by means of the Treaty of Lisbon? The new "Entente Cordiale" between Great Britain and France, which Sarkozy wants to turn into a "fraternity," is aimed against Germany, no less than was the Entente Cordiale of 1904 itself, which was organized by King Edward VII against the alleged domination of the continent by Germany. Then Great Britain used corrupt elements in France in order to organize France's capitulation to Lord Kitchener at Fashoda, and then to organize the anglophile Theophile Delcassé into an alliance against Germany, which represented one of the pieces on the chessboard on which the First World War was staged. The British-French manipulation of the Balkan wars before the First World War belongs to the same category.

The new edition of that Entente was between Margaret Thatcher, with her "Fourth Reich" campaign against German reunification, and François Mitterrand, was no less anti-German; it led ultimately to the destructive Maastricht Treaty. That Mrs. Merkel has now made herself the most ardent champion of the still-more-fearsome Lisbon Treaty, fits in the tradition of the containment of Germany through self-containment, as the involvement of Germany in the EU corset was commonly called. Accordingly, acting government spokesman Thomas Steg assiduously declared that he doesn't consider the British-French Entente to be established against German interests.

In his speech in London, which was described by the British media in a not-exactly-respectful manner as "unctuous," Sarkozy explicitly placed himself in the imperial tradition of the European colonial powers: "What would Europe be without France's ties with the international Francophone organization, those of Spain with the Hispanic world, of Portugal with the Portuguese-speaking world, and of course, the United Kingdom with the Commonwealth and the English-speaking world?" Brown, for his part, underscored the new imperial alignment with his vision of a "Global Europe," which would also be held together through the integration of the logistical and intelligence aspects of NATO with the civilian aspects of the European Union. The danger of this development will unfortunately not be compensated for by the farcical elements of Sarkozy's visit to London, of which there were many. His attempt to hold his wife's hand during the official parade, was halted by Prince Philip with a soft tap on Carla Bruni's shoulder, while a youthful nude photo of her was auctioned off at Christie's, and decorated the international media.

Media Lies About Tibet
The British empire is attempting, on the one side, to manipulate the American election campaign so that Hillary Clinton resigns, Barack Obama is then destroyed, and then an anglophile combination is installed in the White House; and, on the other side, to militarize the EU. Then London wants to meld the two together into a new Atlantic Empire, an intent which will become obvious at the NATO summit at the beginning of April in Bucharest. But there is as yet another dimension. Condoleezza Rice declared openly many times that (neo-con) Washington would never allow another nation or group of nations to achieve anything like the economic and military might of the United States, which means the imperial special relationship of the United States and Great Britain.

Precisely this development is on the horizon, at the moment that the systemic crisis of the global financial system arrives at its end-phase.

The economic strengthening of China, Russia, and India would lead, under normal circumstances, to the point that these countries, in five or ten years, would not only have world-power status, but also could pull past the Anglo-American-centered empire, in the economic sphere. It is absolutely understood in leading circles of these three nations, that it is the policy of the British Empire to, by all means, destroy the strategic partnership among Russia, China, and India—to separate them, in order to destroy each, one by one.

The Tibet campaign, prepared over many years, serves this purpose exactly. This publication will soon document which organizations, NGOs, and foundations have been working for years to use China's Olympic year for a massive territorial destabilization, and possible secession of several provinces. The Western media are participating in this, fully synchronized with this campaign, and are not at all ashamed to print pictures of Nepalese or Indian troops in confrontation with demonstrators, as if they were Chinese troops in Lhasa.

The hypocrisy of the news coverage is not to be outdone. Even though several Western journalists, such as Geoff Dyer of the Financial Times, have stated that the damage caused by the Tibetan demonstrators was enormous, that does not stop them from condemning only the Chinese side. According to the Chinese press, there were, in the capital Lhasa alone, losses of $28 million, and 422 business, seven schools, 120 homes, and six hospitals were destroyed. How should China react to the fact that Tibet, Xinjiang, Sechuan, and probably other regions have been destabilized from the outside, and, at the same time thousands of "Christian" fundies from the United States are visiting villages, in order to "convert" the inhabitants? And if the president of the Tibetan Youth Congress, Tsewant Rigzin, argues for full independence? How would the German government react if foreign powers forcefully were seeking to split off Bavaria, Baden Wuerttemberg, and Saxony? In India, in any case, leading circles have understood that the campaign is intended not only to destroy China's image, and advance separatism, but also to destroy India's relationship with China.

In Russia, it is very well understood what lies behind NATO expansion, and what is aimed at with the absorption of Georgia and Ukraine into NATO: namely, to further the policy of encirclement against Russia, and, with it, to create an unacceptable security situation. At least on this point, Berlin has resisted the pressure of the empire faction. Russia has made it clear, with the expulsion of 150 members of the BP oil company due to alleged visa problems—in reality, there is suspicion of espionage—that it understands the intention. There have appeared in Russia a whole array of highly instructive articles, which document, primarily, the attempted manipulation of the U.S.-Russian relationship by the British Empire over the last 250 years.

Nuclear Power Alliances—Without Germany!
All these strategic manuevers naturally also concern raw materials and energy. Just as the United States is seeking to get control over the Indian nuclear energy program through the proposed U.S.-Indian nuclear treaty, which has been fully rejected by India's Parliament and scientists, so Great Britain wants to extend control, through its special relationship with France at the just-concluded summit, over nuclear energy worldwide. Industry Minister John Hutton explained that Great Britain would take the lead in the development of nuclear energy globally, which, however, is running into resistance in France, which does not want to lose its own technological advantage. Meanwhile, Russia and Japan have decided to establish a civilian nuclear energy alliance between Atomenergoprom and Toshiba, which would make them leaders on the world market, and has delivered a well-deserved shock to the new Entente Formidable.

And Germany? Germany, in this respect, in spite of all its service to the empire, is totally isolated on the question of nuclear energy, and has just given up the Transrapid maglev project for Munich. Eight billion euros of tax money alone was spent for bad debts at Deutsche Industriebank (IKB), but Eu3 billion for a maglev project that could mean abundant benefits for the whole world—this could not be spent!

We find ourselves not only in the worst crisis since 1945, or 1931, as it now is almost commonplace to say. If we continue on this course, then an asymmetrical global war threatens to emerge out of the systemic crisis, a war by which the British Empire would draw the United States, with its special relationship, as well as a militarized EU, into further wars against Eurasia. Such a third world war would throw mankind into a Dark Age.

The only alternative to that is the emergency conference proposed by Lyndon LaRouche, for a New Bretton Woods System and the construction of the Eurasian Land-Bridge, as the seed crystal for reconstruction of the world economy.

palmela

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

palmela

President Blair Prospect Prompts Opposition in Europe (Update1)

By James G. Neuger

March 7 (Bloomberg) -- Wanted: current or former prime minister to become first full-time European Union president. Must be committed to strengthening EU's global clout without stealing the limelight from EU government leaders.

In other words: Tony Blair need not apply.

Blair, 54, is weighing a bid for EU president, a job set to be created next year. The same questions raised about his 10 years as U.K. leader -- doubts about his EU loyalties, the legacy of Iraq, allegations of showmanship -- dog his European career prospects.

``I don't think he would be the right character,'' says Enrique Baron Crespo of Spain, a former EU Parliament president. A Stop Blair! campaign organized by a Paris investment banker has gathered 24,000 signatures.

The debate goes beyond personalities. It's about whether Britain is serious about leading in the 27-nation EU or abdicates that role to pro-EU continental nations. It's also about whether the EU can overcome its divisions and become an international force to be reckoned with.

President Blair ``would be a bad idea,'' says Jerome Guillet, the Stop Blair! founder. ``He promised that he would bring Britain into Europe and he didn't even try. And the invasion and occupation of Iraq is a pretty bad symbol for Europe, which is built on peace.''

Lisbon Treaty

The job of president -- for a 2 1/2-year term, renewable once -- is the keystone of the Lisbon Treaty, the latest overhaul of governing treaties dating back to the founding of the EU in 1957. It takes effect, assuming all 27 countries ratify it, in January 2009.

Blair was pitched as an ``intelligent'' option in October by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who will chair the summit picking the new president in late 2008. The winner needs a 74 percent majority of votes awarded according to country size. The issue may come up at the leaders' next summit, on March 13-14 in Brussels.

Blair, now a United Nations Mideast peace envoy and an adviser to JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Zurich Financial Services AG, has passed up opportunities to rule out a presidential bid.

Today, Yale University announced that Blair will teach a course in the next academic year that will ``examine issues of faith and globalization,'' the university, located in New Haven, Connecticut, said in a statement.

Blair's Job Search

Blair said he isn't actively seeking the presidential post, true to the EU custom of not claiming a job until you're sure to get it.

He dodged the question at a Feb. 6 briefing in Jerusalem, saying there's ``no point'' talking about a post that doesn't yet exist, the Financial Times reported.

While the new EU setup will end a tradition of rotating the presidency among national leaders every six months, the post is hazily defined. The president will chair summits and ``shall endeavor to facilitate cohesion and consensus,'' the treaty says.

Also unclear is how the new president -- representing national governments -- will get on with the presidents of two other deeply rooted EU institutions. The first is the European Commission, the bloc's executive agency, now headed by Jose Barroso of Portugal. The second, the European Parliament, is held by Germany's Hans-Gert Poettering.

`Sacrifice His Place'

``The president of the commission isn't going to sacrifice his place on the plane to Washington,'' says Andrew Duff, a British Liberal Democrat in the EU Parliament who helped draw up the new treaty.

Since World War II, Britain has been mostly a spectator to European integration. Winston Churchill called in 1946 for a ``United States of Europe'' while waffling about the U.K.'s role. Britain was a latecomer to the bloc, in 1973, and hasn't joined the 15-nation common currency and 24-nation passport-free travel zone.

``I have some difficulty seeing how the president could come from a country that is for a large part outside the union,'' says former Belgian Prime Minister Jean-Luc Dehaene, a co-drafter of the failed EU constitution that formed the basis for the Lisbon Treaty.

Other as-yet undeclared candidates -- trotted out by fellow politicians or the media -- are from small states. They include Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker, 53; Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, 55; Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern, 56; and former Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel, 62.

Perennial Candidate

Juncker's role in midwifing projects from the euro to the Lisbon Treaty makes him a perennial candidate for a more prominent post than running the bloc's second-smallest state. He speaks French, German, Luxembourgish and English, and is Europe's longest-serving prime minister, in office since 1995.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel hinted last month that Juncker is her man. She praised the Luxembourger for sorting out the budget fracas, backing the EU constitution after Blair abandoned it, and flaunting EU symbols like its flag and anthem.

Luxembourg's leader ``has fulfilled his role as mediator in many phases, and I hope he will continue to fulfill it,'' Merkel said. ``We need you.''

Politics often dictates who's available. Romano Prodi became commission president in 1999, five months after the collapse of his Italian government. When his Brussels term ended, Prodi became Italian premier again, in a government that imploded in January. Now he's back reading the help-wanted ads.

To contact the reporter on this story: James G. Neuger in Brussels at [link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

Last Updated: March 7, 2008 14:28 EST

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

palmela

Eurocracy reintroduces the death penalty. Secretly.

AUTHOR: Maurizio BLONDET

Translated by Mary Rizzo

A serious threat is hanging over our heads: the European Charter, without anyone being aware of it, allows capital punishment “in case of war, disorder, insurrection.” A thin dividing line separates citizens from terrorists who ‘deserve to be hanged’. The Lisbon Treaty is being forcefully imposed also in Ireland, which only allows it to pass through a referendum, but it looks like everything’s already been prepared.

The death penalty is not used in any European nation. But now, each one of them is about to introduce it without knowing – or without saying anything about it – simply due to the fact of the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, the so-called European Constitution. This information was indicated by Helga Zepp-Larouche (Lyndon’s wife), who herself was informed by a well-known group of German and Austrian law experts (1).

One of them, Professor Albrecht Schachtschneider, one of the four experts who wrote a famous exposé against the Maastricht Treaty, explained how the death penalty will be reintroduced silently. It is not cited in the text of the treaty, but in a footnote.

Yes, that’s right, those who accept the Lisbon Treaty will also accept the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights with it. The Charter proclaims that the death penalty is abolished, but then it directs one to a specific footnote in which it is written: “Except in case of war, riots, upheaval”. This phrase exposes an extremely serious legal matter.

Tom Sachs
Chanel Guillotine (Breakfast Nook)
1998
mixed media

An entire special penal maximum right is affirmed in a footnote, without any definition of the crimes that shall be persecuted with capital punishment. Who will decide what possible “riots” are of such an intensity to suspend the abrogation of the death penalty? Which courts will pass this judgment? Will they be special course that are set up precisely for the emergency? And when will a series of mass protests start to be judged as an “upheaval” worthy of being punished by death?
And even the mention of the cause of war, that might seem acceptable (many countries maintain the death penalty in their laws of war), instead assumes a terrible ambiguity in the context of the Lisbon Treaty.
Indeed, according to the Solidarity Clause, every European nation is expected to participate in military actions when they are considered to be fighting against “terrorist actions” in any other nation. Obviously, Helga Zepp notes, the concept of “terrorist action” is very indefinite, and it can be filled arbitrarily by the most convenient meanings. Who has the power to define an act as “terrorist”?
This much we know: Israel. The chosen people have the power to define as “terrorist” the acts of self-defence of the Palestinian people, as well as those of the Lebanese Shias (Hezbollah) or to even designate entire States (Syria, Iraq, Iran) as “terrorists”, and we, the European servants, immediately adopt the definition that Israel gives.
As is well-known, Zion continuously widens the latitudes of the criminal types: the proclamations of the Imam of Carmagnola are “association in terrorism” for the various Secretaries of State, and have cost this pathetic character the expulsion from Europe with an extra-judiciary police decree: and for him things could have been much worse, with the Lisbon Treaty, it was his life that was at risk But the rest of us, under the rule of the Treaty, can’t be expelled.
Criticism of Israel for the atrocities they commit against the Palestinians is – as dictated by the respectable law export of the doctored expenses bills, President Napolitano – is pure and simple “anti-Semitism”. Therefore it is already almost “association in terrorism”. With just a slight push (from the “great friend of Israel”) and we all run the risk of being hanged: just like the footnotes say. Would it happen in some dark hall of a Ministry or from the European Court? No one knows.

The text of the Lisbon Treaty will be ratified secretly by the national parliaments, without any public discussion or open debate. In Germany the text has not even been published (and hopefully I will not be mistaken here, but neither has it been in Italy). At any rate, as it stands now, it is all but gibberish for those who are not experts in the field.
To understand it, one has to integrate it bit by bit with the outdated European Constitution – the one that was rejected by referendum by France and Holland in 2005 – because it is this document that the Lisbon Treaty refers to. And in what way?
With the legalistic-parliamentary trick that is notorious in Italy: insertion. The Lisbon Treaty is nothing but a list of expressions like: “Article 5, comma 9, sub-section 2 – word A is substituted by word B”. And on like this for 400 times. Only after a Law student of Leipzig had taken the burden of deciphering it, and had placed it on some web sites, did the German government circulate the text.
Some law experts, among whom the above-mentioned Schachtschneider, and professor Hans Klecatsky, who has worked on the modification of the Austrian constitution, have therefore examined the bureaucratic copy and paste work. They found the death penalty for “riots” in the footnotes and much more besides.
Especially, the definitive deprivation of power of the parliaments: of the European one, the only elective body of the EU, and even moreso the national parliaments, called upon only to for the ratification of whatever the Council of the European Commission should decide, without being able to discuss it. Even and especially in case of “war, riots, upheavals” and “terrorist acts”: it is sufficient that one State, any Secretary of State at all (2), proclaims that a “terrorist act” is underway (which we also know can be provoked as “false flag” operations), and all the countries will be in war, without the right to exempt themselves or a veto.
It is meaningful in comical way that the omnipotent Commission reserves for itself the decisions on everything, except for issues of “foreign affairs and security”: to decide on these matters will be the task of the NATO. In other words, US-rael. We know how they decide and define “terrorist” acts: tomorrow we won’t be able to ever again refuse to participate in the next invasion, for the well-being of Zion.
We repeat: all of this is happening in secret, hidden from the European citizens. Silently, on tip-toes. The proof of this comes from a scoop of the Irish Daily Mail (3).
Ireland is the only, the last country, in which the Lisbon Treaty will be voted on by popular referendum, because this is what the Irish Constitution foresees (and it will soon be abolished). The newspaper had obtained a memorandum to the British government, in which the British diplomat Elizabeth Green makes known the outcome of her behind the scenes meeting with Dan Mulhall (General Director of the Irish Foreign Affairs Ministry for the EU): he had reassured the British representative that the Irish government was committed to an active disinformation campaign towards his citizens, “concentrating the information on the general benefits of joining with the EU more than on the Lisbon Treaty itself.”
No publication, deaf to the “free” press (that “freely” accepts to keep silent). The Irish government has even asked the Bruxelles Commission to “moderate the tone or to delay any announcement” hat could be “counterproductive”, in the sense of revealing the reality to the voters. The Irish government has even decided the date of the referendum, 29 May, “but it will delay the announcement in such a way as to keep the ‘No’ camp in the dark” until the very last moment, so that they will not have time to prepare an effective information campaign.
I don’t believe that this behaviour has ever had a precedent: never in the history has an elected government, that exercises the sovereignty over its people by the delegation of the people, sold its sovereignty to a trans-national and irresponsible bureaucracy in such a surreptitious way. It is clearly a situation that could justify “riots” and “upheavals” by the betrayed peoples. But as we have seen, Eurocracy has protected itself with the force of footnotes.

The revolt against the unelected oligarchy has become a crime against the State, those who oppose this sell-out will be enemies of the State, the only ones against whom capital punishment can be applied. High Treason of the Cold Beast. The Cold Beast is now sure to get the upper hand.
The ratification of the Lisbon Treaty is still incomplete, but already the unelected oligarchs of Bruxelles have decided how to fit the future president of the EU (that’s already been decided too: it has to be Tony Blair) with the “status symbols” that are due to him (4). Barroso has given an “official residence like the White House”, a personal staff of 22 persons, and he will have a private presidential jet like Air Force One.

Author's Notes

1) Helga Zepp Larouche, «Demand a referendum on EU Lisbon Treaty», EIR 7 March 2008. See also: «Death penalty in Europe: only for enemies of the state», Brussels Journal, 13 April 2008. [link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
2) Yrsa Stenius, ombudsman for the press in Sweden, is already trying to incriminate the blogs that in her view “go too far” on Internet, and the lady has lamented, “anyone can write whatever runs through their minds and I think that this tendency could contaminate the big media.”
3) «The Treaty Con - Leaked e-mail reveals government plans to hoodwink voters», Irish Daily Mail, 14 April 2008.
4) Bruno Waterfield, «Palace, jet and staff of 22 for the next European president», Telegraph, 14 April 2008.

Tlaxcala's Note
Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights
Source : Official Journal of the European Communities, 14 December 2007
(2007/C 303/02)

These explanations were originally prepared under the authority of the Praesidium of the Convention which drafted the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. They have been updated under the responsibility of the Praesidium of the European Convention, in the light of the drafting adjustments made to the text of the Charter by that Convention (notably to Articles 51 and 52) and of further developments of Union law. Although they do not as such have the status of law, they are a valuable tool of interpretation intended to clarify the provisions of the Charter.

TITLE I — DIGNITY

(...)

Explanation on Article 2 — Right to life

1. Paragraph 1 of this Article is based on the first sentence of Article 2(1) of the ECHR, which reads as follows:
‘1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law …’.

2. The second sentence of the provision, which referred to the death penalty, was superseded by the entry into force of Article 1 of Protocol No 6 to the ECHR, which reads as follows:
‘The death penalty shall be abolished. No-one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed.’

Article 2(2) of the Charter is based on that provision.

3. The provisions of Article 2 of the Charter correspond to those of the above Articles of the ECHR and its Protocol. They have the same meaning and the same scope, in accordance with Article 52(3) of the Charter. Therefore, the ‘negative’ definitions appearing in the ECHR must be regarded as also forming part of the Charter:

(a) Article 2(2) of the ECHR:

(b) Article 2 of Protocol No 6 to the ECHR:
‘A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…’.

Source : [link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: [link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

Original article published on 16 April 2008

About the author

Mary Rizzo is a member of Tlaxcala, the network of translators for linguistic diversity. This translation may be reprinted as long as the content remains unaltered, and the source, author and translator are cited.

URL of this article on Tlaxcala: [link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

palmela

Analysis: A hammer blow to Europe’s elite
By Tony Barber in Dublin

Published: June 13 2008 14:54 | Last updated: June 13 2008 19:31

From London and Paris to Athens and Bucharest, not one of the European Union’s 27 national capitals felt anything but dismay and confusion on Friday at the Irish rejection of the Lisbon treaty.

The No vote not only blocks the adoption of institutional reforms, such as the creation of a full-time president and a fully fledged EU diplomatic service.

EDITOR’S CHOICE
In depth: Irish referendum - Jun-13Video: Quentin Peel on why Irish voters rejected the treaty - Jun-13Brussels Blog: No camp insists it’s not a eurosceptic message - Jun-11Rate expectations power dollar - Jun-13For peat’s sake no, argue Irish farmers - Jun-13View from Europe: EU’s future hangs on the Irish weather - Jun-08More important, the Irish No delivers a hammer blow at the morale of the EU’s political elites, who only three years ago watched in despair as Dutch and French voters threw out a constitutional treaty that was the Lisbon treaty’s predecessor.

Ireland’s rejection of Lisbon raises profound questions about the EU’s ability to settle its internal arrangements – if not once and for all, then for long enough to be able to project its political and economic power convincingly on a world stage dominated by the US and rising forces such as China, India and Russia.

For EU leaders, who will hold a summit in Brussels next Thursday and Friday, the central questions are what lessons to draw from the Irish No, and what strategy to adopt in order to ensure that the reforms contained in Lisbon are not completely abandoned.

“The lessons are not just for Ireland, the lessons are for the whole of Europe,” said Micheal Martin, Ireland’s foreign minister. “Perhaps there is a disconnect between Europe and its people, between European Union institutions and the people.”

Like other Irish leaders who campaigned for a Yes result, he drew a parallel between the Irish vote on Thursday and the Dutch and French votes in 2005. In all three cases, electorates that are basically in favour of the EU voted No because of a fear that the EU was heading in a direction that they neither understood nor necessarily approved of.

Asked what Ireland’s EU partners could offer Brian Cowen, the Irish prime minister, at the forthcoming Brussels summit, Mr Martin told Irish radio: “It’s not going to be about what anyone can do for anyone else. It’s going to be about finding out what the underlying issues are. We’ve got to reflect and analyse and then move forward.”

For Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, the German and French leaders, the way forward is clear – at least in the short term. They want the Lisbon ratification process to continue, so that in a worst-case scenario Ireland is the only member state not to have approved the treaty.

It may then be possible to offer some special provisions for Ireland that would take account of Irish concerns but would not change the institutional reforms foreseen in the treaty.

For example, in the days before Thursday’s referendum, some politicians and political analysts suggested that Ireland could be offered a protocol stressing its right to set its own tax rates – an issue that cropped up repeatedly in the campaign, even though experts agreed that Lisbon did not in fact pose a threat to Ireland’s low corporate taxation regime.

But John Palmer, a Brussels-based political analyst, said matters were not so simple. “It’s unclear what the Irish vote means in terms of the treaty. The treaty doesn’t affect Irish rights on taxation, neutrality, abortion. It’s unclear to me what assurances Dublin might secure in its relationship with the European Union,” he said.

Another important question concerns the impact of the Irish No on the UK, whose prime minister, Gordon Brown, has fought off intense pressure to hold a referendum on Lisbon and where the opposition Conservatives – tipped by many pundits to win the next election, due by 2010 – are committed to renegotiating the treaty.

The Irish No is also an unpleasant blow to Mr Sarkozy. Ever since he took office as president last year, he had pinned his hopes on France’s six-month EU presidency, starting on July 1, providing an opportunity to put a distinctive French stamp on EU policies on everything from defence and immigration to energy and farming.

Now, Mr Sarkozy faces the prospect of running a “crisis presidency” in which the main issue will be how to salvage something from the debacle over the Lisbon treaty.

EU governments had hoped to have their first substantive discussions at the Brussels summit on who should become the first president of the European Council, the body that groups all 27 national leaders.

Instead, the EU is preparing for a summit of the type it hoped to have banished forever – a meeting dominated by the question of how to tackle a crisis touched off by voters who did not do what their leaders wanted.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

palmela

How EU Leaders Are Trying to Rescue the Lisbon Treaty
By Dirk Kurbjuweit

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]