We have been told the European project was inspired by an ideal of peace in Europe. Lisbon defiles that ideal, writes VINCENT BROWNE
TOMORROW I will vote No in the Lisbon Treaty referendum and will do so primarily because of the intensified "defence" dimension that the treaty introduces to the European Union. This opens the way to the EU's involvement in an undefined and limitless "war" against undefined "terrorism"; it puts the EU at the centre of the armaments industry and it draws all member states into the terrorism paranoia.
While Ireland may opt out of any military engagement, the Lisbon Treaty ties Ireland into the military conglomeration the treaty envisages. This is bad for Ireland and bad for Europe and I will vote No on both counts.
Foreign and security policy had nothing to do with the European Community we joined in 1973. A defence dimension emerged 20 years later in 1993 with the Maastricht Treaty and we signed up to that on the basis of a promise of massive structural funds. The Lisbon Treaty takes this to a new dimension.
Yes there is a "unanimity" provision regarding military engagements but what it will mean in particular circumstances is unclear. For instance, Article 11.3 states, without qualification, member states "shall" make civilian and military capabilities available to the union for the implementation of the Common Security and Defence Policy. The treaty states: "Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities."
The military thrust of the Lisbon Treaty is further underlined by Article 28 A.4. It incorporates into the EU structure the European Defence Agency which will have a wide-ranging role in defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments. It "shall identify operational requirements, shall promote measures to satisfy those requirements, shall contribute to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector, shall participate in defining a European capabilities and armaments policy, and shall assist the Council in evaluating the improvement of military capabilities".
Aside from its other responsibilities this European Defence Agency will evaluate "the improvement of military capabilities" of member states. It is envisaged that there will be "permanent structured co-operation" on military matters and capabilities.
The military tasks envisaged shall include not just humanitarian and rescue tasks, but disarmament operations, conflict-prevention tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including post-conflict "stabilisation". And it is added: "All these tasks may contribute to the fight against terrorism, including by supporting third countries in combating terrorism in their territories".
There is a requirement on the union to "mobilise all the instruments at its disposal, including the military resources made available by the Member States" to "prevent" terrorist threats in the territory of the member states. Not just actual terrorism, however defined, but terrorist "threats". And there is an obligation on member states to "assist" a member state that is the object of a terrorist attack, again without a definition of what constitutes a "terrorist attack" and, it seems, there is no "opt out" here.
I do not think we should have any part in this, nor do I think Europe should be engaged in this. We have been told repeatedly the European project was inspired by an ideal of peace in Europe. The Lisbon Treaty defiles that ideal.
I have a further reason for voting No. It is because of the democratic deficiency of the European Union and the cynical contrivance on the part of the Euro bosses, including all member state governments, to exclude the electorates of Europe, aside from Ireland, from having a say in this treaty. Effectively, the Irish electorate is also being denied an opportunity for a meaningful say on this treaty by the presentation to it for ratification of a treaty that is utterly and, I believe, intentionally unintelligible.
Yes, there are some improvements on the democratisation front in the treaty but they are inadequate. The Council of Ministers remains the major powerhouse of the European Union and remains entirely unaccountable (no, the ministers are not accountable to their national parliaments, for the inter-governmental nature of the council obscures this).
Yes, there well may be no Plan B, but so what? A continuation of the EU on its present basis is preferable. The argument about us losing influence and respect in Europe if we vote No is a piece of emotional and economic blackmail. We are entitled to make up our own minds without such pressure and we have a right to expect that our partners in Europe would respect our conscientious decision.
I also acknowledge our involvement in the EU has been enormously beneficial to Ireland, not just economically but culturally and socially also but isn't that a reason to vote in the best interests of Europe as we see them? I am unhappy to be at odds on this issue with people I respect such as Garret FitzGerald, Noel Dorr, Brian Cowen, Bertie Ahern, Eamon Gilmore and many others.
But in my view the two overriding issues - defence and democracy - demand a No vote.