AGM Report 2002-2003

This report was presented to TEAM’s Seventh Annual General Meeting in Tallinn, following the AGM in Prague March 9-10 2002, the face-to-face meeting of the TEAM Board in Brussels October 26-27, and the TEAM Council Meeting in Copenhagen on December 15, 2002.

TEAM affiliates

TEAM at present has 47 affiliated organisations in 18 countries across Europe: Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

At the AGM in Prague the following new affiliates were agreed to; As TEAM Members: Campaign for National Independence (Malta). As TEAM Observers: Aktion EU-Austritt (Austria), The Estonian Movement No to EU (Estonia), The League for Free Finland (Finland), Young Socialists Association (Romania) and The Independent Group Faithful We Remain (Czech Republic).

Five of TEAM’s affiliates are represented in the European Parliament. The Green Party of England and Wales and the Green Party of Sweden belong to the Green Group. The UK Independence Party and the June Movement, Denmark, belong to the EDD (Europe of Democracies and Diversities) Group. In June 2002 The People’s Movement against the EU, Denmark, left the EDD Group to become associate members, with an independent position, of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left (GUE/NGL).

TEAM Board

The Board this past year has consisted of Hans Lindqvist (Sweden) as Coordinator, Jean-Paul Bled (France) as Treasurer, Ulla Klötzer (Finland), Anthony Coughlan (Ireland), Nigel Spearing (Great Britain), Gorazd Drevensek (Slovenia) and Helle Hagenau (Norway). Lisbeth Kirk (Denmark), Sharon Bonici (Malta), Pelle Geertsen (Denmark), Alberto Carosa (Italy) and Uno Silberg (Estonia) have been observers on the Board during the year.

TEAM Board Meetings

The Board had its first meeting on Sunday March 10 after the AGM. Since then the Board has had ten meetings in all, eight of which have been phone conferences. A face-to-face meeting was held in Brussels on October 26-27. This meeting focused on the EU Constitutional Convention and the plans for an EU “State” Constitution, which Jens-Peter Bonde, MEP for the June Movement, analysed. Besides this, the Board discussed strategy for the coming EU-related referendums during 2003 and how it might help its affiliates in the countries concerned.

A Board meeting was also held at the time to the Council Meeting in Copenhagen on December 15, after the EU Summit there. The Council Meeting hosted several representatives from Applicant Countries, who described the state-of-play in their countries before the EU-referendums during 2003. A press conference was help at the International Press Centre in Copenhagen, which attracted much interest among the media.

TEAM information and press contacts

At the end of each month a newsletter, with comments on current EU affairs and TEAM activities, has been produced by the Secretary General. Seven TEAM Working Papers have also been produced during the year, published on the TEAM website and disseminated to TEAM’s affiliates and other interested parties. These have covered such areas as the plans for an EU State Constitution, the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy, Civil Liberties, Regionalisation, and EU Enlargement. Besides this, 17 press releases and statements were issued during the year. As a consequence of this an increased interest in TEAM’s ideas and work on the part of the media can be noticed. The TEAM network is becoming more well known internationally.

The EU Constitutional Convention

TEAM has followed the Convention process through meetings with individual EU-critics in the Convention and through the NGO forums arranged by the Economic and Social Committee in Brussels. TEAM’s opposition to a centralised European Union Superstate, and the negative effects of further Brussels centralisation on national democracy, have continually been presented at meetings and in the media.

A preparatory meeting in Brussels was held before the Youth Convention on July 9-12 2002, which TEAM was one of the co-organizers of. More than 50 members of the Youth Convention signed a minority statement stating that this gathering was not representative of the young people of Europe. Several TEAM organisations have also been involved in the national debates on the EU Convention and the planned EU State Constitution.

The second Irish referendum on the Nice Treaty

The Nice Treaty was approved by the Irish people in a referendum on October 19 by 63 percent Yes, against 37 percent No. It was exactly the same Treaty Irish voters rejected in June 2001 by 54 percent to 46 percent. The turnout in the second referendum was 48 percent of the electorate, compared to 35 percent in the first.

The Nice Treaty Re-run in Ireland was conducted under radically different campaign rules from the first time. The neutral, statutory Referendum Commission had during the first Nice referendum the task of informing citizens in a fair and equal manner. It was given substantial public money for that purpose, to put the No case as well as the Yes. The second time, the Commission was deprived of this function. This opened the way to massive private expenditure, which was in a ratio of roughly 20 to 1 in favour of the Yes side.

Also, there was a second question asked in the Nice Re-run, about Ireland not joining an EU Defence Pact without a referendum. This was added to the Constitutional amendment to ratify the Nice Treaty. Voters could only give one answer to two quite different questions, even though many would have wished to give different answers to each.

The Nice Treaty was sold to Irish voters by the Irish Government and its allies with arguments that had little or nothing to do with the content of the Treaty; Better environment, more jobs, higher economic growth. The most grotesque example of the Government’s attempt to buy votes was the payment of 441 million euros two days before the referendum to 100 000 Irish farmers, which is 20 per cent more than they usually receive. A referendum conducted in this fashion can hardly be called balanced and fair.

EU Enlargement

The Copenhagen Summit in December was described as a success, since everybody finally agreed on the terms of accession for the ten EU Applicant Countries. During 2003 the EU is facing its biggest Enlargement since it was formed in 1957. The enlargement of the EU is often described with bombastic rethoric as a historical necessity to “unite Europe” after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Is it really that simple? The supremacy of EU law undermines national democracy, since countries are forced to accept laws they have not chosen or decided on themselves. The Applicant Countries are, through the Copenhagen criteria, forced to fully liberalise their markets in a short time period. As a consequence, their generally weak economies become more vulnerable and because of that they could face further difficulties. The common position of the 15 EU Members in their negotiations with the 10 Applicants is that the latter must all commit themselves to abolishing their national currencies and joining the eurozone in due course, even though Britain, Denmark and Sweden are not committed to doing this.

The costs of EU Enlargement and the money promised to the Applicant Countries show that the present 15 Member States are not interested in paying for a “fair” Enlargement deal. They are more interested in protecting the benefits that the current system, such as the Common Agricultural Policy, provides themselves. The Applicant Countries are likely to become “second class” members of the EU, without the same rights as the 15 Member States. On joining the EU they are likely to find themselves in a situation of dependency vis-a-vis the “first class” members. Their influence in the EU is also likely to be limited because of the dominant role of the biggest EU Member States.

The European Referendum Campaign and demand for “fair” EU referendums

The European Referendum Campaign, sponsored by Democracy International, was launched at a conference in Bratislava, Slovakia, on 16-17 November 2002. The Secretary General attended this together with several TEAM affiliates. The Campaign is seeking that the EU Constitution/Constitutional Treaty should be submitted to citizens in national referendums across the EU, held on the same day as the elections to the European Parliament in 2004.

Several TEAM organisations support this campaign, which seems to be growing in influence. Giving people a chance to have a direct say on the future of the European cooperation by means of referendums is important. However, the quality of the referendums, how they are conducted, is crucial. The TEAM Board has outlined criteria for “fair” referendums in a statement, International best practice for fair EU referendums, and issued these for the guidance of its affiliates and other interested bodies in countries holding referendums.

Unfair EU referendums in Malta and Slovenia

Judged by these criteria the Maltese referendum held on 8 March 2003 can be considered quite unfair and undemocratic. The Yes-side was heavily supported by the Maltese Government and by the EU Commission, both financially and in terms of personnel. The Maltese English-language media was overwhelmingly for the Yes-side and gave quite biased coverage to the No-side. By these means Maltese voters were denied balanced information about the possible effects of EU membership on Malta.

The Yes-side got 54 percent of the vote, the No-side 46 percent. The latter figure may be considered a remarkable achievement in the circumstances. The Malta referendum was not constitutionally binding. Malta’s accession to the EU now depends on the result of general election that has been called there for 12 April. TEAM will take the Maltese referendum case to the European Ombudsman to test the role of the Commission and its supposed impartiality. The upcoming referendums in the other Applicant Countries will also be monitored by TEAM to see how they accord with its criteria for fair referendums.

The Slovenian referendum on EU- and NATO-membership on 23 March, when 89,6 percent voted in favour, can also be considered unfair, according to the criteria for fair referendums. The organisations opposing EU-membership did not receive any state funding, and could therefore not challenge the Government’s massive propaganda.

Henrik Dahlsson Secretary General TEAM