Polls in UK, Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Estonia show a clear No to the Euro
21st of July 2010
In at least five EU countries there is a majority against the Euro. In referendums you can’t vote “unsure” – only Yes or No count. Therefore below “unsure” has been taken out of results.
In June 2010 polls have been carried out in Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Estonia all showing a clear No.
In Denmark, Danmarks Statistik made the poll for Danske Bank, showing that 56 per cent would vote No if there where a referendum today.
In Sweden, Statistiska centralbyrån SCB made it, showing that 68 per cent would vote No.
In Germany it was Ipsos who made it, showing that 63 per cent would vote No.
In Estonia, TNS Emor made it, showing that 56 per cent would vote No.
In the United Kingdom, the latest poll is from April 2010, made by YouGov, showed that 76 would vote No.
Out of these five EU countries only Germany has the Euro today. The German government has no intention of calling a referendum on the Euro. The EU has said finally Yes to admitting Estonia to the eurozone from January 2011, and the Estonian government has no intention of having any referendum. In Denmark, it is still the official goal of the government to call a referendum with the view of securing a Yes. The governments of the United Kingdom and Sweden have chosen the opposite position, shelving all plans of a referendum on this issue.
French think euro exacerbates crisis
So far we do not have any polls on Yes or No to the Euro from other EU countries. If anyone knows about recent polls, please send us a link about it to ib (at) folkebevaegelsen.dk. However we have found an interesting poll from France made in June 2010 by TNS Sofres for Europa 1, itélé and Le Monde. It shows that 68 per cent of the French think that euro will exacerbate the consequences of the crisis (read more in Le Figaro)
Source: Folkebevaegelsen mod EU, Denmark
EXECUTIVE INTELLIGENCE REVIEW PRESS RELEASE:
Prof. Joachim Starbatty, one of the four German Professors who will file a constitutional complaint against the EU bailout policy, has given an exclusive interview to the Executive Intelligence Review. The interview will be immediately posted on the German EIRNA website and will appear in the coming issue of Neue Solidarität, and will also come out in the next issue of EIR.
In the interview, Starbatty says that as soon as the German government issues a bill for participation in the Greek bailout, the four professors “will proof the text and immediately act.” If the Constitutional Court supports the complaint, “this will create a dynamic situation. This means that an exit of Germany [from the Euro] is not excluded.” If this happens, other nations would follow, giving birth to “a new, stable bloc, he said. This would be less painful than it seems, and “the United States would gain an ally in any future reorganization of the world currency system and the global economy”.
The EU intention to introduce a control mechanism on national budgets amounts to “the development of the EU into a quasi-federal state through the back door. This conflicts with the ruling of the German Constitutional Court on the Lisbon Treaty,” Prof. Starbatty says. Article 136 of the Lisbon Treaty, used by EU leaders to back their intentions, “is no basis for a transfer of political competencies. The Bundestag must express its opinion on that.”
Prof. Starbatty exposes the shock therapy to be imposed on Greece as “fatal.” He added: “It is like German Chancellor Brüning’s policy in the early 1930s: in a severe recession, to cut expenditures, increase taxes, freezing and cutting wages. Brüning did that in order to gain reputation on the international capital markets. The Greeks are currently in a similar situation. No other industrial country carries out this Brüning-like policy because it leads from a recession to a depression.”
Instead, Greece should leave the European Monetary Union (EMU) and its “Euro-debts should be cut down according to the [currency] devaluation. The banks should participate in the consolidation; they consciously took a high risk.”
Another article on the technical background of the Greek crisis:
And and article from the Financial Times by Wolfgang Munchau:
Europe’s choice is to integrate or disintegrate
Monday, 3 May 2010
The aim of the rescue package agreed for Greece cannot conceivably have been to prevent a default. For all the daunting austerity and structural reform it requires, the numbers do not add up. The main purpose I can detect is to reverse the rise in Greek bond yields and stop contagion.
We should not knock this deal from Athens. The eurozone might not have survived otherwise. This column would have been an obituary. I am also glad to note that those in charge gave a positive answer to a question I posed last week, which was whether the authorities would ever get ahead of the situation. They did, and they deserve credit.
But in spite of the readiness to accept extreme austerity, Greece will not get by without some form of debt forgiveness. I can understand why the International Monetary Fund and the European Union did not want to open that can of worms at this point. It would have prolonged the negotiations. In the middle of an acute bond market crisis one has to manage expectations very carefully.
A debt restructuring will eventually be necessary, however, because Greece’s debt to gross domestic product ratio is going to rise from its current 125 per cent to about 140-150 per cent during the adjustment period. Without restructuring, Greece will end up austere, compliant, and crippled.
The decision to take Greece out of the capital markets for three years will prevent immediate ruin but has only a marginal impact on the country’s future solvency. The underlying assumption of the agreement is that Greece can sustain austerity beyond the time horizon of the accord, without falling into a black hole. The latter is particularly optimistic. Standard & Poor’s, the rating agency, last week estimated that Greece would not return to its 2009 level of nominal GDP until 2017.
Last week gave us an inkling of the vicious circles at play in such a crisis. First, a country’s financial situation deteriorates. Then a rating agency downgrades the debt, which in turns triggers a rise in market interest rates. That leads to a further financial deterioration.
Another such loop goes via the banking sector. If a government’s solvency is in doubt, so is the solvency of the banks, whose liabilities are guaranteed by the government. Last week, the banking sector in large parts of southern Europe was in effect cut off from the capital markets.
Angela Merkel and her inexperienced economic advisers have no idea about the dynamics of sovereign crises. They never bothered to look at the experience of other countries, notably Argentina. Waiting until the moment a country is about to fail - which is how the German chancellor interpreted the political agreement she accepted in February - constitutes an abrogation of leadership that is bound to end in financial ruin. It means that everybody, Germany especially, has to pay billions of euros more than would have been the case if the EU had sealed this in February.
On my estimate, the total size of a liquidity backstop for Greece, Portugal, Spain, Ireland and possibly Italy could add up to somewhere between EUR 500bn ($665bn, £435bn) and EUR 1,000bn. All those countries are facing increases in interest rates at a time when they are either in recession or just limping out of one. The private sector in some of those countries is simply not viable at those higher rates.
As I have argued before, three things are required if the eurozone is to survive in the medium term: a crisis resolution system, better fiscal policy co-ordination, and policies to reduce intra-eurozone imbalances. But this is only the minimum necessary to get through the next few years. Beyond that, the eurozone will almost certainly need both an embryonic fiscal union and a single European bond.
I used to think that such constructions would be desirable, albeit politically unrealistic. Now I believe they are without alternative, as the experiment of a monetary union without political union has failed. The EU is thus about to confront a historic choice between integration and disintegration.
Germany can be relied on to resist every one of those measures. In the meantime, European leaders will treat each new crisis with the only instrument they have available: an injection of borrowed liquidity. But this instrument has a finite lifespan. If it is not blocked by popular unrest, it will be blocked by constitutional lawyers.
On one level, I agree with those lawyers. There can really be no doubt about what the “no bail-out” rule was intended to mean. It meant that Greece should not be supported. The EU had to resort to some unseemly legal trickery to argue that advancing junior loans at a massive scale to an effectively insolvent country does not constitute a bail-out. The clause - Article 125 of the Lisbon treaty - is irresponsible. If you follow it, you end up breaking the eurozone. So far, the choice has been to break the clause instead, and now would be the right moment to change it.
So what is the endgame of the eurozone’s multiple crises? For Greece it will be debt restructuring, a polite term for negotiated default. The broader outcome is more difficult to predict: it will either be deep reform of the system or a break-up.
by David Marsh
(The writer is senior adviser to Soditic-CBIP LLP, chairman of SCCO International and author of “The Euro - The Politics of the New Global Currency”)
When Josef Joffe, then foreign editor of the German daily Süddeutsche Zeitung, wrote a 4,000-word essay in December 1997 attacking the planned formation of the European single currency, he published it first in English, in the New York Review of Books. “Never in the history of democracy have so few debated so little about so momentous a transformation in the lives of men and women,” noted Mr Joffe. As if to confirm his point, the article appeared in an abridged German translation in the Süddeutsche Zeitung more than a month later, unobtrusively buried in a weekend supplement.
The episode illustrates past barriers to plain speaking about economic and monetary union (EMU). Many ordinary Germans always feared the euro would be less stable than the D-Mark. Yet, reflecting postwar belief that German interests ineluctably overlapped with Europe’s, there was little discussion of the risks. This went beyond Germany. One senior Dutch central banker, now retired, says most European governments - including his own - agreed the Maastricht treaty 20 years ago without understanding what they had signed into law.
In April 1998, Germany’s parliament voted through the euro with only minimal opposition. Now, the German-in-the-street is making up for lost time. Popular antagonism to public funding for struggling euro members makes Chancellor Angela Merkel highly cautious on emergency aid for Greece.
There is an air of déjà vu. Wilhelm Hankel, Wilhelm Nölling, Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider and Joachim Starbatty, four German professors who launched an unsuccessful anti-euro lawsuit at the constitutional court in 1998, are preparing fresh legal action. Their claims of infringements to the EMU rules, in particular over the “no bail-out clause” preventing joint payment of weaker states’ debts, have a much greater chance of success this time.
As Greece approaches a possible debt restructuring and even a euro exit, questions are due on why warning signals went ignored that weaker eurozone countries were building up unsustainable borrowings. In technical reports during the past two years - well before the recent Greek budget deficit controversy - the European Commission voiced worries about rapidly rising short-term external debt in Greece and Portugal, caused by huge current account deficits. Yet the Commission’s widely publicised, largely laudatory report on the euro’s first decade in May 2008 devoted only three paragraphs in 328 pages to current account imbalances.
Jean-Claude Trichet, European Central Bank president, has been caught off-guard by the German backlash. When criticism of Greek accounting irregularities first erupted in 2004-05, Mr Trichet stated “we must learn from past experience” to prevent recurrence. That such efforts have failed has dented the ECB’s image.
Inadequate discussion of the eurozone’s problems has been particularly acute on the issue of whether monetary union required political union. Both the Bundesbank and Helmut Kohl, the former German chancellor, suggested in 1991 that without political union, Emu would eventually fail. In the intervening years, leading German figures softened their views. In 2006 Otmar Issing, former chief economist at the Bundesbank and then the ECB, said monetary union “can work and survive … without fully fledged political union”. Now Mr Issing says: “In the 1990s many economists - I was among them - warned that starting monetary union without having established a political union was putting the cart before the horse.”
Leading German figures never explained that large deficits in countries such as Greece would eventually impinge on Germany’s own finances. Germany, the main surplus country, has inevitably become the largest creditor of the eurozone’s heavily indebted peripheral nations. As Mr Issing said in 1999, the no bail-out clause was meant to prevent the “negative external effects of national misbehaviour” from spilling over elsewhere. In fact, German taxpayers will have to pay for Greece: directly, through emergency government loans; indirectly, through supporting German banks that will be hit by a Greek debt restructuring; or, conceivably, both.
This is one of many costly facts about monetary union now bursting disagreeably to the surface.
The article from today’s Financial Times points to the lack of public debate across the EU on the real implications of the 1992 Maastricht Treaty’s proposal to abolish national currencies and replace them with the euro.
In Ireland’s 1992 referendum on the Maastricht Treaty the main thrust of public debate was on the Abortion Protocol attached to that Treaty.
There was virtually no discussion of the economics involved, apart from the fact that it would make it easier for Irish tourists to go on holiday on the continent and that it would give us permanently low German-level interest rates! The latter in due course helped impel our early-2000s borrowing binge.
The article mentions Professor Albrecht Schachtschneider and his colleagues, who launched a constitutional challenge to Germany’s ratification of the Maastricht Treaty at the time. This led to the Court’s well-known Brunner judgement, which laid down the constitutional principles governing Germany’s adherence to Economic and Monetary Union.
My colleagues and I had the pleasure of welcoming Professor Schachtschneider when he came to Ireland last September to show solidarity with those urging a No vote to the Lisbon Treaty.
We wish him and his colleagues every success if they now take action in the German Constitutional Court against the breach of the EU Treaties which a financial bail-out of Greece or any other EU State in face of the current bond-market crisis would constitute.
The Bundestag on Thursday (22 April) is set to hold a landmark vote on European affairs, with the first binding EU recommendation for its government to follow in respect to Iceland’s membership bid to join the bloc.
Although not a controversial one, the vote is a premiere in German politics, after lawmakers acquired a greater say on the government’s EU policies. These extra powers were key for the Bundestag last year to approve the Lisbon Treaty, the EU’s new legal framework, which the German constitutional court said did not provide enough parliamentary oversight.
German foreign minister Guido Westerwelle has called for the EU to proceed with plans for a European army under the Lisbon Treaty, which he dubbed “the beginning and not the end” of a common security and defence policy.
His remarks at the annual Munich Security Conference followed a call by Berlin’s defense minister Karl Theodor zu Guttenberg to end what he called Nato’s “absurd” practice of unanimous decision-making.
“The (Lisbon) treaty lays out a common security and defence policy. The federal government wants to make progress on this front,” said Mr Westerwelle. “The long-term goal is to build up a European army under parliamentary control. The EU has to live up to political expectations of its role as a global player.” The foreign minister sketched out a role for such an army as crisis management in a time of resource scarcity, to be developed by willing member states over time as a “motor for closer co-operation” in the EU. In a nod to Nato, Mr Westerwelle said such EU structures would not replace other military structures.
more in Irish Times
Bundesbank President says EU assistance for Greece would be politically impossible
The Telegraph reports that Axel Weber, President of the German Bundesbank and a member of the ECB Executive Board, has said that any EU aid for Greece in response to its economic problems would be counterproductive. He told the German Boersen Zeitung financial paper, “Politically, it would not be possible to tell voters that one country is being helped out so that it can avoid the painful savings that other countries have made”. He added that such a bail-out “is not provided for and, as a general rule, I think such aid, whether it is conditional, or - even worse - unconditional, is counterproductive”.
EUobserver reports that ECB Chief Economist Juergen Stark said yesterday that the state of EU governments’ public finances could lead to further credit rating downgrades and market turmoil. The Commission is expected to give its assessment of deficit cutting measures in four EU member states - Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania and Malta - today. The FT reports that Portugal’s government last night unveiled its budget proposals for 2010 aimed at bringing the country’s budget deficit under control, which stands at 9.3% GDP in 2009.
Meanwhile, in an interview with Les Echos, ECB President Jean-Claude Juncker said “I have been arguing for stronger economic policy coordination within the Eurozone for many years, but I never managed to gain support from all Eurozone countries”. He added, “If we want to turn the Eurozone into an influential monetary, economic and political entity, then we must stop giving the impression that we focus only on budgetary consolidation. The time has come for us to set up an integrated strategy to get out of the crisis”.
thanks to Open Europe
press declaration by Sarah-Luzia Hassel-Reusing, 27.12.2009
On the 22.12.2009, few days before Christmas, the Latvian Constitutional Court has ruled that the cuts in the pensions - because of loan conditions of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and of the European Union (EU) for a credit of 7.5 billions of euro - are incompatible with the Latvian constitution (Satversme) (file number 2009-43-01).( 1) All pensions have been reduced by 10% for still-working pensioners even by 70%. (2) According to the basic principles of the judgment, a part of the new pension law is void from its beginning, and other parts have to be replaced by a constitutionally compatible version until the 01.03.2010. Art. 1 (sovereignty, democracy), 91 (equality), and 109 (social safety with regard to old age, to inability to work, to unemployment, and to other cases regulated by the law), have been violated. The Latvian legislator could reduce social public spending in times of shorter financial resources, but only as far as the basic rights allow this. Already in an earlier judgment the Latvian Constitutional Court has had decided that cuts within the social security system are permissible for the purpose of the long-term securing of the social system. The court, however, regards the actual cuts as disproportionate. Possibly milder possibilities to reduce the costs have not been examined careful enough and special provisions to make sure that no-one sinks because of the cuts below the minimum of social security (which is) prescribed by the constitution.
In addition to that, the Latvian Constitutional Court held, that the basic rights of the Latvian constitution must not be limited by international agreements. While art. 91 and 109 contain basic rights, art. 1 of the Latvian constitution contains structure principles. So the court has stated for Latvia a preeminence of the Latvian basic rights and of the Latvian structure principles before any international law. It has, in addition to that, ruled that the Latvian government may conclude international treaties only with the authorization of the parliament (see art. 68 of the Latvian constitution) – inclusively loan agreements with international organisations like the EU or the IMF.
One may wonder, if there will be constitutional complaints also with regard to the closure of hospitals and the lay-offs in the health sector (3), which have had been enforced by the IMF holding back credit rates, because art. 111 of the Latvian constitution guarantees every inhabitant of Latvia the protection of health and the basic medical supply.
The 22.12.2009 judgment has also effects on European and world policy. Already the German Constitutional Court had held in the first Lisbon judgment (4) at the 30.06.2009 in basic principle no. 4, that the constitutional identity of the Basic Law (German constitution) is higher-ranking than the EU law. The constitutional identity (art. 79 par. 3 Basic Law) contains at Germany the basic rights and the structure principles of the Basic Law (no. 217 and 218 of the first Lisbon judgment). In addition to that, according to the German Constitutional Court judgment of the 30.06.2009, the „tasks of the state“ peace and European integration stand above the EU law.
The Latvian judgment is a milestone for the protection of especially the basic rights, democracy and the rule of the law as well as for the return to normality in the international law. The IMF can autonomously formulate its loan conditions, but it has to accept, that these conditions are complied with only as far as they are compatible with the constitution of the respective country, especially with the basic rights and structure principles. In contrast to the EU law, the IMF law stands, because of the sovereignty (art. 2 par. 1 UN Charter) of the states clearly below all national constitutions and also below the UN Charter (art. 103 UN Charter). All states of the world can now refer to the Latvian Constitutional Court decision – exactly as far as the IMF conditions are incompatible with their constitutions or with international law, which is higher-ranking than the IMF law.
Also the decision, that credit agreements with the IMF depend on the authorization by the parliament as well as other international treaties, is a milestone. Hitherto, in many states of the earth, laws have been changed because of IMF conditions without informing the public and the parliament with regard to the IMF background. This non-transparency should be over now in many states.
In the following a few examples of the violation of basic rights and of structure principles of national constitutions and of universal UN human rights by IMF conditions:
Also at Germany, there are violations of basic rights, structure principles and human rights of the UN social pact because of IMF conditions. (10)
The IMF has, e. g., sent recommendations respectively demands towards Germany at the 11.09.2006. In no. 5 of these recommendations, the IMF has demanded to reduce the job seeker’s allowance II („Hartz IV“) for long-term jobless people by 30%, if they do not try hard enough to find a job. This has been exceeded by Germany with the aggravation of the job seeker’s allowance II at 2007. Now, according to §31 par. 5 of the second social law book (SGB 2), in cases of insufficient proofs of job applications, the job seeker’s allowance II has to be reduced by 30 % steps – in cases of several times lacking proofs down to 0,- euros. The IMF has „only“ demanded one such 30% step. Whenever such a reduction takes place, the law puts, for Germany, the granting of benefits in kind for the very survival into the deliberation of the state. So the IMF has brought the hunger to Germany, to the illiterates, to the dyslexics, to the inhabitants with little knowledge of the German language, and to all other persons, who are able to work, but who have difficulty in proving their job applications. In no. 14, the IMF has demanded, at the 11.09.2006, cuts in pensions, and in no. 15 cuts in the health system, in order to prevent the health fund from becoming too expensive.
The IMF will, if enough states, ngos, and parties will take this historical chance, very soon have to accept first the preeminence of the national basic rights and structure principles and then also of the universal human rights.
One of the next steps for the limitation of the IMF power should be to strip it of its states as a UN special organization. For this status has the effect, that IMF can, legally, draft its conditions without regarding the UN Civil Pact and the UN Social Pact (art. 24 UN Social Pact, art. 46 UN Civil Pact). Here is action by the UN General Assembly needed, because the canceling of the treaty, which makes the IMF being a UN special organization, would close this gap. This is crucial, in order to protect also those human beings, whose national constitutions contain less social human rights than the Social Pact of the United Nations. In addition to that, the immunity of the IMF employees (see IMF statutes) should be removed at least, whenever they disregard the preeminence of the national constitutions. The chances to civilize the often brutal IMF conditions, are good as never before, because the US people will, in view of, simultaneously, the record indebtedness and the fall of the dollar exchange rate, soon urge for the ratification of the UN Social Pact, because the US constitution does not contain enough social human rights, in order to protect the social security of the American people against the conditions of the creditors of the USA.
Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing
Thorner Str. 7
42283 Wuppertal (Deutschland / Germany)
human rights and civic rights activist
5 „Zum Beispiel IWF & Weltbank“, Uwe Hoering, Süd-Nord Lamuv-Verlag, S. 28+29
Israel, which has recently been condemned by the UN Human Rights Council because of their war crimes, asks Germany to build them two new warships – for free.
After the German chancellor Merkel argued in front of the US congress that “whoever threatens Israel, threatens us”, it seems as if Israel will get what it wants. This wouldn’t, however, be anything new: At the turn of the millennium, Germany financed three submarines spending 560 Million Euros on them. In 2012, there will two additional submarines, this time German tax payers will have to pay 333 Million Euros.
As Dr. Mads Gilbert, a Norwegian doctor who had entered the Gaza strip during the Israeli war, recently said: “We must be patient… history taught us that many empires that lasted for centuries had collapsed in the end… We must be optimistic because if we let down that means that we betrayed the Palestinian people.”
And British EU Foreign Minister says: ….
Until she says anything worth quoting you might read some more in What’s Germany Up to Now?:
“Conspicuously absent in the debate over two big-hitting EU posts up for grabs on Thursday, heavyweight Germany has aroused suspicions that it wants another job—president of the European Central Bank. … [O]bservers believe Germany could be saving itself to push for the top job at the ECB—arguably the most influential EU post, as the president governs monetary policy for all the countries that share the euro”
An informative site on “better EU” in German language.
Felix Staratschek from Radevormwald brings you the latest news on Lisbon Treaty.
If you have good texts in other languages, which are serious, you can send Felix a link or the text, to copy it on his page.
Slovakia may also seek an opt-out from part of the Lisbon Treaty if the Czech Republic gets an exemption designed to prevent ethnic Germans expelled after World War II from claiming back their property.
Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico explained the decision on Czech national TV on Sunday (18 October).
“We will not leave Slovakia in a situation of uncertainty if we feel that one of the seceding countries of former Czechoslovakia has negotiated an exception,” he said. “For us the Benes Decrees are such an important part of the rule of law, that we cannot allow for Slovakia to be left in any kind of legal uncertainty.”
Meanwhile President Klaus shows first signs of fatigue:
“The train has already travelled so fast and so far that I guess it will not be possible to stop it or turn it around, however much we would wish to,” Mr Klaus said, referring to the Lisbon Treaty’s entry into life.
Czech people will not surrender easily. On 27th and 28th of October demonstrations will take place in Prague. Citizens Initative D.O.S.T. will be among the organizers.
Hands off from the Czech President
German human rights activist condemns diplomatical and pseudo-journalist excesses
(Presseerklärung vom 15.10.2008)
On October, the 11th of 2009, the British Sunday Times has exposed, that the German and French diplomats have intervened towards the Czech government, in order to reach either the start of an impeachment procedure against the Czech President Vaclav Klaus, or a change of Czech Constitution in order to to take away his veto right against laws consenting to international treaties like the Lisbon Treaty.
According to the Sunday Times, however, under the Czech constitution a president can be impeached only if he commits high treason against the country’s independence or its territorial integrity and democratic order.
Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing, a German human rights activist, who had filed a de-facto in large parts successful constitutional complaint (file number 2 BvR 1958/08), against the German law consenting to the Lisbon Treaty, comments:
“The Czech President is doing exactly the opposite of what would allow an impeachment procedure. With the refusal to ratify the Lisbon Treaty, he preserves the independence of Czechya, because art. 2 of prot. 26 on services of general interest would oblige Czechya, to commission nearly all sovereign tasks to private corporations. With the Lisbon Treaty, europe-wide acting private corporations would subjugate the administration, most of the courts, the drafting of laws, and with erosion mechanism of art. 18 TFEU, even the national security (military, secret service, production of passports and banknotes) and law and order (police, jails). With this fast erosion mechanism, the organs especially of the small and medium-sized member states would be degraded to a façade. They would loose the control over the state, most of which would be run be private firms with private profit and power interests. Like the German company Arvato, which is already running the district administration at East Riding (Yorkshire, Great Britain), and which is interested to run much more municipal administrations all over Europe - possibly also at Prague. Behind Arvato stands the media giant Bertelsmann, which can strongly influence the public opinion. And the Bertelsmann Foundation is counselling countless politicians in Germany and Europe. Strangely enough, the above-mentioned diplomats are lobbying for their own privatization, possibly without knowing this.
The functional privatization of all EU member states, which the Lisbon Treaty would prescribe, would a change of the type of state toward the ‘Gewährleistungsstaat’ (guaranteeing state) - a mass experiment, the consent to which could only be achieved by giving massively incomplete information to the parliamentarians - a case of error or fraud (art. 48 resp. art. 49 Vienna Treaty Law Convention). Most of the theory the ‘Gewährleistungsstaat’ comes from German jurists and has found support, i. a., by the EU Commission, and by interested corporations.”
On the 10.10.2009, an even worse incident has happened at Prague. Mrs. Christina Janssen, a journalist, who is working at the Prague studio of the public German radio ARD, has published a comment on the Czech President.
In her comment, she has explicitly warned, that he should not lean too far through the window, because he might fall. She has mentioned three historical defenestrations in the history of Czechya, one of which had caused the Thirty Years’ War. She has warned: “Was die Tschechen daraus lernen könnten, wäre vielleicht, die Fenster lieber geschlossen zu halten.” (“What the Czechs possibly could learn from it, might be to keep the windows closed.”)
Her comment ends with the words: “Die Fenster stehen offen - und Klaus lehnt sich weit hinaus. Aber es müsste ja nicht gleich wieder ein Fenstersturz werden: Er könnte einfach zurücktreten.” (“The windows are open - and Klaus leans out far. But it does not have to become another defenestration: He could simply resign.”)
A clear threat, that the President of Czech Republic might be defenestrated - illustrated in violent fantasies of a German journalist.
The civic and human rights activist Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing comments:
“Mrs. Janssen acts in this way, because President Vaclav Klaus refuses to ratify the Lisbon Treaty. She uses many expressions, which might be regarded as a disparagement of the Czech President. If someone in Germany disparages the German President, the result can be a jail sentence between three months and five years (§90 of the German criminal code), if the German the German President agrees to the criminal prosecution. She has called the Czech President a ‘populist’, a ‘nationalist’, and an ‘egomaniac’. She regards him as “angezählt” (as having been given the count). She supposes, that the Czech President is leading a war in his mind against the EU and the EU Reform Treaty. She states, that Czechya is regarded as the ‘Tollhaus Europas’ (madhouse of Europe), just because the President refuses to sign the Lisbon Treaty.
The text of Mrs. Janssen contains many violations of the human dignity (art. 1 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UDHR). This is especially grave, because it is directed against an elected President of a sovereign state, so that it might also touch the dignity of the Czech people, and shows a large amount of disrespect to the human right to vote (art. 25 UN Civil Pact).
Further, Mrs. Janssen’s text disregards the human right of the Czech people to self-determination (art. 1 UN Civil Pact, art. 1 UN Social Pact), because he has been elected into office, and she belongs to the German people, not to the Czech people.
The violent words in Mrs. Janssen’s text show a grave lack of consciousness with regard to the human right to safety (art. 9 par. 1 UN Civil Pact).
The freedom of speech certainly contains the right to tell one’s opinion about Presidents of other states, but it has limits, where the human rights and the reputation of other persons are at stake (ar. 19 par. 3 lit. a UN Civil Pact).
The aggressive formulations in Mrs. Janssen’s text look rather like intelligence service - like than news media - like. The ARD should, with respect to the international understanding (art. 9 par. 2 Basic Law (German constitution)), consider dismissing Mr. Janssen soon and should consider an excuse towards the President of Czechya.”
The human rights activist concludes with a further legal consideration: “I do not see a sound legal basis for the above-mentioned interventions of German diplomats and of a German journalist. Czechya is a sovereign state (art. 2 par. 1 UN Charter). The German Constitutional Court has, in the first Lisbon judgement prohibited the supra-nationalization (no. 255 + 342 of the judgement) of the common foreign and safety policy of the EU, so that the rank of the CSFP stays below the national constitutions of the member states and below the UN Charter. So also the CSFP can contain no sufficient legal basis to overrule sovereignty of a state.”
Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing
Thorner Str. 7, 42283 Wuppertal (Germany)
human rights activist under the protection of UN resolution 53/144
At a press conference of Europeans organised yesterday by the Irish No campaign, Professor Dietrich Murswiek from the University of Freiburg said that the media had given the “completely wrong impression” of the ruling on the Lisbon Treaty by the German Constitutional Court. He said that the Court didn’t approve of the Treaty, because it damaged German democracy and sovereignty. The only way it could be passed, Murswick said, was if Germany adopted reforms which would “repair” the damage the Treaty did to national democracy. He said that since the Irish had not taken any similar measures, the Irish people should vote No to the Treaty on democracy grounds.
On a question from a journalist on whether it could really be correct that the entire Irish political establishment, including employer organisations and main political parties, are wrong about the Lisbon Treaty, Professor Murswiek said the German government said exactly the same thing about the Lisbon Treaty before it was challenged in the German Constitutional Court. However, he said, the Court ruling showed that the “German establishment got it wrong”.
The speakers also talked about the pan-European No campaign “Europe Says No - No to Lisbon, Yes to democracy”, established this month.
The Irish Independent reports on the press conference, and quotes Danish MEP Soren Sondergaard saying that he had to “think twice” about coming to Ireland to back the ‘No’ campaign, but that the “interference” by the EU Commission led to his decision to call on Irish voters to reject the Treaty.
Human rights activists condemn interference of former soldier firm
(press declaration from the 27.09.2009)
On the occasion of the eight anniversary of the assassinations of the 11.09.2001, the former safety firm al-Qaeda has, in the form of a certain Aiman al-Sawahiri, threatened Germany in case, that the Germans do not use the elections to the Bundestag for a change (“Umkehr”). At the weekend before the 21.09.2009, Bekkay Harrach, who also is regarded as belonging to the management level of al-Qaeda, put this more precise, that, if Germany did not withdraw its troops from Afghanistan, a rude awakening after the national elections would be imminent (1).
Now, at the first glance, it looks as if al-Qaeda interfered into the German election campaign for the Bundestag, in order to do an illegal kind of advertisement for parties or politicians, who demand the withdrawal of the German soldiers. This seems, however, psychologically regarded, absurd, because such threatening videos rather increase the willingness of the population to make sacrifices for military interventions in the name of the fight against the terror.
At the 25.09.2009, eventually, an audio message of a certain Osama Bin Laden has been published, who is regarded as the boss of al-Qaeda. In that message, he threatens even the whole of Europe, if the Europeans did not withdraw from Afghanistan (2).
For the investigation of the suspected motive, the time of the publishing seems to be even much more relevant than the content of the criminal and strange threatening messages. According to the point of view of German human rights activists, it looks like the mercenary network al-Qaeda wants to attract the public attention, in order to distract the attention from something else, which is happening at the same time, namely the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.
Therefore, it is important to know, that al-Qaeda is former Saudi Arabian security firm, which has, in the 1980ies, supported the integration of mercenaries into the local Mujahideens in Afghanistan (3).
For the insurgence in the 1980ies in Afghanistan, at least 13.770 private soldiers have been deployed. They’ve been rather criminals, which have been disliked in their home countries, then they became islamists (4).
al-Qaeda has, at that time, operated in that milieu as an ally at least of the American and of the Pakistani secret services (3).
Already during the Afghanistan war in the 1980ies, a part of the mercenaries have gone into the drug business. As a result, the number of drug addicted persons at Pakistan has risen from 5.000 (1980) to 70.000 (1983) and finally to about 1.3 millions (1986) (5). These enormous numbers raise the question, if the al-Qaeda network itself is, besides in the mercenary business, also involved in the drug business. The former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds has explained to the US Congress, that al-Qaeda is at 95% financed by drug money (6).
This thesis is supported by the fact, that al-Qaeda has trained and supported the UCK in Kosovo/Kosova (6), which is of immense importance for the distribution of drugs in Europe, which have been cultivated in Afghanistan (3).
al-Qaeda is a mercenary company, which has slipped into the organized crime.
The Islamic façade has, primarily, two functions. Firstly, they can recruit suicide assassins for less money this way, then if they had to motivate them with money alone. Secondly, this camouflage helps them, to veil the identities of changing clients. Security firms are fighting for nothing else than for economical profit. And, by far, not every of them adheres to law and order. Money determines for whom or against whom they fight. This is shown very clearly by the assassinations of the 11.09.2001, which give the impression, that possibly someone else has been able to pay better than the US government at that time. This seems not to have hindered the same firm al-Qaeda, to stay working in Kosovo/Kosova (3).
Already in 1994, al-Qaeda has been active in Albania and on the route (in the region, which is the main distribution centre for the selling of Afghan heroin to Europe) with a market value of 400 billion $ per year (3). A military commander of Bin Laden has fought in the Kosovo conflict on the side of the UCK, which is deeply involved into the drug traffic (3), (6).
According to a statement of John Kasich, a member of the US House of Representatives, from the 05.10.1999, Osama Bin Laden has also appeared, when the USA have built up their relations to the UCK in 1998 and 1999 (3).
Mercenary firms, western ones as well as islamist-camouflaged ones, have been under contract in the Bosnia war, in the Kosovo war, and even in 2001 in the attack of parts of the UCK against Macedonia (3).
On the 10.09.2001, the then US minister of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, has, in a speech of principles, tried to get support for partial functional
privatization (“transformation”) of the US troops (8). The crime of the
11.09.2001 has led to such a fear and confusion at the USA, that there has taken place no sufficient debate with regard to his speech of principles of the 10.09.2001, before in the time following the US army has been reduced by 15%, and before even so sensitive tasks like fighting services and interrogations have been commissioned to private companies (9). Completely in the interest of al-Qaeda, because this has made the market for mercenary firms in the USA and, according to their example, much further, increase dramatically. According to the US example, Great Britain has even privatized the guarding of embassies and even a part of its fighting services in Afghanistan (10).
If now an assassination by al-Qaeda or by whomsoever took place at Europe, the demand in Europe also for private security services would be immensely increased. Just in the interest of the mercenary sector.
The “Treaty of Lisbon” (11) would be the next step for the growth of the market for soldier firms of any couleur. So there is a motive for mercenary firms like al-Qaeda, and for their suspected clients, to covertly support the “Lisbon Treaty”. Because this treaty would basically oblige the member states to commission private companies with their non-sovereign tasks (“services of general economical interest”, art. 14 TFEU) and with their sovereign tasks (“non-economical services of general interest”, art. 2 of protocol no. 26 to the “Treaty of Lisbon” on “services of general interest”).
At the first glance, it looks, as if the “Lisbon Treaty” would at least omit inner and outer security and the most fundamental structures of the state from the commissioning (art. 4 TEU). There is, however, an erosion mechanism contained on the basis of the prohibition of economical discrimination (art. 18 TFEU), by means of which one could claim at the European Court of Justice (ECJ), that any task, which has been commissioned to private companies in at least one member state, would have to be commissioned to private firms in all EU member states 12.
This way, already with the enactment of the Lisbon Treaty, an erosion mechanism would be started, that by means of law suits to the ECJ a part of the fighting services and the jails (like in Great Britain) would have to be commissioned EU-wide.
Very much in the interest of mercenary companies like al-Qaeda would be the solidarity clause (art. 222 TFEU) of the “Lisbon Treaty”, according to which the EU member states would have to deploy military in the interior for the prevention of terrorist attacks. al-Qaida could, already by threatening, cause an obligation for military interventions in the interior. And more and more of this military would have to be commissioned, because of the erosion mechanism described above, to private security firms.
A draft resolution of the Council of Europe (doc. 11787) shows the dangers of the growth of the mercenary sector world-wide (13). It depicts the danger of the violation of universal human rights, of the humanitarian international law, of civil law and criminal law, of increasing influence of private firms and political elites on governmental decisions with regard to foreign, safety, interior, and defence policy whilst violating democracy, and even of threatening the peaceful coexistence of the states. At 2008, the mercenary sector world-wide has already had about 1 million employed people in over 1.000 firms with a turnover of more than 200 billion $.
The time of the threats by al-Qaeda is of special importance. On the 17.09.2009 and on the 18.09. 2009, four new constitutional complaints against the laws accompanying the “Lisbon Treaty”, have been filed at the German Constitutional Court. Three of them (file number 2 BvR 2167/09) have had mainly the goal, to prevent the change of the type of state to the functionally privatized state mentioned above (14). On the 22.09.2009, the four constitutional complaints have not been admitted for decision by the Constitutional Court. On the 25.09.2009, the German President has ratified the Lisbon Treaty.
The atrocious threats of al-Qaeda against Germany have had the effect, that significant parts of the German population and of the German media have been distracted from the constitutional complaints, which are so uncomfortable for the mercenary sector.
The threat of the 25.09.2009 against Europe, however, seems to refer more to the Irish referendum, with the suspected motive to abuse, of all things, the need of the Irish people to more safety, in order to put through mercenary interests, which are threatening their safety.
The following questions need to be investigated urgently:
The sources referred to in the footnotes only serves the explanation of this press declaration. One cannot conclude from this, that the authors of those texts would share the conclusions of this press declaration or vice-versa.
- on al-Sawahiri TAZ article of the 24.09.2009 “Terrorvideo zum Jahrestag des 11. September Al-Qaida droht Deutschen und Obama”
- on Bekkay Harrach TAZ article of the 21.09.2009 “Al-Qaida gegen Deutschland neues Terrorvideo aufgetaucht” and TAZ article from the 22.09.2009 “Ein gefährlicher Mann”
(2) - on Osama Bin Laden TAZ article of the 26./27.09.2009 “Al-Qaida-Botschaft II Bin Laden droht Europäern”
(3) “Der inszenierte Terrorismus – die CIA und Al Quaida” (von Michel Chossudovsky)
(4) Dr. Andreas von Bülow, Im Namen des Staates , Piper publishing house, p. 418
(5) Dr. Andreas von Bülow, Im Namen des Staates, , Piper publishing house, p. 210-211
(6) “Amerikanische Tiefenereignisse und das weltweite Drogennetzwerk der CIA” (von Peter Dale Scott)
(9) “The Shock Doctrine. The Rise of Disaster Capitalism”, Naomi Klein, Metropolitan Books (New York) and Knopf Canada (Toronto)
on the erosion mechanism, which is postulated already today by the EU Commission from sovereign to non-sovereign, see message from the 20.11.2007 (file number KOM (2007) 725)
(15) “Die Medien und ihre Fährtenleser des Terrors” (Ekkehard Sieker)
V.i.S.d.P. (authors of this press declaration):
Volker Reusing + Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing
Thorner Str. 7, 42283 Wuppertal (Germany)
human rights activists according to UN resolution 53/144
Speech from the leading German legal EU-expert:
Constitutional Court ignores anti-constitutional change of the type of state towards the “guaranteeing state” for the second time and publishes incorrect information; situation of peaceful resistance (art. 20 par. 4 Basic Law) enacted?
press declaration from 24.09.2009
On the 22.09.2009, the Constitutional Court of Germany has not admitted for decision four constitutional complaints, each of which have contained applications for interim injunction. One constitutional complaint has been filed at the 17.09.2009 by Prof. Dr. Kerber (file number 2 BvR 2136/09) and three at the 18.09.2009 by the internationally well-known citizens and human rights activist Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing (file number 2 BvR 2167/ 09). You find her complaints here.
The Constitutional Court has published misleading press statement in which it gives the impression, as if at the 22.09.2009 only one constitutional complaint had not been admitted for decision!
by Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider
Erlangen-Nürnberg, 21th September 2009
Short version (Original text available on www.bioniere.org)
For all these reasons one has to reject the Treaty of Lisbon:
Repetition of the referendum on the same treaty in Ireland, even that the French and Dutch People have also said no to the 1st version of this constitutions Treaty plus the Irish NO in 2008 (statement of the editor: This is hardly democratic).
Concessions to Ireland are concessions only and do not change the Treaty (editor: so why another referendum when the Irish people already said a clear NO?).
The national constitutions are to remain – but the laws of the Union will have priority in application. The Irish people are being deceived if something else is pretended.
The Treaty clearly rules in article 311 paragraph 3 sentence 2 (TFEU) that the EU Council may decide unanimously on “new categories of EU financing”. This means NEW taxes in the first place.
With this decision of individual defence sovereignty (which by membership in the NATO is nearly abolished anyway) and defence capability of the member states taking part are completely ended, as is an essential part of their existential statehood. Ireland may in fact refuse common defence, but is then incapable of military defence, also against the military united member states of the Union. This aspect of sovereignty must not be ignored for the future.
Existential Loss of State: By means of the Lisbon Treaty the political situation in all member states will be turned over, mainly because the individual/formerly independent states become only member states in the Union state, the European Federal State.
Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing
Thorner Str. 7
0202 / 2502621
Complete complaint can be downloaded (in German only) from here (pdf, 828,9 KB).
Sie können Verfassungsbeschwerde hier bekommen (pdf., 828,9 KB).
Europa gerät auf die schiefe Bahn. Unbeachtet von den Massenmedien hebelt der Vertrag von Lissabon die nationalen Gesetze aus. Das neue “Herkunftsprinzip” drückt die Lohnstandarts - und Beschäftigtenrechte auf ein Minimum.
Zugleich sollen grundlegende Menschen - und Völkerrechtsgrundsätze fallen. Todesstrafe, Schießbefehl auf Demonstranten, Angriffskriege. Nichts soll mehr ausgeschlossen werden.
Doch es regt sich Widerstand. Die irische Bevölkerung - als einzige der EU Nationen direkt zum Vertragswerk befragt - stimmt mit Nein. Währenddessen formiert sich in Deutschland eine neue ausserparlamentarische Opposition. Sie trägt ihre Angst vor einem autoritären Überstaat der Konzerne auf die Straße.
More at NuoViso
Anti-Lissabon Demo VOLLER ERFOLG!
cca. 1000 Leute in Berlin
(die anderen 45.000 waren bei der IG-Metall in Frankfurt)
for more read here in German
While Sinn Féin’s Gerry Adams urges NO vote to Lisbon and UKIP MEP Marta Andreasen backs his message with her experience of a lifetime (listen to her speech!), Des Dalton, vice-president of Sinn Féin will soon be travelling abroad to discuss these same issues with the locals of Mittel Europa.
Don’t miss the opportunity in Vienna, on 8th of September, since Mr. Dalton will be accompanied by the very best of Germany and Austria - prof. Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider from Nürnberg and dr. Eva Maria Barki, expert in Nationality and Ethnic Law.
For all those from Ireland who would like to see prof. Schachtschneider live and hear his valid legal arguments against the Lisbon Treaty here comes a good news. He will be coming to Ireland at the invitation of Republican Sinn Féin from September 21 to 23.
Dear ladies and gentlemen,
the long-awaited music video “Scared of Lisbon” of the the band “Die Bandbreite” has been published. A great, moving, and courageous EU-critical song. It will reach the hearts of many people. For the protection of peace, human rights, democracy, and public services. The law suit of a German human rights activist (file number 2 BvR 1958/08) - which has been, besides Dr. Gauweiler’s complaint, one of the main reasons for the first Lisbon judgement - has been one of the main inspirations of the song. And many EU-critical people have sent pictures to contribute to the video.
Within four days, nearly 29.000 people have watched it. This is the start for the critical democratical mass. A strong support for the Irish “No” campaign on the Lisbon Treaty. Please inform all people, for whom this song can be important.
Please put a link to the song. It has already encouraged many people to read
the Lisbon Treaty - within four days. To enjoy “Scared of Lisbon” offline, you can also buy the CD. For more information on the band, click here.
Thorner Str. 7
42283 Wuppertal (Germany)
On the web-page of the Walter-Hallstein institute an appeal of 30 prominent jurists has been published, which is going to make some pressure on the Bundestag (lower house of the German parliament), in order to deprive the Constitutional Court of its power in relation to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
With a new §13a BVerfGG (Law on the Constitutional Court), the authors of the appeal, finally, try to bypass the eternity guarantee of art. 79 par. 3 of Basic Law (German Constitution).
The Constitutional Court has in the first Lisbon judgement from the June 30th 2009 decided that the basic rights and the structure principles of the Basic Law which belong to the constitutional identity of the Basic Law, are the highest-ranking law in Germany, and that also the EU law, in art. 4 par. 1 TEU, explicitly respects the identity of the member states, and this way also respects their constitutional identity. In addition to that, there are still complaints pending against the law consenting to the “Lisbon Treaty”, on which no decision has yet been published.
And in such a situation, the authors of the appeal want to deprive the highest German court of its power in relation to the ECJ, even though the Constitutional Court, in the first Lisbon judgement of the 30.06.2009, has explicitly forbidden this!
As if it would not belong to the general education of jurists, that the independence of the courts is not only guaranteed by art. 97 par. 1 Basic Law, but also belongs, according to §4 par. 2 of the Law on the Office responsible on defending the constitution, to the free democratic constitutional structure.
They are drawing a unserious horror-scenario, claiming, that Germany would face huge fines, if it defend its constitutional identity against the EU. This is complete non-sense, because the EU explicitly respects, according to art. 4 par. 1 TEU, the identity of its member states. Such fines would only be legal, if Germany would set limits to implementation of the EU law without a sufficient legal basis or even arbitrarily.
If §13a BVerfGG was implemented this way, one could expect mass protests. We should remember that the unconstitutional deprivals of power of high judges in Ecuador, Russia, or Pakistan have already caused large protests. How much worse then is the deprival of power of the complete highest court as an institution, without asking the people about it!
Among the supporters of the appeal are Prof. Dr. Tomuschat and Prof. Dr. Pernice, the lawyer of the Federal Government and one of the lawyers of the Bundestag of the Lisbon case. It is amazing, that they support such an appeal, instead of concentrating on, which is the best way to credibly protect the interests of the government and of the parliament within the frame set by the Constitutional Court.
Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing
human rigths acitivist (according to UN resolution 53/144)
Die Linke, who claim that the agreement does “not even nearly” match the requirements set out by the Constitutional Court, yesterday repeatedly threatened to make a constitutional complaint. (says Die Welt)
Meanwhile, Czech daily Ceskenoviny reports that a group of Senators from the ODS party will file a complaint against the Lisbon Treaty with the Constitutional Court only after lodging a complaint against the law on a EU-related ‘special mandate’. The special mandate prevents the Czech government from approving transfer of powers to the EU without the parliament’s agreement. Senator Jiri Oberfalzer said that the law needs to change so that Constitutional Judges can control whether individual steps taken by EU bodies are in accordance with the Czech Constitution.
REUC = Renamed EU Constitution
thanks to Open Europe
Volker Reusing and Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing
Thorner Str. 7
42283 Wuppertal (Germany)
Dear ladies and gentlemen,
on a Saturday, in the afternoon of September, the 5th of 2009, there will be a demonstration against the “Treaty of Lisbon”.
The organizers are interested in many participants and in speakers from Poland and Czech Republic. For more detailed informations, please look at the official flyer of the demonstration, or contact Jürgen Elsässer and Sandra Müller.
Volker Reusing + Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing
Time is short for Berlin as the German parliament will soon be dissolved due to general elections on 27 September.
On 2 October the Irish are to vote in a second referendum on Lisbon, with German clarity over the treaty seen as important for securing a Yes-majority.
Germany’s centre-right CDU and CSU parties are expected to work out a deal at a meeting on 21 August, with a first reading in the parliament expected on 26 August. The fast-track plan is to have the law adopted on 8 September.
The legislation could then be approved by the German upper chamber, the Bundesrat, on 18 September. Constitutional court judges in Karlsruhe could only then (i.e. 18 Sept - 2 Oct) decide if their concerns have been met.
Legal Clockwork Orange…