 HOLDING THE EUROPEAN UNION
TOGETHER AS A
PARTNERSHIP:
Press statement by Anthony
Coughlan at the National Forum on
Europe meeting
..in Stranorlar, Co Donegal, 18 Sept .
Speaking along with Justice Minister Michael McDowell at
the open meeting of the National Forum on Europe in
Stranorlar, Co Donegal, on Wednesday night 18 September,
Mr Anthony Coughlan, Secretary of The National Platform,
said: -
The constitutionally significant new matter in the Nice
Treaty is the provision that abolishes the veto each EU
Member-State possesses at present on a sub-group of
states using the Union institutions for their own
purposes, and in effect calling the shots for the rest.
The relevant articles, miscalled "enhanced
cooperation," are the only ones to be explicitly
mentioned in the constitutional amendment that is
required to ratify the Nice Treaty.
These articles provide the necessary legal path to a
two-class two-tier two-speed EU - what former Commission
President Jacques Delors has called "A Union for the
enlarged Europe and a Federation for the
avant-garde." They also open the way for harmonising
company taxes for the eurozone countries and making other
special arrangements that the Big States want but other
Members may be opposed to, such as the EU
Constitution being now prepared for the next EU Treaty in
2004 by M.Giscard d'Estaing's Convention.
This core provision of Nice destroys the EU as a
partnership of legal equals. It subverts
fundamentally the classic European ideal. It has turned
this long-time Euro-critic into a defender of the EU as
it stands, as preferable to one run as a power-play of
the big States. It means that this
Nice referendum could be our last chance to influence the
development of the European Union AS A WHOLE, for if any
State should ever say No to an EU Treaty again, by
ratifying Nice a sub-group of EU Members will effectively
have been given permission to go ahead with that Treaty
regardless, under "enhanced cooperation."
That cannot happen now.
These provisions of Nice were not originally in the terms
of reference of the Intergovernmental Conference to
propose changes to the treaties to take account of EU
enlargement. They were insisted on by France and
Germany at the Feira, Portugal, summit meeting, six months
after the Nice IGC had started work, as a political
response by the Big States to the prospect of a large
enlargement.
The Big States need these Nice Treaty provisions,
not for enlargement, but to allow them to establish an
inner political directorate to maintain their hegemony
over the EU, to divide the EU "club"
into two clubs, and to prevent them being politically
outnumbered by a lot of smaller states from Central,
Eastern and Southern Europe.
That is why it is the No-side people are the "good
Europeans" on this occasion, and why Irish citizens
should vote to reaffirm last year's rejection of Nice to
hold the EU together as a partnership of legal equals and
prevent it being dominated by the Big States.
(Signed) Anthony Coughlan
Tels.; 01-6081898/ 8305792; Mobile: 087-9394159
Take a breath, and read this - from
Anthony Lee,
The Delphi Technique was
originally conceived as a way to obtain the opinion of
experts without necessarily bringing them together face
to face.
The change agent
or facilitator goes through the motions of acting as an
organizer, getting each person in the target group to
elicit expression of their concerns about a program,
project, or policy in question. The facilitator
listens attentively, forms "task forces,"
"urges everyone to make lists," and so
on. While s/he is doing this, the facilitator
learns something about each member of the target
group. S/He identifies the
"leaders," the "loud mouths," as well
as those who frequently turn sides during the argument
— the "weak or noncommittal".
Suddenly, the amiable facilitator becomes "devil's
advocate." S/He dons his professional agitator
hat. Using the "divide and conquer"
technique, s/he manipulates one group opinion against the
other. This is accomplished
by manipulating those who are out of step to appear
"ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or
dogmatic."
S/He wants certain members of the group to become angry,
thereby forcing tensions to accelerate. The
facilitator is well trained in psychological
manipulation. S/He is able to predict the reactions
of each group member.
Individuals in opposition to the policy or program will
be shut out of the group.
The method works. It is very effective with
parents, teachers, school children, and any community
group. The "targets" rarely, if ever,
know that they are being manipulated. Or, if they
suspect this is happening, do
not know how to end the process.
The desired result is for group polarization, and for the
facilitator to become accepted as a member of the group
and group process. S/He will then throw the desired
idea on the table and ask for opinions during
discussion. Very soon his/her associates from the
divided group begin to
adopt the idea as if it were their own, and pressure the
entire group to accept the proposition.
This technique is a very unethical method of achieving
consensus on a controversial topic in group settings.
It requires well-trained professionals who deliberately
escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction
against the other, so as to make one viewpoint appear
ridiculous so the other becomes "sensible"
whether such is warranted or not.
The Delphi Technique is based on the Hegelian Principle
of achieving Oneness of Mind through a three step process
of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. In thesis and
antithesis, all present their opinion or views on a given
subject, establishing views and opposing views. In
synthesis, opposites are brought together to form the new
thesis. All participants are then to accept
ownership of the new thesis and support it, changing
their own views to align with the new thesis.
Through a continual process
of evolution, Oneness of Mind will supposedly occur.
The theory of the Delphi and the reality of the Delphi
are, obviously, quite different — the reality being
that Oneness of Mind does not occur but only the illusion
of Oneness of Mind with those who refuse to be Delphi'd
being alienated from participating in the process.
Take another breath now and.....decide
what you are being asked to think about....
THE NICE TREATY'S CHANGES TO THE EU COMMISSION go far
beyond the periodic
loss of Ireland's national Commissioner in an enlarged EU
of 27 States. Much more important than that is likely to
be the way Nice changes the role and function of the
Commission itself. It brings that body as a whole much
more under the control of the Big States,so
reducing the influence of
Smaller EU Members.
This is why the Big States can look with equanimity on
the prospect of losing their national Commissioner from
time to time in an enlarged EU of 27 States, on the same
basis as Small Member States do. For Nice
effecively puts the Big States in control of the EU
Commission as a whole, through the radical new powers the
Treaty gives to the Commission President, and the
fact that Nice provides that qualified majority voting
replaces unanimity in the appointment of individual
national Commissioners.
The National Platform suggests that the emphasis of the
No-side campaign henceforth should be on this point,
rather than on the drawback for Ireland of periodically
losing its national Commissioner in an enlarged EU of 27.
Note the political significance of Nice's changes to the
Commission. It is not so much that Ireland's periodic
loss of a Commissioner will be the problem, but the
changed role of national Commissioners and the Commission
President under Nice:
(a) Under Nice The Council of Ministers qualified
majority, which will be dominated by the Big States,
first selects the President of the Commission. The
President will therefore be someone congenial to their
views;
(b) The qualified majority, dominated by the Big States, then selects the individual national Commissioners
from the national candidates whose names are
submitted by national Governments. If the Big States
dominating the qualified majority do not like the
first national nominee, they will look for another in a
process of quiet, behind-the-scenes negotiation, until
they get the nomination they want;
(c) The Commission President then allocates the
individual Commissioner portfolios, in contrast to the
present position, where these are agreed in advance with
the Member State Governments and remain the same
for 5 years. The offer of one portfolio as against
another can have a big influence in
gaining the compliance of individual national
Commissioners with the wishes of the Commission
President. The Big States can effectively say to a
country, if you do not nominate so-and-so as your
Commissioner, we will give you only a trivial portfolio;
(d) The Commission President can change the portfolios
without Ireland's say-so during his period in office;
(e) The President can shuffle and reshuffle the
portfolios, unlike now, and begin proceedings to sack an
individual national Commissioner. In this respect the
Commission President has more power than when, say, a
Taoiseach sacks a Government Minister. If this happens, a
national Minister remains a TD and can become a Minister
again. Someone sacked from the EU Commission will have no
chance of another EU job afterwards. This will tend to
make
them much more compliant with the Commission President's
wishes;
(f) The Commission President must have the support of the
Big States to be selected. He will therefore be their
man. With his power effectively in their
control, the Big States will control the Commission
as a whole. As a consequence, the Big States will have
much less need than now to maintain their individual
national Commissioners. They therefore need not bother
too much about the effects of a rotating Commission
scheme in depriving them of representation on the
Commission from time to time, because they will
indirectly be able to control the Commission as a whole,
through their influence on its President and the
appointment of individual national commissioners.
signed Anthony Coughlan
Tels.; 01-6081898/ 8305792; Mobile: 087-9394159
..........................................................................VOTE NO !!
1.
500m euro to be used to sell Nice to Ireland - 21.09.2002 - 20:41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Irish Government is to use 500 million euro in grants payable next
month, to sell the Nice Treaty to farmers writes the Irish Examiner.
Agriculture Minister Joe Walsh is also seeking to fast-track cereal
payments worth about 100 million euro from November to October in a bid
to guarantee a Yes vote from the country's 150,000 farmers.
Link to article http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?aid=7635
_______
|
