Speech in the debate on the Lisbon Treaty, 6th May 2009 in the European Parliament

Tobias Pflüger, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group - Mister President! The speeches have shown that the Lisbon treaty is not treated rationally, but emotionally. Why do not wait for the new Parliament to discuss this and why do not wait to see if the Lisbon treaty will actually come into force. No, there are people, who are completely fixed on this treaty and want to explain us its reputedly advantages again and again.

Burkhard Hirsch, the old liberal, formulated it very nice. He said: “We should stop to account the Irish as shepherds left out in the rain, who are the only Europeans not capable to understand the blessings of the Lisbon treaty. The referendums would have been decided negatively at other places as well, because neither it could nor it should be possible to obtain an approval of voters to a treaty that even a good willed reader cannot understand.“

The Lisbon treaty is not only regulating the relation between the EU institutions, no, the Lisbon treaty makes decisions in political content. And this is central. Some of these contents: For example article 43 paragraph 1 in this Lisbon treaty stipulates combat operations of the European Union. There is a clause of military solidarity in article 222 paragraph 1a, saying: “all the instruments at its disposal” should be mobilized to “prevent the terrorist threat in the territory of the Member States”. That fact transforms the European Union into a military alliance, even with the possibility of military operations within the Union. Article 43 paragraph 1 is speaking of “supporting third countries in combating terrorism in their territories".

There are a number of regulations in this context, there is the „structured cooperation within the Union framework“ allowing a military core-europe, there is a role for NATO in this treaty and "Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities". In the future – if this treaty should come into force, what I do not hope – there will be a start-up fund (article 41): The EU budget could be used for military causes. That's it for the foreign and military policies.

For the economic policies the economic logic of the Lisbon treaty is exactly the logic that led to the economic crisis: „open markets with free competition“. Exactly that, no one would formulate it this way nowadays. My impression is that the people – especially the so called EU elite – who want this treaty, are indeed living in the past. The conditions have very fundamentally changed. What we need is a new treaty for a new time.

Ireland has decided. The referendum was decided very clear. There was a NO and therefore this treaty is dead. Suddenly there should be a second vote now! When Mr. Sarkozy was elected, who would tell France to simply vote once more, because one doesn't like Mr. Sarkozy? I want to say it clearly: There are good reasons against this treaty which are rational, and therefore it should stay as formulated in Ireland, namely: NO means NO. That's why the Lisbon treaty is dead and I do not understand why we discuss it today in this context.

There is a shift of power within the Lisbon treaty towards the direction of the big member states.

I want to say it quite clearly: We as internationalists defend the European idea against the ones who want to transform the EU to a military power and a purely economic alliance.

We need a different treaty instead of this Lisbon treaty and that means a treaty which is really oriented towards peace and not a treaty like this, which is, at its core, a military treaty.