Référendum en Irlande : c'est NON

Les résultats précis ne sont pas encore connus, mais l'avance du Non fait que le résultat ne fait plus de doute : le traité de Lisbonne a été refusé par les irlandais.

C'était le seul des 27 pays de l'UE où un référendum était organisé.

Il est évident que notre perspective est mondialiste : le mouvement marxiste a depuis un siècle porté en Europe l'objectif des Etats-Unis Socialistes d'Europe, dans une perspective internationaliste.

Cette UE bureaucratique et capitaliste ne nous convient évidemment pas, mais le repli nationaliste doit être tout autant combattu.

Un commentaire en portugais : A IRLANDA DIZ "NÃO" AO TRATADO DE LISBOA.

La position de l'Irish Socialist Network (ISN) pour le vote Non :

Vote No to the Lisbon Treaty

By Fintan Lane (ISN)

On 12 June, you are expected to endorse a treaty that you probably haven’t read or, if you did, probably couldn’t decipher. The Lisbon Treaty, in the words of the Belgian Foreign Minister (23 October 2007), was designed to be ‘unreadable’ and ‘unclear’ in order to slip it past a bewildered public. It reads like legalistic gobbledygook. In fact, the Lisbon Treaty is a very carefully crafted redraft of the EU constitution that was rejected by the electorates of France and the Netherlands in 2005. According to Bertie Ahern, 90% of the EU constitution has been retained.

Here’s how democracy works in the EU. Shaken by the democratic defeats at the ballot box in 2005, a group of eurocrats set to work on finding their way around public scepticism and the widespread opposition to the drift towards a European superstate. How could democracy be thwarted? How could the people be circumvented? The result was the Lisbon Treaty, the beauty of which is that, by removing references to flags, emblems, constitutions, etc., the eurocrats were able to avoid having it voted on by the peoples of Europe – everywhere except Ireland, that is. In the Irish Republic, due to a legal case taken many years ago, the government is obliged to submit such major treaties to a referendum.

So, the eurocrats are almost home. All they need now is your acquiescence. They have undermined democracy, they have the establishment parties in Ireland in their pocket and they have a cleverly constructed treaty that could be bottled and sold as a sedative. The voters’ role, apparently, is to do as we are told. Like ‘good Europeans’.

Mmm, yeah, right…well, let’s hope that that’s where this con job finally runs aground.

Like many on the left, the ISN is campaigning for a ‘no’ vote and is affiliated to the Campaign Against the EU Constitution (CAEUC). We are asking people to reject the cynical anti-democratic maneuverings of the eurocrats and their allies in Ireland. How can one possibly trust people who so openly dismiss the expressed will of the people of France and the Netherlands? Despite their rhetoric, these people are not democrats.

Of course, as an advocate of participatory democracy, the ISN is hardly likely to smile on the institutions of the EU. To be frank, we see the EU as primarily an economic power bloc rather than, as we’re repetitively and yawningly asked to believe, an entity constructed to ensure ‘peace’ in Europe. In reality, economics, and the self-interest of the European business elite, have always been at the heart of this project. It is not focused on the needs of the working people. For that reason, the ISN is no friend of the EU. However, we believe there are also two very specific reasons why this particular treaty should be rejected.

* It will undermine workers’ rights and assist privatisation

Trade unions such as the TEEU and Unite (ATGWU) have called for a ‘no’ vote because they believe that this treaty would endanger workers’ rights and could add momentum to the drive to privatise key areas of the public sector. These trade unionists are right to be fearful.

Neo-liberalism is currently the dominant political ideology in the corridors of European power; it is an ideology that Fianna Fáil and the PDs happily adhere to. The neo-liberals argue for a ‘free market’ economy without ‘distortions’. In other words, the market rules and everything should be open to competition, including hospitals, transport, schools, and other social services. It is this regressive, right-wing ideology that is behind the Europe-wide drive to privatise large swathes of the public sector.

The dirty paw marks of neo-liberalism can be seen all over the Lisbon Treaty, which is why groups such as the Irish employers’ federation, IBEC, are vigorously in favour. Indeed, in one of its less guarded moments, IBEC admitted in April, in its submission to the National Forum on Europe, that it supports a ‘yes’ vote because ‘the Lisbon Reform Treaty creates the legal basis for the liberalisation of services of general economic interest (Art. 106). A yes vote for the Lisbon Treaty creates the potential for increased opportunities for Irish business, particularly in areas subject to increasing liberalisation, such as Health, Education, Transport, Energy and the Environment.’ Indeed. Plenty of muck once they get their snouts in the trough. By ‘liberalisation’, of course, they are referring to ‘privatisation’.

In short, IBEC believes its members will gain from the further privatisation of the public sector across Europe and it is certain that this treaty facilitates such a development. And, of course, IBEC is correct. Key articles in the Lisbon Treaty are all about enshrining neo-liberal principles within the legal framework of the EU. Article 3, for example, would give the EU ‘exclusive competence’ in ‘the establishment of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market’. As UCD sociologist Kieran Allen has pointed out, ‘This means that they can override national governments who take measures to “distort” the internal market.’

Public services would be at risk all over Europe, including in Ireland. Do you really want Ryanair running your local hospital?

In addition, the Lisbon Treaty supports the ‘right’ of big business to use cheap labour, driving down wages in states such as Ireland. Competition is king as far as the eurocrats are concerned. A recent European Court of Justice ruling in favour of a company called Laval allowed them to employ Latvian workers in Sweden at rates below the established Swedish standards. This encourages a race to the bottom in terms of pay and conditions.

* It will lead to the further militarisation of Europe

There can be little doubt at this stage that, unless checked, the EU is incrementally moving towards the creation of a federalised superstate. This won’t happen tomorrow and it is not the central objective of the Lisbon Treaty. However, the inclination in this treaty is towards greater centralisation, less democracy, and the enhancement of the EU’s military capabilities.

The Lisbon Treaty includes an explicit call on member states to increase their military spending (Article 27). It makes this call in the context of seeking greater cooperation with NATO, a nuclear-endowed, aggressive military alliance, backed by George W. Bush and other war-mongering reprobates. Protocol 4 of the treaty insists that ‘a more assertive [European] Union role in security and defence matters will contribute to the vitality of a renewed Atlantic Alliance.’

A more ‘assertive’ role in ‘security and defence matters’? What are they on about? Well, a clue can be found in the development of EU Battle Groups, which the Irish Republic is already supporting. An EU Security Strategy has indicated where this might be leading: ‘Our traditional concept of self-defence…was based on the threat of invasion. With…new threats, the first line of defence will often be abroad…we should be ready to act before a crisis occurs.’

Sound familiar? Yes, this could have come directly from the Pentagon. It is a doctrine of pre-emptive war of the type that has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is this a direction in which we want to see the EU go? Clearly not.

The Lisbon Treaty, if passed, would encourage and facilitate the growth of militarism in Europe. Anybody looking back at the horrors of war and genocide in twentieth-century Europe should recoil at such a development – and should vote ‘no’ to this regressive treaty.

Cette UE bureaucratique et capitaliste ne nous convient évidemment pas, mais le repli nationaliste doit être tout autant combattu.

Je ne suis pas convaincu que le vote "Non" en Irlande représente une bonne chose. C'est plutôt, comme tu le dis, une manifestation d'un repli nationaliste et non pas une expression d'internationalisme socialiste.
L'UE est bien une institution capitaliste mais ce n'est pas dire que nous devons nous mettre dans le même panier que ceux qui s'opposent à son existence. Libre à l'"Irish Socialist Network" de prendre la part de la petite bourgeoisie irlandaise contre la grande bourgeoisie européenne s'il le veut mais ce n'est pas une position socialiste. En tant que socialistes internationalistes nous devons simplement dire que nous considérons les controverses à ce sujet comme assez peu pertinentes d'un point de vue de la classe salariée. Quelles alliances commerciales ou politiques un tel pays fait ne concerne que ses capitalistes et non ses travailleurs. Dans ce sens les 47% des irlandais qui se sont abstenus ont mieux fait que les 28% qui ont voté "non" et les 25% qui ont voté "oui". Au moins, eux, ils n'ont pas choisi ni l'un ni l'autre camp bourgeois.

Résultats définitifs :
* Non : 53,4 %. Oui : 46,6 %
* Participation : 53,1 %. Abstention : 46,9%.

La réaction de Barroso, Merkel, Sarkozy, est claire : le processus de ratification doit se poursuivre.
Le processus n'est pas démocratique, pour au moins 3 raisons : 1) le contenu du traité n'a pas été élaboré démocratiquement. 2) un seul référendum était organisé sur 27 pays. 3) une fois que le vote a lieu, si c'est Oui la réaction est "vous êtes d'accord, donc on l'applique", si c'est Non la réaction est "vous êtes pas d'accord, mais vous n'avez pas compris donc on l'applique quand même".

Le problème de ce genre de scrutin, c'est que le Non (comme le Oui) se font sur des motivations différentes, voire contradictoires. Il y a cependant une partie du Non qui est bien un Non internationaliste.

Je me base sur l'expérience d'il y a 3 ans en france. Une (petite) partie de la campagne du "Non de gauche" s'est faite sur des bases correctes, rejetant le manque de démocratie dans les institutions de l'UE tout autant que dans les institutions françaises, contre tout nationalisme, etc. Le 29 mai 2005 au soir, on était dans la rue et on chantait "A bas l'Europe capitaliste, vive l'Europe socialiste" et L'Internationale : on était certes minoritaires parmi ceux qui avaient voté Non...
Par la nature des arguments, il est clair que l'opposition se faisait aussi - voire avant tout - au capitalisme lui-même, et aux capitalistes français en particulier, ainsi qu'au gouvernement.
De plus, la question posée étant "êtes-vous d'accord ou pas avec ce texte", répondre Non si on est pas d'accord est plutôt logique.
Peut-être que la situation politique du royaume-uni t'incite à aller dans ce sens-là ? (d'un autre côté ta position est en gros celle de LO au moment du référendum sur Maastricht en 1992) En france la droite a une position inverse à celle de la droite britannique sur l'Europe.

Il s'agit sur ces questions d'avoir une position qui respecte les intérêts des travailleurs, ce qui implique forcément l'internationalisme et la défense de l'objectif d'une démocratie réelle.

La position de l'Irish Socialist Network (ISN) après du référendum:

After the “No” vote – time to fight for a democratic, social and de-militarised Europe

The ISN welcomes the decision of the Irish people to reject the Lisbon Treaty – a document that would have promoted the militarisation of the EU, entrenched Thatcherite principles in European law, and further undermined democracy. After this result, the Lisbon Treaty should be dead and buried. No re-hashed, re-packaged version of the same document should be foisted on the people of Europe. No means no.

The clear “No” vote is a stinging rebuke for the Irish political elite. The main political parties, with over 90% of the seats in the Dáil, called for a “Yes” vote in the referendum. They asked people to trust them and their judgement when they cast their votes. There is one clear message now – the Irish people have no confidence in their political leaders.

The establishment parties may still have a stranglehold over the Dáil, helped by their massive advantages in terms of funding, media coverage and party organisation when it comes to election time. But the consent with which they rule is extremely fragile. Anyone taking a look at the constituency maps can see for themselves – working-class people were most likely to vote “No”. They are the ones with the least reason to trust our political elite, which again and again shows itself to be in the pocket of big business.

What else can we learn from the result? A number of government ministers have claimed that people voted “no” because they wrongly believed that the EU would legalise abortion. But opinion polls showed that abortion was only an issue for a small minority of “No” voters (according to last week’s Irish Times poll, just 5% gave abortion as a reason for voting “No”). The same goes for corporation tax, which was a marginal concern.

It seems clear that the main reason people voted “No” was because they didn’t understand what was in the Lisbon Treaty. Their thinking was sound, because the Treaty was deliberately crafted to be incomprehensible to the average citizen. Many EU figures involved in the drafting process admitted as much – their goal was to conceal the most controversial proposals by surrounding them with jargon and gobbledygook.

The issue of neutrality and militarisation was also very important. Pro-Lisbon campaigners repeatedly claimed that Irish neutrality was safeguarded by the Treaty. It was hard to tell what planet these people were living on – here on Earth, Ireland is already participating in the brutal occupation of Iraq by allowing US troops to pass through Shannon airport. We don’t have any neutrality to safeguard.

If Ireland is going to have a progressive foreign policy that promotes peace and development and opposes military aggression by the big powers, we will have to start again from scratch. The Irish people took a first step along that road by rejecting a Treaty that called for EU states to increase their military spending and embraced the same doctrine of “pre-emptive war” that has led to a bloody catastrophe in Iraq.

Irish workers had good reason to be worried about other clauses of the Lisbon Treaty that promoted the privatisation of public services. These harmful measures led UNITE, Ireland’s second-biggest union, to call for a “No” vote. They were also highlighted by the broad “No” campaign that united the progressive and socialist Left in opposition to Lisbon.

The Irish Socialist Network played a full role in that campaign. Our members distributed tens of thousands of leaflets in working-class areas of Dublin putting across the left-wing case for a “No” vote. In particular, we worked hard to persuade the people of Dublin North West, where there was a 64% majority for the “No” side on polling day.

Government spokesmen have told us we need to consider how we can “move forward” after this result. For once, we agree with them – in Ireland, the Left which opposes militarism and neo-liberal attacks on the working class needs to ask how we can build on this victory. We have to set about constructing a new radical force, broader than any of the existing groups, that can mobilise people in communities and work-places all over Ireland to fight for an alternative to the status quo. The Irish Socialist Network will play its part in building that alternative.

Le triomphalisme de l'ISN est mal placé. Sarkhozy n'avait pas tout à fait tort en expliquant le "non" irlandais comme étant un rejet de la politique du libre commerce mondial poursuivie par l'UE. Il s'agit peut-être d'un rejet du "néo-libéralisme" mais en faveur de quoi? Sûrement pas l'internationalisme. Plutôt pour le protectionnisme et le repli nationaliste. En ce sens le vote ne représente pas un pas en avant. C'est tomber de la poêle dans le feu. Le protectionnisme tout autant que le libre commerce n'est pas une solution aux problèmes auxquels la classe salariée doit faire face. Seul le socialisme l'est mais le "non" irlandais ne fait pas avancer pas cette cause.

Certes, la victoire du non n'est pas forcément de gauche (sûrement pas). D'ailleurs, le non ne vaut rien puisque les règles du traité sont déjà existante dans les faits aujourd'hui.

Par contre, je me réjouis du rejet car il fallait bien faire barrage, au tant soit peu, aux politiques néo-libérales. Ceci ne veut pas pour autant dire que le protectionisme ou les nationalisations sont des alternatives qu'on soutienne.

Le problème c'est que le débat est tellement bien limité par les gens au pouvoir que toute opposition anti-capitaliste est réduite au maximum.

Here's an alternative, if late, socialist analysis from someone in Ireland of the campaign, outcome and relevance of this vote.

The European Union (although that wasn’t its name at the time) was founded by six, reasonably like-minded European countries by the Treaty of Rome in 1957. The aim then (and still now) was to make capitalism more efficient throughout the continent by organising it on a pan-European scale. The basic tenets of permitting the free movement of capital, goods and ‘labour’ (people in the real world) between member states had the intention of giving capitalists the opportunity to conduct their business in the most profitable location at any moment in time. Over the last 50 years the Union has grown so that it now has nearly 30 member countries ranging from the Mediterranean, to the Nordic states and includes most of the pre 1990 Eastern bloc. In fact most countries in Europe are now either members, candidate members, associate members or at a minimum aspirational members. Like any organisation, as it has evolved over time, its governing rules require continual amendments and the Lisbon Treaty is the latest such initiative. The main thrust of all these successive amendments has been to put flesh on and develop the principle of free movement and free trade within Europe.

The problem for the EU is that there is no longer unanimity amongst what may be termed the European capitalist class as to how the Union should develop and what are the appropriate rules for possibly competing structures for it. The Irish referendum debate and result is a manifestation of this and illustration of how the governing ideas in society are those of the capitalist elite. One section of the capitalist class, controlling large multi-national enterprises that are involved in international manufacture and tradable services are extremely concerned about global competition from the USA, China, India, South America etc. They want to see more integration of capitalism within Europe by the dismantling of any remaining national barriers in order to strengthen their position with respect to these external competitors. Some of this programme would involve having a uniform tax base throughout Europe and a ‘Services Directive’ whereby capitalists in any country in the Union would have open access to markets in all the other countries and not be hindered by any local labour or other regulations. Broadly this section of the capitalist class has the approval of the Brussels Commission, the ruling administration of the EU. Furthermore as part of this programme, they are prepared to accept a stronger social element to the EU in terms of certain aspects of workers rights to in effect partly compensate workers for the increased competitive environment in which they will have to sell their labour in. This political philosophy usually goes by the name of Christian or Social Democracy where capitalist engage with the organised labour movement taking a long term view of the benefits to profits that stem from stability and social cohesion. As against that there is another rival section to the capitalist class. These generally operate smaller businesses acting in predominately national markets or trading almost exclusively with individual countries outside Europe such as the USA. They see no real need or advantage to be gained from deeper collaboration and are at a minimum, suspicious or completely opposed to these developments. To them other capitalists within Europe are as much a threat as those outside the EU. They also tend to be more resistant to the social aspects of Europe viewing it as a cost that confers no particular advantage to them.

Within Ireland, this uncertainty or confusion in the ruling circles of Europe also manifested itself. On the Yes or pro-treaty side was an uneasy and in parts unlikely alliance consisting of most of the important political parties, the employers’ umbrella organisation IBEC, the corresponding labour organisation, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and important sectional groups such as the Farmers organisations. The political parties, although they spend huge time and effort in ritualistic attacks on each other, basically share the same Christian Democratic ethos which fits in with the EU philosophy and explains their support for the Treaty. Given the predominance of multi-national companies in Ireland’s industrial portfolio (who located here specifically to take advantage of membership of the EU), it was no surprise that IBEC also solicited a yes vote. The Union governing body, the ICTU was won over by the social concessions in the Treaty and a desire to be in line with the mainstream labour movement on the continent.

The anti-Treaty side was even more motley in terms of its make-up and consisted of two entirely disparate streams (one from the Right and one from the Left) each in turn containing a myriad of sub-organisations. From the right of the political spectrum were prominent businessmen such as Ben Dunne (retail), Ulick McEvaddy (airlines) and most prominently Declan Ganley (communications). Joining them were a variety of free-market commentators, staunch and unchanging Europhobes and some reactionary populists. The main plank of their opposition to the Lisbon Treaty could be summarised by the lessening of Ireland’s influence within Europe due to the proposed loss of automatic national Commissioners and less ability for Ireland to set independent tax and national macro-economic policies. This Rightist element of the No campaign also included a curious assortment of very traditional and conservative nationalists and extreme Catholics worried about threats to Ireland’s sovereignty and ability to set independent (i.e. Catholic) social policies. The Left side of opposition to Lisbon also had a multitude of identifiable sub-groups each with its own grievance. Although the Green Party is part of the Government, a dissident wing of the Green Party opposed the centralising tendencies inherent in the Treaty. Sinn Fein claimed to be concerned about the effect on the position of Irish workers of unrestricted access to the Irish market by foreign capitalists and also were unhappy with the increasing role of a potential European army and its effect on Ireland’s traditional neutrality. The Greens and Sinn Fein were joined in their opposition by a large number of small groups of Leftist, Trotskyite, Anarchist, ‘Anti-War’ and some bizarre single-issue protest organisations (Rural Hospitals, Palestinian Solidarity, etc.).

Most of the debate was ridiculous. The Yes side warned of economic meltdown if the Treaty was rejected when everyone knew an economic recession was already underway caused by factors nothing to do with the issue. Sinn Fein (an organisation responsible for over half of all deaths in the 30 year Troubles through its former armed wing, the IRA) claimed to be worried about growing ‘militarism’ within Europe. The Left groups opposed the Treaty on the longstanding and remarkably persistent misapprehension that capitalism organised on an international basis is something reprehensible while if the same society exists on a national basis, then that is something tolerable. This presumably stems from their aspiration that national capitalism can be more easily converted into state capitalism than if it has an international character. In fact some of the claims, mostly by the No side, made about the EU were so conspiratorial that they had the air of a UFO crank convention.

In any event, the Treaty was rejected by 53 % to 46 % on a relatively healthy turnout of over 50 %. While both elements of the No campaign claimed credit for the result, the real winner out of the debate is the mysterious Mr. Declan Ganley who in the space of a few short weeks went from being an unknown figure to being the perceived architect of the Irish rejection. He is a self-made millionaire who made his money through his close contacts with senior members of the American Bush administration which yielded a number of lucrative defence contracts with the US military authorities. Prior to that he had advised a number of former Communist countries in Eastern Europe on the implementation of ‘privatisation’ of state assets and interests. He set up the campaigning organisation, Libertas which provided the bulk of the resources of the No side in terms of flyers, posters, billboard and newspaper advertising. The generous funding of this body is mysterious and under electoral rules does not have to be disclosed until next year. Also because it is not a political party, the level of disclosure about its donors is less stringent than it would be otherwise. There are rumours (denied by Libertas) that the organisation is financially supported by right wing elements in the Republican Party in America who see a growing and more integrated EU as a future threat in the same way as they now view China. He is now the toast of Euro-sceptics throughout Europe (at least those of a rightist persuasion) and has become a leading standard bearer of trans-European opposition to the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty. He has been glowingly endorsed by the British euro-sceptics, UKIP and the Tory right.

It is clear that Libertas outspent all the other bodies involved in the campaign. They were helped in this by a court ruling, a decade ago in connection with another referendum which made it illegal for the Government to spend public money on advocating a Yes vote. At the time this ruling was viewed as a progressive measure (levelling the playing field in referenda campaigns) but all it has led to is the American situation where private money now dictates the campaigns and success usually goes to the best funded groups and not those with the best arguments or greater support.

What the future holds for this issue, time will tell. Inevitably it will be resolved by some compromise and the System will continue. In five, ten or twenty years time, people will look back and marvel at the heat and dust that it has raised and maybe wonder whatever became of Declan Ganley. For Socialists such tinkerings with the system are of no real concern. Given that the Treaty itself is mainly technical in nature and independent studies show it will not make a huge change to the day-to-day operation of the EU, whether it is ratified or not will not significantly impact on our lives. Only when the over 90 % of the world’s people, who make a meaningful contribution to life on Earth, realize that their interests need a new outlet, can politics become real and meaningful.
KEVIN CRONIN, Cork

An article in "Irish Times" on the next referendum on Lisbon Treaty:
Poll sends warning strong campaign needed to stop slippage in Yes support

Un artículo de "El Mundo" (reproducido por rebelion.org) referenciando otro aparecido en "Irish Times" (en inglés, en el enlace de arriba) sobre el próximo referendum irlandés en relación al Tratado de Lisboa:
Dublín reconoce que la aprobación del Tratado de Lisboa va a ser 'difícil'

SALUD

Cette fois c'est OUI et décisivement :

The referendum was carried with 67.1 per cent of the electorate voting in favour, reflecting a 20.5 per cent swing to the Yes side since the June 2008 referendum. In the first Lisbon poll, the No side secured 53.4 per cent of the vote.

The turnout was 58 per cent with 1,214,268 people voting for the treaty and 594,606 voting against. This was higher than the 53.13 per cent turnout for the first referendom on Lisbon.

Dublin South recorded the highest support for the treaty, with 82 per cent of ballots in favour. This was closely followed by Dún Laoghaire, which had an 81 per cent Yes vote, a 17.7 per cent swing compared to last year.

Across all 12 Dublin consitutencies support for the treaty was 69 per cent, with a turnout of 59.3 per cent." (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1004/breaking1.htm)

Bien entendu, il ne s'agit pas d'un vote pour l'internationalisme socialiste mais au moins c'est un vote contre le repli nationaliste proposé par les républicains irlandais, les fondamentalistes catholiques et les trotskistes.

Yo pienso que hay que considerar otros factores:
Je pense qu'il faut considérer d'autres facteurs :

1. Este referendum demuestra que en la UE hay que votar cuantas veces sea necesario hasta que se apruebe lo que los gobernantes quieren. Si dices que no, se repite la votación. No se plantean otras opciones distintas. Es una clara muestra de lo que es la ¿democracia? burguesa y de quién tiene el poder.
1. Ce référendum démontre que dans l'UE il faut voter combien de fois c'est nécessaire jusqu'à ce que l'on approuve ce que les gouvernants veulent. Si tu dis que non, se répète le vote. D'autres options distinctes ne se posent pas. C'est un clair échantillon de ce qui est celle : une démocratie ? bourgeoise et de qui il a le pouvoir.

2. La campaña por el "sí" se ha basado en el miedo a la crisis, en decirle a los ciudadanos que si ganaba el "no" estarían peor, lo cual es falso. El Tratado de Lisboa, como sucesor del Tratado Constitucional de la UE, reafirma los modelos capitalistas que, inevitablemente, llevan a las crisis del sistema. En ningún caso es un remedio para la crisis. Al contrario: sus políticas harán más profunda la crisis para la mayoría.
2. La campagne par "oui" a été basée sur la peur de la crise, dans lui dire aux citadins que s'il gagnait le pire estarían, ce qui est faux. Le Traité de Lisbonne, comme successeur du Traité Constitutionnel de l'UE, réaffirme les modèles capitalistes qui, inévitablement, mènent aux crises du système. Dans aucun cas c'est un remède pour la crise. Au contraire : ses politiques rendront la crise plus profonde pour la majorité.

3. El voto por el "no" es bastante más complejo que la visión simplista que establece "Mondialiste". También están por el "no" todas las organizaciones realmente combativas de la clase obrera, independientemente de su tendencia. No porque sean nacionalistas, sino porque saben que el Tratado de Lisboa supone un ataque a la clase trabajadora.
3. Le vote par le "non" assez plus complexe que la vision simpliste que "Mondialiste" établit. Elles sont aussi par l´non toutes les organisations réellement combatives de la classe ouvrière, indépendamment de sa tendance. Non parce qu'ils sont nationalistes, mais parce qu'ils savent que le Traité de Lisbonne suppose une attaque à la classe travailleuse.

SALUD

3. El voto por el "no" es bastante más complejo que la visión simplista que establece "Mondialiste". También están por el "no" todas las organizaciones realmente combativas de la clase obrera, independientemente de su tendencia. No porque sean nacionalistas, sino porque saben que el Tratado de Lisboa supone un ataque a la clase trabajadora.
3. Le vote par le "non" assez plus complexe que la vision simpliste que "Mondialiste" établit. Elles sont aussi par l´non toutes les organisations réellement combatives de la classe ouvrière, indépendamment de sa tendance. Non parce qu'ils sont nationalistes, mais parce qu'ils savent que le Traité de Lisbonne suppose une attaque à la classe travailleuse.

Ce n'est pas le Traité de Lisbonne en tant que tel qui suppose une attaque à la classe travailleuse mais la crise capitaliste que le monde entier traverse en ce moment. Même si le Traité ne passe pas, même si l'Irlande se retire de l'UE, il y aura des attaques contre les travailleurs. Cela étant, la position des « organisations réellement combatives de la classe ouvrière » aurait dû être de prôner l'abstention ou le vote blanc ou nul, pas de s'aligner avec des capitalistes dissidents comme Declan Gangley (celui qui a financé la campagne « non » la dernière fois), ni avec les nationalistes petits-bourgeois de Sinn Féin (qui veut dire « Nous Seul»), et surtout pas avec les intégristes catholiques telle l'ancienne parlementaire européenne Dana Scallon.