Just today an article popped up in Ars Technica about the proposed EU telecom amendments. It seems there are certain rights groups that oppose heavily those amendments because they “are dangerous for users’ freedom and harmful to network neutrality”. However by digging in the actual amendment text it becomes apparent that none of the fears promoted by those activists actually hold any water at all. There is no three-strikes rule mention at all, no “Great Firewall”, no filtering rules, nothing. Well, unless good old QoS can be qualified as network filtering…

Quite to the contrary to the image that some would like to promote, the EU parliament has been much supportive of user rights, not to mention freedom in general. One need to look no further than the software patents case to see that the EU parliament is one of the least corrupt governmental bodies active today. But yet many seem to have an inherent need to dismiss most everything the EU does.

There’s no better example to this than the treaty of Lisbon. Thankfully most people are not stupid enough to not understand that progress and freedom are good things, which allowed the treaty to be ratified in most EU countries, but euroskeptiscism has been present just enough to be a pain in the ass. It took a complete anti-Lisbon campaign in Ireland, so it could be marginally rejected in a referendum. There has hardly been any significant pro-treaty promotion in Ireland but yet the best a full fledged lobbying campaign probably funded by US anti-EU money could do was 53%? Color me unimpressed, and unconvinced.

But what are the reasons for opposing the treaty of Lisbon, or even rejecting the EU Constitution in the first place? I’ve heard various arguments thrown around, the most prominent being that Lisbon is in reality the Constitution in disguise, and that the text is intentionally long and hard to read so the people won’t understand it’s content.

The Treaty of Lisbon is actually a long list of amendments to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, which is why it is complicated to read; one needs to cross reference 3 separate documents in order to study the Treaty of Lisbon. However, this is blatantly ignoring the fact that the consolidated versions of the amended treaties are available online at all official EU languages. Anyone can do an analysis of the text, but apparently most won’t at all before criticizing. Outlines of the Treaties content are available all over the Internet, including even Wikipedia.

And yes, the Treaty of Lisbon is almost the same as the rejected EU Constitution, minus the part about official European symbols. Can anyone remind me what was wrong with the constitution in the first place? Besides being called a constitution.

All kinds of arguments have popped up against Lisbon/Constitution. Some have argued that the treaty establishes an EU army and attacks state sovereignty. The text is available online, emphasis mine.

The Union’s competence in matters of common foreign and security policy shall cover all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union’s security, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence. The common foreign and security policy is subject to specific rules and procedures. It shall be defined and implemented by the European Council and the Council acting unanimously, except where the Treaties provide otherwise. The adoption of legislative acts shall be excluded. The common foreign and security policy shall be put into effect by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and by Member States, in accordance with the Treaties. The specific role of the European Parliament and of the Commission in this area is defined by the Treaties. The Court of Justice of the European Union shall not have jurisdiction with respect to these provisions, with the exception of its jurisdiction to monitor compliance with Article 25b of this Treaty and to review the legality of certain decisions as provided for by the second paragraph of Article 240a of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Within the framework of the principles and objectives of its external action, the Union shall conduct, define and implement a common foreign and security policy, based on the development of mutual political solidarity among Member States, the identification of questions of general interest and the achievement of an ever-increasing degree of convergence of Member States’ actions.

Sovereignty also doesn’t really seem to be an issue when you actually bother to read. So again, I’m overwhelmingly unconvinced by the much conservative arguments against Lisbon, and the EU Constitution as well. In contrast, it seems delaying the much needed evolution of the union, has proven to be a real danger. For a very real example, the US government is lobbying to get their hands on private EU citizen data. This is exactly the kind of thing that the EU parliament would kick out of the door, no questions asked, and the Treaty of Lisbon is exactly the kind of law that would give more decision making power to the EU and national parliaments.

Which begs the question. What really is the force behind resisting European unity? Is it just plain old conservatism of the human race, or is it in reallity the result of anti-EU groups lobbying? After all, individual states no doubt are a lot easier to loby and control. With the EU parliament showing no signs of abandoning citizen privacy and rights any time soon, there are bound to be forces scared to hell at the prospect of a united Europe.