An election and a referendum

Events just keep happening. Poland went to the voting stations for the second round of the Presidential election and duly brought in the unexpected (at least before the first round) Andrzei Duda of the Law and Order Party. He got 53% of the vote to the outgoing President Komorowski's 47%. Official results will be announced tomorrow when we shall know the turn-out as well.

This is a remarkable and decisive victory for Mr Duda. It's remarkable because he is a relative unknown and Mr Komorowski has been a popular president. It suggests that many Poles have grown weary of President Komorowski's backers, the governing centre-right Civic Platform party.

In its eight years in office the party has maintained Poland's economic growth despite the financial crisis. But it has also reneged on some of its promises and increased the retirement age, an unpopular move.

Poland is gradually catching up to Western Europe's living standards but youth unemployment is high and Poles can still earn much more in the UK or Germany. Many Poles simply do not feel the benefit of 25 years of near uninterrupted growth and Mr Duda appeals to them.

He has promised to bring the retirement age back down, but he'd need his Law and Justice party to win this autumn's parliamentary elections to be able to do that. It's been 10 years since they won an election but many think that may now happen. If it does, judging by its last spell in office in 2005-2007, Poland will become more inward looking and much less at ease with its EU partners.

Why Poles, who just like all others in the developed world live longer and are healthier for longer should want to spend an ever larger proportion of their lives on the scrap heap, living on an inadequate pension is anybody's guess but one can understand why many of them are sceptical about the much-touted economic growth when they look at the huge exodus of the economically active population to the West.

Meanwhile, there was also a referendum in Ireland but this was about same-sex marriage, which was voted through, the first time such a measure has been passed via a plebiscite. What, one wonders, would those Irish writers who have made their names describing a gloomy priest-ridden Ireland have said or, indeed, will say, since many of them are still around.

The actual subject of the plebiscite is of no interest to this blog. But one thing struck me as worthy of comment and that is the huge campaign to bring people who had left to work in other countries (not unknown in Irish history) back to vote or as the hashtag had it: #Hometovote. Many, it seems, responded and took trains and planes and cars and, for all I know, bicycles to do just that, as this ex-pat relates.

It appears that 60.5% of the population, which must include the ex-pats, turned out and 62% of them voted yes to gay marriage. That is pretty decisive. And, undoubtedly, it is very touching that the Irish diaspora who have not the slightest intention of living in Ireland ever again, cared enough to come back to vote but it does raise some questions that we shall have to be dealing with when a very different referendum rolls around. At present anyone who has lived abroad more than a certain number of years has no right to vote here but that might change as the Conservatives have been hinting that they might look at the issue again. Nor is the ex-pat British vote, even at its largest, likely to be such a large percentage of the electorate as it is in the much smaller Ireland. All the same, what about that #Hometovote? How do we feel about it?

Declan Ganley again

This is a little hard to credit but, apparently, Declan Ganley of Libertas fame (or infamy) "Declan Ganley in what is thought to be one of the first libel actions taken by an Irish person over comments made on social media sites".

The blogger in question, Kevin Barrington, has apologized and made a substantial donation to the Poor Clares.

Mr Tweed [Mr Ganley's lawyer] said Mr Ganley was used to criticism but the comments made were “grossly offensive and personal”. “He was called the most outrageous things,” he said.

This is a little worrying when I recall what I said about Mr Ganley here, here, here and here. There are also a few less than complimentary postings by the Boss.

Hmm. Anyone knows a good libel defence lawyer?

It ain't over till it's over

And that could apply to just about everything: the euro, the Coalition government, the Greek economy (no, I guess, that one is over) and the latest Irish referendum vote, which will not require a second one as it went the "right" way.

Our chaps are not giving up, though. I had the following e-mail from Anthony Coughlan of The National Platform EU Research and Information Centre, which is the leading eurosceptic group in that country:

Dear Friends,

The item below may interest you in that it seeks to draw attention to the constitutional challenge which is taking place in the Irish Courts to the ratification of the European Stability Mechanism Treaty and the Article 136 TFEU amendment of the EU Treaties which authorises the ESM Treaty for the Eurozone.

This constitutional challenge has been launched by an Independent member of the Irish Parliament (Dáil) for Co.Donegal, Mr Thomas Pringle. His case is due for hearing in the High Court in Dublin on 19 June.

There are also constitutional challenges to the ESM Treaty in Germany and Estonia. The item below is a copy of a letter to the German Ambassador in Ireland requesting him to urge his Government not to ratify the ESM Treaty until the issues raised by Deputy Pringle have been adjudicated on by the Irish Courts.

The letter sets out the reasons for regarding the ESM Treaty and the Article 136 TFEU amendment in so far as it authorises that treaty as in breach of the EU Treaties and in violation of the Irish Constitution.

Similar letters have been sent individually to the Ambassadors in Ireland of the other EU/Eurozone countries which have not yet ratified the ESM Treaty or approved the Article 136 TFEU amendment.

Here is the letter itself:

FROM: 


The National Platform EU Research and Information Centre 
24 Crawford Avenue 
Dublin 9 
Ireland 
Tel.: 00-353-1-8305792 


 Friday 1 June 2012 


 Your Excellency, 


I am writing to you on behalf of this organisation to request you to draw your Government’s attention to the fact that the proposal to ratify the European Stability Mechanism Treaty as it stands and to approve the Article 136 TFEU amendment to the EU Treaties as authorizing the Stability Mechanism envisaged in the ESM Treaty, are unlawful under the EU Treaties and are therefore unconstitutional in Ireland and the other EU Member States. 


I am writing on similar lines to the Ambassadors to Ireland of the other EU Member States which have not yet ratified the ESM Treaty or approved the Article 136 TFEU amendment. 


You are doubtless aware that there are constitutional challenges to the ESM Treaty and the Article 136 TFEU amendment in your own country, in Estonia and in Ireland. In this country Independent Dáil Deputy for Donegal Mr Thomas Pringle has launched a constitutional challenge on these matters which opens in the Irish High Court on 19 June. 


We are informed that Deputy Pringle’s lawyers are seeking a constitutional referendum in Ireland on the ESM Treaty. They are also claiming that the EU Treaties should be amended under a different provision of the Art.48 TEU treaty revision procedure than that being currently used if the ESM Treaty as it stands is to be lawfully ratified under EU law. 


Deputy Pringle’s legal action is seeking to defend the principle that the EU is an entity governed by the rule of law in face of a political attempt to change the EU treaties by subterfuge and to open a way to transforming the present EMU into a fiscal-political union for the Eurozone. 


While my colleagues and I are not involved in Deputy Pringle’s action, we and many other Irish people share his concerns that the integrity of the existing EU Treaties and the Irish Constitution be upheld in face of the attempt by some Eurozone Governments effectively to take the Eurozone captive for their own ends and to organize the Economic and Monetary Union on quite different principles from heretofore by means of this ESM Treaty. 


May we respectfully request you therefore to urge your Government not to proceed with your country’s ratification of the ESM Treaty or approval of the Article 136 TFEU authorisation until the Irish Courts have ruled on the issues raised by this constitutional action. 


The reasons which lead us to believe that the ESM Treaty as it stands is illegal under EU law and unconstitutional in Ireland are the following:- 


1.) Article 3 TFEU of the EU Treaties which have been agreed by all 27 EU Member States provides that monetary policy for the countries using the euro is a matter of “exclusive competence” of the EU as a whole. It is not therefore open to the 17 Member States of the Eurozone to attempt effectively to diminish the competence of the Union and to establish among themselves a Stability Mechanism entailing a €700 billion permanent bailout fund to lend to Eurozone governments as envisaged in the ESM Treaty. 


This ESM fund, to which Ireland would have to make significant contributions for the indefinite future, would trench profoundly on monetary policy for the euro area. The Stability Mechanism envisaged in the ESM Treaty is effectively an attempt to find a way round the “no bailouts” provision of Article 125 TFEU, whereby it is forbidden for the EU to take on the debt of Member States or for Member States to take on the debt of other Member States. It also breaches other EU Treaty articles. 


The ESM Treaty if ratified as it stands would effectively amount to an attempt to open a legal-political path to what France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy called for last November, namely “A Federation for the Eurozone and a Confederation for the rest of the EU”. 


A radical step of this kind, which would transform the Economic and Monetary Union from what it has been up to now, may only lawfully be taken by means of the “ordinary” treaty amendment procedure of Art.48.2 TEU. It cannot lawfully be done by means of a mere Decision of the European Council of Prime Ministers and Presidents under the “simplified” treaty amendment procedure of Art.48.6 TEU. 


The latter procedure is meant to deal with minor technical amendments to the treaties, but it is currently being used by the governments of the 17 Eurozone countries in an attempt to alter radically the character of the EMU by ratifying this ESM Treaty as it stands. 


2.) How can it be lawful for the ESM Treaty to permit a permanent ESM loan fund to be established for the 17 Eurozone countries when the express terms of the Article 136 TFEU amendment, agreed by all 27 EU Governments, authorises a Stability Mechanism only if that is established unanimously by the Eurozone States, as the general provisions of EU law require, viz: “THE Member States whose currency is the euro may establish a stability mechanism to be activated if indispensable to safeguard the stability of the euro area AS A WHOLE ” (emphasis in capitals added)? 


The Art.136 amendment to the EU Treaties does not say that “Member States”, meaning SOME of them, may establish a Stability Mechanism, but rather “THE Member States”, namely ALL of them (In French “LES” Membres rather than “DES” Membres). 


Yet the ESM Treaty which has been concluded among the 17 provides that the Stability Mechanism it envisages may come into being once States contributing 90% of the capital of the proposed fund have ratified the treaty. 


The eight largest Eurozone States, a minority of the 17, can therefore establish this Stability Mechanism, while other Eurozone States that may need assistance from it badly are excluded. How then can this be a Stability Mechanism “for the euro area as a whole”, as Article 136 TFEU, which still has to be constitutionally approved by all 27 EU Member States, requires? 


Likewise the so-called "Fiscal Treaty" - the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the EMU – on which Irish voters have just voted and which cross-refers to the ESM Treaty, provides that it can come into force when it is ratified by 12 Eurozone Members. Does not this treaty also require unanimous ratification by all 17 Eurozone Members before it can be lawfully binding on them under EU law? 


3.) How can the ESM Treaty be lawfully ratified by July 2012, as is the stated intention of the 17 Eurozone governments concerned, when the Article 136 TFEU amendment to the EU Treaties authorising a Stability Mechanism does not have legal effect, once it has been constitutionally approved by all 27 EU Member States, until 1 January 2013? 


Does not this mean that any treaty purporting to establish an ESM before 2013 must be legally void? ESM Treaty No.1 which was signed by Eurozone Finance Ministers in July 2011 but was never sent round for ratification, conformed to the 2013 time-frame set by the Art.136 TFEU authorisation, whereas ESM Treaty No. 2 which was signed by EU Ambassadors on 2 February 2012 does not. 


This shows again how the exigencies of a political response to the financial crisis by some Eurozone States puts them in breach of EU law and therefore of the Irish Constitution. 


4. ) EU Member States may only sign international treaties that are compatible with EU law. The EU Court of Justice has made clear that intergovernmental agreements cannot affect the allocation of responsibilities defined in the EU Treaties. The provisions of the ESM Treaty and the Fiscal Treaty which involve the EU Commission and Court of Justice in the implementation of the proposed ESM go well beyond what is permissible under the current EU treaties and are therefore unlawful. 


May I inform you that copies of this letter are being released to the Irish and international media for their information regarding the concerns which are widely shared in this country that the proposed ESM Treaty is in violation of EU law and in breach of the Irish Constitution. 


Yours sincerely 
Anthony Coughlan 
Director


One wishes them all the very best of Irish (and other) luck but nobody holds out much hope that legal arguments will sway the euro-elite and the desperate promoters of the European project. Still, this is something to watch with interest.

I asked Anthony Coughlan if he had had any responses. His answer was "none of sufficient interest to merit publicising". I can well believe that.

Hmmm, don't know about that

Der Spiegel is a little worried about the Irish referendum on the fiscal pact tomorrow (for the benefit of those who have not been paying attention, let me point out that this is the treaty that does not exist because the Boy-King has vetoed it and on which we cannot vote in any shape or form because it does not exist).

All of Europe is looking to Ireland as the country prepares to vote on Thursday in a referendum on the unpopular fiscal compact for greater budgetary discipline. If the Irish reject the new treaty, it won't just be a major blow to its main advocate Angela Merkel. It could also spark panic on the financial markets.

Really? I should have thought if the Irish reject the new treaty then they will just have to have another referendum.

No, it is not cool

Apparently, the City of Galway is planning to erect a statue to a mass murderer, torturer, rapist and homophobe. His name? As if you didn't know. Che Guevara, of course, the all purpose pin-up of the ignorant left.

Yale Professor Carlos Eire, author of Waiting for Snow in Havana: Confessions of a Cuban Boy, which won the National Book Award in 2003, wrote this letter and submitted it to the Irish Times in response to plans by the city of Galway to erect a statue honoring Che Guevara. The Times demurred, but it was published in the Galway Advertiser, and Professor Eire has given National Review permission to reprint it.

It is very succinct. Shame on the Irish Times.

Mind you, I think he is a little unfair on Oliver Cromwell.

ADDENDUM: Thanks to a reader for this excellent article on the subject by Kevin Myers who analyzes Che's ludicrous appeal to the left and naive youngsters. He also asserts very firmly that "most of the industrial-scale mass murderers of the 20th century were socialists. Pol Pot, Mao, et cetera, obviously, but also Hitler and his National Socialist Party". This has to be said over and over again.

End of the Synonblog

I don't necessarily agree with everything Mary-Ellen Synon writes about the EU and its shenanigans and so it should be. People have different opinions. Hers are based on knowledge of facts, people and events, which she often interprets differently from the way I do. So be it.

It is, however, with some sadness that I record (as the Boss did earlier today) that she has just posted her last blog on the Daily Mail site, which is now infested by ra-ra Heffer clones. It is a goodie, though. She suggests that the Scots have a look at Ireland's experience as a small state member of the EU before they vote for "independence within the European Union", an oxymoron if ever there was one.

Ms Synon tells us that she will be concentrating more on journalism but does not specify the outlet(s). Let us hope that her well known attitudes to the project will not prevent her from acquiring those outlets.

Good grief, he is back

Declan Ganley. Now there's a name I did not think I'd hear again. Libertas? Anyone remember that? I mentioned it briefly here and wrote a lot more at the time on my erstwhile home, EUReferendum. (here and here) At the time I made it clear that Mr Ganley was not a eurosceptic of any stripe but a man who wanted to improve the European project, "restore" its democratic credibility and generally make everybody's voices heard through being elected into the European Parliament as part of the only pan-European party. This is what I wrote after the launch of Libertas in the UK:

I asked Mr Matthews whether his aim was to campaign to restore power to national parliaments or to reform the EU, whose structure would not change even if the Lisbon Treaty failed, and if the latter, how was he intending to go about it. His reply did not fill me with confidence.

The first thing, he said, was to take stock and to ensure that there is a vote on Lisbon (preferably, one assumes a No); whether people are prepared to sanction this enormous transfer of power to the European elite. Then we can move on and, in due course, Libertas will publish its policies. I suspect this means that they have not thought beyond the first step.

Back when I cut my eurosceptic teeth, the days of Maastricht and the battle for that referendum, it made a certain amount of sense to say that we should concentrate on this treaty that had qualitatively changed the process of integration.

The European issue was new to most people as the project had been apparently (though not in reality) quiescent for many years; it was necessary to introduce all the many aspects of it into public discourse and to suggest withdrawal appeared to be politically suicidal. Luckily Jacques Delors on the one hand and the people of Denmark on the other helped us to make "Europe" familiar to many.

We have moved a long way from there, though not as long as we would have done had some people concentrated more on what really matters - politics and policies. To return to the same point and argue that we must not frighten the horses and let's discuss the Lisbon Treaty, which is so horrific that it makes one faint with horror, before we, possibly, move on to other issues is pointless at a time when people are seriously discussing the possibilities of British withdrawal or even the complete collapse of the EU.

But then, that is precisely what Mr Ganley is afraid of: that those wicked eurosceptics will have their way and the great European project, which, in his opinion, would be absolutely wonderful if only it acquired popular support, will collapse. That is why we say that Libertas is not fighting on our side - they want to strengthen the EU, we want to destroy it in order to start creating genuinely democratic structures in European countries and alliances between them and outwith Europe.

Given that, I am not exactly clear as to why people find it surprising that he now wants to start a group in Ireland that will fight for the United States of Europe. It's what he always wanted. He just thought and, no doubt, thinks that somehow by some magical wand-waving he will be able to create a United States of Europe that is somehow democratic and accountable to .... well to whom?

Believe it when I see it

Somehow, I cannot work up any excitement over the results of the Irish election. Yes, the destruction of Fianna Fail is a lovely sight but will Fine Gael or whatever coalition that is cobbled together be any better? We do not know and can only wait to see. The Daily Mail seems quite excited. Whether that is a good thing or not is a moot point.

Bruno Waterfield in the Telegraph thinks that the new government will be on collision course with the EU. Ah yes, just as Cameron's government was going to be on that collision course. In fact, the collision course is so crowded all these governments are colliding with each other. What exactly will be the threat? We are not going to take your money. That'll show you.

Another story that makes me say, yes, yes, yes, believe it when I see it is the one about Britain, possibly, deciding to take away aid from countries who are really rather rich now.

Countries such as Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Moldova and Serbia will be stripped of millions of pounds a year, following the inquiry ordered by International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell.

Aid to India - which can afford its own space programme - will also be frozen.

First of all, will be stripped after the report is published and thoroughly discussed is just a little vague. My guess is that in a few months' or a year's time we shall find that there is still money going to all these countries.

Secondly, the list of who are too rich to be given aid is a little eccentric. Is Moldova really richer than India overall?

Thirdly, it is going to make no difference whatsoever. The amount given in aid will be going up; our ability to check where the money is going will remain zero; the various UN and NGO projects will still be riddled with corruption; and, above all, aid will remain a pernicious policy that will keep bloodthirsty kleptocrats in power and prevent poor countries from developing their economies, property rights or good governance.

What did they get?

A note from Anthony Coughlan in which he analyzes tentatively, because that is all we can do at this stage, the difference in what Ireland got from the EU and what the Czech Republic got. My view remains the same: none of it is worth a dime. I think Professor Coughlan may not disagree too much. Here is the text in full:

Different promises for the Czechs and the Irish to secure the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty
Dublin ... Sunday 1 November 2009

Czech and Irish opposition to ratifying the Lisbon Treaty has been dealt with by different political promises that are supposed to be embodied in the next EU Accession Treaty.

This can be seen from the text of Friday's October European Council Conclusions, as compared with those of June last, which prepared the way for the Ireland's second Lisbon Treaty referendum. Relevant excerpts are given below.

The Czechs have been promised an opt-out from Lisbon's Charter of Fundamental Rights at some future date, even after the Charter has become legally binding on them as a result of Lisbon coming into force. A Draft Protocol that could - or might - do this when the time comes is annexed to last Friday's European Council Conclusions.

Last June the Irish were given interpretative declarations on concerns such as tax, abortion and neutrality and were promised that these would be embodied in a future Accession Treaty Protocol. In contrast to the promise to the Czechs, no draft of such a Protocol was agreed, but the European Council Conclusions stated that it "will clarify but not change either the content or the application of the Treaty of Lisbon" (See text below).

So the Czechs have been promised a real change in the Lisbon Treaty at some future date, and an actual draft of such a Protocol has been drawn up to keep them happy while President Vaclav Klaus permits the ratification of Lisbon. The Irish have been promised a draft Protocol to meet their concerns in some future EU Accession Treaty, but the promise has been accompanied by a statement that this Protocol will not change anything in Lisbon.

Will these promises be fulfilled?

There is no problem with the Irish. Their promised future Protocol will be redundant anyway, for it will not change anything which is already contained in Lisbon. This qualification was explicitly made when this future Protocol was first mooted.

The promise to the Czechs is more problematic, for the following reasons:

1. When the next EU Accession Treaty comes around the Czech Government then in office may no longer wish for a full opt-out from the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, either because it takes a different view of it from the present Czech Government or because of domestic opposition at the time to such a step, in particular from the Czech trade unions.

2. The main Hungarian Opposition party, Fidesz, which is expected to win next year's elections in Hungary, has stated that it will vote against ratification of the EU's pledge to give the Czechs an opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights because of its concern over Hungarian property claims arising from the post-World War 2 Benes decrees; and any such opt-out would have to be unanimously agreed by all Member States when they come to ratify the future Accession Treaty to which it was attached.

3. Czechs, Germans, Hungarians etc. will all become citizens of the constitutionally new European Union which would be established by the Lisbon Treaty once that Treaty comes into force. In implementing Union law at national level thereafter the Member States will have to recognise the EU citizenship of their national citizens and the rights and entitlements as EU citizens which their national citizens will acquire under the Charter. It would be open to all EU citizens - Germans, Hungarians, Czechs or whatever - to institute legal actions and claims under the Charter of Fundamental Rights immediately the Lisbon Treaty comes into force, including property claims arising from the Benes decrees - and to expect that such actions would be justiciable in national courts as actions of EU citizens. If legal actions over such claims are already instituted under the Charter, it is hard to see EU Governments whose nationals are involved in such legal actions agreeing to ratify an Accession Treaty one of whose purposes would be to make such actions invalid or ultra vires.

4. The Heads of State or Government who will be in office when the next EU Accession Treaty comes up for ratification will be different from the present group. There is no guarantee that they will all feel similarly bound by the political commitment regarding the Czechs given by their predecessors the other day, not least because the legal status of the European Council itself will be changed by the Lisbon Treaty. For Lisbon proposes to make the European Council into an EU institution for the first time, whose actions and failures to act would thereafter be subject to review by the Court of Justice. It is arguable therefore whether the present European Council can bind a future one based on a different legal constitution in the way that is proposed in last Friday's EU "summit" Conclusions.

_______
October 2009 European Council Conclusions ... Excerpts re the Czech Republic

2. The European Council recalls that the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon requires ratification by each of the 27 Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. It reaffirms its determination to see the Treaty enter into force by the end of 2009, thus allowing it to develop its effects in the future.

On this basis, and taking into account the position taken by the Czech Republic, the Heads of State or Government have agreed that they shall, at the time of the conclusion of the next Accession Treaty and in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, attach the Protocol (in Annex 1) to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

In this context, and with regard to legal application of the Treaty of Lisbon and its relation to legal systems of Member States, the European Council confirms that:

a) The Treaty of Lisbon provides that "competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States" (Art.5(2)TEU);

b) The Charter is "addressed to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law" (Art 51(1) (Charter)

ANNEX 1:
PROTOCOL ON THE APPLICATION OF THE CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION TO THE CZECH REPUBLIC

The Heads of State or Government of the 27 Member States of the European Union, taking note of the wish expressed by the Czech Republic,

Having regard to the Conclusions of the European Council,

Have agreed on the following Protocol:

Article 1
Protocol No 3o on the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to Poland and to the United Kingdom shall apply to the Czech Republic.

Article 2
The Title, Preamble and operative part of Protocol No 30 shall be modified in order to refer to the Czech Republic in the same terms as they refer to Poland and to the United Kingdom.

Article 3
This Protocol shall be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
________
June 2009 European Council Conclusions ... Excerpts re Ireland

The European Council also agreed that other concerns of the Irish people, as presented by the Taoiseach, relating to taxation policy, the right to life, education and the family, and Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality, would be addressed to the mutual satisfaction of Ireland and the other Member States, by way of the necessary legal guarantees. It was also agreed that the high importance attached to a number of social issues, including workers' rights, would be confirmed.

4. Against this background, the European Council has agreed on the following set of arrangements, which are fully compatible with the Treaty, in order to provide reassurance and to respond to the concerns of the Irish people:

(a) Decision of the Heads of State or Government of the 27 Member States of the European Union, meeting within the European Council, on the concerns of the Irish people on the Treaty of Lisbon (Annex 1);

(b) Solemn Declaration on Workers' Rights, Social Policy and other issues (Annex 2).
The European Council has also taken cognisance of the unilateral declaration of Ireland (Annex 3), which will be associated with the Irish instrument of ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon.

5. Regarding the Decision in Annex 1, the Heads of State or Government have declared that:
(i) this Decision gives legal guarantee that certain matters of concern to the Irish people will be unaffected by the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon;

(ii) its content is fully compatible with the Treaty of Lisbon and will not necessitate any re-ratification of that Treaty;

(iii) the Decision is legally binding and will take effect on the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon;

(iv) they will, at the time of the conclusion of the next accession Treaty, set out the provisions of the annexed Decision in a Protocol to be attached, in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

(v) the Protocol will in no way alter the relationship between the EU and its Member States. The sole purpose of the Protocol will be to give full Treaty status to the clarifications set out in the Decision to meet the concerns of the Irish people. Its status will be no different from similar clarifications in Protocols obtained by other Member States. The Protocol will clarify but not change either the content or the application of the Treaty of Lisbon. (emphasis in bold added)

Looks like a heavy defeat

The Boss is live-blogging on EUReferendum. I have worse things to do. There is that patch of paint that simply will not dry if I do not watch it. Later on, there will be thoughts to impart. In the meantime here is a statement by Anthony Coughlan of the National Platform, veteran of the anti-EU fight:

Saturday 3 September 2009

Statement by Anthony Coughlan, Dublin, on Ireland's Lisbon Two referendum result

Not the will of the people, but the fear of the people, has led a majority of Irish voters to approve ratifyng the Lisbon Treaty in yesterday's re-run referendum.

Ireland's voters voted not on the content of Lisbon but on membership of the EU, on fear of political isolation if they did not say Yes to the same Treaty as they said No to last year, and on the promise of jobs and economic recovery which the Yes-side bullied and bamboozled them into believing was they would get if they only voted Yes.

Thus the bankrupt Irish political Establishment, which has ruined its country's economy, has opted through stupidity and fear to clamp an undemocratic Constitution on itself and most of Europe.

This year the Republic of Ireland will suffer a decline of nearly one-tenth in its economic output; it will have a Budget deficit equivalent to 12% of GDP, an unemployment rate of some 14% of its labour force and resumed net emigration from the country.

One accepts the result of the Lisbon re-run as a fact, but it is not a result that democrats need morally or politically to identify with or approve. This result does not have political legitimacy, whatever the voting percentages amount to, because of the fraudulent and undemocratic way in which the referendum was run, making it unique in these respects among the 30 or so referendums that have been held in Ireland since its Constitution was adopted in 1937.

With limitless money provided by the Brussels Commission, the political parties in the European Parliament, the Irish Government and private business firms, Ireland's Yes-side forces easily outspent the Nos by at least ten to one in a referendum campaign which was unique in modern Irish history for its massive unlawfulness and breaches of the country's referendum law.

There were at least six dimensions to this illegality:

1) The intervention of the European Commission, entailing massive expenditure of money to influence Irish opinion towards a Yes, the running of a web-site and the issuing of statements that sought to counter No-side arguments, and the adocacy of a Yes vote by Commission President Barroso and other Commissioners and their staffs during visits to Ireland. This is unlawful under European law, as the Commission has no function in relation to the ratification of new Treaties, something that is exclusively a matter for the Member States under their own constitutional procedures;

2.) The part funding of the posters and press advertising of most of Ireland's Yes-side political parties by their sister parties in the European Parliament, even though it is illegal under Irish law to receive donations from sources outside the country in a referendum and even though, under European law, money provided by the European Parliament to cross-national political parties is supposed to be confined to informational-type material and to avoid partisan advocacy;

3) The Irish Government's unlawful use of public funds in circulating to voters a postcard with details of the so-called "assurances" of the European Council, followed by a brochure some time later containing a tendentious summary of the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, as well as other material - steps that were in breach of the 1995 Irish Supreme Court judgement in McKenna that it is unconstitutional of the Government to use public funds to seek to obtain a particular result in a referendum;

4) The failure of the country's statutory Referendum Commission to carry out its function under the Referendum Act that established it of explaining to citizens how the proposed constitutional amendment and its text would affect the Irish Constitution. Instead the Commission's Chairman, Judge Frank Clarke, turned the Commission into an arm of Government propaganda, while the judge indulged himself in various "solo-runs" on radio and in the newspapers, giving several erroneous explanations of provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, even though this was quite beyond his powers under the Act;

5) Huge expenditure of money by private companies such as Intel and Ryanair to advocate a Yes vote, without any statutory limit, in possible breach of Irish company and tax law, and undoubtedly constituting a major democratic abuse.

6) Breaches by the Irish broadcast media of their obligation under the Broadcasting Acts to be fair to all interests concerned in their coverage of issues of public controversy and debate. Newstalk 106, owned by Mr Denis O'Brien, a committed supporter of the Yes side, was quite shameless in its partisanship on its current affairs programmes.

Democrats across Europe will now hope that the brave President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, will hold back Czech ratification of the Treaty until the constitutional challenge that has been launched there is completed and there is a change of Government in Britain by next May.

In that way the promise of a referendum made to the British people in the Labour Party's Election Manifesto may yet be fulfilled under the Conservatives - something that would give our fellow countrymen and women in Northern Ireland a chance of voting on this EU Constitution.

In June the German Constitutional Court laid down that the basic principles of democracy required that there should be parliamentary control of how Government Ministers from the EU Member States exercised various implementing powers under the Lisbon Treaty - for example the "simplified revision procedure" of Article 48 TEU whereby policy areas can be shifted from unanimity to majority voting without need of new Treaties or referendums.

Germany instituted such parliamentary controls in September. Ireland has done so in the Constitutional Amendment people voted for yesterday. Similar parliamentary controls should now be sought through Court actions in as many EU countries as possible in the interest of defending what is left of democracy in Europe.

If Lisbon however should go through and come into force for all 27 States, giving the post-Lisbon EU the constitutional form of a Federation and turning 500 million people into real EU citizens for the first time without their being asked, that is bound to make the question of national independence and democracy the main issue of European politics for years and possibly decades to come - not least in Ireland, whose modern political history has been largely a struggle against the drawbacks of its people being made citizens of another country.

The Lisbon Two referendum has exposed the moral and political bankruptcy of Ireland's main political parties. There is a vacuum in Irish politics, as there is in many other EU countries, when all the "Establishment" political parties line up on one side and so many of the country's citizens are on the other.

Across Europe huge numbers of citizens are not being properly represented by those who have been elected to represent them. The coming period in history will see many ttempts to fill this political vacuum, in Ireland and elsewhere.

Not a great day for the Irish but only a Pyrrhic victory for the other side, no matter how much they might preen themselves now.

Up in the air

The Irish polls closed some hours ago but counting will start tomorrow at 9. Results expected in the afternoon. I shall try to do some semi-live blogging as Saturdays tend to be quite busy but the Boss will be on the job from about 10 o'clock.

In the meantime, the BBC is being cautious, pointing out that there were no exit polls during the day and turn-out is variable but on the low side. The yes side is cautiously suggesting that they might have won.

RTE is also cautious though they think the turn-out in many parts may have been better than last time. It might be even better next time if the Irish are forced into a third referendum. In the end, it will be around 90 per cent.

They mention a Fine Gael exit poll that shows the yes side ahead by 60 per cent to 40 per cent but remain strangely reluctant to endorse it.

Let us stop and think

Today the people of Ireland go to the polls to vote in the second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Its previous reincarnation as the Constitutional Treaty was thrown out by the people of France and Netherlands after which there was, as you may recall, a period of discussion and dialogue. Dialogue of the deaf since the creators of the new treaty discussed matters only with organizations they had themselves created as part of a controlled civil society. All other opinions such as “no, we do not want a constitution for Europe” were ignored.

Then they came back with a new version, which has fewer pages because the print was smaller but more words and which had dropped references to a flag and an anthem, thus making it, or so we were told, completely different from a constitution.

As it happens the United States Constitution has no references to anthems or flags (neither was in existence at the time) but it is still a constitution. So there was the Lisbon Treaty, which still proposed the creation of a President and announced that the supremacy of European law, hitherto decided on by Parliament, would now be based on the Constitution Lisbon Treaty.

There are a few other matters of import but, as it happens, most of what it says is already in existence in the Consolidated Treaties. The Lisbon Treaty serves a double purpose: it pushes the project further and without movement that does not exist; and it shows to us the people of European countries who is really the master.

This time round the political establishment both at the EU and member states levels was quite savvy: no referendums. You cannot predict their outcome. Unfortunately, the Irish Supreme Court decided that according to the Irish Constitution there had to be a referendum on the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty and it duly took place. Exactly as feared, the people disobeyed orders and voted no. They have been paying the price by having to put up with endless visits from European notables and an endless campaign. Well, at least that has come to an end and tomorrow the polls open.

Let us consider the situation as it is now and the various options after tomorrow.

Apart from Ireland there are still two countries that have not ratified, the Czech Republic and Poland. Germany ratified just before last Sunday’s election (a little present for whoever was going to win) though as the Boss over on EURef has noted, the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition was not aware of that when he last gave a long interview. Or, perhaps he gave the interview before the German ratification and the editor did not know enough to correct that.

In the Czech Republic a group of senators has sent the treaty to the Constitutional Court for the second time.

The court should say whether the EU under the Lisbon Treaty would remain an international organisation or become a "super-state," ODS senator Jiri Oberfalzer, one of the senators who submitted the complaint on Tuesday afternoon, told the Czech press agency.

Czech senators had previously filed a narrower case about certain aspects of the treaty, but the court last year ruled that the articles were not in breach of the country's constitution.

Meanwhile, according to the same article on EUObserver, the country is being threatened with loss of a place on the Commission and President Klaus is being threatened with possible impeachment if he does not sign, which he will not do ahead of the legal decision. President Kaczynski of Poland is waiting on developments in the Czech Republic.

All of which means that media hysteria about Tony Blair becoming EU President in the next few weeks is a little premature. There will be no EU President until all the member states have ratified the treaty. As it happens, I am not bothered by the prospect of President Blair. I do not want anyone to be president and Blair’s grinning face reappearing on our media will turn even more people away from the project. Besides, I am not sure his star is quite as much in the ascendant as the Times article thinks. There are other member states in the EU and they might not want Blair as President.

Talking of media hysteria there are headlines out there about the Irish referendum and the “future of Europe” as if we were talking about the Normandy invasion. Europe will still be here even if the Irish vote no again. In fact, Europe might start recovering its true historical heritage though, as it happens, the EU will also still be here.

Seventy-five or eighty per cent of our legislation will still be coming from Brussels, most of it not even touching Parliament, which, in any case, has not the right to reject anything. The EU’s legislative structure that is managerial rather than political and disregards such details as elections or change of parties in power will continue.

It is very hard to predict what will happen later today. Opinion polls tend to favour the yes side but so they did last time and they were wrong.
As I have said before, the man who most fervently wishes for a no vote must be Mr Cameron, for there is a strong chance that this particular treaty will then be off the table while a new one is prepared and he will be able to wriggle off the hook of that referendum.

If the Irish vote yes then Mr Cameron will be hoping that the Czech situation will be solved before May 2010 when he will, as things stand, become Prime Minister. It must be his worst nightmare that he will be faced with a situation when the first few months of his premiership will be taken up by legislation for referendum, a campaign and then the vote with which he will not know what to do.

There is always the possibility that somewhere between the legislation and the actual vote the Czechs and the Poles do ratify if they had not done before and Cameron will be left with a pointless referendum. In any case, if the country votes no, what will he do? Tear up the Instruments? Renegotiate?

It is not altogether surprising that he has been hinting ever so gently that there will be no referendum on the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty under a Conservative government.

It will, of course, be awfully nice to have the Irish vote no; the treaty is an abomination, though no worse than Maastricht, but, much more to the point, it will be nice to watch the eurocrats’ faces and hear their screams.

But even if they get their treaty (and they are determined to get it) the victory will be a Pyrrhic one. The outcome of the bullying, lying and other shenanigans that characterized the campaigns around the Constitution for Europe and, even more so, the Lisbon Treaty is that far more people in the various member states view the project with suspicion and dislike.

Its inevitability is no longer obvious; the gap between the elite that is blatantly determined to impose its chosen political structures on the people and those people is ever larger; the legitimacy of the EU is weaker than ever and grows daily more so. And a yes vote today in Ireland may well speed that process up. Indeed, if the Irish vote yes, we may well date the beginning of the EU’s disintegration October 2, 2009.