No, the Danes did not do it

There was no particular reason to suppose that the Danish High Court would decide that the government had gone against the country's Constitution when it signed the Lisbon Treaty, not after the Ministry of Justice had pronounced that everything was just fine on that front, but hope springs eternal be the shoots ne'er so feeble.

This does not appear to be news on the international circuit but this Swedish blog has reported that the Court has decided in favour of the government. My knowledge of Swedish is non-existent but Mr Google gave me the gist of the piece: Article 20, which requires either a referendum or a five sixths majority in Parliament if powers are passed on to a transnational organization, was not "violated". So that's that.

Will the Danes do it again?

As we know, the Danes very nearly scuppered the Maastricht Treaty and would have done if we had had a serious politician as a Prime Minister instead of John Major. He, instead of taking the opportunity of the first Danish referendum coming up with the "wrong" answer to say that this may be the time to stop and think and reconsider and so on and so on, joined the other EC (not to become the EU until the Maastricht Treaty was implemented) member states to bully Denmark into voting the "right" way the second time round.

Subsequently, the Danes made it quite clear that they did not want to be in the euro (and are not). The chances are that, had they been asked, they would have voted against the Lisbon Treaty. They were not, as their Ministry of Justice had pronounced that under the Lisbon Treaty there would be no transference of power from Copenhagen to Brussels and, therefore, there was no need for a referendum. What worried little bunnies they must have been.

However, a regular reader of this blog informs me that things might, just might stir in the state of Denmark. The information is on a Swedish blog and is about the Danish High Court having to decide whether the signing of the Lisbon Treaty by the Danish government was against that country's constitution.

It would appear that Article 20 of the Danish Constitution requires either a referendum or a five sixths majority in Parliament if powers are passed on to a transnational organization (which, of course, they were not, as the Ministry of Justice tells us and the Danes).

The Referendum Committee (which is what I take Folkeafstemningskomitéen to mean) has managed to take its case all the way up to the High Court, which will pronounce on the subject at noon on February 20. If it were any other country, I'd say that the chances of the Court doing anything except rolling over and asking the eurocrats to tickle their tummy are zero. But this is Denmark, after all, where people do odd things.

Group of Danish citizens allowed to sue the Prime Minister

Civitas reports the news that last Tuesday a group of Danish citizens were given the go-ahead to "challenge the legality of Denmark's ratification of the Lisbon Treaty

Plans to hold a referendum in Denmark on the Constitution Treaty were scrapped in 2005, after the Dutch and Irish ‘No’ votes, and in 2007 the Danish government decided that a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty (the reformed Constitution Treaty) wasn’t needed as there was no transfer of sovereignty. However, yesterday, the Danish Supreme Court unanimously decided that a group of Danish citizens can sue the Danish Prime Minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, for breaching the Danish constitution by ratifying the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum.

The leader of the plaintiffs, professor Ole Krarup, has spoken of his hope that the case will find the treaty has not been ratified in the requisite manner, thus the treaty is non–binding. He believes that, if the Court finds in their favour, there could still be a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

As it happens, there is an error in that account. It was, as most of us recall, France and not Ireland, who voted No to the Constitutional Treaty in 2005 as well as Netherlands. Ireland voted No to the Lisbon Treaty in 2008 and was forced to vote again in 2009. One wonders whether they think that panicky Yes in the second referendum was worth it.

The horror stories and threats have already begun:

The daily Berlingske Tidende criticises the EU opponents:

“If it were up to them … Denmark would go on being a small, idyllic country with no other contact with the external world than our agricultural exports. We would have no other binding cooperation apart from the loose sort of trade relations Europe had almost 40 years ago. Luckily the EU has developed since then, and since 2000 we’ve had no less than six referendums, in four of which the Danes voted in favour of closer cooperation.

… Hopefully the judgement will come down in favour of the Treaty of Lisbon. If it doesn’t, we’ll go right back to the days of the Maastricht Treaty and the eternal discussion of whether we can live on an isolated island outside the EU.”

It would appear that all those islands outside the EU, Switzerland, Norway and, more recently, Iceland are not doing too badly.

ECOFIN stands firm (for the time being)

As the Wall Street Journal reports, ECOFIN or the EU Finance Ministers as the article calls them, is standing firm on the Greek question. Well, kind of. Germany is certainly unhappy at the thought of providing the lion's share of whatever enormous sum Greece will need to be pulled out of this morass only to fall into the next one. After all, this was not supposed to happen. The German people were told quite distinctly that by abandoning their beloved DM they would not find themselves in the position of having to rescue various other countries such as .... Greece.

European finance ministers Tuesday stood firm in their position that Greece must work to narrow its budget gap before they would discuss aid to the country, while Greek workers launched strikes and protests against government austerity plans.

Olli Rehn, the European commissioner for economic affairs, said after a meeting of EU finance ministers Tuesday that commission officials, along with delegations from the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund, would be "on the ground in Athens" in coming days to examine Greece's budget measures.

Mr. Rehn also pledged more scrutiny of financial transactions that Greece may have used to mask its debt burden.

The ministers endorsed a decision Monday by members of the euro zone that Greece be given until March 16 to show progress toward a goal of slicing the equivalent of four percentage points of gross domestic product from its budget deficit this year. Last year's budget shortfall was around 13% of GDP. The EU limit, which Greece has observed just once in the past decade, is 3%.

If Athens doesn't show enough progress by March 16, the EU will demand specific changes, such as new taxes on luxury products, such as expensive cars.

This does not answer certain questions, the most obvious one being how are all these organizations going to enforce their demands in a country whose government either cannot or will not listen to instructions. Another question is whether the bail-out will be limited to eurozone countries or will other EU member states required to play their part "in a spirit of solidarity" as required by Article 122 in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which is part of the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty.

Ambrose Evans Pritchard says in a relatively sensible piece in the Daily Telegraph (though the title and the last sentence are silly) that Greece will not be allowed to vote in the next meeting of ECOFIN when she will be required to report back on the austerity measures and how far they have worked. That will show them! He also adds an interesting comment that bears out this blog's interpretation of Article 122 and the importance of the "spirit of solidarity".

Jean-Claude Juncker, head of the Eurogroup, hinted that ministers have already agreed on a support mechanism, should it be necessary. It will most likely involve by bilateral aid by eurozone states. He said proposals for an IMF bailout - backed by Britain - were "absurd" and would shatter the credibility of monetary union.

That "spirit of solidarity" will probably mean just that: bilateral assistance from other member states under pressure from the Commission. The question still remains: just the eurozone countries or all others on whom the Article in question calls?

I am delighted to point to one journalist who has remembered that much of what is happening now in the eurozone was predicted at the time countries were playing ducks and drakes with their budgets and debt ratios in order to set up that entirely political project. Everyone else, as Allisteer Heath said in his editorial in yesterday's City AM seems to be suffering from collective amnesia.

Even the latest twists – Goldman Sachs helped Greece push some debt off balance sheet and JP Morgan did the same with Italy – are old stories. The Italian transaction dates back to 1995; it was first revealed in 2001 by Gustavo Piga, professor at the University of Rome. A row ensued, with the European establishment cracking down on anybody who dared talk about this; but the full details soon emerged. Italy miraculously cut its deficit from 6.7 per cent of GDP to 2.7 per cent in 1996-97; and the establishment, desperate to pretend that the euro was on track, turned a blind eye to the shameless window-dressing.

Greece’s equally controversial swap trade was first revealed by Risk magazine in 2003. The deal, completed in 2002, allowed Greece to borrow €1bn without adding to its public debt. Goldman sold the swap to National Bank of Greece in 2005. Other banks and countries were involved in similar schemes. Goldman last year tried to sell Greece a different type of plan based on securitisation but this was turned down.
...

Everybody has also forgotten (so let me “reveal”) how in 1996 the French government was desperately asking every bank for help in “cutting” its deficit. It subsequently grabbed £4.7bn from France Telecom – in return for the transfer of its pension liabilities to the public sector budget. The accounting switch was worth 0.5 per cent of GDP and allowed France to join the euro. The UK government has also long been an expert in camouflaging its debt, thanks to the private finance initiative (PFI) and the ability to keep massive pension liabilities away from the main accounts. At least Gordon Brown never used Greek-style currency swaps; and securitisations were done transparently.

What could I possibly add to that, having written thousands of words on the subject at the time? Oh yes, I know: told you so.

The epic bail-out of Greece

We can take it more or less for granted that the euro is not going to collapse this time - too much is at stake for the leading members, Germany and France, to allow that to happen. It was, is and always will be a political project, with no economic rationale and little public support for the obvious next step: complete economic and political union with a government that can deal with such problems as Greece and the other PIGS waiting in the wings. (Seems very unfair on pigs, who are delightful and useful animals.)

The Mises Institute has joined the fray with a thoughtful article on the Greek crisis a.k.a. the crisis of the euro, which explains at length and in detail how the eurozone has been funding Greece and her spendthrift ways for some time. The problem with the article as with most writings on this website is their disdain for things political. They really do not understand why the euro was created, why it will be propped up as long as possible and why the creation of a European government is such a difficult proposition.

Avoiding all the obvious, rather gloating comments (and I do feel a certain amoung of schadenfreude, having predicted many of these developments without being an economist), we need to concentrate on how it will affect Britain. This is what Edmund Conway does in the Telegraph today and he is not altogether sanguine. He also reminds us all that it is PIIGS we are talking about, as Italy is in a bad state as well.

"UK banks" he says, "are exposed to these countries to the tune of 16 per cent of gross domestic product." Whatever happens will affect our economy as well.

While we are on the subject, what is likely to happen?

At the moment, it looks as if the eurozone members (mainly France and Germany) will provide cash for a “firewall” bail-out designed to prevent these countries from toppling, but there are some whispers that Britain may have to make a contribution. These figures might help explain why.

So, not joining the euro has saved us from the worst of the disaster but it is not going to leave us unscathed.

There is, of course, another reason why, despite HMG's wriggling whenever a direct question is asked, the UK is likely to be participating in the bail-out. Article 122.2 of the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty.

Where a Member State is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional circumstances beyond its control, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may grant, under certain conditions,Union financial assistance to the Member State concerned. The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of the decision taken.

One could argue that this particular disaster was not caused by circumstances beyond Greece's or Spain's, Portugal's, Italy's and Ireland's control but, somehow, I do not see that one taking off at the emergency meeting of the EU Ministers.

Open Europe has produced a handy briefing, full of figures, graphs and quotations about the probably bailing out of Greece and why that is unlikely to help the eurozone. True to their usual principles, Open Europe bemoans the fact that the eurozone is contemplating a series of acts that will weaken it and make it less popular instead of introducing some stringent economic reforms.

Their summary also says that of the 10 possible ways of bailing out Greece, most are either illegal or probably illegal (with different Treaty Articles in conflict) and so the EU will have to break or, at least, bend its own rules. I am shocked, I tell you, shocked.

The paper is worth reading, however.

There would be unintended consequences

Or maybe the consequences would be intended but not announced. Martin Howe, one of our leading constitutional lawyers, has an article in the Wall Street Journal in which he summarizes his pamphlet for Politeia.

After outlining the present situation as far as British and European legislation are concerned and quoting previous legal decisions, Mr Howe comes to an interesting conclusion:

The Lisbon Treaty expands the EU's law-making powers and correspondingly restricts the power of the U.K. Parliament to make law. So the U.K. Parliament, while under the transient majority control of one party, has apparently permanently restricted the law-making power of future Parliaments, by ratifying the Lisbon Treaty. This restriction on the future law-making power of Parliament has no political legitimacy because it was never put to the British people for their approval.

According to orthodox and accepted understanding of the U.K.'s unwritten constitution, Parliament had no power to do this. As a matter of the U.K.'s internal law, Parliament can disregard or disapply any laws of EU origin even if that step might put the U.K. in breach of its international treaty obligations.

British courts have commented on this issue a few times since the U.K. joined what was called the Common Market in 1973. They have expressed the view that the U.K. Parliament retains the power to override EU laws if it expressly decides to do so, but if it is silent on the matter there is a presumption that normal Acts of Parliament will give way to EU law.

But the U.K.'s rule of parliamentary sovereignty is not embodied in any formal constitutional text. Rather, it is the product of centuries of custom and practice. Its continued validity ultimately depends upon the willingness of the judges in the U.K.'s new Supreme Court to uphold and apply it. There is a risk that over time, as more and more powers accrete to the EU, our judges might revise or depart from our long established rule of sovereignty.

This is why the U.K. now needs a bill which will write formally into law the rule that Parliament is sovereign and that it can, if it so chooses, over-ride any laws of external origin including those originating from the EU. This bill will cement the rule of sovereignty firmly into a formal constitutional text and make it resistant to erosion.

A law of this kind, if passed and actually applied, unlike the posturing of the German Karlsruhe Court, could have serious consequences in the UK and the EU. Is the Boy-King going to announce it as part of the Conservative manifesto?

Not all in

A reader of this blog has pointed out that not all the bits of the post-Lisbon EU are in place. There are the Aaland Islands, Swedish speaking but part of Finland. Their regional parliament has not yet accepted the treaty as it applies to them.

It was not easy to find information on the subject in English but eventually I lit on this somewhat peculiar blog. Granhnlaw says that it is about

The Treaty of Lisbon and EU Law for businesses and individuals. EU politics for the democratic European Union 2.0: the Federal Republic of Europe (or the United States of Europe). By Ralf Grahn.

Anything that talks about the democratic European Union is always a joy to read. Ralf Grahn also urges people to discuss "our common European future". Not sure how many have taken this suggestion up but I am always happy to do so. My idea of a common European future might be somewhat different from Mr Grahn's.

However, he does write about the situation in the Aaland Islands and is suitably annoyed by the uppitiness of the inhabitants. How dare they stand in the way of the common European future? How dare they demand various rights for themselves? Well, maybe there is something in history that urges them to be bloody-minded.

So the situation, as Mr Grahn says on the basis of Swedish language websites is as follows:

On 16 November 2009 the Åland Parliament plenary has tabled the report for debate on 23 November.

Approval of the Lisbon Treaty requires a qualified majority of two thirds of the 30 members in the regional parliament, and the decision concerns the application of the Lisbon Treaty in the Åland Islands, with regard to the areas with autonomous legislation.

The Lisbon Treaty enters into force on 1 December 2009, and it was written on the assumption that it applies to the whole territory of Finland, including the Åland Islands (according to the exemptions contained in the Åland Protocol).

Finland formally ratified the EU Treaty of Lisbon 30 September 2008.

I very much fear that horrid hectoring bullies of the Ralf Grahn variety will triumph and the defiant Islands will sign up. But I cannot help wishing that they would imitate that little village in Gaul that refused to be conquered by the Romans or to be divided into three parts.

Stuck on stupid

As the news comes that President Vaclav Klaus has decided not to save the Conservative Party's bacon I find myself inundated with messages from various Conservatives about the pointlessness of having a referendum once the treaty has become law and not slamming stable doors (or, maybe, closing them after all) once the horse has bolted as well as the need to mover forward. Roughly what they say every time and they wonder why they cannot break the 17 point lead towards the third term of a deeply unpopular government.

The Boss has dealt with the issue of symbolism over on EUReferendum and has been following media reactions. Wouldn't catch me doing things like that.

There is also a great deal of hysteria around with people wailing like lost souls in the way they did when I first became involved in euroscepticism over the Maastricht Treaty. For everybody's information, nothing is ever over; this is not the end of the world; the EU is not the Soviet Union and even that was brought down by people refusing to support it any more.

Nor am I particularly impressed by people's snide comments about Klaus's lack of backbone, being a traitor and being paid off. This usually comes from people who have not done anything much in the fight. Let us not forget that President Klaus held out as long as he could. He found himself opposing both elected Houses of the Czech Parliament and by the Constitutional Court. No democratic president can persist in that sort of opposition.

Meanwhile President Obama welcomed the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty in fulsome terms. To be fair to the man (and you do not often hear me say this) he probably has not the faintest idea what he is talking about. The man who maintained that Austrians speak Austrian and his uncle liberated Auschwitz is unlikely to grasp that Europe is not actually a country and never has been.
Are we about to hear from the Conservative eurosceptics who supported him because he was not in favour of European integration? Step forward Daniel Hannan MEP, with whom I had a fierce argument on the eve of the American election last November. McCain has form, he insisted, whereas Obama would see that European integration was not in America's interests. We must support him. Obama, I retorted, will see what the State Department will show him.

The prize for stuck on stupid must go to that Conservative Party front organization, Open Europe. Their press release is so unbelievably silly and ignorant that it deserves quoting in full:

Open Europe calls on Conservatives to pledge a referendum on EU reform

Following President Klaus' signature of the Lisbon Treaty today, Open Europe calls on the British Conservative Party to now pledge to hold a referendum on reform of the European Union.

The potential election of a new Conservative government will coincide with the opening of EU budget negotiations, where discussions will be held about how much each country should pay into the EU over the period 2014 to 2020.

The UK has a veto over these negotiations, and should be prepared to use it to fight
for a package of reforms which must be fleshed out between now and the election.

This Reform Package should be put to the British people in a referendum, with a question along the lines of: "Are you in favour or against withholding agreement to the EU budget until the European Reform Package has been adopted?"

Tomorrow, Open Europe will publish the first in a series of papers looking at which policy areas the Conservatives should propose to tackle, and how. The first paper will look at EU social and employment policy, which currently accounts for a staggering 25 percent of the total cost of regulation in the UK.

Open Europe Director Lorraine Mullally said:

"Now that Lisbon is a done deal, the Conservative Party must pledge to hold a referendum on EU reform. They must not follow Labour and the Lib Dems and go back on their promise to give people a say on the future of the EU."

"The public are crying out to be consulted. The Conservatives should now announce a referendum on a package of meaningful EU reforms which they should draw up carefully over the next weeks and months. Linking their ideas for reform to the EU budget, a Conservative government could be in a strong position to work with key allies in Europe for a better, more democratic and modern European Union."

"A simple 'manifesto mandate' for these things will not be enough - people want
their long overdue say, and the Conservatives should give them it. A
strong mandate from the people will strengthen the Conservatives' position in
Europe when the time comes."

As fine a piece of muddle and prevarication as you would ever find in politics. Let me try to explain though I know that Open Europe is so sure of its position and righteousness that they tend to ignore any factual argument.

You see, we are not in a position to reform the EU. It can be done only by an IGC with a unanimous agreement to re-write the treaties. Do we really think that the other 26 members will simply agree to some ridiculous reform package that Open Europe and the Conservative Party work out between themselves? What happens if they don't? Go on vetoing the Budget? Where does that get us? We still need an IGC for that reform.

Get used to it. This will be the Conservative Party's line. But a few simple questions usually destroy their smugness. It's alwasy a pleasure to see Toryboys get really annoyed because they are in the wrong.

They should all have a look at Der Spiegel, which is gloating over the collapse of all opposition to the Treaty. In the interests of the narrative, though not the truth they tell us that "in the wake of the court's decision in Prague there has been a widespread relief across the Continent". Not precisely. There may have been widespread relief across the chancelleries of the Continent and I am not sure that even that is true. Some people at the top may have realized that there was a reason why this whole process has been so long and so painful and why none of them have dared to ask the people whether they agreed.

I look forward to hearing lamentations very soon about the gap between "Europe" and "the people", which surprisingly enough will have widened in the last eight years.

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)

Updates

First, the good news from Iceland (at least for Icelanders). It seems that the political class there is beginning to grasp that no matter what they do, the people of that country, do not want to go into the EU and, most certainly, do not want to be in the euro.

That inestimable blog, EU News from Iceland, tells us that a former Foreign Minister as well as the present Finance Minister have cheerfully admitted that “although his government had applied to join the European Union the Icelandic people didn't want to become members”. They, of course, will have the chance to say so as Iceland cannot join without at least one referendum. If the process ever gets that far with the political classes already rather worried.

For all of that, Hjörtur J. Guðmundsson and his colleagues in the anti-EU movement are not taking anything for granted and continuing with their work. Needless to say, I have offered any help we can give.

Meanwhile, as we predicted, Blair’s chances of getting that first Presidency are getting so slim that even the British media is beginning to grasp the unlikelihood of the scenario they had produced. I suspect the same will turn out to be true about David Miliband’s supposed candidacy to be the first Foreign Minister of the European Union, despite the Independent assuring us that he is backed by Commission President Barroso. He is also backed by Number 10, we are told, and how useful is that? And our other prediction about Cameron not giving a referendum has also come to pass as the Boss has pointed out.

Moving across Europe to the Czech Republic, it seems very likely, as we also predicted, that President Vaclav Klaus will sign the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty after getting the EU leaders to agree to his opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Luboš Motl on The Reference Frame, a very interesting Czech blog, accepts that the battle has been lost but there is, as he so rightly points out, a war to be won. I only wish more people in this country would be so clear-sighted.

Mr Motl, incidentally, points to what he sees as another division between Western and Eastern Europe and that is the amount of money to be spent on the whole climate change charade.

West is more enthusiastic because it has spare money to waste for nonsense, and it is not immune against utopias for the future - because of the lack of experience with communism.

That makes some sense but, as it happens, I do not think anybody has all that much “spare money to waste for nonsense” at the moment.

Another matter on which I would disagree with Mr Motl is those opt-outs. He thinks President Klaus “will save my homeland from many policies that go well beyond the fear of the returning Sudeten Germans (a topic that Klaus has used to be sure about the public support”). I think that is very questionable.

What the Presidency Conclusions actually say in Article 2 of Section I is:

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 I) 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, theEuropean 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).

In other words, nothing that has been agreed now has any legal validity until the next Accession Treaty, probably one for Croatia. This is precisely the case with all those statements that were added for the benefit of the Irish. None of it is worth on the paper it is written on, despite the fact that the paper is, presumably, recycled, untreated and ready to be used for non-fossil fuel.

Secondly, it is not exactly clear what the opt-out is precisely. The Presidential Conclusions merely confirm what is already in the Charter. We get a little more in this news item in which the Swedish Presidency in the shape Fredrik Reinfeldt announced that the last hurdle has been cleared and the Czech President’s request granted.

With this decision the Czech Republic has received the same exemption as Poland and the United Kingdom, from 'protocol 30' in the Lisbon Treaty's Charter of Fundamental Rights.

This is what we are talking about: Protocol 7, snappily entitled ON THE APPLICATION OF THE CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION TO POLAND AND TO THE UNITED KINGDOM.

After a great many whereases and raffirmations we get to what was agreed for Poland and the UK and will be agreed for the Czech Republic after the next Accession Treaty:

Article 1
1. The Charter does not extend the ability of the Court of Justice of the European Union, or any court or tribunal of Poland or of the United Kingdom, to find that the laws, regulations or administrative provisions, practices or action of Poland or of the United Kingdom are inconsistent with the fundamental rights, freedoms and principles that it reaffirms.

2. In particular, and for the avoidance of doubt, nothing in Title IV of the Charter creates justiciable rights applicable to Poland or the United Kingdom except in so far as Poland or the United Kingdom has provided for such rights in its national law.

Article 2
To the extent that a provision of the Charter refers to national laws and practices, it shall only apply to Poland or the United Kingdom to the extent that the rights or principles that it contains are recognised in the law or practices of Poland or of the United Kingdom.

What that will mean in practice, given that the law and practices of EU member states are already defined largely by what comes from the EU, is not really clear to anyone as yet. But a semi-allowance for the Czech Republic to join this rather dubious exemptions will, we assume, be enough for President Klaus to retreat with good grace, particularly if he can spin it as to mean that no German, Austrian or Hungarian will be allowed to claim back the land that had belonged to the family in question before 1947.

They are all lining up

Not having the stamina of EURef's Boss I did not watch the Boy-King’s speech though I did hear that they had a video of Bono congratulating the Blue-Socialists on intending to spend even more of our hard-earned money to keep bloodthirsty kleptocrats in power. Way to go, Tories.

I gather he made all the right noises, even telling the credulous crowds that it is the Left that has fallen in love with that unaccountable body whose accounts have never been signed off. Clearly, there is a memory lapse here. Allow me to remind people of a few events: the European Communities Act 1972, the Single European Act 1987 and the Maastricht Treaty, which was probably more important, even than the Lisbon one, 1992. All passed by the Left? Hmmm. Maybe he knew whereof he spoke. Just look at the Conservative Party.

Then there were the curious references to the referendum that the aforementioned Boss has already written about. They are going to fight for a referendum. And the opponent is? Who is going to stop a Conservative government from passing the necessary legislation to have a referendum?

Ah well, there is this problem: what are we to have a referendum about? The Constitutional Lisbon Treaty may well be done and dusted by May and the Conservatives, having so recently told us that they will not leave matters there, are now, one and all, saying in a very condescending fashion (for they know better than we do) that there really is no point in opening up something that has been decided. Why have elections, I wonder, when the matter has already been decided once? It’s a good thing people in the former Soviet Empire did not reason thus.

This is, of course, typical of the Conservatives. They talk the talk but when they get to the start of the walk, they decide that the road has probably been closed off and they will just sit down for a while until somebody suggests another path.

Instead, voices are being raised for a referendum on many other matters, not just the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty. The Boss has already quoted the great eurosceptic Daniel Hannan on the subject. (Whatever you may think of Mr Hannan, he is not stupid and he knows a good deal about the EU though not always as much as he thinks. He must know that it is impossible to claim back certain powers without rewriting the treaties, which can be done only in an IGC.)

This morning I received my daily dose of Open Europe media references in which there is this paragraph:

Open Europe's Lorraine Mullally appeared on BBC Radio 5 this morning to argue that the Conservatives should hold a referendum on an EU reform package.

No longer on a treaty, a relatively straightforward proposition but on some mythical reform package. Does Ms Mullally not realize that EU reform is not in our hands, as this country is only one of 27 members? And if it is not in our hands, if our government can do nothing about it, why have a referendum on something quite so complex and so unattainable? Whether we ratify a treaty, on the other hand, is something we can make a decision about.

Over on ConHome one of their silliest and most ignorant contributors proudly proclaims that Brussels should not be so cocky as the Conservatives will sort them out: they will have a referendum on “our broader relationship with the EU”.

First of all, dear Sally MacNamara, we do not have a relationship with the EU, we are part of it and what we need to decide is whether we stay there. The Tories have already decided that for themselves.

Conservatives do not really want a relationship with the EU based what we have now. If Cameron’s tactic is to renegotiate our relationship with the EU by repatriating key powers – defense, justice, home affairs and employment legislation for a start – then he will need to head-off Brussels’ inevitable pushback with his own ‘game-changer’.

There speaks a woman who has not a clue of how the system works. What does heading off Brussels mean? What sort of pushback is this silly creature expecting? So we want to repatriate various powers, some of which are still intergovernmental, some will change from one pillar to another once Lisbon is fully in place, some have been part of the core legislation for some time? How are we going to do that? Oh right, by having a referendum. Then what? Has this dumb cluck heard of IGCs and treaties? Because nothing can be repatriated without the treaties being rewritten and that cannot be done without a unanimous agreement at an IGC.

In the comments section she is praised by no less a person than Roger Helmer MEP, who assures the lady that she has the right political instincts. That takes care of Mr Helmer, methinks.

In the coming weeks we shall see other front organizations lining up to support the nebulous idea of a referendum for which they need to fight but which will not be about the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty but about repatriation of powers or new relationship or whatever. None of this is attainable and there will be no need for a referendum. But the talk will be talked with the hope that the electorate will buy into it.

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.

No more grand coalition

Angela Merkel has been re-elected as Chancellor of Germany with the CDU and its Bavaria-only sister, the Christian Social Union, winning 33.8 per cent of the vote and the Social Democrats 23 percent; the FDP captured 14.6 per cent, the Left Party 11.9 per cent and the Greens 10.7 per cent.

There is no talk of another grand coalition and negotiations between the CDU/CSU and the only free-market party in Germany, the FDP, haver begun. Between them they will be able to muster 332 seats in the Lower House to the Left's 290. The SPD is definitely out of favour with the German public, having got its lowest share of votes since World War II or, to be precise, the formation of the German Bundesrepublik.

The Telegraph thinks there may be troubles ahead:

The next government faces major economic challenges. It will have to consolidate a surging budget deficit, cope with rising unemployment and ward off a credit crunch. The stock market looked set to open flat.

Mr Pofalla [GenSec of the CDU] said his party was sticking to its election promise of tax cuts.

"We want tax cuts in two steps in the next legislative period which will result in relief of 15 billion euros ($22.03 billion)," he said.

However, the FDP will push for a more ambitious programme. While Mrs Merkel has steadfastly refused to put a timeframe on her party's plans, given the dire state of public finances, the FDP campaigned for quick cuts worth 35 billion euros.

Meanwhile, one of the hurdles for the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty is out of the way.

Ahead of her victory in the German bundestag elections, there was a boost for Angela Merkel who had devoted a great deal of energy into pushing forward the Lisbon Treaty – the September 25 2009 signing of the treaty in Berlin by German president Horst Koehler.

Earlier, both houses of Germany’s parliament approved legislation to ensure that the country’s constitution and the Lisbon Treaty were mutually compatible.

With German ratification of the treaty, the solution put forward in the wake of the European Constitution debacle, Lisbon has now been ratified by all EU member states except Poland, the Czech Republic and Ireland.

Not exactly unexpected: political elites are the same all over Europe. The passing of this treaty has become a matter of pride for them. Unless it is done, they cannot pretend to be in charge of the masses.

So it is now up to the Irish electorate and the Czech constitutional court. And our own Conservatives will do such things ....

Well, yes, and?

Maybe I ought to have written a bit more about the rather unexciting series about “Europe” in the Daily Telegraph but I could not quite bring myself to do so. The Boss over on EUReferendum has torn into them in his usual fashion and I cannot do any better.

However, I am going to take a brief look at two items in today’s newspaper as they round up the series. First off: Benedict Brogan on William Hague. I think we can dismiss the notion that a series of not very informative articles constitute a “landmark” in journalistic achievement but what is interesting is that even Mr Brogan is finding it hard to accept the Shadow Foreign Secretary’s attempts at being tough.

The shadow foreign secretary is in table-thumping, "read my lips" mood about Conservative policy on the Lisbon Treaty: there will be a referendum.

Hang on. That should read: there will be a referendum, but only if the treaty is not ratified by all 26 other European countries before the general election. If, however, the treaty has been approved before polling day, then… you will just have to wait and see what happens.

Quite so. The Constitutional Lisbon Treaty has not been ratified in Ireland, the Czech Republic, Poland or Germany (something both Mr Hague and Mr Brogan seem to have forgotten) but if all these hurdles have been overcome by the time of the election, the Conservatives will issue a tough statement telling us all what they intend to do.

That may mean the statement is being drafted as Mr Hague insists or it may mean “oh my God, now what do we do”.

The idea that the question of a referendum on the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty is the same as that piddling arrangement of groups in the Toy Parliament is ridiculous. In the end, it does not matter to anyone, least of all the EU, who sits in which group. The Toy Parliament is not there to fulfil the functions we usually associate with bodies called that but to help the Commission and the Council to push through legislation that does not depend on elections or political parties.

In fact, the whole interview seems to consist of Mr Hague making extremely tough, hard-hitting statements that are completely meaningless. The Conservatives will not put up with this, that or the other. And they will do what? Mr Hague takes on the mantle of King Lear:

I will do such things,--
What they are, yet I know not: but they shall be
The terrors of the earth.

And that, dear readers, is the sum of Conservative policy on “Europe” or, to be entirely accurate, the European Union.

One assumes that Messrs Hague and Cameron are praying for a no vote in Ireland, not because they really want to stop that treaty – they don’t appear to know what is involved – but because that might let them off the hook.

The chances are that if there is a no vote next Saturday, the colleagues will decide to take this particular document off the agenda, push through whatever they can on the quiet, and have another “dialogue” with the recalcitrant people of Europe before calling another IGC and discussing another treaty. That, of course, will not be very convenient for Mr Cameron, should he become Prime Minister next May but, at least, it will give him a breather as far as the referendum is concerned.

As far as the rest of the “European issue” is concerned, Messrs Hague and Cameron appear to be no different from their various predecessors. Every Prime Minister, be that Major, Blair or Brown, came in thinking that they knew how to handle the whole problem and all one had to do is be nice and friendly to the colleagues to get what one wants, whatever that might be. Since none of them knew what they wanted or how the whole structure works, they all failed. The same fate will befall Mr Cameron, assuming he is the Prime Minister.

Of course, there is the other possibility, that of Ireland voting yes. There is still the Czech Constitutional Court and the Karlsruhe decision in Germany that means some hasty legislation in Germany. Thus the treaty may not be fully ratified across the EU by May. In which case, the first few months of the Conservative government (if there is one) will be taken up by legislation for a referendum, campaign and vote.

The assumption must be that there will be a no vote on the treaty in Britain. What will Mr Cameron do then? Go to Rome, retrieve the Instruments and tear them up? Demand a new IGC (that is not in his power to call) and renegotiate the whole document? What will he offer to the other member states in return for whatever it is he wants for Britain? Does he even know what it is he does not like about that treaty and how much of it is already in place in the Consolidated Treaties by which this country is governed?

It is no use to the Daily Telegraph complacent and self-congratulatory editorial for guidance. The point of the article is that our opinion has not been asked about Europe (and, to be fair, they do explain why they use that rather vague term instead of the real one). But what is it that our opinion should be asked on? The Constitutional Lisbon Treaty? Well, fair enough but if we vote no, will that change anything about the way the EU is structured and the way it is developing? Probably not even though we would have given our opinion.

So is the Daily Telegraph suggesting an in/out referendum? That is not clear but what becomes obvious at the end of the article is that whoever wrote it has no real understanding of the European project.

Indeed, one of the reasons for running this series has been to do what our political parties hardly ever do themselves: consider the workings of the EU machine and the problems that confront it. We have been reminded that the EU's origins lay in the rubble of the Second World War and in a laudable desire to develop an association in which free people could trade and thrive together after centuries of political tensions and catastrophic warfare.

But the EU has become a vast, bureaucratic, unaccountable empire whose remit runs way beyond policing the common market. Its policies are made in secret, then insufficiently scrutinised in Brussels or national capitals. Yet its directives and regulations affect the lives of half a billion people. It is time we were asked what we think about it.

This is known technically as utter rubbish. The idea of the European state did not originate in the rubble of the Second World War though that rubble has been quite useful as a propaganda tool. It was never intended to be anything but an undemocratic, vast, bureaucratic and unaccountable though definitions of empire vary. Its progenitors were people who disliked democracy, were not keen on liberal constitutionalism and despised accountable legislation.

So what is it the Daily Telegraph thinks we should be asked about?

And that just about sums it up

Unfortunately I cannot go to Dublin on September 9 to attend a debate organized by Open Europe about the Lisbon Treaty. But if there is anybody out there who is wondering why both this blog and EUReferendum hold that organization in low opinion, despite all the research they do, here is the summary of what the event is about. It comes word for word from the invitation:

With just weeks to go before the second Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, Open Europe invites commentators and experts from across the EU to Dublin, to explain why they say 'yes' to a more democratic EU, and 'no' to the Lisbon Treaty.

A more democratic EU? Do tell.