WHAT THE EU TREATY OF LISBON DOES(legally accurate).

[Sub-X]

Mr. De Rossa Attacked? The Facts Footage (video)
http://www.wacireland.org/
17.04.2008

View Here

“We feel that this footage needs to come out to show how the media portrays its information.

“Mr. De Rossa was not attacked, he was asked a question.

“We Are Change believe in people expressing their democratic voices in an non-violent manner. ”

[Sub-X]

Don't fall for Ahern & Barosso's Pre-rehearsed stunt
http://www.libertas.org/content/view/262/1/
Thursday, 17 April 2008

The Irish people should not be taken in by comments that will undoubtedly be made on corporation tax today by EU Commission President Jose Barosso, Libertas is saying this morning.

Libertas Chairman Declan Ganley said:

"Bertie and Barosso might as well have practised this in front of a mirror. Bertie will ask Barosso if we've anything to fear, Barosso will say no, and Bertie and Dick Roche will give the two thumbs up for the camera and say "ok, Jose!"
It's laughable. In the week when we've now seen three separate reports confirming that the Government is in cahoots with the EU and other Governments to keep the truth of the Brussels Corporate Tax Plan from us until after we vote, we are now supposed to believe that the EU Commission President is going to "spontaneously" confirm that the Yes campaign is right?

The truth is that while we may keep our tax veto, it will be about as much use as a chocolate teapot. No Government Minister or member of the Yes campaign can tell us what the European Courts will decide is or is not a "distortion of competition". Our tax rates at obvious risk given that the French will be empowered to take us to court over them.

I appeal to the media and the public to call our dearly beloved leader on what this is today, - a cheap, pre-rehearsed stunt which is designed to fool the Irish people. Shame on the two of them."

[Sub-X]

This is Not What Democracy looks like by Kieran Allen

The Invisible Transformation of Codecision:Problems of Democratic Legitimacy

[Sub-X]

EC denies claims in leaked memo
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0416/eu.html
Wednesday, 16 April 2008

The European Commission has denied reports that it is putting off announcing anything that could cause controversy ahead of Ireland's referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

A leaked British diplomatic email claims commission officials told Irish politicians that it was willing to tone down or delay messages that could be unhelpful during the referendum campaign.

The memo details a conversation between the Director General of the Department of Foreign Affairs' EU Division, Dan Mulhall, and a senior official at the British embassy in Dublin, Elizabeth Green.

AdvertisementMr Mulhall is reported to have said procedurally it would have been better to have the referendum in October, but French plans to develop EU defence policy during the French presidency later this year would have complicated the referendum campaign.

The memo says French President Nicolas Sarkozy is too unpredictable. Diplomatically that is the most damaging thing in the memo as Ireland is traditionally close to the French particularly on agriculture issues.

That was the main topic when the Taoiseach met President Sarkozy last September in Paris the same day that agreement was struck to send Irish troops to Chad with the French.

The memo also said that other EU partners, especially the commission were being helpful in suppressing news that might affect the referendum campaign.

It said Commission Vice President Margot Wallstrom had told Minister for Foreign Affairs Dermot Ahern they would delay or tone down unhelpful announcements.

The commission has denied that Ms Wallstrom said this.
However at least one big announcement, plans for a consolidated corporate tax base, have been put off until the autumn at the request of the Irish.

A spokesman for the British Foreign Office today said that they had a policy of not commenting on leaked documents, but the spokesman did not deny that the contents of the e-mail were accurate. 

The memo was leaked to the Daily Mail newspaper in London, but was reprinted in full in The Irish Times.

[Sub-X]

Swedish EU commissioner distances herself from treaty e-mail
http://lisbontreatymediamonitor.blogspot.com/2008/04/irelandcom-irish-times-wed-apr-16-2008.html
Wed.Apr.16 2008

We recently published a document on this 'Swedish EU Commisioner', Margot Wallstrom, giving the background into her involvement in the so-called Action Committee for European Democracy (aka the 'Amato Group'), the Bosch corporation-sponsored group that was involved in repackaging the EU Constitution as the Lisbon Treaty.

Following the leaked email which has officially confirmed the Government's strategy of focusing on past benefits of the EU rather than on the details of the Lisbon Treaty, Wallstrom "strongly denies saying the commission is actively delaying sensitive legislative proposals."

Given Wallstrom's record in promoting PR campaigns such as the Citizens Consultations under 'Plan D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate', while at the same time participating behind closed doors in the repackaging of the EU Constitution as the Lisbon Treaty, how credible is this denial?

Since her visit to the Forum on Europe recently, she has made a speech at the (Irish) Institute of European Affairs in Brussles in which she purports to deal with some of the 'myths' the No side is alleged to have put forward during her visit to Ireland. Much of what she says in that speech is either misrepresentation of the No side or plain, straightforward deception — one of the chief tactics of the Yes side.

[Sub-X]

Plan D for Denial of Democracy
http://www.caeuc.org/files/WallstromPlanDforDenialofDemocracy.doc
CAEUC, 27 February 2008

Margot Wallstrom, EU Commission Vice President with responsibility for Institutional Relations and Communication Strategy, will address the Forum on Europe today (Thursday, 28 February 2008), an event which has been advertised in the press (e.g. Irish Times, Tuesday 26 February, p. 13) as ‘Treaty of Lisbon: Giving More Power to the People’.

This presumably refers to new provisions in the Treaty such as ‘co-decision’ and the increase from six to eight weeks for scrutiny of proposed EU legislation by national parliaments, but she may also talk about Commission initiatives on ‘communicating Europe’ taken under the so-called Plan D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate.

Plan D was launched following the rejection of the EU Constitution in France and the Netherlands in 2005, when EU Heads of State issued a declaration calling for a ‘period of reflection’ which would be used to “enable a broad debate to take place in each of our countries, involving citizens, civil society, social partners, national parliaments and political parties.”1

The declaration called on the Commission to play “a special role.”2 The Commission decided that the French and Dutch ‘No’ votes revealed that it was necessary to develop “a new approach to European Communication that puts citizens at the heart of European policies”3 and came up with Plan D.

Plan D set out over a dozen different actions that the Commission would take in order to achieve this goal, notably six ‘participatory democracy’ projects, co-financed by the Commission. Two of the six projects are of particular interest in the Irish context.

The first was the European Citizens Consultations project, co-financed by the Commission and supported by a number of organisations, including the Robert Bosch foundation. The ‘national partner’ in Ireland was the Forum on Europe, which hosted the event in the Royal Hospital Kilmainham in February 2007. A number of issues were discussed with the assistance of ‘experts’ and a report on citizens’ contributions to the debate was produced. The event was reported on RTE News.4

The second was Speak Up Europe, coordinated by the European Movement (whose president in Ireland is Ruarí Quinn of the Labour Party). In spite of the fact the project produced a ridiculous and highly biased Monty Python-style cartoon video on ‘what the EU has done for us’, the consultations revealed some of the genuine concerns of many citizens as to the direction of the EU.
 
The ‘Democratic Deficit’ section of the final report of the project, for example, reports that “the lack of transparency was especially criticised by citizens with regard to the negotiation of the Reform Treaty. The ‘Sherpa method’ of negotiations ‘behind closed doors’ was criticised as a poor solution … It is perceived that the European integration process continues to move forward without the direct involvement of its citizens.” (p. 7)5

Among the proposals put forward by citizens for improving the EU’s policies and procedures was a suggestion that if there were another major Treaty reform that “a new, directly elected convention or ‘constituent assembly’ should be set up in order to draft a ‘true European Constitution’ which should subsequently be put to a pan-European referendum.” (p. 7)6

These and other projects and initiatives under Plan D gave the impression that the Commission was really genuinely seeking the input of citizens in terms of EU policies — “a new approach that puts citizens at the heart of European policies.”7 However, in reality, the net result of the various consultations processes appears to have been nothing more than an open letter containing a list of 27 recommendations, which was presented to EU leaders in December 2007.8

By that date, of course, the Lisbon Treaty, which contains actual EU policies, had already been drafted and was about to be signed off on by EU Heads of State. This exposes Plan D as little more than a PR exercise. Indeed, one of the Plan D projects, the European Citizens Consultations, won a “prestigious German PR award.”9

While all the citizens consultations were going on, the EU Commission gave the green light to a private group of individuals known as the ‘Action Committee for European Democracy’ (ACED) to prepare a new European treaty behind closed doors. 

The Action Committee for European Democracy is a group of sixteen leading political figures, mostly acting or former ministers or European Commissioners. The group is headed by Italian Interior Minster Giuiliano Amato.10 (The group is sometimes referred to as the ‘Amato Group’.) Its members come from the European left and right, but all were supporters of the defeated European Constitution.

The ACED is an entirely private group. It has no democratic mandate, nor any formal standing within the EU’s institutional structure. According to its own website the group is financed by the Robert Bosch foundation, which is a 92% shareholder in the European multinational company Bosch. This company is the world’s largest suppliers of automobile components and has a turnover for €41bn per annum.11

Despite its lack of any democratic mandate, the ACED was encouraged from the beginning in its work by the Barroso Commission. Two acting commissioners were assigned to sit on the group. One of them was Margaret Wallstrom.12

Over an eight month period she took part in redrafting a failed constitutional text, behind closed doors, without any input or involvement from EU citizens or civil society — all this while claiming on her website that the Commission wanted to develop “a new approach to European Communication that puts citizens at the heart of European policies”.13

Interestingly, the ACED’s activities parallel the emergence of a renewed agenda among the EU’s intergovernmental political elite to re-launch the constitutional process. Thus the ACED first met on 30 September 2006 to start work on the new draft treaty.14 By January 2007, Angela Merkel was stating that that the ‘period of reflection’ was over and that it was time to put the constitutional process ‘back on the rails’.

On 25 March 2007, EU leaders stated their intention to have a new treaty in place by 2009. On 4 June 2007, the ACED presented its draft treaty at a press conference in Brussels.15 Within weeks it had been adopted by the Intergovernmental Conference in Portugal as the basis for what would soon become the Lisbon Treaty — a document which Bertie Ahern agrees is essentially the same as the rejected EU Constitution.

For Margot Wallstrom to come to Dublin and claim that the Lisbon Treaty is giving more power to the people is Orwellian in the extreme, especially in terms of the process of the repackaging of the EU Constitution as the Lisbon Treaty but also in terms of the very limited concessions to formal democracy in the provisions of the Treaty.


Notes

1.   The Commission’s contribution to the period of reflection and beyond: Plan-D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate, accessed 27 February 2008 at http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/wallstrom/pdf/communication_planD_en.pdf

2.   ibid.

3.   EU Commission Communication Policy, accessed 27 February 2008 at
http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/wallstrom/communicating/policy/index_en.htm

4.   European Citizens’ Consultations, accessed 27 February 2008 at
http://www.european-citizens-consultations.eu/9.0.html#c418

5.   Final Qualitative Report, Speak Up Europe, available at www.speakupeurope.eu

6.   ibid.

7.   As Note 3 above.

8.   2006 - 2007 Citizen’s Projects: Concluding Conference adopts open letter to EU and national leaders, parliaments and political parties, accessed 27 February 2008 at http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/wallstrom/communicating/conference/dialogue/index_en.htm

9.   ‘European Citizens Consultations win prestigious German PR award’, accessed 27 February 2008 at http://www.european-citizens-consultations.eu/37.0.html

10.   ACED website, http://www.iue.it/RSCAS/research/ACED/Members.shtml

11.   http://www.iue.it/RSCAS/research/ACED

12.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bosch_GmbH

13.   As Note 3 above.

14.   Liberation, 23 September 2006, cited in Robert Joumard’s “Le Comité d’action pour la démocratie européenne et le Traité modificatif européen”      http://www.france.attac.org/spip.php?article7765           

15.   Suddetsche Zietung, 5 June 2007, cited in Robert Joumard (ibid.)

[Sub-X]

Brussels delays budget reform talks
http://euobserver.com/9/25995/?rk=1
17.04.2008

An open public debate on the EU budget's reform, launched last September, has been given two additional months, fuelling speculations that Brussels is trying to avoid a negative impact on the Lisbon Treaty's ratification in Ireland.

"The public consultations were planned to end on 15 April. This has been extended until 15 June," European Commission spokesperson Christina Arigho told journalists, citing "a lot of inputs coming in" as a reason for the delay.

The commission's budget review 2008-2009 is to take a fresh look at the best way of shaping the EU's future spending. It is also intertwined with a controversial "health check" on the common agriculture policy.

Some diplomats suggest that the new time frame comes as a result of the EU tiptoeing around Ireland, as the country plans to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty on 12 June.

A controversial debate, pointing to the possible cuts in farm subsidies, could upset the country's influential farmer base.

Irish farmers are already reluctant to throw their weight behind the EU treaty as a result of the current global trade talks, which they fear could result in a less beneficial set-up for them. The European Commission is conducting the talks for the EU as a whole in this area.

"Some budgetary reforms may be difficult for some countries. Perhaps, it is better not to debate them in the open before the treaty is ratified," an EU diplomat was cited as saying by Reuters news agency.

But the commission spokesperson refused to link the two-month delay in the public consultations on EU budget to the Irish referendum.

"These reforms were presented well before we knew the timeframe for the treaty ratification," she said, adding that there is "no rush" since the specific proposal by EU budget commissioner Dalia Grybauskaite is only expected to come out at the end of 2008 or early 2009.

Backstage, the debate has already been very lively.

Germany, the biggest contributor to the union's coffers, has already indicated that farm funds should be strongly reduced in future - something likely to ruffle feathers in France, the key beneficiary of agricultural support.

In the UK, the biggest controversy is likely to be centred around the country's rebate, which was negotiated by Margaret Thatcher in 1984 and which prevents the UK from making excessive net payments to the EU budget.

[Sub-X]

Farmers threaten to torpedo treaty over trade deal fears
http://www.independent.ie/farming/farmers-threaten-to-torpedo-treaty-over-trade-deal-fears-1350787.html
Friday April 18 2008

More than 10,000 farmers took to the streets of Dublin yesterday over EU proposals they fear will destroy the beef and dairy industry and bring rural Ireland to its knees.

The protest coincided with the visit of European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso who told the National Forum on Europe that it would be in the interest of Irish farmers to have a quick resolution at the upcoming World Trade Organisation (WTO) talks in Switzerland.

Padraig Walshe, president of the Irish Farmers Association, said the decision to be made by EU Commissioner Peter Mandelson at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in Geneva in May will have a huge bearing on the way farmers vote on the Lisbon Treaty.

He told the rally outside Leinster House that since the turn of the year Mr Mandelson had completely undermined the position of the Irish farmer and warned: "Sell us out and we will have our say on the 12th of June."

In a simple message of warning to the Government, Mr Walshe said to great applause: "Don't come back from Geneva having sold us out. Thousands of workers in the food industry will lose their jobs, hundreds of businesses will have to close down. Don't expect us to do your bidding in the referendum."

He attacked previous EU trade directives affecting agriculture, saying assurances given about the sugar beet industry before the Nice Treaty has seen that industry shut down.

In a clear indication of the effect the trade talks are having on rural Ireland, Mr Walshe made a simple observation: "We are all here today to defend our own interests, because if you shut down Irish farming -- you shut down rural Ireland. Our battle is your battle, we have had our battles with the meat factories in the past, but today we are on the one side."

Reassurance

Agriculture, industry and businesses closed down yesterday in a show of support for the farmers' protest, the largest in a decade. Major co-operatives, all 50 FBD insurance offices and 1,000 businesses, including livestock marts, closed their doors for the duration of the protest.

To a roar of approval, Jackie Cahill, president of the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association (ICMSA), warned: "Tougher men than Commissioner Mandelson have learned to their cost it is a mistake to underestimate Irish farmers and the population of rural Ireland."

Mr Barroso avoided the rally -- which moved from Leinster House to Dublin Castle -- by a matter of minutes. He was whisked into the castle grounds at speed to face questions from political parties and lobby groups at the National Forum on Europe, while the rally made its way up Dame Street.

In the forum, Mr Barroso heard questions concerning the WTO talks from both Fine Gael MEP Mairead McGuiness and IFA representative Seamus O'Brien, both looking for reassurance on behalf of Irish farmers that the trade agreement will not be destructive to the Irish industry.

Mr Barroso was at pains to point out that the issues of concern to the farmers were outside the remit of the Lisbon Treaty, but he was happy to deal with the questions.

He said he was "very attentive to the concerns of the farmers in Ireland".

He made the point that negotiations on the Doha agreement and the WTO were ongoing and that the EU was intent on staying within the 2003 mandate.

He stated that the new deal would not affect the high-end of the agricultural market, which is where Ireland is placed.

Mr Barroso also said that, in the main, tariffs would hit only half of the low-end market.

[Sub-X]

The Lisbon Treaty amendment on EU harmonized taxes
http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=270
18.04.2004

The Lisbon Treaty amendment on EU harmonized taxes which has not been publicly mentioned so far in Ireland’s referendum debate.

Article  2.79 of the Lisbon Treaty would insert a six-word amendment -”and to avoid distorton of competition”  - into the Article of the existing European Treaties dealing with harmonising indirect taxes.  The full amended Article would then read as follows:

Article 113

“The Council shall , acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, adopt provisions for the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortion of competition .” (The Lisbon Treaty amendment is underlined) . . . Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

The significance of this short but important amendment is that it would enable the European Court of Justice, which adjudicates on competition matters, to decide that Ireland’s 12.5% rate of corporation tax as against Britain’s 28% rate and Germany’s 30% is a distortion of competition which breaches the Treaty Articles dealing with the internal market - Art. 26 and Arts.101-9 TFEU -  in relation to which qualified majority voting on the Council of Ministers applies.  The Irish Government’s veto under Article 113 would be irrelevant there.

The Commission, whose job it is to police the internal market, need only point out that these  big disparities in tax rates and Ireland’s reluctance to accept a Common Consolidated Tax base which would tax company profits on the basis of their sales in different EU countries, at the tax rates prevailing in those countries , constitutes a prima facie “distortion of competition” under Articles 101-109.

If Ireland refused to cooperate with what the Commission wanted, the Commision could bring it before the Court of Justice - or another country or firm could institute proceedings against it - and the Court could declare the Irish Government’s tax policy to be  unlawful as in breach of the EU’s internal market provisions.

Unanimity under Article 113 would certainly  be required to introduce any joint rates of company tax , but this Lisbon Treaty amendment would give the EU Commission and Court of Justice ample extra powers to erode Ireland’s low rate of corporation profits tax, whether we liked it or not. There is no other possible reason for inserting this hitherto virtually unnoticed  six-word amendment by means of the Lisbon Treaty.

If an Irish-based company had 10% of its sales or turnover in Ireland and 90% in, say, Britain, its profits from its Irish sales could be taxed at 12.5% and from its British sales at 28%, under the scheme the Commission has been mooting.  We might even  be allowed to keep our 12.5%  company tax indefinitely, but its practical benefit would be hugely eroded by proposals such as this, which this six-word  Lisbon Treaty amendment is designed to facilitate.

By refusing to agree to this Lisbon amendment we  refuse to hand over to the EU Commission and Court of Justice these new mechanisms to undermine the principal incentive attracting foreign companies to Ireland and keeping many of them in th country.  Of course Ireland’s low corporation tax rate benefits Irish  indigenous companies also.

By rejecting Lisbon and insisting on a Protocol in any new Treaty that would protect the principle of tax-competition between countries, we  make a stand for economic freedom and reject the attempt to impose an economic straitjacket on the EU Member States in the interests of Germany, France and Britain, with their high company tax rates.

Anthony Coughlan  Secretary

N.B.  Note that harmonizing laws on indirect taxes is mandatory under Article 113: ” The  Council SHALL …”

THE LISBON TREATY - WHY WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED

LISBON  -  NOT JUST ANOTHER EU TREATY

Below are the two key sentences of the amendment which you will be asked to put into the Irish Constitution on Thursday 12 June.  If people vote Yes they will be giving the European Union the constitutional form of a Federal EU State, in which Ireland would become a provincial state or region. This would be the end of Ireland’s position as an independent sovereign country. The French and Dutch have already rejected this proposal in referendums. By voting No we remain full EU Members based on the Nice Treaty, but we reject the Lisbon Treaty as a step too far.  Millions of Europeans who are being denied referendums on Lisbon by their politicians, are hoping  that we will say No to it for their sakes.

“The State may ratify the Treaty of Lisbon signed at Lisbon on the 13th day of December 2007, and  may be a member of the European Union established by virtue of that Treaty .   No provision of this [ Irish ] Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by membership of the European Union,  or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred  to in this section, from having the force of law in the State”  (emphasis added)            -  28th Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2008  What the Irish  people  will be voting on in the referendum

The Lisbon Treaty would

1. Establish a legally quite new European Union in the constitutional form of a Federal EU State. This new EU based on the Lisbon Treaty would have the same name but would be fundamentally different from the present EU, which was founded by the 1993 Maastricht Treaty. Lisbon would turn Ireland into a provincial or regional state within this new Union, with the EU’s Constitution and laws being made superior to the Irish Constitution and laws in any case of conflict between the two.  It would be the end of Ireland’s position as an independent sovereign State in the international community of States (Arts.1 and 47 TEU; Declaration No.17 concerning Primacy );

2. Turn us all into real citizens for the first time of this new post-Lisbon European Union, owing obedience to its laws and loyalty to its authority over and above our obedience and loyalty to Ireland and the Irish Constitution and laws. One can only be a citizen of a State. We would retain our Irish citizenship, but it would be subordinate to our EU Federal citizenship, as is normal for citizens of  Federal States such as Germany, the USA, Switzerland, Canada etc. (Art.9 TEU);

3. Be a power-grab by the Big States for control of this new Union.   By basing EU law-making primarily on population size , the Lisbon Treaty would double Germany’s say on the EU Council of Ministers from 8% to 17%. France’s say would go from 8%  to 13%, Britain’s and Italy’s from their current 8% to 12%  each.  Ireland’s voting weight on a population basis would be more than halved to 1% (Art.16 TEU);

4 . Amend the existing treaties to give the EU Court of Justice the power to rule against Ireland’s 12.5% company tax rate if it decides that this is a “distortion of competition” in the EU internal market as compared with Germany’s 30% rate (Art.113 TFEU).  This low rate of tax is the principal reason for foreign firms coming to Ireland and staying here when they come.  Lisbon would also give the EU the power to impose its own EU taxes directly on us for the first time (Art.311 TFEU);

5. Copperfasten last December’s Laval/Vaxholm judgement of the EU Court of Justice, which makes it illegal for Governments or Trade Unions to enforce pay standards higher than the minimum wage for migrant workers. At the same time Lisbon would give the EU full control of immigration policy (Art.79 TFEU). This combination threatens the pay and working conditions of large numbers of Irish people. A new Treaty Protocol is needed to set the Laval judgement aside;

6. Remove any Irish voice from the EU Commission, the body which has the monopoly of proposing all EU laws, for five years out of every 15 (Art.17.5 TEU);

7. Abolish our right to decide who the Irish Commissioner is when it comes to our turn to be on the Commission, replacing it by a right to make “suggestions” only for the new Commission President to decide (Art.17.7 TEU);

8. Hand over to the EU the power to make laws binding on us in 32 new policy areas, such as crime, justice and policing, public services, immigration, energy, transport, tourism, sport, culture, public health, the EU budget etc.;

9. Give the EU Court of Justice the power to decide our rights as EU citizens, including such matters as the right to life, the right to strike, the rights of the child, the right to fair trial etc.  Ireland’s Supreme Court would no longer have the final say on what our rights are (Art.6 TEU);

10. Be a self-amending Treaty which would permit the EU Prime Ministers to shift most of the remaining policy areas where unanimity still exists, to majority voting, without a need for new EU Treaties or referendums (Art.48 TEU);

11. Militarize the EU further, requiring Member States “to progressively improve their military capabilities” and to go to the defence of  other Member States in the event of war (Art.42.7 TEU).

[oshea.declan]

FARMERS THREAT ON LISBON TREATY (The Irish Times,Fri 18,2008)

"Sell-out" will impact on Referendum, protest told.

The FARM organisations brought more than 10,000 protesters to Dublin's
streets yesterday and delivered a message to the Government and the EU that
a bad deal for farming in the world trade talks would bring a REJECTION of
the LISBON TREATY.
In an impressive show of unity,over 1,000 agri-businesses closed their doors
from noon to 3pm to highlight the sector's fears about an unfavourable World
Trade Organisation deal.
The farm organisations claim that EU trade commissioner Peter Mandelson is
offering to cut tariffs on beef imports to the EU by 70% and tariffs on
other products by at least 50%.
This would lead to the loss of 100,000 jobs on the land and in the service
sector, said Irish Farmers' Association president Pádraig Walshe. Cheap
imports would flood Europe, making Irish and European farmers redundant, he
claimed.
He said Mr Mandelson was getting nothing in return for offering European
agriculture, food security and jobs in a "jumble sale" to the rest of the
world.
"The LISBON TREATY REFERENDUM is on the 12th of June.
"For Farmers, the Referendum decision comes on the 20th of May. That is the
date Mandelson will be in GENEVA and he has a decision to make.
"SELL US OUT and we'll have our say on the 12th of June," he said.
The Protest was called to coincide with the visit to Dublin of European
Commission president JOSE MANUEL BARROSO.
Mr Walshe reminded the gathering that in January he had said he would be
recommending a "yes" vote in the referendum.
"Since then Mandelson has completely undermined our position and I want to
put it on the record today:if the sell-out goes ahead on May 20th in Geneva,
then I will not ask farmers to support a commission that has destroyed the
future of our farm and food industry." he said.
That was the message he wanted to impart to Mr Barroso, he said.
Mr Walshe said he also had a clear message for the Government.
"Don't come back from Geneva having sold us out and expect farm families -
thousands of workers in the food inmdustry that will lost their job,
hundreds of rural businesses that will have to close down - don't expect us
to do your bidding in the referendum," he said.
Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association president Jackie Cahill said it
was significant that the protesters were going to Dublin Castle, no longer
the seat of a foreign power in Ireland.
"Is the Commission on our side, or is it now acting like a COLONIAL foreign
power of bygone days ? What input did we have to the WTO proposals ? The
answer is NONE. We weren't asked and we are to be told what is to become of
our livelihoods after that has been decided," he said.
Mr Cahill asked who was giving Mr Mandelson his power and authority to sell
out European agriculture.
"WHO GOVERNS EUROPE ? Is it sovereign governments or UNELECTED BUREAUCRATS
?" he asked.
"It is pointless to pretend that Lisbon and the outcome of WTO are not
related. Farmers in the past were pro-Europe," he said.
"We most definitely will not agree to a situation where the commission are
about to sell away our rights in the interest of so-called free trade," he
said.
Macra na Feirme president, Katherine Buckley, called on the Government to
REJECT any deal based on current proposals.
This stance was supported by Padraig Gibbons, the president of the Irish
Co-operative Movement.
Mr BARROSO, speaking in Dublin Castle, said if agreement was reached in the
World Trade talks, Ireland, like others, would have to focus more on markets
and on high quality food production.
"But this should not be too big a challenge for you, with your extensive
grassland production.
"We are working hard in the negotiations to minimise the impact on Ireland
and I believe that Ireland is already well positioned in the quality end of
the beef market," he said.

[oshea.declan]

GROUPS CONDEMN ATTACK on DE ROSSA    ( Steven Carroll, The Irish Times,Fri 18 Apr,2008)

A COALITION of groups campaigning against the Lisbon Treaty has condemned a reported attack on Labour Party MEP (Member European Parliament)  Pronsias De Rossa on Monday night.
Police are investigating a claim that Mr De Rossa was knocked to the ground by a small group of anti-Lisbon Treaty protesters following a public meeting on the treaty organised by the Labour Party at Liberty Hall in Dublin. Mr De Rossa suffered minor injuries in the incident.
The Campaign Against the EU Constitution (CAEUC) said it "would like to condemn the assault" and state that "however angry people may feel about the way the Lisbon Treaty is being presented, violence has no place in the campaign".
The CAEUC was formed in 2005 and organisations affiliated to its campaign include the Communist Party of Ireland, the Irish Anti War Movement, the Socialist Workers Party and Sinn Féin.
Several people at the meeting said it was raucous and robust, with some strong anti-Lisbon interjections from the floor.
The CAEUC said: "By intervening in the debate, we were hoping to reach Labour Party supporters who may not be aware of threats to democracy, social justice and peace contained in the Lisbon Treaty."
Brendan Young of the CAEUC said the group wants Mr De Rossa to declare that he will respect the outcome of the Irish referendum.
"If there is a majority vote against the treaty, they should respect it and not have another situation like Nice or what happened with the EU constitution in France and Holland," he said.

----------------------------------------------------
Note: As in the US where the Feds infiltrate agents provacateurs into political and activist groups all the groups listed above; the Communist Party of Ireland, the Irish Anti War Movement, the Socialist Workers Party and Sinn Féin  have all been infiltrated by Irish political police, who either control agents within these groups or have infiltrated their own people into them.

The Irish Times is traditionally read by many "yuppies" and as in the US these "idiots" are subtly manipulated by the Press all the time - The mere mention of elements such as the communist  party of Ireland is enough to "turn these yuppies the other way".
There is slick maneuvering by the Irish MSM to SUPPORT the upcoming Lisbon Treaty

[oshea.declan]

As in the US where the Feds infiltrate agents provacateurs into political and activist groups all the groups listed above; the Communist Party of Ireland, the Irish Anti War Movement, the Socialist Workers Party and Sinn Féin  have all been infiltrated by Irish political police, who either control agents within these groups or have infiltrated their own people into them.

The Irish Times is traditionally read by many "yuppies" and as in the US these "idiots" are subtly manipulated by the Press all the time - The mere mention of elements such as the communist  party of Ireland is enough to "turn these yuppies the other way".
There is slick maneuvering by the Irish MSM to SUPPORT the upcoming Lisbon Treaty

I am analyzing this and at the moment I have a strong suspicion there was a deliberate decision made not to mention We Are Change Ireland, or give them any Press whatsoever - I think this will be the policy - The Press will mention groups which have already been ostracized  in the publics consciousness such as the "communist" party - HAVE NO DOUBT that the Irish Political Police in Harcourt Square ARE VERY AWARE of WE ARE CHANGE IRELAND and ALEX  JONES - But GOD FORBID the Irish public Reading the Newspaper could be inadvertently led to something such as InfoWars.Com or WiseUpJournal.Com -- The Decision to Blank WAC Ireland in the MSM was probably made by a small group of "Civil Servants" -- i.e: Political advisors who make up what is called the Irish Secret Service - That small group of "Intellectual Elites" who "Know Best For You" and ultimately dictate policy and POLICY at the PUZZLE PALACE in Harcourt Square.

[oshea.declan]

The Following Article is taken from a Catholic Newspaper in Ireland - Irish
Family Press, dated 18th-24th April 2008.

The Catholic Church, at least at  grass-roots level,is
Anti-Lisbon Treaty.If practicing Cathlolics in Ireland vote NO to the Lisbon
Treaty we should see it shot down.

CLOAK AND DAGGER POLITICS REVEALED IN LEAKED MEMO  (by Lorcán Mac Mathúna)


"Uncertainty over the polling day; a rushed vote to avoid a thorough debate;
a conspiracy of silence on developing EU policy; cooperation in deception
from Brussels ! It may sound like a plot from a John Grisham novel but it is
what the government of Ireland are presently engaged in as part of a gross
deception to ensure that the treaty of Lisbon is passed over on the people
of not only Ireland, but all Europe, at all costs.
This is not the guess of a sceptical mind but the words of an Irish
government official. The Irish Daily Mail revealed the premeditated
government complicity in a Machiavellian plot to ensure that the Lisbon
Treaty is accepted by the Irish people - and that the deception involved
concealing the real nature of the Treaty and the intended direction of the
European federal state being built. The leaked memo obtained by the Daily
Mail was written by a senior UK diplomat named Elizabeth Green to the
British government. In it she informed them of her briefing by Dan Mulhall,
a top official in the Department of Foreign Affairs, and relayed a
complicated web of deception with the purpose of fobbing the Irish voters
off with a treaty they know nothing about. Such a scheme of national
betrayal has not been exposed since the 1800 Act of Union.

When will the vote on the Lisbon Treaty be ? Nobody knows for certain. Even
this simple matter of a polling day is to be used as a tactic in the scheme
according to the memo, which mentioned May 29 as the polling day but said
the announcement of that date would be delayed 'to keep the NO camp
guessing.'

Keeping the NO camp, and the public at large, in the dark seems to be the
main tactic of this government in ensuring that the treaty is passed and
that the Irish constitution takes one more step towards the pages of
history. As the memo said the 'aim is to focus the campaign on overall
benefits of the EU rather than the treaty itself.' All of which strikes a
familiar cord as far as government tactics are concerned when it comes to
the EU; and this treaty in particular. In a vote on a treaty between nations
- we must keep this in mind always and remember it is not a vote on whether
the EU is a good thing, or on the EU itself - the only thing not on the
table for discussion is the treaty. Can you imagine such a thing ? Crazy as
it sounds it is exactly what will unfold over the next two months if the
government have their way.

The EU will cooperate in keeping a low key profile until the Treaty is
assured. An October date, although procedurally more suitable, was ruled out
as it might allow 'unhelpful developments during the French presidency -
particularly related to EU defence' to influence the vote in Ireland. We saw
last week that the French upset that particular deception when they blurted
out the plan to harmonise taxes.

Tax harmonisation, which could lead to severe erosion in Ireland's
competitiveness as a desirable economy for foreign investment, is on the
horizon and the EU does not want to deal with it or mention it until after
the treaty of Lisbon is signed by every member state. In fact, they've been
asked to do so by the Irish government, bent on lying to and deceiving their
own people.

This leaked email has shed some light on the relative inactivity of the EU
legislative process at the moment saying that it was doing its best to keep
any bad news from the Irish voters and that other partners, including the EU
Commission, were playing a helpful, low profile role.

One thing that is already underway in the "EU superstate" is the imminent
wholesale betrayal of the farming and food industry by EU Commissioner Peter
Mandelson at the World Trade Organisation talks. This Thursday some of those
affected will stage a massive one day shut down in protest of that imminent
EU strategic development. Whether it will do any good or not to influencing
Mandelson, who as a Commissioner answers to no constituents, is doubtful,
but it should serve as a benchmark for how little influence we will have in
the new post-Lisbon EU.

The revelations contained in this memo uncovered a bizarre situation but it
is frighteningly resonant with the way the Lisbon Treaty is not being
discussed on the national platform it deserves. Thank God this leak has come
out. If the Irish media have any intention of serving the public interest
they will expose the web of deceit and subterfuge surrounding this vote and
more importantly demand a debate of the Treaty itself so as to avoid a
national hoodwink.

[oshea.declan]

I am analyzing this and at the moment I have a strong suspicion there was a deliberate decision made not to mention We Are Change Ireland, or give them any Press whatsoever - I think this will be the policy - The Press will mention groups which have already been ostracized  in the publics consciousness such as the "communist" party - HAVE NO DOUBT that the Irish Political Police in Harcourt Square ARE VERY AWARE of WE ARE CHANGE IRELAND and ALEX  JONES - But GOD FORBID the Irish public Reading the Newspaper could be inadvertently led to something such as InfoWars.Com or WiseUpJournal.Com -- The Decision to Blank WAC Ireland in the MSM was probably made by a small group of "Civil Servants" -- i.e: Political advisors who make up what is called the Irish Secret Service - That small group of "Intellectual Elites" who "Know Best For You" and ultimately dictate policy and POLICY at the PUZZLE PALACE in Harcourt Square.

Thank God They are not as clever as we give them credit for - If they had ignored WAC Ireland in the press we may have had a problem - Now we have a chance to reach thousands more people in Ireland - Carpe Diem

[Sub-X]

Secret deal to persuade Ireland on EU treaty
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/20/wirish120.xml
21/04/2008

Leaked memos and French threat to Celtic Tiger economy could scupper Brussels-Dublin manoeuvring over EU treaty

Bertie Ahern was fiddling self-consciously with the buttons on his jacket when the gates of Dublin's Government Buildings swung open and the motorcade swept into the Edwardian quadrangle.

Out leapt José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, smiling broadly, striding confidently up the steps to clasp the hand of the Irish Taoiseach.
 
It was an important moment, a show of unity designed to convince Irish voters that they have nothing to fear from the controversial Lisbon Treaty when it is put to a referendum on June 12.

Yet even as the two men emerged from their private talks to insist that Europe loved Ireland and Ireland loved what Europe had done for it, a murky deal to keep voters sweet was threatening to scupper their hopes.

Two leaked memos suggest that the Irish government and Brussels are going to great lengths to suppress bad news that might encourage a No vote - a result that would delight Eurosceptics everywhere, since if Ireland does not ratify the treaty it cannot come into force anywhere in Europe.

An internal email from a British diplomat in Dublin let slip that the commission's vice-president, Margot Wallström, had promised the Irish government to "tone down or delay messages that might be unhelpful".

The diplomat, Elizabeth Green, also said Ireland had decided to get the vote out of the way before France took over the EU leadership in July, to avoid "the risk of unhelpful developments during the French presidency" - noting that President Nicolas Sarkozy was "completely unpredictable".

The second memo, from Jo Leinen, the German chairman of the European Parliament's committee on constitutional affairs, warned that "politically sensitive" aspects of the treaty should not be discussed until it was in force.

Just how sensitive some issues can be became clear earlier this month when Christine Lagarde, Mr Sarkozy's finance minister, said Paris was "determined" to push for harmonised corporation taxes across Europe.

Her words sent a shiver through Ireland, where a low corporation tax - 12.5 per cent compared with 28 per cent in Britain - is one of the main factors credited with attracting the international companies that have helped create its "Celtic Tiger" economy.

Nowhere would the loss of that commercial advantage be felt more keenly than in the small town of Leixlip, Co Kildare, 11 miles west of Dublin.

Two technology giants, Hewlett-Packard and Intel, employ 6,000 in a town of few more than 14,000, attracted in part by the favourable tax regime. The No camp claims such companies would move away if the tax breaks went.

Leixlip, a tidy town with no shortage of EU flags fluttering from the buildings, is a testament to the benefits of EU membership. The council notice board describes it as the "fastest-growing town in Ireland".

But in her shop off the main street, Kathleen King, 65, a florist, was fretting about the impact if the big companies left. "This town would die," she said. "When I came here 35 years ago there was a chip shop and a few offices. Now we have dentists, boutiques, flower shops and better roads."

Intel, where her husband worked until he retired, had even paid for the Christmas lights and had the canal cleared out. So she was planning to vote no in the referendum: "We are praying that they stay. We don't want the French dictating to us."

Mr Ahern and Mr Barroso are both adamant that Ireland would see off the French proposal, but while neither Intel nor Hewlett-Packard would be drawn into the debate, Wyeth, an American pharmaceutical company employing 3,300 people in four Irish counties, said it would have to consider its position if corporation tax rates changed.

Ireland is the only country holding a referendum on the treaty. Britain has been denied a vote, although this faces a High Court challenge on Tuesday by the businessman Stuart Wheeler.

With polls showing that most Irish are undecided, the No camp have their tails up. Donal O'Sullivan-Latchford, of the EUReform group, said voters were alarmed at the prospect of further interference from Brussels.

The Irish government is determined to avoid having to call a second vote, as it was forced to over the Nice Treaty in 2001, after losing the first referendum.

Dick Roche, the minister for European Affairs, told The Sunday Telegraph that the critics' fears would be proved groundless. And he warned that this time there would be no second chance: "If this goes wrong, the treaty is gone, because there is no plan B. The time is not there to get it renegotiated."

[Sub-X]

Lisbon treaty website launched
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0420/breaking19.html?via=me
210/04/2008

A new website providing information on the Lisbon Treaty was today launched to educate voters in advance of June’s crucial referendum.

Established by the Referendum Commission, the independent body set up to boost public awareness on the issue, the site sets out what the treaty is about and how the EU will be changed if ratified.

The website launch comes just days after German Chancellor Angela Merkel and EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso visited the country to highlight the importance of a Yes vote.

The body will also set out the plans for its public information campaign at a briefing on Wednesday and reveal the results of a poll assessing the level of knowledge on the treaty.

Environment Minister John Gormley made an order setting up the Referendum Commission on March 6th.

It has been allocated a budget of €5 million for its work.

It does not advise voters which side to take when voting, but merely informs them about the issues and encourages them to cast their ballot.

Mr Justice Iarfhlaith O’Neill, Judge of the High Court was appointed as chairperson on the nomination of the Chief Justice.

The other members are the Clerk of the Dail Kieran Coughlan, the Clerk of the Seanad Deirdre Lane, the Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly and the Comptroller and Auditor General John Purcell.

The website address is www.lisbontreaty2008.ie

Meanwhile the Government’s summary guide to the Reform Treaty is currently being distributed to all households in the State.

Foreign Affairs Minister Dermot Ahern said the 48-page booklet in both Irish and English sets out in a clear and factual manner the treaty’s proposed
changes.

“The distribution of this guide is part of the Government’s efforts to ensure that the public are as well informed as possible regarding the content of the Treaty, which will be the subject of a referendum in June,” he said.

“In addition to this guide, the Government has published a White Paper, explaining the Treaty’s content in more detail.

“Earlier this week, the European Union published the consolidated version of the EU Treaties, incorporating the changes to be made by the Reform Treaty, once ratified. That document shows exactly how the Reform Treaty will amend the existing Treaties. It shows the legal framework that will apply if the Reform Treaty is ratified by all Member States.”

Mr Ahern added that in the coming weeks the government will facilitate “the best informed public debate for any referendum in our history.”

“I am confident that when people are informed about this Treaty, they will dismiss the myths being promoted by Treaty opponents and give a resounding Yes on polling day.

“A reading of the Government guide will confirm that there is nothing to fear and much to gain from ratifying a Treaty whose provisions are firmly in Ireland’s and in Europe’s interests,” Mr Ahern said.

[Sub-X]

Cherie Blair's firm hired to stop EU treaty
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/21/ncherie121.xml
21/04/2008

One of Britain's richest men has hired Cherie Blair's law firm to advise him on a £750,000 High Court battle that could force Gordon Brown to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

Stuart Wheeler will go to the High Court in London tomorrow to seek a judicial review of the Government's decision.

The challenge could delay the ratification of the controversial treaty by months.

Mr Wheeler, 73, made more than £30 million from IG Index, the spread betting firm. He has raised £150,000 from 150 donors to pay for the action, which could cost £750,000.

He will claim that the EU Reform Treaty is almost entirely the same as the defunct EU constitution on which the Government had promised to hold a referendum and the Government should therefore hold a vote on the treaty.
 

[Sub-X]

Tax harmonisation 'by back door' threatens our economic survival
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/tax-harmonisation-by-back-door-threatens-our-economic-survival-1353847.html
April 21 2008

It was one of the shrewdest moves Ireland has ever made. Back in 1995, the economy was just starting to take off and a group of Irish civil servants, with revenue officials in the vanguard, went to the EU with a proposal for a new Irish tax regime.

People were bristling at our existing regime, which gave a 10pc corporation tax rate to selected foreign companies setting up in Ireland and to some Irish companies, most notably manufacturers.

The suggested solution was that we would stop treating foreign companies differently and introduce a new 12.5pc rate for everybody.

Although the economy was doing well, most of our neighbours, and some of our own commentators, dismissed our success as a mere blip, a cyclical rise which would be followed by a fall. We were certainly not seen as an economic powerhouse.

I hope there is a plaque somewhere to the civil servants who persuaded the EU that there was no threat to our introducing a common low rate of corporation tax.

Let there be no doubt about the benefit of this move. Just as lowering capital gains tax led to a net increase in revenue, a low-tax environment was a boon to Irish businesses -- coming at a time when it was still very difficult to source funding.

It also secured our ability to attract inward investment. In that regard, much is sometimes made of our ability to speak English or our highly educated workforce; but the principal reason foreign companies, and in particular American foreign companies, have flocked to Ireland is low taxes.

Those who agreed to our low corporation tax back in 1995, without stipulating that it would be reviewed after a set period, are now saying they want us to increase our corporation tax. Oh, they are not saying it directly, but that is the import of what they are so sedulously doing.

There is no direct proposal to harmonise European corporation taxes. What is happening is what Charlie McCreevy calls tax harmonisation by the back door.

The proposed common consolidated corporate tax base (CCCBT) is being sold as a means of improving tax efficiencies across Europe. But to achieve this, one would have to agree on what is tax deductible, what accounting methods we use and a myriad of other matters. As this process would narrow some countries tax bases and extend others, it would be accompanied by a process where countries either raise or lower corporation tax rates.

The next stage could see taxes being worked out on the basis of where goods are sold rather than where they are manufactured, which would seriously hit small countries such as our own, to the benefit of big countries. No prizes for guessing who are the principal backers of the CCCBT proposals.

Last week, Jose Manuel Barroso assured Irish business people that the Lisbon Treaty would not mean harmonised corporation taxes. He is correct. Were it otherwise, the Lisbon Treaty could hardly count among its most loyal supporters both IBEC and the American Chamber of Commerce in Ireland.

The CCCBT push is a danger which we must face up to whether or not the Lisbon Treaty is given effect. Mr Barroso pointed out that we could veto any attempt to introduce CCCBT across the EU. That does not mean the large EU countries will shelve their attempts to use the "enhanced co-operation" provisions of the EU to create a sort of "eurozone of CCCBT countries". Although Ireland would initially be excused from joining such a grouping, pressure would inevitably be brought to bear to bring us inside the camp.

This is not, as German Chancellor Angela Merkel has suggested, about Ireland setting a tax rate which undermines our European neighbours. This is about our right, enshrined in existing treaties, to adopt a low-tax environment as a matter of political principle.

In very reasonable French and German accents, we are consistently told that we should not criticise proposals which have not yet been finalised. But when you see an army marching towards you, you don't wait until they get to your borders to establish your defences.

[Sub-X]

Ulick McEvaddy joins No to Lisbon Campaign
http://www.libertas.org/content/view/264/1/
20 April 2008

Ulick McEvaddy has spoken of his "Very difficult" decision to call for a "No" vote in the Lisbon Treaty referendum at a Press Conference in Dublin this afternoon.

Mr. McEvaddy was joined by Libertas Chairman Declan Ganley in Dublin's Merrion Hotel, where he had called reporters to tell them about his decision.

He said:

"When it came time to decide how to cast my vote in this campaign, I looked around and saw an alliance of people I respect and admire on one side of the debate. Therefore, my decision should have been an easy one, you might think.

Nonetheless, having read this Treaty four times, I have been unable to find it worthy of my support, and I am certainly unable to say that it is going to be in any way beneficial to the interests of the Irish people, or the Irish business community.

I have a deep and abiding appreciation of what membership of the European Union has done for this country. I do not need the yes campaign to remind me about that. I understand the desire of many people to "repay" Europe for that support by supporting this latest offering at the ballot box.

On the other hand, I believe that affection and respect for Europe must be repaid with due diligence and thoughtful consideration of what is in Europe's best interests. This document is set to determine the future of Europe for the next 1,000 years.  Reading it, I come to the conclusion that it is unwieldy, unclear, incredibly poorly drafted, and will require years of interpretation by lawyers and the European Courts.

Further, I am troubled by the lack of any meaningful attempt to make Europe more democratic. These troubles are not assuaged by the fact that across Europe, in many cases in direct contravention of promises by Government, the people of Europe are being denied the chance to voice their opinions on this generation-defining document at the ballot box.

In the case of Ireland, I am troubled by the very clear risk to our ability to determine our own taxation levels. The risk, identified by Libertas and Declan Ganley, and then confirmed by Jose Barosso this morning, of destination taxes being imposed on Irish business is not one that I think we should take, in the national interest.

There is only one thing clear about this treaty, and that is that it is completely unclear.

In that context, I regret that I cannot join the chorus of establishment calls for a "yes" vote, and that I find myself calling for the Irish people to vote No.

I see a need for reform in Europe, - of that there is no doubt. Regulation from Brussels has become an extraordinary burden for the business community to bear, and this needs to be addressed. Despite long conversations with people whom I respect, I can find no evidence that the Treaty will make any difference in that respect whatsoever.

Europe needs a constitution and a rulebook that is clear, and gives the people as much input as possible. Ireland and the United States both have documents of this nature.

When the leaders of Europe draft something that the ordinary person can understand, and that will not need decades of legal wrangling to determine its effect, I will gladly support it.

On this occasion, however, I am giving my support to Declan Ganley, in his and Libertas' call for a rejection of this treaty on June 12th".

[Sub-X]

Eirígí say no to the Lisbon treaty – Say Yes To Democracy And Independence
http://www.pana.ie/idn/150408.html

éirígí, believing as it does that Irish political and economic control should be under the collective jurisdiction of the Irish people rejects the European Union’s proposed Lisbon Treaty and encourages people to bin the treaty by voting No in the upcoming Twenty-Six County referendum.

If implemented, the Lisbon Treaty will mark the latest sell-off of the limited independence that Ireland secured with the 1921 British withdrawal from the Twenty-Six Counties. It will also ensure that Twenty-Six County legislation, labour practices and political and military alliances will be further ‘harmonised’ on a EU-wide basis. This ‘harmonisation’ will, without doubt, be designed to protect and promote the political and economic interests of the most powerful states within the EU.

The Treaty itself is a cynical re-draft of the EU Constitution, which was rejected by the electorates of France and the Netherlands in referenda in 2005. The reformed (Lisbon) Treaty includes many of the most reactionary provisions of that Constitution, but bypasses the need for democratic accountability by referenda in many member states.

This was confirmed by the German chancellor Angela Merkel in June 2007 when she stated; “The substance of the constitution is preserved. That is a fact.”

The Lisbon Treaty will, if implemented, adversely affect the lives of half a billion people in 27 separate states. To date only the electorate of the Twenty-Six Counties have been permitted a vote on the Treaty, with the people of the Six Counties being denied a vote due to the British occupation.

éirígí believes that this scenario places a special onus on the electorate of the southern state to reject the Treaty, not only in the interests of all the people of Ireland, but also on behalf of the people of Europe, who are being denied a voice at this crucial juncture.

The Treaty, if implemented, will entail:

Further militarisation of the EU, with each member state contributing to an overall EU military capacity, which will work in close conjunction with NATO – effectively ending the concept of Irish neutrality.
 
The removal of national vetoes in around 50 policy areas and an extension of the areas under which decisions are taken by qualified majority, particularly in policing and judicial affairs.

A reduction in the number of commissioners from 27 to 18, with the simultaneous strengthening of the role of president of the European Commission.

The recognition of the EU as having a legal personality, entitling the EU to conclude, in its own right, agreements and treaties in the name of all member states.

A reduction in the voting strength of the Twenty-Six Counties, and other smaller states, thus giving more power to larger states.
The primacy of European law over national law, even if in contravention of the Twenty-Six County constitution.

The harmonisation of ‘market policy’, paving the way for the further encroachment of neo-liberal, ‘free’ market economics across the EU

Anybody who is any doubt about the extent of the anti-democratic changes planned for the citizens of Europe should keep an eye on the expostulations of its leading statespeople. Here are just two of their opinions on the rights of European citizens:

"The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it" - Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister and Vice-Chairman of the Convention Constitution, speech at London School of Economics, February 21 2007.

"Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would it be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?" - Jean Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxembourg, Daily Telegraph, July 3 2007.

The Lisbon Treaty clearly centralises more powers and competencies in an embryonic EU super-state through the reduction of national vetoes and the autonomy of individual states. In the Irish context this diminution of national sovereignty will lead to a further erosion of independence, democracy and neutrality.

éirígí will be highly active in encouraging people to vote No to Lisbon and begin the fight back against the many and varied attacks on Irish national sovereignty.

We appeal to all those who share our concerns to get involved in the campaign.

Read this: United States of Europe?No Thank's

[Sub-X]

Irish Foreign Affairs
http://www.pana.ie/idn/160408.html
Volume 1, Number 1 April - June 2008

Irish Foreign Affairs

"Every nation, if it is to survive as a nation, must study its own history and have a foreign policy"

Editorial Statement

This is the first issue of Irish Foreign Affairs, a quarterly journal established to comment on foreign policy and on global affairs from an independent Irish perspective.

The Irish State was founded with a core foreign policy idea – the notion of the right of the Irish nation to have an independent state of its own and through that state to make a distinct mark in the world. The limits of this independence were necessarily first and foremost the ability of the state to develop and act free of British constraints.

Until the 1960s, Irish citizens took for granted that this was what the state was about. People knew the Proclamation of 1916 with its foreign policy position, and there was in general a remarkably high level of knowledge about foreign affairs. This knowledge of the world was not derivative of the British liberal media and was informed by commentaries from a uniquely Irish perspective in newspapers such as the Irish Press, various journals, and even in early RTE television.

Today such a perspective is difficult to find. The Irish seem no longer to think about such things. Commentary and debate on foreign policy is largely derivative and often little more than a provincial echo of British concerns or pop fashions.

Fashionable views now proclaim independent Ireland to have been “insular” and “inward looking”. The ending of this sad state of affairs by the “opening up” of Ireland since the 1960s is hailed as a major step in its “growing up”. This is a nonsense. Ireland in many ways has become a narrower, more derivative place.

Nationalist Ireland had always argued with itself about its role in the world: Redmondites saw an Irish future as a junior partner with England in a world imperial project, while the Sinn Féin Party which won the 1918 election in a landslide victory sought connections with the world independent of and at odds with that empire.

In challenging the British Empire, the Irish Independence movement raised the flag for all nations subordinated against their will within that empire, and became a beacon for their subsequent strivings for statehood. This reputation has remained strong across the world, particularly in popular liberation movements, though, as Conor Lynch reports in this issue, it is a reputation now understandably under threat.

The distorted development of the Free State resulting from the 1921 Treaty imposed on it under threat of “immediate and terrible war” was reflected in its early foreign policy. No faction of the Sinn Féin movement, including those who supported in retrospect the signing of the Treaty, believed in or openly defended the castrated sovereignty it bestowed. At the time it was signed Michael Collins wrote an article (re-published here) advocating that the Free State become “a pivot in a league of nations” which would lead to the dissolution of empire. But already even this focus back to possibilities within the confines of empire was a distorted development. It was easily abandoned when the project to build the Republic was resumed under Fianna Fáil in 1932.

Under de Valera Ireland played a high profile role in world affairs, notably following his election to President of the League of Nations. Even before that he was making an impression as an international statesman, as reflected in his shrewd handling of the Soviet bid for League membership described in an article by Manus O’Riordan in this issue. “Insular” and “inward looking” indeed!

De Valera’s role advocating collective security while major powers plotted a replay of the First World War, and his role in asserting and vindicating Irish independence by ending British military occupation in 1938 and declaring Ireland’s neutrality in any new imperialist war, are key touchstones in the history of Irish foreign policy, and a cause of great headaches to those embarrassed by that history and seeking to revise it.

Connecting with Europe as a way to free the country from political, economic and security dependence on Britain was a much discussed idea in Ireland and reflected in the 1916 Proclamation.

Membership of the EU has been a cornerstone of recent Irish development. But it does not represent Ireland “opening up”. How can you “open up” something that was never closed? From the start of the European process we sought involvement in it, but were constrained by our continued economic dependence on Britain (96% of Irish exports were still to Britain in the late 1960s). Charles de Gaulle was politely emphatic on why Britain could not join the EEC (see his speech reprinted in this issue). When membership became possible, an overwhelming majority of the electorate supported it, and repeated this support in various referendums until the Nice Treaty vote in 2004.

British membership in comparison has been unpopular there and resisted and resented since. Irish governments – and the electorate – have repeatedly supported radical reforms to deepen the integration of Europe. Under Haughey Ireland was steered into very close relations with Germany and France, the driving force of the European Federalist movement. But the end of the Cold War and the reemergence of British world power ambitions have disrupted the development of Europe and distorted the direction it is taking.

This first issue of Irish Foreign Affairs critically examines these issues and draws consequences for the position we propose in relation to the Lisbon Treaty process, a process from which the EU of the Treaty of Rome must be saved.

[Sub-X]

Promoting greed over need - Lisbon & Neo-liberalism
http://www.pana.ie/idn/270308.html

Speech given by Daithí Mac An Mhaistír (éirígí) at a meeting organinsed by Anti-War Ireland, in Cork City on Thursday, 27th March, 2008.

"The pooling of coal and steel production should immediately provide for the setting up of common foundations for economic development as a first step in the federation of Europe ."

The Lisbon Treaty is the culmination of a long process of economic and political integration that has its roots in the Schumann Declaration , of May 9 th 1950, on the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community, from which the words I have just quoted are taken.

The truth is that the Lisbon Treaty is quite clear about its economic intentions for Europe. It is quite clear that it favours the principle of profit over people. Valery Giscard d'Estaing may have asserted that the EU Constitution proposals, rejected by the French & Dutch in 2005 for the very reason that they represented an attack on the notion of a ‘social' Europe, would be retained, hidden and disguised in some way in the Lisbon Treaty [Le Monde, 2007].

But, thanks to the Trojan work of a number of people here and in Europe we have the evidence to present to the working people of Ireland that this is a treaty that does not have their interests at heart.

Jonas Sjöstedt is one of those people. His paper, entitled The Lisbon Treaty - Centralization and Neoliberalism , very clearly outlines how the adoption of Lisbon will compound the ever-increasing erosion of economic and political sovereignty that the European Union project represents. The CAEUC's document Vote NO for a Democratic, Social and Demilitarised Europe (available for download at www.caeuc.org) is another authoritative text on the various aspects of the Treaty, including the one that we are dealing with here presently – that of the likely effects of so-called ‘trade liberalisation' on the lives of working people throughout Europe. This paper draws heavily from both documents. I would encourage you all to source both and read them.

The Lisbon Treaty, like all EU treaties before it, promotes the need, and therefore greed, of private business over the needs of people.

Debacles such as the privatisation of Eircom and massive water charges for schools are only a taster of what is to come if the Lisbon Treaty is passed.

In real terms this treaty means that private corporations will be evermore facilitated to make vast profits from essential services such as healthcare and education. This is not scare-mongering.

This treaty continues a policy dating back to the 1980's whereby ‘restructuring' of essential public services such as water and sanitation, public transport, energy, post and telecoms has taken place. This ‘restructuring' has led to the widespread conversion of these public services into private businesses. The Lisbon Treaty is now taking aim at the crucial public service areas of health, education and social care. Neo-liberalism is EU policy, and it is pushed further by this renamed constitution. ( Vote NO for a Democratic, Social and Demilitarised Europe , CAEUC).

In this regard, Lisbon will authorise the EU Commission to enter negotiations with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) with the objective of promoting, (and I quote) “the achievement of uniformity in measures of liberalism”, and, the (I quote) "progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade and on foreign direct investment" ( Article 188 )

Subsequent to Lisbon, these negotiations will be conducted, for the first time, on the basis of a removal of the right to unconditional veto in the areas of health and educational services that members States once held.

The simple fact of all of this is that the Lisbon Treaty would make privatisation of our health and social services easier.

Consider, if you will:

How EU treaties all state that the free market, in goods, capital, services and labour etc., take precedence over all other concerns
How, in the EU, a company's right to sell goods is more important than environmental or consumer protection, or worker's rights (as in:

1) the case of Vaxholm – Laval, where the ECJ gave limited protection to the right to strike in pursuit of the ‘minimum', yes, minimum, worker's rights – crucially however, providing that this strike action didn't preclude the free movement of goods and services ), and

2) Where the ECJ struck down the Volkswagen law in Germany – in place since 1961 (which put company policy in State hands), opening up the way for a hostile takeover by Porsche.

Both of these cases clearly show how “the ECJ prioritises freedom to buy companies, move capital and maximise profit. Employment, control of production and the environment take second place”. ( Vote NO for a Democratic, Social and Demilitarised Europe , CAEUC).

Consider how member states will be severely limited in their ability to legislate for any measure that is considered to be an obstacle to the free movement of goods, services and labour.

How this, in turn, clearly limits laws that are intended to improve the environment (as we shall see later) or consumer protection.

How this is particularly serious given that countries will be actively prohibited from leading the way and showing that it is possible to implement better laws in pursuit, again for example, of environmentally sustainable development.

"It puts new measures into treaty law – which is impossible to change – rather than domestic law, which can be changed by a change of government". ( Vote NO for a Democratic, Social and Demilitarised Europe , CAEUC).

This is an important point, and therefore should be re-stated: The EU will introduce a whole range of new laws (given the huge increase in its ‘competencies') that cannot be changed, and will prohibit National parliaments introducing laws that contradict them.

The EU's internal market is considered so crucial that there is even a special article, ( Article 297) , that states that the internal market must be upheld even when countries are at war.

The EU advocates, as an explicit goal in the Treaty, a policy of deregulation and privatization in pursuit of the objective of an internal market with free competition.
 
What this means is that, in effect, the EU demands the deregulation of sectors such as the postal system, ports, railways and ecommunications.

With respect to the service sector, there are several explicit demands for deregulation included in EU treaties.

The EU's Services Directive, which gave rise to the scandal at Irish Ferries, has a solid foundation in the proposed Lisbon Treaty.

The treaty also states that: "All restrictions on the movement of capital between member states ... and third countries shall be prohibited" ( Art 56 ).

Even with respect to economic policy, the treaties lean sharply to the right. The rules for economic policy and the single currency have a pre-eminent goal: stable prices.

This means that other goals, such as social welfare and employment always take a back seat.

Neither does the Lisbon Treaty institute any democratic control over monetary policy.

To fulfill the single currency's requirements, the EU virtually always demands that Member States cut their public spending.

On the whole, the Lisbon Treaty limits the possibilities to pursue a progressive policy in several crucial areas. With respect to equality, employment or the environment there are only very small or no improvements included in the text. The goal of full employment is added to the treaty's paragraph on goals, but in the chapter on employment the goal is then reduced to high employment.

What the people who will vote on Lisbon need to know is that the water charges that Mary Hanafin & Bertie Ahern lamented they could do so little about, came from Europe (1999). The postal and electricity directives also are also similarly designed to place these essential services and resources under so-called ‘free-market', and not, democratic control

And what about the crucial public services areas of health, education and social care?

What does Lisbon have to say about these?

Will the Treaty ease the concerns of the thousands who will march this Saturday for a decent health service?

Will the proposals contained in Lisbon advance the cause of an accessible and just health system based upon need?

For the fist time Lisbon will remove the requirement that trade deals involving health, education, and cultural and audiovisual services be unanimously agreed to i.e. – the right to veto is removed ( Art 188c.4) , other than in exceptional circumstances.

These exceptions being where, a) in the field of trade in cultural and audiovisual services, where these risk prejudicing the
union's cultural and linguistic diversity, and b), in the field of social, educational and health services, where these agreements risk seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of member states to deliver them.”

What the ‘risk of seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of member states to deliver them' actually means is very ill-defined, and, if the ECJ's interpretation of its duty to uphold worker's rights is anything to go by (i.e. – upholding the right to strike in pursuit of the implementation of ‘minimum' wage agreements only), then Lisbon holds out all the possibility that these protections will not amount to the proverbial ‘hill of beans' for working people.

And why should they?

When EU Commission President Manuel Barroso likened the developing EU as a creation “to the organisation of an empire”, we must remember that in empires, it is the bureaucrat, businessman and politician who prosper.

Not you or I

Lisbon and the Environment – ‘Promoting' Change, Rewarding Business

When we come to the environment and what the Lisbon Treaty has to say in this regard, we again see rhetoric and vagueness but very, very little by way of substance. And to be honest – we shouldn't really have expected much more.

The Lisbon Treaty section on the environment includes a brief passage on the special significance of climate change. This article ( Art. 191.1 TFEU – consolidated text produced by the Institute of International European Affairs ), if adopted, would commit the EU to "promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, and in particular combating climate change” .

But no new authority to make decisions in this area has been introduced in the Treaty. All measures such as they exist, derive from previous EU treaties and policies.

One interpretation of the climate change reference - that of the 10 th report of the British House of Lords Select Committee on European Union ( 10.11), - notes that “the introduction into the Treaty of a specific reference to climate change is of strategic rather than legal significance.”

So – on the one hand we have vague and very brief references to ‘promoting' measures to combat climate change while at the very same time EU policies in the areas of agriculture, transportation and trade do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed the recent announcement by the EU Commission that EU states will have to make a 20 per cent cut in greenhouse gases by 2020 makes huge concessions to cement, steel and aluminium companies.

Indeed, EU priorities were summed up by EU enterprise commissioner Guenter Verheugen when he said: “I am all for setting an example for the rest of the world. But I am against committing economic suicide.” ( Vote NO for a Democratic, Social and Demilitarised Europe , CAEUC).

This is the conflict at the heart of EU deliberations on the environment. This conflict has not been addressed in the Treaty:

"The EU favours big business over sustainable development. Market-led policy gives rise to logging of the rainforests, plantations for biofuel and ranches for cheap beef. Despite a genuflection to climate change, the Lisbon Treaty would further undermine sustainable development.

Protocol Two of the Lisbon Treaty establishes the European Atomic Energy Commission (Euratom). This prioritises nuclear energy over renewables. The Irish people have consistently rejected nuclear energy, but this treaty, like its predecessors, commits the EU to promote nuclear power". ( Vote NO for a Democratic, Social and Demilitarised Europe, CAEUC).

It is estimated that we are contributing in the region of 8 million euro annually to EURATOM. Why does it make more sense to contribute 8 million in Irish taxes to the development of nuclear energy sources rather than to the development of renewables?

Again, we need to understand that nuclear energy, like oil, is the preferred energy of big business: defined as it is by short-term gain at the expense of long-term sustainability and security.   

The flip-flopping of the Green Party with regard to the EU Constitution, and then the Lisbon Treaty, rejecting the former whilst accepting the latter, is very instructive of how policy can be jettisoned and those with an agenda for change can very easily and rapidly become servants of power.

I would strongly encourage Green Party members to do the honourable thing and vote against Lisbon.

On the whole, no improvements of any importance have been made in the Lisbon Treaty in the area of environmental protection.

According to Friends of the Earth, “ The EU's common agricultural policy has remained largely unchanged since the 1950s. Over the years, the goal of increasing productivity in agriculture (Art. III-227.1a) has led primarily to increased large-scale farming and the use of chemical pesticides. Additionally, agricultural policy has led to surpluses and dumping, and to skewed competition on the world market, which has first and foremost had an adverse effect on the small farmers of the developing world.”

Moreover, and most importantly – ‘any internal actions on environmental problems would have to be reconciled with the EU's rules on the taking of action “which distort or threaten to distort competition” ( Art 87 TFEU ), and the EU policy of safeguarding the internal market and sustaining the energy market.' (What the Lisbon Treaty Would Do - 17th March, 2008), The National Platform EU Research and Information Centre)

This is very important – again, we see that whether we are talking about worker's rights, public services or climate change – it is the rights of the ‘market' and Capital that take precedence over the rights of people.

Should we really be surprised by this fact, and the consequent contempt within which the people of Europe are held by their political leaders?

Should we really be surprised that politicians serve the interests of Capital over those of people and the air they breathe?

The clearest indication of how little indeed the rights of the peoples of Europe figure in the deliberations of the ‘Euroclass' is epitomised perfectly by the arrogance with which these bureaucrats and politicians approach, obfuscate, and finally dismiss the principle of democracy itself - such as it applies to the European Union construct and its workings. 

When Valery Giscard d'Estaing in 2007 stated that “Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly” ... he was reflecting an attitude that epitomises, as Vincent Browne has recently written, “the modus operandi of the European Union - scorn for everyone” .

In the same article Browne goes on to state that this scorn is held "even for the Euro fans themselves - but they are so besotted they don't care.
.... The rest of us should". [Irish Times, Wednesday, March 5 th 2008]

This scorn for democracy is, (the nature of the Treaty's proposals notwithstanding), the primary reason for éirígí's decision to dedicate itself to wholeheartedly opposing this 'Reform' Treaty.  To do so is to stand on the side of democracy and a vision of Europe wherein the people are sovereign; wherein politicians are the servants of the citizens of their respective States. Saying NO to Lisbon is to say yes to the possibility of a democratic Europe, to the possible realisation of James Connolly's notion that an "internationalism of the future will be based upon the free federation of free peoples", (... something that) "cannot be realised through the subjugation of the smaller by the larger political unit" (James Connolly, Forward , 1911)

This is the only vision for Europe that éirígí can countenance.

SAY NO TO A UNITED STATES OF EUROPE – SAY NO TO LISBON

Go raibh maith agaibh

Daithí Mac An Mhaistír

[Sub-X]

The Big EU Con Trick
http://www.pana.ie/idn/031207.html

The Big EU Con Trick

Why Trade Unionist should demand a Referendum on the EU's Renamed Constitution TUAEUC - Trade Unionists Against the EU Constitution.

As a trade unionist you will no doubt have witnessed some pretty low-downtricks and even deceit when negotiating with management on any givenissue. It may not surprise you then to learn that despite the rejection of the EUConstitution by French and Dutch voters two years ago, the EU haspresented us with the same animal under a different name.

Under its terms, member states would hand over significant governmental powers to unelected EU institutions. It would give Brussels the power to privatise any industry, force public services to be put out to ‘competition’, extend the unelected European Commission’s exclusive right to draw up new laws and commit EU member states to joining the Euro.

It represents a new and significant threat to workers’ rights to collective bargaining in the interests of creating a ‘single internal market’ without giving us the right to strike.

It would further militarise the EU and give the EU theright to extend its own police force, whose officers enjoy immunity from prosecution. All these measures and more are still in the ‘new’ treaty despite what some well-heeled politicians may tell you. In other words, it is the same treaty that TUC Congress delegates voted overwhelmingly to oppose in 2005. So remember, if it quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, then it is a duck.- BOB CROW RMT General Secretary, TUAEUC Chair

In May 2005 French and Dutch voters, led primarily by trade unions, rejected the proposed EU Constitution, and the UK referendum we were promised by our government on it was shelved.

EU leaders declared a ‘time for reflection’ in order to decide how to continue the process of imposing a supranational state Constitution on the diverse peoples of Europe.

Their answer was to establish an ‘exclusive mandate’ in June 2007, which is designed to keep all the features of the old constitution. The bigger states like Germanyand Britain pressurised the weaker EUstates to accept this strategy as a fait accompli.

The Czech delegation regarded the summitas "a fiasco". A member of the Czech delegation stated that "without a partnerfrom one of the larger states, we werepowerless". A ‘new’ version of the Constitution, now blessed with the more harmless-sounding tag ‘Reform Treaty’, was unveiled a month later by an intergovernmental conference (IGC) set to conclude by October 18 2007.

However, the process of imposing an ‘exclusive mandate’ on states negotiating with one another is illegal under laws governing international treaties. Under the Vienna Convention that governs international law and treaties, it is the fundamental right of sovereign states to negotiate any handing over of powers.

In the past with all EU treaties, from Rome to Nice, the IGC has preceded the tabling of a draft treaty where unanimity and ratification by all member states was required.

In the case of the “exclusive mandate” these principles have been set aside by the European Council – an informal group of EU heads of government.

At the supposedly sovereign IGC, governments will only be allowed to discuss the treaty which the European Council wants. So sovereign governments are now acting under orders from the European Council, an EU body.

Before any further moves are taken to rubberstamp this Renamed EUConstitution, we believe the peoples of Britain should have a say on the matter by casting their votes in the referendum the government promised us two years ago.

[Sub-X]

Garda powers of request for internet data to be widened
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/0422/1208469022709.html
April 22, 2008

THE RANGE of criminal investigations for which the Garda will be able to request e-mail and internet data retained by internet service providers has been broadened by the Government.

In the latest draft of the statutory instrument implementing European directives on data retention, which has been seen by The Irish Times , "serious offences" would be defined as "any offence for which a person . . . could receive a maximum custodial sentence of six months".

This is a broader definition than that in Section 1 of the Bail Act 1997, which defines a "serious offence" as an arrestable offence with a minimum prison sentence of five years.

Offences that could now be deemed "serious" under the statutory instrument would include public order offences, such as refusing to move on when asked to do so by a garda, or minor assault.

The former minister for justice Michael McDowell had vowed that retained data would only be used in the prosecution of serious criminal and terrorism cases.

The draft statutory instrument would also apply the proposed new definition of serious offences to the current data retention regime on call data introduced in the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005.

In an apparent attempt to seek a compromise on retention more acceptable to the internet service providers - who would carry the cost of implementing it - the proposed legislation now seeks a 12-month retention period rather than the two years allowable under the EU directive.

Under the draft statutory instrument, retained data would include names of those who sent and received e-mails, computer addresses, the location of computer users, the times a user logged on and off a computer, and the size of files and e-mails sent and received, but not the content of e-mails.

Currently, the Garda can obtain telephone and mobile call data with no restrictions at all, a situation that has been repeatedly criticised by Data Protection Commissioner Billy Hawkes and national and international privacy advocacy groups.

"This SI is clearly undermining all the normal legal understanding of what constitutes a serious offence," said Ivana Bacik, senator and Reid professor of criminal law at Trinity College Dublin.

"If they are making a change like that, it should be brought in through primary legislation," the Independent senator said.

Unlike most EU states, Ireland did not ask for a derogation on implementing the directive, so must now bring it into effect by statutory instrument.

The Garda Commissioner must also make a retention order rather than a superintendent, as under the 2005 Act.

The Garda Commissioner will also be required to submit an annual report to the Minister for Justice detailing how many requests were made for retained data, the number of times the request for a disclosure of data could not be met, and the time between the retention of the data and the disclosure request.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seanad Éireann
Houses of the Oireachtas - Parliament of Ireland 
http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewpda.asp?DocID=8794
14 February 2008
Matters on the Adjournment

CATHAOIRLEACH: I have received notice from the following Senators that they propose to raise the following matters on the adjournment:

Senator John Paul Phelan:
The need for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to outline the current position on the provision of a new fire station at Graiguenamanagh, Co. Kilkenny.

Senator Paudie Coffey:
The need for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to clarify the progress on the '7 Village Sewerage scheme' application submitted by Waterford County Council and the reason the Foreshore License that is required has not yet been approved.

Senator Fiona O'Malley:
The need for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to address the house in relation to the EU Directive on Data Retention which Ireland has not yet complied with and which constitutes an invasion of privacy.

Senator Shane Ross:
The need for the Minister for Health and Children to hasten the process for Irish citizens to adopt children from overseas.

I regard the matters raised by the Senators as suitable for discussion on the Adjournment and I have selected Senators John Paul Phelan, Coffey and O'Malley and they will be taken at the conclusion of business. Senator Ross may give notice on another day of the matter he wishes to raise.

[Sub-X]

RTE SELLING the Lisbon Treaty!
http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=277
22.04.2008

For an organisation that promotes itself as fair, balanced and owned by the Irish People, a question we must ask is, are RTE really fair and balanced, or is that just a marketing campaign designed to hide the fact that most of the coverage is distorted and one sided? Here is how they describe themselves:

“RTE is a Public Service Broadcaster, a non-profit making organization owned by the Irish people. RTE is Ireland’s cross-media leader, providing comprehensive and cost-effective free-to-air television, radio and online services, which are of the highest quality and are impartial, in accordance with RTE’s statutory obligations.”

After watching the week in politics February 3rd 2008 it is difficult to see any impartiality in the way RTE are covering the Lisbon Treaty. The first part shows a report by Sean Whelan, most of which is in this transcipt (www.rte.ie/news/2007/1213/reformtreaty.html).

Sean Whelan’s misty eyed reporting of the EU is in direct conflict with his role as a reporter for a state Public Service Broadcaster. The report only deals with what the campaigners on the ‘yes’ side are trying to sell the public on. As someone who reports for RTE, his job is to be unbiased, after all it is we the public who pay his wages. The 160 Euro annual TV licence fee is based on the condition that RTE will at all times be impartial in accordance with their statutory obligations with no interference from the Government.

The Public Service Broadcasting Charter explicitly states:

“National and international news of high quality journalism and impartiality as a cornerstone of its schedule. RTE’s news coverage shall be accurate, impartial and objective: this will help set the agenda for informed democratic debate in Ireland”

Whelan uses a lot of key buzzwords in the report: ‘globalisation’, ‘climate change’, ‘streamline’ ,‘greenhouse gases’ and of course the threat from developing nations, with no reference to what they have to do with the treaty. His arguments are sweeping and vague, big on propaganda with almost no detail to back them up. His reference to QMV blatantly omits the changes to the blocking minority criteria which will lead to a small number of big countries having huge power to block laws, and leaving countries such as Ireland, Austria, Netherlands, Sweden and so on powerless to block even when joining together (a blocking minority must equal 35% of the EU population).

Here are a few other major changes proposed in the Lisbon treaty he ignores (to name but a few):

The EU will be a Federal State.
We will be real citizens of that superior state. At the moment it is notional.
We will be giving the EU authority to create new laws in a large number of vital areas, which will then supercede national laws. (Over 30-50 more areas of power - there is disagreement on the number.)

Big changes in the Commission will have huge consequences for our democracy. States will be missing a commissioner for 5 of out every 15 years.

QMV will significantly reduce our voting power to less than 1%.

Whelan’s use of pacifying tones, open body language and sweeping statements all seem designed to SELL US the Lisbon treaty rather than inform us! But perhaps his conclusion is most telling of all:

“There are no big ideas in the Lisbon Treaty, no this is a treaty of small changes, lots and lots of small changes. That’s why the ratification debate will be about the small print rather than the big picture.”

Cue, soft music and windmills to keep you in a relaxed state, it almost seems to be a subtle form of mind control to put you in a suggestive state.

Part 2 switches to a ‘debate’ on the treaty hosted by Brian Dowling with two guests. On the yes side: Martin Cullen (FF) and Simon Coveney (FG) and one on the no side: Mary Lou McDonald (Sinn Fein), but you’re not told this at the start. Your also not supposed to know about the EU study carried out by Notre Europe after the Nice Treaty, called “Securing a Yes Vote“. Millions of Euros was spent to identify the no campaigners and how they defeated the first referendum.

Here is their conclusion about Sinn Fein:

“Sinn Fein was, as always, well organised and concentrated on what they considered their core vote. There were a lot of high profile media performances for Gerry Adams and other leading figures. Certainly, their campaign was substantial but the high negative ratings of Sinn Fein among our target group of voters made their presence helpful in many ways in that they acted as a positive spur to Yes abstainers to support the referendum.”

So we have two from the yes side and one from the no side in the debate, and the no campaigner is from a party which is a spur for yes abstainers because of substantial negative ratings. This is a direct violation of their obligations referred to earlier.

As if this amount of blatant bias is not enough it continues even further, after ignoring introductions to conceal the two against one, Dowling throws a real emotive and sweeping question at Mary Lou,“Sinn Fein are try to frighten us all into voting no?” How is she supposed to answer a question like that is anyone’s guess, but in fairness to Mary Lou she done the best she could in the debate given that it was rigged against her, and she is probably the most articulate informed debater on the treaty. She ignored the stitch-up and tried to debate the real issues and frankly was too kind about it, she should have highlighted the bias.

Dowling next turns to Coveney and asks him, “Maybe it’s because the changes aren’t big enough that people aren’t too impressed by it.” Again what a biased and ludicrous question to ask a politician campaigning for a yes vote, and who are these ‘people’ that aren’t too impressed, are they the un-elected Eurocrats and elites?

The debate ultimately turns into a mud slinging match aided and abetted by Dowling bringing Ahern into the questioning. So in the end we the viewers are left with none of the real issues about the treaty just propaganda and disinformation.

The conclusion must be that RTE ARE NO LONGER A PUBLIC SERVICE BROADCASTER, they are no longer fulfilling their statutory obligations and have entered the realm of Social Engineering. Worst of all, we are paying for our own brainwashing and disinformation!!

The Charter also states:

“In the case of its programming, maintain and cherish its freedom from political control or influence and from all other vested interests”

The case is clear that RTE needs to be thoroughly investigated to reveal the hidden network of influence and control. Sean Whelan must be removed or put somewhere else and taken off reporting on this treaty, there are far too many serious issues to be addressed which he is not reporting on and he’s distracting the public from them.

If you want to make a stand and complain about their coverage of the treaty please go to this link: www.bcc.ie/how_to_complaint/

[Sub-X]

A promise is a promise on the Lisbon Treaty
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/04/22/dl2202.xml
22/04/2008

In the High Court today, an attempt will be made to hold the Prime Minister and his Foreign Secretary to account for failing to keep the Government's repeated promises to the electorate.

By bringing an application for permission for judicial review of the refusal to call a referendum on what is now known as the Lisbon Treaty, Stuart Wheeler may seem, on the face of it, to be engaging in a doomed, if heroic, exercise.

While Labour's volte-face over a referendum on what is the European Constitution in all but name has become infamous, it may appear futile to attempt to hold a government legally liable for not keeping its word.

But on closer examination, Mr Wheeler's case seems far more substantial on points of law than might have been expected.

First, the action cites the numerous documented cases of statements from ministers (including the previous prime minister), both within the House of Commons and outside it, reiterating their undertaking to consult the people on the fundamental changes to parliamentary sovereignty proposed by the original constitution; it then offers the testimony of both the House of Commons European scrutiny committee and the foreign affairs committee, to the effect that there are no substantive differences between that constitution and the Lisbon Treaty.

The action does not attempt to cause the courts to over-rule Parliament's ratification of the treaty: it is taken against the executive, not the legislature, and is based on the established legal doctrine of "legitimate expectation", which has successful precedents.

In a previous case, the principle was explained as "a requirement of good administration, by which public bodies ought to deal straightforwardly and consistently with the public".

Let Mr Wheeler's action stand as a test of whether any government should be permitted to flout the most basic standards of honest dealing with the nation.

[Sub-X]

Euro MPs vote to keep damning report exposing 'criminal abuse' of a £100m expenses fund secret
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=561388&in_page_id=1770
23rd April 2008

Euro MPs voted yesterday to keep secret a damning report exposing "criminal abuse" of a £100million expenses fund.

They refused to publish the internal audit, which revealed how some hired "ghost" staff and others employed family members on inflated taxpayer-funded salaries.

Last night, the British MEP who blew the whistle on the initial cover-up of the gravy train branded the move "shameful".

It came as MEPs desperate to improve their image backed a ban on employing close relatives - although it carries no legal force and has been dismissed as a gesture.

LibDem Chris Davies said: "These votes bring discredit and dishonour upon the entire Parliament.

"Far from cleaning up their act, a majority of MEPs seem intent on allowing greed and self-interest to triumph over the proper financial management of public money.

"On today's performance Europe's taxpayers could be forgiven for believing that there are more honest people to be found in prison that sit amongst in the European Parliament.

"The MEPs who voted to keep their citizens in the dark about the way taxpayers' money is used should face a brouhaha in their own countries."

The £125,000-a-year allowance is supposed to to be used by the 785 Euro politicians to employ secretaries, researchers and aides in Brussels and their constituencies.

But a report into 167 payments earlier this year revealed widespread irregularities.

Mr Davies, who was allowed to see it but take no notes, was so shocked he made public some details.

He is still campaigning for the document, which names no names, to be released claiming some MEPs have been "criminally abusing" taxpayers' cash.

As well as the ban on putting close relatives on the payroll - voted through by 477-149, the European Parliament in Strasbourg also recommended that the rules for paying-out allowances be tightened.

Both measures were included in its annual review of EU spending.

But they would need to be formally approved and implemented by the Parliament's administrative arm, which is made up of senior MEPs - and even then would not come into effect before the next European elections in 2009.

The row over employing family members mirrors the case of disgraced ex-Tory MP Derek Conway who hired his son on a taxpayer-funded salary for doing virtually nothing.

Last night Labour MEP Gary Titley, who has always employed his qualified wife Charo as his secretary, said: "The key thing is transparency.

"The important thing is that whoever is employed by MEPs has to be qualified to do the job, and must be seen to do the job."

Mr Davies said British MEPs were less concerned about employing relatives than some continental MEPs, particularly Germans, for whom the idea was unacceptable.

He said: "In our view, the way you employ family members is more important than the fact of employing them at all."

Meanwhile, a majority of MEPs also rejected calls for greater transparency into a pension fund, which it is suspected some members top-up using other Parliamentary allowances.

[Sub-X]

EU wipes England off the map - as Gordon Brown flies the flag of St George over Downing Street
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=561342&in_page_id=1770
23rd April 2008

The Tories have issued a St George's Day rallying cry against plans by Brussels to "wipe England off the map" and create a United Europe.

As Gordon Brown hoisted the English national flag over 10 Downing Street to celebrate St George's Day, it was revealed that EU officials had revised a map wiping out the country and the Channel.

The change splits England into three and lumps those parts together with chunks of other countries to create "transnational regions".

It is claimed these zones - which have been allocated their own budgets - are intended to boost trade between EU nations.

But the Tories yesterday accused the Government of trying "to create a European superstate via the back door".

Under the programme, known as INTER-REG, counties along England's south coast form the "Manche Region" along with northern France.

The "Atlantic Region" takes in western England, along with Ireland, Wales and parts of Portugal, Spain, France and Scotland.

Meanwhile eastern England is part of the "North Sea Region", which covers areas of Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Belgium, Norway and the Netherlands.

The UK Government is fully behind the project, even though the words "England" and "Britain" are left off official maps of each area and the Manche Region renames the English Channel "The Channel Sea".

Each region, which will be given taxpayers' money to promote trade links, cultural ties, transport policies and tourism, is to be run by a "managing authority" of unelected officials overseen by a director.

None will be based in the UK, with Manche ruled by the French, Atlantic by the Portuguese and North Sea by the Danes.

The regions have legal status and Manche has a budget of £261million between 2007 and 2013, Atlantic £127million and North Sea £219million.

Every project funded by a region must have a publicity campaign which ensures "there is provision for flying the EU flag at least one week every year".

Eric Pickles, the Conservatives' communities spokesman, said: "We already knew that Gordon Brown had hoisted the white flag of surrender to the European Constitution.

"Now the Labour Government has been caught red-handed conspiring with European bureaucrats to create a European superstate via the back door.

"Gordon Brown literally wants to wipe England off the map."

But a spokesman for the Department for Communities and Local Government insisted: "It has nothing to do with altering names on maps.

"It is about support for business, helping boost employment and turning around deprived areas... helping firms in Kent do business with people in Northern France or promoting joint tourism initiatives between different countries."

The move came as Gordon Brown ordered that all UK Government buildings with two flag poles should fly the cross of St George alongside the union banner.

It follows a review of flag flying practices. Number 10 will in future fly the Scottish and Welsh flags on their patron saints' days.

Northern Ireland does not have an official national flag, and so the same practice will not apply on St Patrick's Day.

"The Prime Minister's view is that of course we should celebrate our Britishness, but celebrating our Britishness does not mean we cannot also celebrate our Englishness, Scottishness, Welshness or Northern Irishness," said the spokesman.

The English flag last flew over Downing Street during the 2006 World Cup.

 

[Sub-X]

Portugal approves Lisbon Treaty
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0423/breaking80.htm
23/04/2008

Portugal's parliament have approved the European Union reform treaty which was signed by the 27-nation bloc in Lisbon during the country's EU presidency last year.

The treaty still needs to be ratified by Portugal's President Anibal Cavaco Silva.

"I would like to congratulate Portugal on the successful approval of the Treaty of Lisbon by the parliament today," the President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, said in a statement.

"This is another important step towards our objective of a new treaty in force by January 1 2009."

The treaty, which includes a long-term president for the European Council and a foreign policy chief with greater powers, has to be approved by all EU member states to take effect.

It has been ratified or approved by parliaments in eight EU countries. Ireland is the only state in the EU planning a referendum on the treaty, in June.

[Sub-X]

What do our MEPs have to hide? 
http://www.libertas.org/content/view/265/1/
24 April 2008

Irish MEP's should be asked to explain why they voted to suppress a report on corruption in the European Parliament, Libertas is saying today.

Fine Gael and Labour MEPs voted against publication of the report, which detailed the findings of an enquiry into corruption in MEPs expense claims. Fianna Fail MEPs voted alongside their Fine Gael and Labour Colleagues, but later "changed their mind" in accordance with parliament rules.

Independent MEP's Kathy Sinnott and Marian Harkin, along with Sinn Fein's Mary Lou MacDonald, voted to publish the report.

Libertas executive director Naoise Nunn said that the votes of the Labour and Fine Gael MEPs were at odds with their stated commitment to increased transparency and accountability in Brussels:

"This vote exemplifies everything that is wrong with the EU. The European Parliament is so divorced from reality that it thinks that it's ok to hide the truth about its own activities from the voters.

Fine Gael and Labour have been telling the voters that the Lisbon treaty will be "reforming the structures and institutions of Europe". They say that it will make these institutions more transparent. In reality, these same MEPs are voting in lockstep with their European Colleagues to hide as much information from the ordinary citizen as possible.

What does the Lisbon Treaty do to address problems like this one? Nothing. The truth is that our MEPs feel safe saying one thing to the Irish people and another thing to their European Colleagues, because they know that the institutions of Europe, even the parliament, are remote and disconnected from real political discourse in the member states.

This is an abject disgrace. Further, I question why Fianna Fail MEPs initially voted to suppress this report, but then changed their mind after the vote and went so far as to ask that this repentance be formally acknowledged?

The European Union's accounts have not been signed off for 13 years. Our own Government estimates that unnecessary regulation costs Irish Business over half a billion Euro every year. Now, we see the EU Parliament blatantly giving the middle finger to the electorate to whom they are allegedly accountable.

The Lisbon Treaty will not change this one iota. We will still have an arrogant and unaccountable European Union, only this time around it will have to worry even less about the concerns of ordinary people, in whom sovereignty is allegedly vested. It will have more power, less responsibility, and at the top of it all will sit an unelected President, travelling the world in a private jet speaking for the people of Europe.

In recent days we have seen the odds on a "No" vote slashed. Is it any wonder why?"

[Sub-X]

[Sub-X]

Lisbon Treaty - Aid and Trade
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87310
April 24, 2008

Report on Wed. 23rd Global Development Meeting

Comhlamh hosted a meeting on the implications of the Lisbon Treaty for Global Development. This was a really good discussion with a very high level of informed debate. Presentations were given by no and yes advocates and specialists in trade, aid and development. The format was 10 minutes for each speaker followed by clarification questions and then a general question and answer session. The purpose of the discussion was to bring up issues around the impacts of the Lisbon Treaty, particularly on Global Development, including aid and trade.
This meeting wasn't a no or yes meeting but a place for people to discuss the issues that ate rarely being touchd on in the mainstream media where the Treaty debate has been limited to sure the treaty is only making the EU more efficient and there's nothing to worry about or fears over tax harmonization. Obviously I'm campaigning on the No side but will attempt to report what each speaker said as best I can. Anyone who was there please feel free to amend or add.

Barry Finnegan from the Campaign against the EU Constitution kicked off the discussion. He said that the main changes in the Lisbon Treaty are trade in services, including health and education, ( opens these up for privatization) and removes all barriers on Foreign Direct Investment ( which means governments cannot stop or limit the influx of money from any country for any reason.) Barry said that if the Treaty goes through that we will lose our current veto on health, education, and audio visual and cultural services. Up to now changes in these areas have required unanimity which the Treaty changes to Qualified Majority Voting. This is significant because these services have up to now been protected from privatization. On trade Barry said that trade liberalization is prioritized over development goals so that where the two clash, liberalization wins out as it is at the Treaty's core. (The EU Commission has exclusive powers to negotiate trade deals which is done by majority vote which means that the Irish government cannot veto a trade deal.) Barry responded to a question on trade deals saying that Ireland can't form bilateral trade deals. We are not allowed to. ( I think this means we could not have a special trade relationship with a developing country or offer fairer trade terms.)

Deirdre De Burca, the Green Party EU spokesperson said she is voting yes primrily because she believes a strong EU is needed to combat climate change and deal with migration and that the EU has the most progressive environmental policies compared to the U.S. Japan or the emerging economies such as Brazil and China. She said that the Treaty is flawed and that are definitely aspects that are not satisfactory, including trade provisions and the promotion of militarization but that on balance she believes the Treaty to be in the national interest. When asked she defined national interest as the interests of all groups, women, business etc. She accepted that we lose a veto on services except where a country can prove that competition would severely disrupt the governmetn's ability to provide services. She said that if the Green Party were in opposition that they would probably be campaigning against the Treaty but pointed out that this was her personal opinion. She welcomed the formalizing of the European Council as a institution of the EU. This body formulates strategy and policy direction. She pointed out positive effects that membership of the EU has had so far, including environmental legislation that our own government would have been slower to adopt. She asid when deciding how to vote that we should look at the EUs track record. She said that it is better to be on the inside to reform the EU, which she said is in need of reform.

Olive Towey from Concern pointed out that the EU is the single biggest aid donor in the world , giving 60% of the total aid and is Africa's biggest trading partner. Olive gave a powerpoint presentation on specific clauses in the Treaty, including Article 10A relating to 'consistency and coherence' between development goals and othe EU areas such as trade. She was asked about the wording of the clause which 'takes development into account' but does not make this mandatory or give it primacy over economic interests.
She said that these clauses give a legal basis for challenging conflicts of interest. She did not know offand what enforcement mechanisms there are or if a case could be taken to the European Court of Justice.

Aoife Black, Trocaire's EU Policy officer, spoke next saying that the Lisbon Treaty places poverty reduction as a primary objective which gives it a legal basis. EU aid has sometimes been undermined by trade policies, such as the Comon Agricultural Policy. or by foreign policy interests or by African Partnership Agreements whereby aid can be tied to buying goods, including weapons, or further trade liberalization. In te Treaty member states have to co-ordinate their aid.( this has been a key NGO demand as aid has been haphazard and not always delivered promptly.) However, the term 'independence' has been left out of the Treaty, which would forbid tieing aid to foreign policy objectives. She said that NGOs are currently fighting for a separate Development Commissioner.

The next speaker was Andy Storey from AFRi who said that the free movement of capital and trade liberalization are constitutionally enshrined in the Treaty in which case it doesn't matter whether or not that is coherent with development objectives. Economic, services and Foreign Direct Investment liberalization are mandatory while development goals are not. Andy spoke about militarization saying that the Treaty edges closer to a common defence policy. Article 28A statesm that there is an obligation of aid and assistance if a member state is attacked. There is also a widening of tasks that EU forces can get involved in including military advice and assistance and helping to combat terrorism including in a third state.( Does that include non-EU states?) He said that the possibilities for military interventions are wide and pointed to Chad as an example of the implications as Irish peacekeeping forces have been sent working with French forces that have been propping up the regime there. This is politically sensitive and he thinks rebel groups are unlikely to differentiate between Irish and French troops. Permanent structured co-operartion is his third concern as subsets of EU countries could get involved in military interventions without the support of the rest of the EU and without a UN mandate. Ireland would not be able to veto such missions or prevent EU resources being used in them. Article 28A makes it mandatory for member states to increase military funding although there is no provision for fining states who don't comply.

The last speaker was Conall O'Caoimh. His presentation can be viewed at www.slideshare.net. Comhlamh's aid and tradespecialist, who talked about a democratic deficit in the EU which he says will widen if the Treaty is passed. Article 10A states that there will be a progressive abolition of restrictions to international trade. These include non-tariff barriers. Developing countries are not exempt. They are in fact being asked to remove all trade barriers and remove regulations allowing only businesses that work in partnership with local companies to operate.Conall said that the Commission proposes trade agreements and the EU Council says yes or no . The EU parliament and national governments are excluded from decision making but are periodically informed.( while commissioners come from each country currently they are government appointed not elected.) Similarly only the Commission can propose laws while the EU Parliament writes the legislation but can't propose laws. Cpnall says he wouldn't have a major issue with the loss of veto on health and education if there was a corresponding strengthening of accountability but he thinks the Treaty provides less accountability not more.Comhlamh lobbied for the EU parliament to have a role in negotiating trade agreements but this was dropped in the final version of the Treaty. He pointed out that a passerelle clause means that areas that are exempt from liberalization can later be out to QMV.

The other speakers then added comments. Barry Finnegan asked why we would want to tie ourselves to a free trade agenda when we don't know what the future holds, saying he wants governments to be free to choose to change economic policies. He asked if Irish aid could be tied to EU aid and if so would we have to attach conditions. Aoife said the independence of our aid policy, which is untied aid, would not be affected by the Treaty. However we would not have control over the money we oput into a common EU aid budget. She said that the 'coherence' clauses will ultimately be down to political will.

Deirdre said that the EU is looking for a 20% reduction in emissions and must have the power to do so. However She said that it is harder to exercise democratic control at EU level than at international level and that it will be difficult to see how the militarization of Europe will be used. Conall added that the EU has done a good job of social policy over the last 50 years but that it wasn't allowed to make foreign policy or military decisions and based on its record regarding Kosovo, Chad and its lack of action on Palestine that he is not confident. He also said he thinks the EU development agenda is shrinking as it moves from 'soft' to 'hard' power. A speakers from the floor asked why Deirdre de Burca has changed her mind about the Treaty form when she campaigned against the Constitution. She replied that being in government has changed her mind and that she is looking at the Treaty from a different perspective, that of the national interest and that she also believes it is necessary to combat climate change. Jean from the Debt and Development Coalition suggested that the issues raised at the meeting could be brought together and circulated both around the development community and to a wider audience. A few people volunteered.

( on a personal note a few of us were discussing the likely outcome of the referendum. i asked 2 people at random who were having a few pints watching the football knew how they're voting hoping that they wouldn't say what referendum? The first guy said he's voting no and the second said he's Fianna Fail. off the record a speaker said that of all the meetings they've spoken at about 70% of the audience has been concerned or is intending to vote no despite, or maybe because of the lack of information and debate

[Sub-X]

EU treaty set to be examined by Czech and German courts
http://euobserver.com/9/26045/?rk=1
25.04.2008

The Lisbon treaty is set to be examined to see if it breaches national laws in two member states, raising the risk that the 1 January 2009 deadline for the document to come into force across the EU will be delayed.

The Czech Senate on Thursday (24 April) voted in favour of asking the constitutional court to check whether the treaty is in line with Czech law.

Of the 70 senators present, 48 voted in favour of the move, four against and 18 abstained.

The senate will not take a vote on the treaty until after the court has been consulted - the lower house already voted in favour of the charter.

The court announced it would deal with the issue straight away but its spokesperson refused to speculate on how long the procedure will take.

The key issues that the senators asked the court to check include the transfer of certain powers to EU institutions, the shift of decision-making among member states from unanimous to majority voting, as well as the legal implications of adopting the Charter of Fundamental Rights - with the charter causing the most concern among Czech lawmakers.

The move was originally mainly promoted by a number eurosceptic figures within the ruling ODS party but was eventually also supported by the party's junior coalition partner, the Christian Democrats (KDU-CSL).

The key centre-left opposition party of CSSD tried to push through the ratification but was unsuccessful.

Czech foreign minister Karel Schwarzenberg spoke out against the court move. He concluded the debate with senators with a story about a poor boy who married a rich girl from Brussels but as he was to start fulfilling his marriage duties after the wedding, he asked his lawyer whether by doing so he would also be assuming new duties and so he didn't let his wife into his bedroom for a year.

"Admit that this bridegroom must be making quite a weird impression on his new family," the minister told senators, according to the Czech Press Agency.

Germany
Meanwhile, Germany's court is also set to examine the treaty. After the lower house of parliament strongly endorsed the charter on Thursday, conservative MP Peter Gauweiler repeated his intention to bring the treaty before the country's constitutional court.

"What Brussels is supposed to get in powers is not compatible with our democratic principles," Mr Gauweiler told the Saarbruecker newspaper.

He said his reason for bringing the case is the constitutional court's loss of power to the European court. The constitutional court has until now kept an eye on the inalienable rights of German citizens given to them by Germany's constitution (Grundgesetz), he noted.

"With the Lisbon Treaty, the sovereignty over these rights is given to foreign courts, whose members are not sworn to protect the constitution. That is not allowed by the constitution," the MP told the paper.

The MP is expected to formally present the complaint after the upper house has ratified the treaty next month.

The court case could delay signature of the treaty by Germany's president Horst Koehler – the signature is needed as the final step of ratification.

All 27 member states must approve the treaty for it to come into place as planned at the beginning of next year. So far 11 countries have ratified it.

Several debates and discussions about the technical preparation of the implementation of the treaty are currently being undertaken in Brussels with the expectation that January is the date of entry into force.

[oshea.declan]

Czech foreign minister Karel Schwarzenberg spoke out against the court move. He concluded the debate with senators with a story about a poor boy who married a rich girl from Brussels but as he was to start fulfilling his marriage duties after the wedding, he asked his lawyer whether by doing so he would also be assuming new duties and so he didn't let his wife into his bedroom for a year.

"Admit that this bridegroom must be making quite a weird impression on his new family," the minister told senators, according to the Czech Press Agency.


Where do these Politicians come up with this stuff ? It's almost as entertaining as Irish Taoiseach Bertie Aherns "Bertie Speak" ...Remember when Bertie referred to "secret cabals" but said  "Kebabs" instead...much to everyones amusement

If Bertie ever made a reference to  the "Bildersausages" and this was reported in the Press as comical -- Now that would lead a couple of thousand people into Bilderburg research...

[oshea.declan]

The following news story appears in todays Irish Daily Mail. (By Ian Carey)

"Lisbon Propaganda" book.

"Government is accused of pushing for Yes vote in public information leaflets.

"The government has been accused of abusing taxpayers' money in its attempts to ensure a Yes vote victory during the Lisbon Treaty referendum.
As homes around the country are being targeted with information leaflets from the Department of Foreign Affairs, questions are being asked about their impartiality.
The Government is legally obliged not to push just its own agenda in the forthcoming referendum: if ministers spend taxpayers money promoting a Yes campaign, they must provide the same amount to the No campaigners.............."

The article continues mentioning groups such as The Irish Trade Unions who are making strong objections to the Irish Governments tactics...

[Sub-X]

Is IBEC Pushing to End Workers Rights and Distort the Competitive Balance Even Further?
http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=287
25.04.2008

According toIBEC’s website,the “Lisbon ‘Yes’ vote will help secure US investment in Ireland”, it is instantly clear why they are blatantly lying that it will be good for Ireland, when you consider that 90% of the people of Ireland come from high middle class to lower class.

When they say Ireland they are talking about the 10%. Only big business and big Government will benefit from this treaty at the expense of workers and small to medium seized businesses. The recent Laval judgement highlights why Big Business is in support of this treaty.

‘Free-for-all’ to follow EU ruling, reported by TT /David Landes

“The judgment paves the way for more Latvian companies to start working in Sweden. Companies with a valid collective bargaining agreement in Latvia could, according to the ruling, pay wages to Latvian workers assigned to Sweden on par with those paid to workers in Latvia. “I believe that’s the understanding,” said Ulf Bernitz, professor in European law at Stockholm University. In his opinion, Swedish unions can no longer go on strike against companies from other EU member states who have collective bargaining agreements in their home countries.”

As someone who worked for one of the largest Multi-National companies in the world I know how the majority of large companies work. They already have agencies within the company, at least five to six different agencies, sub-contractors. One agency employs cleaners, another temporary security staff etc. If this treaty is passed all the Irish agencies will be replaced by foreign ones. This will dramatically decrease the cost of business, while forcing workers to accept a pittance. No small to medium seized business would be able to compete with this. It is no feat of intellect to understand why IBEC are spreading the myth that the world will fall apart without the treaty. They are the ones who will profit most if this treaty is passed, not small to medium seized business or the 90% of people living in our Nation.

Let’s look at how IBEC is trying to manipulate us into voting yes:

IBEC Director of EU and International Affairs Brendan Butler says: “The Treaty will protect key national interests and also reform the EU to face the challenges ahead. Our ability to set our own tax policy is guaranteed along with arrangements concerning foreign direct investment. This means that Ireland will remain among one of the most attractive places in the world to invest. The success of the treaty will encourage more US investment and the creation of more jobs.”

“The Treaty will reform how decision are made in the EU so that Europe can remain an engine for economic growth and prosperity. The Treaty will enable the EU to respond faster to the new challenges ahead, such as energy security, the rise of India and China as economic forces, and climate change. This is vital for the success of business in Ireland.”

If Brendan Butler ever read what the Lisbon Treaty proposes, he would know that his statement is completely untrue. For if the Irish vote yes on the Lisbon Treaty it will damage Ireland’s ability to set our own tax policy, for if ratified, it gives the EU the power by an unanimity vote (not a referendum) to switch taxes to the QMV structure in which Ireland will have less then 1% of a say on how the new EU federal State is run, and the EU will be able to dictate what they want our corporate tax rate to be. Big EU states like Germany have constantly complained about Ireland’s corporate tax rate, and the French Finance Minister recently said they are determined to harmonise tax rates across Europe. Ireland’s low tax rate is viewed as a distortion of competition. It is 12% now it could soon be 25%. They will also have the power to take away Ireland’s ability to give tax breaks as these big states will be competing against us and will want to attract large Multi-Nationals over to their own nations.

Economic growth and prosperity are being sold as a reason to vote yes. China at this moment is one the fastest growing economic powers in the world, but do you think the majority of the Chinese people see the benefits or does the Government and big business keep it for themselves? The Laval judgment shows us exactly what the EU thinks of workers’ rights, they think workers don’t have the right to demand a decent level of pay and under this ruling with the Lisbon Treaty ratified it would be illegal to protest, even for Unions. The same thing happens in China.

Another serious lie being promoted is that this treaty is needed in order to cope with climate change. Which has been proven to be blown out of proportion in order to introduce a global carbon tax, climate change is a natural occurring phenomena and the EU parliament this week voted not to disclose a financial audit proving criminal activity of how they spend our tax money. The EU now wants to put limits on CO2 levels and tax people for existing (your footprint). If we can’t trust them with the amount of money we currently pay why would we give them even more to play with? The new EU permanent president created by the Lisbon Treaty (if we vote yes) will be given a new private jet and a palace.

Lets go back into the IBEC article and see how they are trying to scare us into voting yes:

IBEC made the call following a new report, which outlines the staggering level of investment that has been made by US companies here. Corporate America’s investment position in Ireland was €52.5 billion in 2006. Remarkably, this is significantly ahead of the investment by US companies in China, Russia , India and Brazil combined, which stood at €45.6 billion. In 2006 alone, US foreign direct investment in Ireland hit €8.4 billion, which is nearly double the amount of US investment in all of South America in the same period.

“Our relationship with US business is of critical importance. The US remains the principle source of foreign direct investment in Europe. There are currently 470 US companies operating in Ireland, which provide over 95,000 well paid jobs. These companies set up here because of our favourable tax rates, our access to an EU market of 500 million customers and our well-educated dynamic English speaking workforce.”

“Business is keen the see Ireland at the very heart of a reformed and better functioning EU. A no vote would create uncertainty and send a very worrying signal back into the boardrooms of American companies, where decisions are made about future investment in Ireland,” concluded Mr Butler.”

It is impossible to say “A no vote would create uncertainty and send a very worrying signal back into the boardrooms of American companies” for if the Irish vote no absolutely nothing will change and by the articles own admission Ireland is one of the top nations in attracting US investment.

We all need to look past this manipulation and realise the Treaty of Lisbon is not a good thing for the people of Europe and the people of Ireland. Let us send a message to big Government and to big business, that we will not pass a treaty that benefits the minority (superclass) to the determent of the majority (us). Give everyone in the EU not just Ireland a vote and until you to that we will vote a resounding no.

[Sub-X]

The Lord giveth… and the EU Charter of Rights taketh away
http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=285
25.04.2008

“The European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights sets out in a single text, for the first time in the European Union’s history, the whole range of civil, political, economic and social rights of European citizens and all persons resident in the EU.

They are based, in particular, on the fundamental rights and freedoms recognised by the European Convention on Human Rights ECHR).”

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

It all sounds wonderful doesn’t it, that is until you actually look at the details and see that just like the Patriot Act in America it does the exact opposite of what it’s supposed to do. To find out its true intent you have to essentially read it back-to-front. Just like the Lisbon Treaty all the wonderful stuff is put in at the beginning and all the real intent is saved for the end or masked in protocols, legal explanations etc. Most people won’t read it all (or even just read a summary text), and people who have only read the good parts trust the rest will be similar, they then go ahead voting without understanding the full implications. If you set a utopian tone at the beginning psychologically we assume that is how the entire text will read and we tend to block out conflicting messages later on, otherwise know as cognitive dissonance.

When you read it “back to front” you get some disturbing results. Here are a few examples from the ECHR to give you the real intent from the official EU Charter of Fundamental Rights website:

www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=9

“Article 2. Right to Life

a) Article 2(2) of the ECHR:
‘Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

in defence of any person from lawful violence;
in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.’ “
The EU says that if the state’s law enforcement officers can deprive you of your right of life, in other words murder you, while attempting to arrest you or during a riot, and legally your execution “shall not be regarded’ as breaking the law/article of the right to life. How many times do we have to be reminded that not reading slick lawyer “small print” can be perilous?

“b) Article 2 of the Protocol No 6 to the ECHR:
‘A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such a penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…”

That’s right the EU endorses the Death Penalty!!! You may have never heard that before when listening to the politicians or media glorifying the EU but there it is in black and white on their official website. Individuals can be given the death penalty for “acts committed” (who decides what these acts) in a time of war or of even the threat of war (war on terrorism).

Now here is the nice intro that politician’s can promote:

“1. Everyone has the right to life.

2. No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed.”

Article 52 of the EU Charter of Fundamental rights also states the level/scope of them and that a “limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms” can be made “provided for by law” (those “small prints”). It also goes a step further by saying “limitations may be made” if it is in the EU’s ‘interest’ (define interest?).

www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=62

“Article 52

1. Any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.”

Next we look at liberty, you would think the EU would be all for personal freedom, after all it promotes itself as caring for the citizens and being an example for the rest of the world, but again we find more lies. Here is the “small print” for restrictions to be placed upon you:

www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=13

“Art 6. Right to liberty and security

(d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;

(e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants;”

And here is the easy to read selling point for public consumption:

“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:”

Next comes free speech, of course the EU must be a guardian of free speech, after all we’re told that we in the west have levels of free speech unheard of in the rest of the world. That free speech is the cornerstone of a free and democratic society, but again if we look at the text we get a completely different picture:

www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=18

“Art 11. Freedom of expression and information

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

Again the nice show piece intro:

“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.”

The EU has documented in it’s protocols, legal explanations etc that it endorses the death penalty, not punishing law enforcers that kill a person during arrest, killing people for rioting, detaining alcoholics, detaining minors for educational supervision, and restricting speech for protection of disclosure of information, morals, maintaining the authority, reputation…

They say that in the former USSR people had a highly developed mistrust of the government and knew that most of the news they read in the papers or seen on the TV was a complete distortion of the truth. The public learned how to interpret the truth by reading between the lines and reversing what was being said. We in the EU have been ‘asleep’ and naively trusting of politicians and the media for so long that we haven’t developed these skills of discernment. We have taken too much for granted but we cannot afford to do this any longer. We are sleepwalking into a nightmare and unless we start waking up very quickly it will be too late. A NO vote in Ireland to the Lisbon Treaty can actually stop the charter from becoming legally binding and save half a billion people from living under it.

[Sub-X]

Poll shows dramatic fall in support for Lisbon Treaty
http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=NEWS-qqqs=news-qqqid=32423-qqqx=1.asp
27 April 2008

Public opinion has moved sharply against the Lisbon Treaty, with the Yes side now enjoying only a slender lead, according to the latest Sunday Business Post/Red C monthly tracking poll.

Support for the treaty has fallen from 43 per cent in February to 35 per cent today among those entitled to vote in the referendum. Those opposed to the treaty have increased from 24 per cent to 31 per cent. The number of undecided voters remains almost unchanged, at 34 per cent.

With seven weeks remaining until the expected polling date, incoming taoiseach Brian Cowen, the government and the broader Yes campaign face a difficult struggle to regain the initiative.

Today’s results are likely to cause unease in Brussels and among European governments, where a safe passage of the Irish referendum was expected. Defeat of the Lisbon Treaty would precipitate a crisis in Brussels, and would be a huge embarrassment to the Irish government.

Farmers have turned against the treaty, while Fianna Fáil voters, men and younger voters are more likely to support the proposal.

The poll has better news for Fianna Fáil when it comes to political support. The party has gained three percentage points since the last full monthly tracking poll, though the surge in support seen in an interim poll, which was taken days after Bertie Ahern announced that he was to step down, has slightly abated.

That interim poll, which showed support for the party climbing to 40 per cent, surveyed a smaller sample group than usual. However, Fianna Fáil’s standing does represent the highest level of support for the party in the main tracking polls taken over the last six months.

The state of the parties, compared to the most recent full tracking poll, is: Fianna Fáil 38 per cent (up by 3); Fine Gael 29 per cent (down by 1); Labour 10 per cent (down by 1); Greens 8 per cent (unchanged); Sinn Féin 7 per cent (down by 2); PDs 2 per cent (up by 1); Independents 6 per cent (down by 1).

The strength of Fianna Fáil’s showing confirms the boost in support enjoyed by the party following the announcement of Ahern’s impending resignation and the subsequent accession of Cowen to the Taoiseach’s office.

The poll was conducted on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of last week, among more than 1,000 voters across the country.

                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taoiseach says No vote would be disastrous
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0427/eulisbon.html?rss
Sunday, 27 April 2008

Taoiseach Bertie Ahern has said a No vote in the forthcoming referendum on the Lisbon Treaty would be disastrous for the country.

The Red C poll in today's Sunday Business Post shows 35% of the electorate plan to vote Yes to the treaty on 12 June.

Some 31% are intending to vote No and 34% are undecided, according to the poll.

Advertisement'It would be a disaster for this country not to pass [the Lisbon Treaty],' the Taoiseach said. 'It would have repercussions that will damage us.'

'And the biggest beneficiaries are the agricultural community - they should be the ones leading the campaign for us.'

'The WTO we will resolve. I just hope the agricultural community quickly turns around its attitude and gets people behind the Lisbon agenda.'

Mr Ahern was speaking to reporters after his last 1916 Fianna Fáil commemoration as party leader and Taoiseach.

(This coming from the a man that stepped down as leader of the country/his party because he couldn't explain inconsistencies in his finances) 

[Sub-X]

Republic or Democracy?
http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=288
28.04.2008

Would you rather live in a Republic or a Democracy? Supposedly we live in The Republic Of Ireland, but in actuality it is treated as The Democratic State of Ireland. The difference has a huge impact on everyone’s life.

One of the major differences is that in a Republic the person’s rights are paramount and must be safeguarded at all costs. While in a Democracy the State can make everyone conform to the beliefs they want, and introduce any amount of laws which take away inalienable individual rights of a person in the name of what is ‘best’.

Under a Democracy nothing is safeguarded, anything can be put up to a vote. 10% of the population could turn out for a vote on a new law that infringes on our rights and 51% of those people can vote yes to taking away rights from the other 94.9%of society.

A Republic protects rights and focuses on the individual not groups/classes. Remember that ‘individual’ does not mean ‘selfish’, “Thou shall not kill” is a rule for an individual not a group/class and it’s absolutely flawless. On the other hand “Whites shall not kill Whites” would be a group/class rule. Over the last few years the Irish government has been hard at work introducing some of the most draconian laws and measures disguised in the name of fighting serious crime and terrorism. This by their very nature goes against the principles of a Republic as they are taking our rights away because of small groups, for example criminals and terrorists. More people die from salmonella poisoning than from terrorism, but taking our rights away to fight salmonella would not work as public manipulators need “creditable” sounding reasons. The real terrorists are the ones who mislead you and take away your rights.

Unfortunately in The Democracy of Ireland if you are sitting on a park bench and a law enforcement officer thinks you look suspicious he can ask you to move on, under the State’s loitering act. If you want to express your right to free speech you need a government permit to use a megaphone. Permits, licences, regulations and so on are but ways to infringe on your rights. In a true Republic you do not need permission to act out your rights. Democracies think in terms of groups instead of individuals and this creates a breeding ground for political correctness designed to get the majority of the public to self censor themselves for fear of social stigma, or even face fines and be arrested if they say things deemed to be offensive by some group (a collection of individuals).

The main reason why our nation was created as The Republic of Ireland was that it’s founders had experienced and studied tyranny inflicted on Ireland during the British Class Rule. During which the majority of the Irish (the underclass) were treated as nothing more than slaves to the ‘superior’ British class. The Irish Republic form of government and Constitution was designed to ensure the rights of the Irish people and to safeguard us against a gradual return to a new form of tyranny by limiting the power of the government, to keep it as the servant not the master. However when the majority of the Irish people are not schooled on this matter the State and media are able to mislead us in to accepting collectivist/group attitudes at the expense of our individual rights, and even to convince us that we are a democracy (which are easy to manipulate) despite our name being right under our noses, The Republic of Ireland.

Part of The Creed Of Freedom by G. Edward Griffin highlights the principles of a Republic:

THE CREED OF FREEDOM INTRINSIC NATURE OF RIGHTS

I believe that only individuals have rights, not the collective group; that these rights are intrinsic to each individual, not granted by the state; for if the state has the power to grant them, it also has the power to deny them, and that is incompatible with personal liberty.

I believe that a just government derives its power solely from the governed. Therefore, the state must never presume to do anything beyond what individual citizens also have the right to do. Otherwise, the state is a power unto itself and becomes the master instead of the servant of society.

SUPREMACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL

I believe that one of the greatest threats to freedom is to allow any group, no matter its numeric superiority, to deny the rights of the minority; and that one of the primary functions of just government is to protect each individual from the greed and passion of the majority.

FREEDOM OF CHOICE

I believe that desirable social and economic objectives are better achieved by voluntary action than by coercion of law. I believe that social tranquillity and brotherhood are better achieved by tolerance, persuasion, and the power of good example than by coercion of law. I believe that those in need are better served by charity, which is the giving of one’s own money, than by welfare, which is the giving of other people’s money through coercion of law.

EQUALITY UNDER LAW

I believe that all citizens should be equal under law, regardless of their national origin, race, religion, gender, education, economic status, life style, or political opinion. Likewise, no class should be given preferential treatment, regardless of the merit or popularity of its cause. To favor one class over another is not equality under law.

PROPER ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

I believe that the proper role of government is negative, not positive; defensive, not aggressive. It is to protect, not to provide; for if the state is granted the power to provide for some, it must also be able to take from others, and once that power is granted, there are those who will seek it for their advantage. It always leads to legalized plunder and loss of freedom. If government is powerful enough to give us everything we want, it is also powerful enough to take from us everything we have. Therefore, the proper function of government is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens; nothing more. That government is best which governs least.

THE THREE COMMANDMENTS OF FREEDOM

The Creed of Freedom is based on five principles. However, in day-to-day application, they can be reduced to just three codes of conduct. I consider them to be The Three Commandments of Freedom:

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

Do not sacrifice the rights of any individual or minority for the assumed rights of the group.

EQUALITY UNDER LAW

Do not endorse any law that does not apply to all citizens equally.

FREEDOM OF CHOICE

Do not use coercion for any purpose except to protect human life, liberty, or property.

Often you hear things like “in the modern world” we need more laws and more measures to deal with “the challenges we as a society face”, at the expense of individual rights. EU governance is based on anti-Republic values with extreme collectivist/group attitudes of manipulation. If one thing is certain, the more authority we hand over to the unaccountable EU the more control and rights the people will lose.

[Sub-X]

80% do not understand Lisbon - survey
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0428/breaking30.html
28/04/2008

A survey released by the Referendum Commission today found a very low level of understanding about the Lisbon Treaty among the public.

Unveiling its information campaign on the treaty, the commission noted the survey found 80 per cent of respondents said they did not understand the treaty particularly well, or did not comprehend it at all.

Just 5 per cent said they understood the treaty, while 15 per cent answered that they understood it to some extent. The research was carried out for the Referendum Commission earlier this month.

The independent body, under chairman Mr Justice Iarfhlaith O’Neill, seeks to explain referendum proposals, promote public awareness of the referendum and encourage the electorate to vote.

Speaking today, Mr Justice O’Neill outlined the campaign that the body is running. More than two million booklets outlining the main issues of the treaty are being sent to every household in the State, and advertisements have been placed in the media ahead of the official campaign, which starts from May 21st.

A website - www.lisbontreaty2008.ie - has also been set up to explain the Lisbon Treaty and enable users to check the electoral register to see if they are eligible to vote.

A lo call phone service (1890 270970) has also been set up.

Mr Justice O’Neill observed the treaty “would not be favourite holiday reading” but said the booklet would explain it using “simple but not simplistic terms”, and would be an “engaging and accessible” guide.

Comptroller and Auditor General John Purcell, a member of the commission, said it was not surprising there was a low level of comprehension about the treaty. He noted the survey’s findings were in line with those on other issues and predicted that levels of understanding would “rise considerably” in the run-up to the vote.

Mr Justice O’Neill said the commission may decide to issue further statements if levels of public misunderstanding stayed high. But, referring to the booklet, he added that people were “not entitled" to say that they had not been informed about the Lisbon document.

The latest opinion poll on the Lisbon Treaty showed that the margin between the Yes and No sides had closed to four points.

The Taoiseach yesterday said that a No vote in the referendum on the treaty would be a "disaster for the country”. He warned against complacency and a low turnout on June 12th. He said it would have "repercussions that would do immense damage to Ireland".