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

[Cruise4]

Yes, You've done some great work putting this together Sub-X. Fingers crossed, big time.

[Sub-X]

Finnegan demolishes 'WTO veto' argument. There are no details and no answers, because there is no veto.
http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/313
8/6/2008

At a press conference hosted by Joe Higgins on June 6th, Barry Finnegan, quoting European Court of Justice rulings, the text of Lisbon, the text of existing EU treaties, while agreeing with recent statements from the Referendum Commission and the Dublin office of the European Commission, demolishes the idea that Ireland could veto an international trade deal if Lisbon is accepted. In the absence of a detailed response from the government, or anyone on the Yes side, one can only assume he is correct.

Socialist Party 06/06 press conference
Finnegan starts minute 4.40

Watch the video explanation:Part 1 Part 2

A pdf of the press release is also available here.

Specifically, what is in the current WTO trade deal that they feel would allow them to veto it? Let's get the answer, let's look up the treaties!

Absolute veto removed by Lisbon, replaced by conditional veto that won't stand up in Euro court:
5 services: Health, education, social services & cultural and audiovisual.

Only other areas where possible veto could remain, very unlikely to be in a trade deal:
2 services: Non-commercial aspects of intellectual property and reversal of freedom of the movement of capital.

Where is the veto? Why won't they tell us?: Because there is none!

Is it kidney dialysis services, is it radio services, is it aspects of non-commercial intellectual property, is it third level education services? There are only seven types of services that it could be, what is it? In the absence of specific detailed information and answers, the electorate will have to assume there is no veto.

Following on from the arguments in his 7,000 word referenced paper of May 23rd, in this 13 minute press briefing of Friday 6th June (see above), Barry Finnegan demolishes the idea that Ireland could veto an international trade deal if Lisbon is accepted. In the absence of a detailed response from the government, or anyone on the Yes side, one can only assume he is correct.

Following on from the arguments in his 7,000 word referenced paper of May 23rd, in this 13 minute press briefing of Friday 6th June (see above), Barry Finnegan demolishes the idea that Ireland could veto an international trade deal if Lisbon is accepted. In the absence of a detailed response from the government, or anyone on the Yes side, one can only assume he is correct.

Finnegan's 17 minute video on YouTube gives even more details (Part 1, Part 2). The Yes side have still not answered his technical questions and have failed to explain in detail with examples how and when a veto would remain post Lisbon. Vague generalities is all the electorate have been given.

In agreement with the EU and the Referendum Commissions, the veto lies in either a or b:
(a) Within the EU Common Commercial Policy, in one or more of the five "key services" (Health, education, social services & cultural and audiovisual) explicitly referred to Lisbon's new Article 188, which won't stand up at the European Court, or;
(b) Outside the EU Common Commercial Policy, in non-commercial aspects of intellectual property, and/or, in the reversal of freedom of the movement of capital.

Combining Lisbon's Article 188c.4(b) and the 2006 ECJ Watts ruling means that Ireland will not be able to veto an international trade deal because:
i) The 2006 Watts ECJ ruling has established that internal market rules apply to the national organisation of health services and to the responsibility of Member States to deliver them;
ii) The government can not argue in court that opening up Irish health services to free trade under WTO rules could be interpreted as "seriously disturbing the national organisation" of the services nor that it would be "prejudicing the responsibility of Member States to deliver" them.

The questions they refuse to answer:

Q. 1 Why is it 'good for Ireland' or other Member States to dilute the veto on entering "key services" into the WTO system?

Q. 2 Which one or more of these three services are in the current WTO free-trade deal that would allow them to veto it?: health, education and social services. And in detail give examples of what parts of the service would generate a veto.

Q. 3 Which one or more of these two services are in the current WTO free-trade deal that would allow them to veto it?: cultural and audiovisual services. And in detail give examples of what parts of the service would generate a veto.

Q. 4 Which one or more of these five services are in the current WTO free-trade deal that would allow them to veto it? Investment, Intellectual Property and Transport services. And truthfully answer whether they are in the deal or not.

[Sub-X]

How we can once more save Europe from the Dark Ages
http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=TOM+MCGURK-qqqs=commentandanalysis-qqqid=33513-qqqx=1.asp
By Tom McGurk
08 June 2008

Welcome to the most surreal week in the history of Irish politics.

First, on Thursday, four million Irish citizens resident in the Irish Republic will be asked to ratify a new democratic structure for the European Union and its 500million citizens. Despite the fact that this proposed structure will radically alter the relationship between all the member states and the union, and between all the citizens and the union, it apparently does not require the votes of the other 496million or so citizens. Such is European democracy.

Second, the treaty document that the Irish are required to ratify has proved to be almost unintelligible and, according to opinion polls, remains a total mystery to many ordinary voters. This week, thousands will go to the polls to radically alter the nature of the state they are living in, with no idea of what they are voting for or against. Such is European democracy.

Third, apparently if the four million reject Lisbon, it falls through for all 500 million. But then, on second thoughts, maybe not. After all, the Nice Treaty was rejected, but the question was re-asked until the answer was Yes. The constitutional forerunner of this Lisbon Treaty has already been rejected by previous referendums in France and Denmark. So if the Irish vote down the treaty, will it fall? The problem is that nobody is sure about that; Europe does not easily take No for an answer. Such is European democracy.

Fourth, given that all of this extraordinary political exercise is supposed to be about the establishment of new democratic structures in the European Union, shouldn’t alarm bells be ringing already? How more democratically surreal can you get, I ask? (As they used to say: Chinese and Russian papers please copy.)

Sadly, this is only the beginning of our problems, because even what is intelligible in the treaty is deeply concerning. For a start, the constitutional implications of Lisbon have been almost totally ignored in the debate so far.

The first two sentences of the amendment we are being asked to pass requires serious consideration. They read: ‘‘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 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.”

In other words, Europe pre-Lisbon and Europe post-Lisbon are two entirely different political and judicial jurisdictions. This first sentence of the constitutional amendment states that the state may ratify the Treaty of Lisbon and ‘‘may be a member of the European Union established by virtue of that - Lisbon - Treaty’’.

This post-Lisbon EU would have the same name, but would clearly be a different union from the pre-Lisbon EU, which stems from the 1993 Maastricht Treaty. The second sentence of the amendment would then give the constitution of this post-Lisbon union supremacy over the Irish constitution as regards its ‘‘laws, acts and measures’’, so long as these are provided for in the treaties. So we are not simply restructuring Europe to cater for the logistical demands of the 27 states: rather, we are creating a new European Union superstate based, not on Maastricht, but on Lisbon. I think the European federal state is looming here.

When you then add to these constitutional changes the changes in voting, the elimination of vetoes in some areas, the proposed new community-wide structures in justice, policing and defence, the changes in weighted majority voting, and the new relationship between aggregate population and voting power, the European Union we now live in disappears over the horizon.

Effectively, Lisbon gives the new union a unified constitutional structure so that all areas of government would come within its aegis, either actually or potentially. The only major feature of a fully developed federation the post-Lisbon Union would then lack would be the power to force member states to go to war against their will. Were Lisbon a reasonable and authentic attempt to regulate a 500 million population with 27 states in the union along more efficient and democratic lines, nobody could oppose it. But what is being sold as a mere refurbishment exercise is actually a total restructuring: the relationship between national parliaments and the EU power centre, and the relationship between domestic law and European law, are utterly transformed. And, of course, Lisbon is but another snapshot of the inexorable political progression of the Eurocrats, seizing every opportunity to design a United States of Europe.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to live in a European superstate run by Eurocrats who are unsackable, founded on a treaty that is unintelligible and watching the democratic linkage between citizen and state disappear under oceans of verbiage. I don’t believe the architects of this treaty, people like Valery Giscard D’Estaing or Guiliano Amato. I think they are practised political truth-massagers, - and tax-free ones to boot. As Amato himself said at the LSE last February: ‘‘The good thing about not calling it a constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it.”

The arrogance and dishonesty of the Yes campaign, too, have been deeply depressing, as if somehow the need for workers’ rights, charters of fundamental rights, an end to cross-border sex trafficking, climate change and global warming somehow cannot be dealt with except in the context of Lisbon. Such nonsense is mere camouflage for the fundamental structural change between citizen and state that Lisbon is creating.

Over and beyond all of this, there is the growing tyranny of Europe’s obsession with environmental and gender politics, its secularisation and multicultural agendas, its interference with national immigration policies and, above all, its failure to combat the relentless transformation of our society into a mere marketplace. Imagine a future in a Euro superstate almost entirely at the mercy of free market forces.

Come to think of it, if we defeat this referendum, it won’t be the first time that the Irish rescued Europe from the Dark Ages. I am pro-European, but I also want to remain primarily an Irish citizen, not a mere statistic in a European superstate. Therefore, I am voting No.

[Sub-X]

Libertas in final push for votes
http://www.libertas.org/content/view/296/1/
08 June 2008

Teams of Libertas volunteers have hit the streets of Ireland today in a final push for votes ahead of Thursdays' referendum.

In the centre of Dublin, 30 people hit Grafton Street over lunchtime, before departing with Declan Ganley for Croke Park, where they will canvass supporters of Dublin and Louth. A Libertas aircraft will also circle the stadium during the match.

In Tallaght, 15 people attended a meet&greet in the town square, meeting voters and distributing leaflets.

In Cork, over 20 people canvassed on Patrick Street.

Large numbers of volunteers went door to door in Ennis, Donegal and Sligo.

In the west, Libertas volunteers are distributing material in the Irish Language on the Aran Islands, which will cast their votes earlier than the rest of the country,

In Kildare, teams of volunteers are hitting the streets of Celbridge, Maynooth, and Leixlip, where they will deliver approximately 8,000 pieces of literature.

Speaking from the campaign trail in Dublin, Libertas chairman Declan Ganley said that the Libertas campaign would be unrelenting over the final days:

"The response we are getting from the public is reflected in recent polling. While we are taking nothing for granted, there has been no perceptible shift in the public mood over the past few days.

Huge numbers of Libertas supporters and volunteers are giving up their free time over the next few days to ensure that we get the maximum number of people out to vote "no" on Thursday.

As we enter the home straight, our message to the public is very clear: We can do better than Lisbon. It is a message that is resonating, and I am confident that on Friday morning, Brian Cowen will have a very significant mandate from the Irish people to go back to Brussels, and do his job."

[Sub-X]

Why Workers Are Voting No
http://www.voteno.ie/html/Why-Workers-Are-Voting-No.htm
8/6/2008

The last Irish Times/ MRBI poll on the Lisbon Treaty showed that the debate has fractured on the lines of social class.

The Yes vote registered a majority only in the better-off ABCI voters while in the working class C2DE category, there was a big majority for the No side.

Despite the best efforts of the Labour Party leadership, their voters are overwhelmingly opposed to the treaty, with 47 percent voting No, compared to 30 percent voting Yes.

The Lisbon Treaty has been characterised by an unusually strong intervention by big business.

On the Yes side, the employers' organisation IBEC is supporting the treaty because it facilitates more 'liberalisation' and has spent huge sums to get their message across. On the No side, Libertas has been given an inordinate prominence in the media, even though it represents few grassroots activists thus, proving that money can trump democracy in buying you a hearing.

Yet the poll found that one of the primary issues raised by business groups preserving the low corporation taxonly featured in the concerns of 5 percent of No voters.

The poll findings mirror a similar pattern in France where support for the EU constitution came overwhelmingly from higher socio-economic groupswhile opposition was concentrated in the manual working class.

The class dimension to voting patterns is also reflected in the manner in which the debate has been conducted. Faced with strong working class opposition, the Yes side tends to question the rationality of the opposition.

Calls are repeatedly made to 'get real' and the NO side are told they just do not understand the treaty. Rarely is it even acknowledged that there is an intellectual difference between both sides which go beyond 'who knows the treaty better' and a debate conducted on those differences.

Faced with this prejudice, it is worth presenting a simple, short explanation for why many workers have a rational case for opposing the treaty.

There is in the first instance a reaction to the gobbligook factor. Many people have not understood the treaty and rather sensibly will not assent to what they do not understand. About 30 percent of No voters who cite this point have passed the stage of 'trusting' their betters.

Yes supporters disparage this attitude by claiming that complexity is sometimes necessary and cite the annual Finance Acts. It is a revealing comparison precisely because this less than transparent process allows hosts of accountants to lobby the Minister of Finance in order to 'tweek' these acts to their advantage.

The Lisbon Treaty could have been written in an accessible format. It certainly was in its last incarnation as the EU constitution. Yet after this constitution was made freely available in French post-offices and widely read, it was rejected in a poll with a 70 per cent turn out.

In response to this democratic rejection, the Yes side resorted to a standard elite strategyhide transparency behind a veil of 'complexity'. Guiliano Amato, the convenor of the group of 'wise men' who helped re-configure the EU constitution into the Lisbon Treaty, acknowledged that the new 'unreadable' form had a particular advantage because it enabled local politicians to tell their populations ' Look, you see, its absolutely unreadable, it's the typical Brussels treaty, nothing new, no need for a referendum'.

The class scepticism on the NO side is therefore to be commended. But many workers are also aware of other issues which incline them to a No vote.

The position adopted by Ireland's largest union, SIPTU, provides a useful avenue into these discussions. The union might normally be pre-disposed to vote Yes as many of its leading figures are closely connected to the Labour Party. Yet in a pamphlet widely disseminated to its activists, the union notes that 'the Right are in the ascendancy on the political landscape of Europe �. (and) many trade unionists believe that it is also reflected in the number of recent judgements emanating from the ECJ(Viking, Laval, Ruffert)'.

Throughout most of the campaign, the Irish media has missed on the significance of these casesand, by extension, the salience of manual working class opposition to the treaty.

Without rehearsing the details of the cases, they collectively represent an important indicator of the neo-liberal turn in Europe. This turn is further codified and strengthened in the Lisbon Treaty.

The three judgements effectively told European workers that while they have a formal right to pursue industrial action, these rights are subordinate to market principles. In the words of the ECJ itself, ' restrictions may be imposed on the exercise of fundamental rights, in particular in the context of the common organisation of the market'.

Several articles in the Lisbon Treaty expand on this neo-liberal drift in the EU. The Protocol on the Internal Market explicitly states that it includes 'a system ensuring that competition is not distorted' thus copper-fastening the notorious judgements made by the ECJ. The 'independence' of the European Central Bank and its mandate to focus exclusively on 'price stability' to the detriment of full employment or modest interest rates is maintained. The EU Council is given greater leeway to issue judgements on government spending limits and to issue warnings and fines to any government that borrow 'excessively'. Any restrictions on speculative movement of capital are banned in Article 56. Any step backwards from liberalisation will henceforth requires unanimous support from every country because of Article 57.3.

SIPTU's response to this neo-liberal drift has been most modest. It merely wanted a balancing mechanism so that Irish workers would get more legal rights to collective bargaining.

The relevant issue here is the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Article 28 states that 'workers and employers� have in accordance with Union law and national laws and practices, the right to negotiate and conclude collective agreements�.

The small sub-clause in italics has often been left out by those who claim that the Charter gives Europe 'a soul'. Yet the recent Supreme Court judgement in the Ryanair case effectively removed exceptionally restricted rights to collective representation in anti-union firms.

Even if SIPTU's demand was fully conceded, it would not undermine the pattern of Laval, Viking and Ruffert as these judgements indicated that rights are subordinate to market rules. However, the response to SIPTU's most modest proposal has been instructive in itself. In contrast to last minute concessions made to the IFA, Taoiseach Brian Cowen said he could not concede. One leading Sunday newspaper ran a headline about SIPTU 'blackmail' and quoted an employer source who said 'It's an attempted coup by SIPTU'!

If anyone was in any doubt about the class issues that lay behind the vote, these responses must clarify matters.

Finally, the Yes side has attempted to disparage concerns about privatisation, claiming that this has nothing to do with the treaty. In fact Article 88.4, gives extra powers to the EU Commission to issue recommendations about categories of state aid to public services. Irish workers have not forgotten how such rules have already led to the privatisation of Aer Lingus.

A substantial number of labour activists are also aware of the dangers posed to public services by current negotiations at the World Trade Organisation on the General Agreement on Trade in Servicesyet their concerns have not received the same prominence as the issue of farm subsidies.

The last Nice Treaty gave a clear veto to national governments on deals covering Health, Education, Social Services and audio visual services. The current treaty, however, severely restricts this veto and renders it entirely ineffective. By doing so, it helps to shelter local politicians from democratic pressure as they can claim that further privatisation is 'out of their hands' and the result of EU negotiations at WTO level.

There is an entirely rational case for Irish workers voting No. Yet the Yes side can barely acknowledge that because it might mean confronting their own class prejudices.

[Sub-X]

Enda Kenny's attacks are losing both lisbon and Kenny support
http://www.lisbonvote.com/
8/6/2008

Cóir has said that Enda Kenny is doing neither the Lisbon Treaty nor his own party any favours by continuing with his hysterical attacks against Cóir’s campaign on the Lisbon Treaty. Spokesman Richard Greene said that in the week in which Enda Kenny had repeatedly and falsely alleged that Cóir were telling lies, the No vote had risen sharply in opinion polls and support for Fine Gael had slumped. Mr Greene said that Cóir had concentrated on providing factual information to the electorate throughout the campaign and that the allegations of dishonesty made by Mr Kenny were a “convenient cover for his refusal to debate the reality of the effects on the treaty”.

“We are thoroughly sick and tired of Mr Kenny’s behaviour,” said Mr Greene. “We’ve asked him to debate the issues anytime and in any place but has not responded. Instead, whenever he feels he will not be challenged, he launches a tirade of abuse against Cóir and our campaign.”

The Cóir spokesman added that Irish politicians had brought shame and dishonour to politics and had tied up millions in taxpayers’ funds in lengthy tribunals investigating political fraud, bribery and corruption. He said that Cóir would not be lectured to by politicians and wanted to discuss the treaty instead of dealing with hysterics.

“The facts are irrefutable,” said Mr Greene. “The effect of the combination of the Charter of Rights with Declaration 17 on primacy in the Lisbon Treaty is to give the EU Court of Justice the right to make our laws. The wishes of the Irish people can be overruled, not just in regard to abortion, but also in relation to other pressing social issues. We will have voted away the supremacy of our Constitution.”

“We are telling the truth on the treaty and that is causing a furore amongst politicians who would rather that the electorate vote blind on Lisbon,” he continued.

Commenting on the Red C poll published today in the Sunday Business Post Mr Greene said that “It was all still to play” and that Cóir would use every last minute until the voting centres closed to campaign for a No vote.

[Sub-X]

Cowen says Yes vote would be a move forward
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0608/eulisbon.html
8 June 2008

The Taoiseach has said that a No vote in the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty would marginalise Ireland's interests, and that there is a great opportunity to build goodwill towards Ireland in Europe by voting Yes.

He said that a Yes vote would move Ireland forward, whereas a No vote would bring the country on what he described as a new and far more uncertain route.

Speaking on RTÉ Radio this afternoon, Brian Cowen said that Ireland had been given the guarantees it needs in the treaty.

According to the Taoiseach, none of Ireland's 'red lines' were crossed in the negotiations leading to the treaty, and that it represents a decent, balanced good deal for Ireland.

He described the No camp as a well funded group, who are putting up posters which were not consistent with the truth.

Commenting on the slim lead for the Yes camp in the most recent opinion poll, the Taoiseach said the clouds of confusion orchestrated by the No side in the referendum are starting to clear away.

The Taoiseach said that claims that voting No would allow Ireland to keep its European Commissioner were untrue. He said that under the Nice Treaty the number of commissioners would be cut by 9 to 18, whereas the Lisbon Treaty defers the cut in commissioners until 2014 and ensures that right to nominate a commissioner is equally rotated among member states.

Latest poll results

Declan Ganley, one of the chief camapigners for a No vote in the Lisbon Treaty referendum vote says his side will be treating the latest poll findings with caution.

According to a Red C poll in today's Sunday Business Post, the Yes side is ahead, with the No side just three points behind.

The poll also found that among those who say they are certain to vote, the Yes side is even further ahead.

It shows the Yes vote at 42%, an increase of 1%.

But it shows the No side gaining more, up 6% to 39%.

Just a few days ago a TNS/mrbi poll showed opponents of the Treaty with a 5% lead over those in favour.

That poll showed the Yes side at 30%, down five points since the last TNS/mrbi poll three weeks ago, with the No side at 35%, up a staggering 17%, with Don't Knows down 12 at 35%.

Up to the most recent TNS/mrbi poll, opinion polls on the Referendum campaign have consistently shown the Yes side ahead, although with opponents closing the gap.

The referendum takes place on Thursday.

[Sub-X]

RefCom's independence must be questioned
http://www.libertas.org/content/view/299/1/
09 June 2008

The independence of the Referendum Commission must be called into question after it emerged that it has based its findings on legal advice provided by external consultants with close links to the "yes" campaign, and that it's communications advice is provided by Fianna Fáil's former head of communications, Libertas said this morning.

The Commission's "independent" legal opinion is in fact based on advice provided by AL Goodbody Solicitors, who are also retained by IBEC, and who are patrons of Chambers Ireland. Its Press function is staffed by Olivia Buckley, of Murray Consultants, who was Fianna Fáil's chief press officer until shortly after the last General Election.

Libertas Executive Director Naoise Nunn said that at best, the judgement of the commission had to be called into question, since it was being advised by people who very clearly had a vested interest in achieving a "yes" vote in the referendum.

"At best, this is incredibly naïve of the commission. At worst, it raises very serious questions about their independence. Their legal advisors very clearly have a vested interest in terms of keeping their other clients happy, and this creates a major conflict of interest.

It is also very questionable that the communications strategy of the commission, which is unprecedented, has presumably been suggested to them by somebody with very close links to the Government and the "yes" campaign.

The referendum commission is an independent body with a statutory obligation to provide totally impartial information. How can people be expected to trust in that information when the commission is basing it on advice received from people with a clear conflict of interest?

There are serious and hard questions to be answered here. The Commission has taken an unprecedented step in inserting itself into the public debate in the way it has chosen.

We think that these issues are of the utmost seriousness, and need to be addressed immediately."

[Sub-X]

EU holds breath ahead of Irish treaty referendum
http://euobserver.com/9/26291
9 June 2008

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS – All eyes are on Ireland this week as the European Union awaits the result of the country's EU treaty referendum on Thursday with a mixture of relief that the day has finally come around and fear that it may bring a "no" vote.

For much of the past half year, Ireland's lonely referendum route – it is the only one of the 27 member states to undergo the more unpredictable public poll rather than parliamentary ratification – has been the main topic of conversation in Brussels.
 
But while discussion in the EU capital has been feverish, actual political activity has slowed appreciably as the bloc's institutions and its officials have sought not to upset the Irish electorate with controversial new announcements. "Only after the Irish referendum" has been the familiar if unofficial refrain among EU diplomats.

To its supporters, the Lisbon treaty will make the EU more democratic, ease decision-making and give the bloc a chance to strengthen its weight on the international stage. To its detractors, the document takes away too much power from individual states and is much more than the simple tidying up exercise often portrayed by the "yes" camp.

Where both sides agree is that an Irish "no" is set to scupper ratification across the bloc, with 12 member states, including Ireland, still to complete the process.

Latest polls

The latest poll results have done little to ease the nerves of those hoping for a "yes" vote. An Irish Times survey published Friday (6 June) showed a 17-point jump for the "no" side, putting it five percentage points ahead. Meanwhile, a poll for the Sunday Business Post on 8 June put the pro-treaty camp in the lead, but only just - 42 percent to 39 percent.

It is three years since EU founding members France and the Netherlands caused a huge upset in Europe when one after the other rejected the proposed European Constitution.

For two years after the event, Europe retreated from the institutional reform question, indulged in some political soul-searching and tried to alter its core message into something more citizen-friendly.

Only with a change of leadership in France and Germany was the treaty question once more put back on the table.

What emerged after bitter wrangling was a messy compromise document that maintained most of the innovations of the constitution but removed the overtly state-like elements such as a mention of the European flag and anthem.

With an Irish "no" becoming an increasingly plausible possibility - memories remain of the country's rejection of the Nice Treaty in 2001 - there is a general feeling that the political landscape has changed this time round.

An uncertain route

Over the weekend, prime minister Brian Cowen said a treaty rejection would take Ireland down "down a new and more uncertain route".

The options in case of a rejection could be a renegotiation of the treaty (but there is little appetite in national capitals to once more tackle the institutional question); giving Ireland some more opt-outs and putting the document to vote again (an option which is politically difficult); or carrying on with the current treaties.

Every one denies there is a political Plan B should the Irish vote "no" on Thursday.

Some senior MEPs in the European Parliament have spoken of the country having to consider its membership of the EU, while other diplomats have suggested Dublin will pay in other ways, such as having less influence in Brussels.

Looking at the bigger picture, some diplomats suggest it will be a catastrophe for Europe, pushing it towards a situation where some member states choose to forge ahead with further integration.

Still others, however, suggest that Europe regularly lurches from one crisis to another and will, as in the past, muddle through.

Whatever the outcome, EU leaders will meet in Brussels for their annual summer summit one week later, where they can either push ahead with plans for implementing the treaty or publicly consider the consequences and weigh up the political options for the future.

[Sub-X]

Dirty tricks, razor blades & the Lisbon Vote No campaigners
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87888
June 09, 2008

Don't let them treat us as mushrooms; keeping us in the dark and covering us with horseshit?

Following the theft and damage of Lisbon Campaign for Middle East Justice and Peace signs in Dublin, Cork and Limerick, Galway on Friday night had a visitation of similiar malovolence when two large signs were torn from their anchorages, sliced into pieces and, bizarrely, after the top sections containing the text; "Israel Killed 52 Palestinian Children" were razored off, whatever, and stolen, the remaining pieces were neatly arranged on the grass - the signs highlighted the fact that Israel killed 52 Palestinian children in the first 18 weeks of 2008 and yet the EU, true to its hypocritical colours, refuses to impose sanctions.

Before

After

When appraised of the latest outrage, unbowed, Sean Clinton, head honcho of the Lisbon Campaign for Middle East Justice and Peace traveled from Limerick City yesterday with the last sign to erect it under the protective eye of a Garda traffic monitoring camera adjacent to the Westside Shopping Center.

In a Press Release, the LCMEJP stated: " the Ratification of the Lisbon Treaty would copper-fasten EU policy vis-à-vis Israel and force Ireland to go along with and defend this policy. Ireland, to our shame, has already defended the EU policy of appeasing Israel and this was clear a few weeks ago when following a week in which Israel killed 27 Palestinian children, the then Minister for foreign affair Dermot Ahern told the Dáil “the government is opposed to a suspension of the Agreement with Israel” The ability to formulate and espouse an independent foreign policy is the hallmark of a sovereign state. If Ireland ratifies the Treaty we will have to adhere to a European foreign policy, decided by Qualified Majority Vote and espoused by an unelected foreign minister. Ireland will have to uphold European foreign policy in all international fora, including the UN whether we agree with it or not. This represents the single greatest threat to Irish sovereignty since the foundation of the state. If ratified the Lisbon Treaty will herald the creation by stealth, of a federal European super-state. There is a real danger that on Thursday next we will sleepwalk ourselves and our fellow European citizens denied a vote, into this new state".

Meanwhile, last Saturday on Shop Street, the Free Palestine Campaign did its duty when all signees' to our petition calling on the EU to give up its 'aul sins and terminate the Euro-Med Agreement were requested to Vote No on Thursday - the auspices are good for this as, excepting a woman who was going to vote Yes on the basis that Sinn Fein was for it and a few noncommittals, all, as Bertolt Brecht would have put it were going to "forfeit the confidence of the EU," making it "easier In that case for the EU to dissolve the people and elect another"? A further piece of positive augury was evidenced at the Garda station where the vandalism to the signs was being reported when a Guard ventured: "Who votes for something you don't understand". Who indeed?, Who votes for a pig in a poke? for something that is deliberately opaque, for a thing that the f**kers boast about?: "They decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception. Where they got this perception from is a mystery to me. In order to make our citizens happy, to produce a document that they will never understand! But, there is some truth [in it]. Because if this is the kind of document that the IGC will produce, any Prime Minister - imagine the UK Prime Minister - can go to the Commons and say 'Look, you see, it's absolutely unreadable, it's the typical Brussels treaty, nothing new, no need for a referendum.' Should you succeed in understanding it at first sight there might be some reason for a referendum, because it would mean that there is something new." (Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister and Vice-Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution, recorded by Open Europe, The Centre for European Reform, London, 12 July 2007)

"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly" ... "All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way." (V. Giscard D'Estaing, Le Monde, 14 June 2007, and Sunday Telegraph, 1 July 2007)

[Sub-X]

Lisbon: the ‘YES’ campaign is built on deceit and lies
http://www.people.ie/press/080608.pdf
8 June 2008

Speaking today Patricia McKenna, former Green Party MEP and chairperson of the People’s
Movement, said:

“The Lisbon treaty is not a referendum on our membership of the EU, if we reject Lisbon our economy will NOT be damaged in fact we will retain our remaining economic levers which we will need to respond to economic challenges ahead.”

“The only thing the Lisbon treaty makes more efficient is the privatisation of public services and the militarization of the EU. A "NO" vote in the Lisbon treaty by the Irish people is critical to prevent the legalization of the move of the EU from a purely economic and co-operative union to a political union at the cost of the sovereignty of European nations.”

“The ‘YES’ campaign just like the Lisbon treaty is built on deceit and lies. In recent days an example of this deceit was laid bare by Le Monde, one of the most respected newspapers in France, when they quoted a French Government official saying:

‘We are avoiding formal declarations and discussions until the 12 June, the instruction is clear: no aggravating topics on taxation, defence and agriculture, the Irish are sensitive. On taxation, a key factor in Ireland's prosperity, the Commission is being very careful to remain discreet. Its proposals on the harmonisation of company tax bases were initially due before the summer, but will now come in the autumn.’

The Irish people need to be remain strong in the coming days because if Lisbon is passed our economy will be left rudderless and our sovereignty and that of our European neighbours beyond repair.”

[Sub-X]

Ganley buys one-way tickets to Brussels for Cowen, Kenny and Gilmore
http://www.libertas.org/content/view/303/127/
09 June 2008

Libertas Chairman Declan Ganley has booked three one-way seats on an 6pm flight to Brussels on June 13th in the names of Enda Kenny, Eamon Gilmore, and Brian Cowen.

Mr. Ganley said that he had bought the tickets to make the point that the Irish people should tell the three party leaders to go back for a better deal "and not come back until they have achieved it".

Speaking outside Government Buildings, Mr. Ganley said:

"The deal that has been achieved by Ireland in this treaty is an embarrassment. We lose our commissioner for five years at a time, our vote is halved while Germany's is doubled, and we lose vetoes in 60 areas of policy and hand over competence in 105 new areas.

We gain an unelected President of Europe. We gain an unelected Foreign Minister.

We open back doors in a whole range of policy areas, including taxation. Our veto on WTO deals is pretty much abolished, to the extent that the French now call it a "useful illusion".

We need to send our leaders back to Brussels to get the deal we deserve.

Our message to voters is very clear. On Thursday, send Brian back to Brussels, and tell him not to come back without a commissioner. On Friday, he will have both the mandate, and the means, to get a better deal.

I'll even pay for their taxi to the airport on Friday evening."

                                                                     

[Sub-X]

Joe Higgins on Lisbon & healthcare privatisation
http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/319
08/06/08

Lisbon: Bad for health

There is grave concern about our health service. The system is underfunded and two-tiered, with conflicts between private interests and patient care. Closure of public hospitals is matched by incentives for private for-profit operators. Most people are unhappy with this and think health should not be a commodity to be bought and sold: that everybody should have access to free healthcare when they need it.

But Europe's elites think otherwise. Even trade unionists who support Lisbon acknowledge the neo-liberal turn in the EU's approach to public services.

The Lisbon Treaty threatens public services, including healthcare, in several ways. The EU wants Member States to limit public spending. Alongside this is pressure to open public services, initially to private contractors from across the EU, but later to world markets at the WTO. This process would worsen the problems of access, accountability and quality in our services and put the profit motive centre stage.

First, Lisbon would give more power to Brussels to influence public expenditure. The Treaty would include "price stability" in the EU's "objectives", and add new powers "to set out economic policy guidelines" for eurozone members (Art.115). Procedures to deal with "excessive deficits" have been strengthened (Art.104). This means pressure to curb public spending, hive off parts of the public sector and expand the use of Public Private Partnerships – which have proven costly and unreliable for the Irish taxpayer.

Second, Lisbon will not protect public services from market rules. Under these rules, an EU business can demand the right to provide a service in any Member State. European Commission policy on social and other services, based on rulings from the European Court of Justice (ECJ), is that "... in practice… the vast majority of services can be considered as 'economic activities' within the meaning of EC Treaty rules on the internal market" (COMM 725, 2007).

The 2006 Watts ruling of the ECJ stated that Art 49 – the right to provide cross-border services – applies also to healthcare. The Commission concluded from this: "Some Member States with systems based on integrated public funding and provision of health services had argued that the treaty provisions on the freedom to provide services did not apply to them; the Watts judgment confirmed that they do". And while Art 152 TEC says the EU "shall fully respect the responsibilities of Member States for the organisation and delivery of health services…" the Commission says this does not mean Art 49 would not require Member States to change their social security systems - to pay cross-border operators. (SEC 1195/4, 2006)

Former UK Health Minister Frank Dobson (Labour) underlined the significance of the Watts ruling when criticising Lisbon in the House of Commons on February 6th: "In a recent ECJ decision, now followed by the European Commission, the neo-liberals who hold powerful positions on the Court and the Commission decided to open everything to do with healthcare up to internal market forces … I am very dubious about supporting a treaty that has not done something to set aside the Watts decision."

Commission policy is to allow competition between direct public provision and private contractors in the 'market' for services – with the state acting as regulator and providing some of the funds. But the only way to protect health and other services from the profit motive is to clearly exclude them from market rules. Lisbon does not do this. And despite what Yes advocates say, Art 16 and the Protocol on public services will not prevent another ruling like 'Watts'.

The third area of concern is international trade in services and the WTO's General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). Despite various claims by the Yes side, Lisbon will remove the veto on trade in health, education and social services. Art 188c.4b says a veto would be available only in exceptional circumstances: if trade "…risks seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services or prejudicing the responsibility of the Member State to deliver them".

Proving to the ECJ that such "risks" exist would be very difficult. Some governments, with EU approval, are already letting the private sector into these services; and the ECJ has already said that market rules apply, despite Member State 'responsibility' (Watts).

Removing this veto is a declaration of intent: to allow outside operators into the European "market" for public services, by stealth.

Frank Dobson highlights whose interests are served by trade liberalisation: "…There are very powerful forces at work behind the proposition ... Those forces are the US health corporations... [they] are roaming around Europe and Britain looking for markets."

In the current WTO-GATS talks the US wants to open public health systems, worldwide, to for-profit corporations. Its opening statement is clear: "The US is of the view that commercial opportunities exist along the entire spectrum of health and social care facilities, including hospitals, outpatient facilities, clinics, nursing homes, assisted living arrangements, and services provided in the home; and that existing and new commitments should reflect this reality."

The US is not alone. Our own employers' body IBEC let the cat out of the bag when it declared that a Yes vote "creates the potential for increased opportunities for Irish business particularly in areas subject to increasing liberalisation such as health, education, transport, energy and the environment".

Once the EU signs a GATS agreement on public services we will be locked into a process of deregulation and privatisation. That is why the unrestricted veto on international trade in health, education and social services must be retained. Without it, reversing this government's policy of giving health contracts to fraud-mired multinationals will be much more difficult: if the veto goes, how can we make them block an agreement? Voting for Lisbon will effectively remove this veto.

Lisbon should have been an opportunity to exclude public services once and for all from the rules of the market and international trade. Instead it promotes privatisation and gives us less control. The only rational choice is to reject it.

[Sub-X]

Islanders cast first votes on Lisbon
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0609/eulisbon1.html
9 June 2008

The first votes in the Lisbon Treaty referendum have been cast today on five islands off the coast of Donegal.

At the close of voting on Tory Island 66 people had voted out of 134; on Inisfree five had voted out of seven; on Gola seven had voted out of 24 and on Inishboffin 14 had voted out of 64. 

Voting continues on Arranmore Island until 7.30pm.

Approximately 136 people have voted out of 516 but it is expected that this figure will increase when people return to the island this evening after working on the mainland.

In total 745 people are entitled to vote on the islands, which are part of the Donegal South West constituency.

Traditionally these islands have voted ahead of the rest of Donegal because of the possibility that bad weather might cut the islands off and ballot boxes would not reach the count centre in time to be counted with the rest of the constituency's votes.

After islanders have cast their votes the ballot boxes will be securely stored on the mainland until Friday, when they will be counted with the rest of the Donegal votes.

The Defence Forces voted in the referendum by post last week. People overseas have until today to return their postal votes.

[Sub-X]

Mahon could damage Yes campaign - Labour
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0608/eulisbon.html
June 2008

The former Taoiseach's evidence at the Mahon Tribunal could damage the Lisbon Treaty Yes campaign, according to the Labour Party's deputy leader Joan Burton.

Speaking on RTÉ's The Week in Politics programme she said it is one of the factors that has made people uncertain in the context of Lisbon.

But she said she hopes people will look beyond events at the Tribunal and consider the country's economic future when voting on Thursday.

Finance Minister Brian Lenihan, however, said he does not believe that Fianna Fáil credibility in calling for a Yes vote has been damaged by Mr Ahern's evidence.

He did say that the former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern's finances in the 1990s were not a pretty picture.

Asked whether he believes Mr Ahern won £5500 pounds sterling betting on a horse race he said: 'Well that is what he says - the tribunal is going to have to make sense of it.'

Brian Cowen says Yes vote would move Ireland forward

The Taoiseach has said that a No vote in the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty would marginalise Ireland's interests, and that there is a great opportunity to build goodwill towards Ireland in Europe by voting Yes.

He said that a Yes vote would move Ireland forward, whereas a No vote would bring the country on what he described as a new and far more uncertain route.

Speaking on RTÉ Radio this afternoon, Brian Cowen said that Ireland had been given the guarantees it needs in the treaty.

According to the Taoiseach, none of Ireland's 'red lines' were crossed in the negotiations leading to the treaty, and that it represents a decent, balanced good deal for Ireland.

He described the No camp as a well funded group, who are putting up posters which were not consistent with the truth.

Commenting on the slim lead for the Yes camp in the most recent opinion poll, the Taoiseach said the clouds of confusion orchestrated by the No side in the referendum are starting to clear away.

The Taoiseach said that claims that voting No would allow Ireland to keep its European Commissioner were untrue. He said that under the Nice Treaty the number of commissioners would be cut by 9 to 18, whereas the Lisbon Treaty defers the cut in commissioners until 2014 and ensures that right to nominate a commissioner is equally rotated among member states.

Latest poll results

Declan Ganley, one of the chief camapigners for a No vote in the Lisbon Treaty referendum vote says his side will be treating the latest poll findings with caution.

According to a Red C poll in today's Sunday Business Post, the Yes side is ahead, with the No side just three points behind.

The poll also found that among those who say they are certain to vote, the Yes side is even further ahead.

It shows the Yes vote at 42%, an increase of 1%.

But it shows the No side gaining more, up 6% to 39%.

Just a few days ago a TNS/mrbi poll showed opponents of the Treaty with a 5% lead over those in favour.

That poll showed the Yes side at 30%, down five points since the last TNS/mrbi poll three weeks ago, with the No side at 35%, up a staggering 17%, with Don't Knows down 12 at 35%.

Up to the most recent TNS/mrbi poll, opinion polls on the Referendum campaign have consistently shown the Yes side ahead, although with opponents closing the gap.

The referendum takes place on Thursday.

[Sub-X]

The whole EU is watching
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0606/lisbonworld.html

Thousand of column inches and kilobytes throughout the EU have been dedicated to Ireland's unique position as the only member country to vote on the Lisbon Treaty.

Finnish paper Helsingin Sanomat writes that Ireland is currently the most influential country in Europe as the other 26 Member States await the results of the referendum on 12 June

Denmark's Politiken writes of the impact the Irish referendum will have on the future of the EU.

Dziennik in Poland has quoted Commission President José Manuel Barroso saying there is no plan B if Ireland rejects the Treaty.

The Lithuanian press criticised their Government's refusal to put the Treaty to a citizens' vote, and the British papers have been covering the campaigns for Gordon Brown to approve a referendum before UK ratification of the Treaty.

The campaign for a referendum in the UK has been covered across a range of publications and last weekend's papers reported that the English High Court is hearing a legal challenge against Gordon Brown on the referendum issue - on the same day as the Irish referendum.

Sweden is not due to ratify the Lisbon Treaty until after the Irish electorate has voted and, mindful that the Irish result could determine the future of the Treaty, its press has carried opinion pieces urging Ireland's approval of the Treaty. A no vote, Dagens Nyheter newspaper warns, could result in EU chaos.

The uncertainty of the outcome has been of interest to many European newspapers and notably the continually wavering results of the Irish opinion polls. The Financial Times featured an article reporting that EU bureaucracy and initiative has been toned down lately in order to prevent any negative influence on the Irish referendum. The article also noted how embarrassing a no vote could prove for the EU.

Particular attention has been paid to the level of undecided Irish voters registered in the surveys, but Ireland is not the only country confused about the Treaty. Prague Post and Právo, two Czech Republic publications, both published surveys which reported that up to 40% of the Czech public has no idea what the Lisbon Treaty is.

The IFA's decision to support the Government's yes vote in the Lisbon Treaty referendum got a lot of attention across Europe with German paper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung publishing an article on the IFA's success at blackmailing the Taoiseach before lending their support to his campaign. Weekendavisen from Denmark points out that the farmers' votes could well prove the deciding factor in the success or failure of the Lisbon Treaty.

While we may feel inundated by campaign posters, Lisbon debates and Treaty chatter, the Spanish paper La Vanguardia claims the Irish media hasn't shown much interest in the Lisbon Treaty to date.

[Sub-X]

IRISH TIMES: Yes side 'brow beating' public
http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/320
09/06/2008

A No campaigner in the Lisbon Treaty today accused the Yes side of "brow beating" the public into voting for the treaty and of misrepresenting key issues in the debate.

Richard Boyd Barrett, of the People Before Profit Alliance, today accused those campaigning for a Yes vote in Thursday’s referendum of raising “straw-man” arguments as part of their campaign tactics. He also accused some sections of the media of ignoring the real issues by over-focusing on business interests in the debate.

In a statement, Mr Boyd Barrett said recent polls showed that the No sentiment is disproportionately coming from the working class and young people who are directly affected by issues such as workers rights and public services.

He said that key areas of the debate such as public services, privatisation, EU militarisation and neutrality are being underplayed or simply ignored, with the Yes side trying to “brow beat the public the public into voting for the treaty using fear and the dishonest argument that it was about being pro- or anti-Europe”.

Mr Boyd Barrett described the Treaty as an erosion of democracy as it would give “greater power to people who are either not elected at all or who are not directly elected by Irish citizens”.

The People Before Profit Alliance will continue its campaign today on Grafton Street in Dublin. Speakers will include Mr Boyd Barrett, group co-convenor Ailbhe Smyth and Kieran Allen, a member of Siptu's education branch.

Also canvassing for a No vote today, Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams said he believed a "better deal" than the Lisbon Treaty was possible for Ireland in Europe.

On a canvass in Limerick city centre, he said many people he had spoken to who were "initial yes voters are now voting against the treaty".

"Issues such as the loss of a permanent Commissioner are of real concern to people. By rejecting the treaty we can give the Government a strong mandate from which to negotiate a better deal for Ireland," he said.

"One which secures a permanent Commissioner, stops Irish rates of pay being undercut, protects Irish neutrality with a specific article and opposes the obligation to increase military spending, and ends the use of Irish taxpayers’ money funding the nuclear industry. By voting no on Thursday the Irish people can secure a better deal. We should not have to accept second best.”

[Sub-X]

We Are Change Ireland: Rumble in Rathmines EU Lisbon Treaty

[KiwiClare]

The dirty little secret is that our MPs hardly matter any more
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1025089/MELANIE-PHILIPS-The-dirty-little-secret-MPs-hardly-matter-more.html
Last updated at 12:16 AM on 09th June 2008

Cup your ears. What is that sound we are suddenly picking up on the bush telegraph?
It is the distant but unmistakable trumpeting of the elephant in the room. And the name of that most dangerous but lamentably unscrutinised animal is the European Union.

The EU is the issue that all politicians are ignoring in the hope we will forget about it. Most immediately, they hope we have forgotten to be concerned about the European Constitution, which is masquerading as a bog standard treaty over which we need lose no sleep.
One symbol for all: Is the EU stripping all power from our MPs?

This constitution, which would bring into being an unprecedented bureaucratic super-state and end once and for all what remains of the independence of EU member nations, was dumped after it was rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005. It was then resurrected in all but name as the Treaty of Lisbon, which Parliament is in the process of ratifying. This week, that constitution faces a triple test.

Today, businessman Stuart Wheeler's legal challenge to Labour's refusal to honour its manifesto pledge to put it to a referendum reaches the High Court. On Wednesday, the ratification Bill reaches the House of Lords. This Bill was ruthlessly shoe-horned through the Commons. This week we will see whether their Lordships will also spinelessly roll over, or recall their historic role as a last- ditch defence of this country's interests against such abuse of power.
Panic

But something else is happening which our politicians didn't bargain for. As we know, the constitution has to be approved by every member state or else it falls. On Thursday, Ireland votes on the treaty - and it looks as if it might vote against it.

The Irish government is filled with panic and horror at the possibility that the Irish public might actually be thinking for themselves. For the EU has always relied on bamboozling the public about the joys of EUtopia and terrifying them that their whole world will collapse if it is thwarted.

More and more people, however, are realising that they have been lied to, not only about the constitution but about the whole EU project. In Britain, we were told from the start that it was only an economic union which would entail no loss of sovereignty.

That was the very opposite of the truth. The dirty little secret is that, even without the constitution, political power has simply drained away from Westminster to Brussels.

In a little-noticed but quite devastating speech in the Commons last week, the Tory MP Peter Lilley recorded that last year the EU passed no fewer than 177 directives - more or less equivalent to our Acts of Parliament - and 2,033 regulations enforceable in the UK, as well as making 1,045 decisions which affect us.

Our own Trade Minister has admitted that 'around half of all UK legislation with an impact on business, charities and the voluntary sector' stems from laws passed in Brussels. Once these powers have been transferred to the EU, observed Mr Lilley, ministers engage 'in a charade of pretence that they retain those powers' and often end up 'nobly accepting responsibility for laws which they actually opposed in Brussels'.

Is it any wonder that so many are terminally disillusioned with the entire political process when politicians make promises which they are simply powerless to keep - a fact which they carefully conceal?

Now the former Tory policy adviser Lord Blackwell is arguing that Britain should renegotiate the terms of its EU membership, restricting it to trade agreements and common security and environment policies, but rejecting EU control over monetary policy, foreign affairs, defence and justice.

An opinion poll run by his group Global Vision suggests that more than a third of voters across all parties would back a prospective Conservative Government pledge to negotiate such a change, and that people would support it in a referendum by more than two to one.
Corrupting

The fact is that those opposed to the creation of a European super-state are not the 'xenophobes' or 'Little Englanders' of the overheated Eurofanatic imagination.

On the contrary, many Eurosceptics like their European neighbours and find much to admire in their culture. They merely want to carry on governing themselves in their own country - because they have an enduring attachment to democracy.

And the EU is fundamentally an anti- democratic project, based on the belief that the individual nation is the source of the ills of the world and that by contrast supra-national institutions offer the solution to all its problems.

It is that absence of democratic transparency which is now corrupting not just European politics but our own. The fresh outbreak of 'Tory sleaze' over the expenses gravy train is rooted in Brussels, where corruption is the accepted way of EU life.

Yesterday, the Irish government said that a 'no' vote over the constitution would be a crisis for Europe. What rubbish. The plain fact is that the EU has brought about a crisis for democracy within Europe. Which is why it is essential that we should renegotiate our place within it.

Politicians, however, run a mile from any such suggestion. The terror of acknowledging the true nature of what has happened, in case he is required to address it, has propelled David Cameron into a cul-de-sac.

His pledge to allow the British people a vote on the constitution is worthless since - as he has only now admitted explicitly - once the treaty is ratified it will be almost impossible to do anything about it.

But since his party has warned that the constitution will spell the end of British self-government, this turns Mr Cameron into the Hamlet of the European debate - an awesome talent for speeches denouncing tyranny, but a complete inability to act against it.

Mr Cameron is paralysed by fear of reigniting the Tories' internal civil war over Europe. But the Tory Europhiles are now moth- eaten has-beens who have comprehensively lost the argument with the British people.
Opportunist

The fact is that Parliament is now so emasculated it is becoming the equivalent of Westminster regional council in the Republic of Euroland.

Why, therefore, should we bother to vote for politicians who will have no power except to do the bidding of the Brussels bureaucrats imposing their undemocratic rule over the British people?

It is time to end this charade. Whatever happens to the constitutional treaty in Ireland or anywhere else, Britain must now re-negotiate its relationship with the EU. The politician who does so will be a hero to the nation. Which is why Mr Cameron should ignore the faint-hearts and suede-shod Euro-fanatics in his ranks. This country must rediscover its identity and sense of purpose, or else it is finished. It can do so only if it regains the power to govern itself.

The issue is quite simply whether democracy in Britain has a future at all. It could not be more fundamental.

If Mr Cameron were to say he would renegotiate Britain's place in Europe, he would silence all the muttering that he is a blank page, an opportunist, a follower rather than a leader. He would immediately establish himself instead as a statesman of the first rank.

Come on, Mr Cameron: the people would not only be with you, but are simply desperate to hear a politician say that he will fight to preserve what so many of our fellow citizens down through the centuries have died to defend.

[Sub-X]

Excellent article Clare 

On the contrary, many Eurosceptics like their European neighbours and find much to admire in their culture. They merely want to carry on governing themselves in their own country - because they have an enduring attachment to democracy.[/url]

Why can't people see that this is the the beginning of dissolving national sovereignty,boggles the mind

[Sub-X]

Gilmore: Irish neutrality will be strengthened
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/gilmore-irish-neutrality-will-be-strengthened-1402440.html
June 09 2008

THE Lisbon Treaty strengthens Ireland's neutrality and its right to make independent foreign policy, the Labour Party insisted yesterday.

Leader Eamon Gilmore accused the 'No' campaign of issuing misleading and ill-informed arguments in relation to defence policy.

He said Irish neutrality was covered in the 1992 Maastricht Treaty at Ireland's insistence and repeated in each treaty revision since then.

Given the high number of voters who are concerned about Irish neutrality in recent opinion polls, the Labour leader said there was a need to provide categoric reassurance.

"Not only do the provisions of the Lisbon Reform Treaty not pose any threat to Irish neutrality, but I believe that they will actually enable Ireland to play an enhanced role in the world," he said.

"Nothing in this treaty provides for conscription or for Ireland being forced into wars or imperialist adventures. Our concentration should be on the responsibilities which we share with our EU partners in contributing to the search for peaceful solutions to conflicts around the world and especially in our own continent."

According to a new party document, the Irish constitution position asserting neutrality is specifically included in the referendum on the Lisbon Reform Treaty. EU membership cannot affect Ireland's neutral status and the "triple lock" on the use of the Irish defence forces remains in place.

"All decisions on defence policy continue to require the unanimous agreement of all 27 governments. Any single member state can therefore veto a proposal," Mr Gilmore said.

In addition, the Lisbon Treaty ensures that national security remains Ireland's responsibility, and will provide access to diplomatic representation for Irish people travelling abroad.

The document stresses that as Irish military spending declines, the army is also getting smaller.

"There is no compulsion on member states to increase their military expenditure," he said.

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

Shhhh don't mention the US military cargo planes that have been stopping over in Shannon airport 

[Sub-X]

Taoiseach must cross tribal lines for a marriage of convenience
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lisbon-treaty/taoiseach-must-cross-tribal-lines--for-a-marriage--of-convenience-1402339.html
June 09 2008

Brian Cowen has established himself as the consummate party man. He is the last man back when an offensive is on. He is the first to attack when the defence thrusts him forward.

Today he must divorce himself from the party man, find 50 ways to leave his lover Fianna Fail, join hands with his rivals in Fine Gael and become the consummate national leader.

Enda Kenny has waited patiently in the margins all these weeks, as Brian flirted with Labour and former leaders of Fine Gael, and teased and riled and bewitched the Mayo man.

Although loathe to public displays of tolerance of each other, they will have to stand shoulder-to-shoulder, face the camera lenses, and speak lyrically and enthusiastically about the glorious Lisbon Treaty, drafted to save us all from multiple inefficiencies and complicated layers of bureaucracy.

But both must secretly share a fear of what their party members are capable of.

Neither will be driven to a point of despair which would result in a "back me, or sack me moment" but their reputations, credibility and leadership abilities will be tested over these next 72 hours.

Yesterday, Brian Cowen was the Communicator, trying to convince the "loo-las" and "loony left" to come back and have another think about his beloved treaty. He was direct, knowledgeable and convincing in his interviews on radio and his outside interviews with the media.

But, step into a youth rally, where hundreds of Fianna Fail diehards, campaigners, councillors and TDs have converged to hear their great leader speak, and the tone, language and passion instantly explodes into a thunderous appraisal of the merits of the Treaty.

As they waved their European and Irish flags, nodded in fervent agreement and applauded his rhetoric, Brian Cowen stood back, inhaled the electric atmosphere and cast aside his 10-page prepared speech in favour of spontaneity.

Brian Cowen loves his party. Brian Cowen loves public gatherings. Herein, he can speak at length, without interruption, without the Declan Ganleys, the Patricia McKennas and the Mary Lou McDonalds contradicting him, cajoling him and irritating him.

But over the next 72 hours, Brian Cowen has to become the supreme debater, and find the robust and merciless deliberator who put Fianna Fail back on life-support in last year's general election.

Today, he and Enda Kenny must carve out their roles. Only one can play the good cop. One has to be the prophet of doom, if their treaty is to be salvaged.

In talking up the importance of creating more jobs and attracting foreign direct investment, Brian Cowen must paint an honest picture of life on the periphery of Europe.

If the Nice Treaty II headlines are to be banished and the 'No' side can no longer accuse the pro-treaty side of "economic scaremongering", Brian Cowen's temporary marriage with Fine Gael will have succeeded.

The emergency annulment can be in place and signed off on by the time the Dail returns at 2.30pm on Tuesday next.

[Sub-X]

Latest Lisbon Poll - No85%... Yes9%..(6% donno)
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87903
June 10, 2008

Ireland AM T.V. poll.

In the lead up to the end of the media campaign which ends at midnight where all media must remain silent on the issue till after the results, Noel Dempsey and Patricia Mckenna went at it over breakfast tv.
A phone in poll by texting was run by the station in which after the morning debate at 8.30 the results were

9% Yes.....95% No.....6% Undecided.......

Keep up the good work.....its only a poll.

[Sub-X]

Sarkozy wants to end France's 35 hour week and the EU raises the working week to over 60 hours
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87905
June 10, 2008

Another reason to vote No to Lisbon

Sarkozy wants to end France's 35 hour week and last night the EU decided to increase the working week from a maximum of 48 hours to up to 65 hours.

Mr Sarkozy wants to end France's 35 hour week and last night the EU decided to increase the working week from a maximum of 48 hours to up to 65 hours! These developments clearly give the lie to the EU becoming more 'social' If it was really becoming more social it would be lowering the working week to at least 35 hours as is still the case in France or even better to a 30 hour working week as many French NGO's looked for. Unless the EU takes a genuine social direction it deserves no support. It would behoove them better to improve the quality of life of its workers and their families, rather than persecuting whistleblowers who bravely exposed the well documented and massive corruption in the EU commission and other EU structures over the past number of years.

[Sub-X]

France warns Ireland on EU treaty 'No' vote
http://euobserver.com/9/26299
10 June 2008

French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner has warned Ireland about the consequences of voting "No" in Thursday's referendum, saying the Irish would be the "first victim" if they reject the EU treaty.

Speaking on France's RTL radio, Mr Kouchner said that a "No" vote would be met by "gigantic incomprehension" in the rest of Europe.
 
*Mr Kouchner alluded to the Irish being ungrateful about what the country has received from the EU since its membership in 1973.

Ireland has strongly benefitted from EU farm aid and structural aid over the years and has managed to turn itself into one of the most prosperous member states in the EU.

With the latest poll showing only a narrow gap between the "Yes" and the "No" side, politicians in larger member states particularly cannot understand why the treaty may be defeated.

"I believe the first victim of an eventual no would be the Irish. They have benefitted more than others," said Mr Kouchner.

"Yes, they're not happy because maybe nobody told them that Europe is confronting the rest of the world and that to have advantages for themselves, for the Irish...well, Europe has to develop, has to go in the direction of the Treaty of Lisbon," he said.

"It would be very, very, very troubling...that we could not count on the Irish, who themselves have counted a lot on Europe's money,"

The comments are the most outspoken from such a high-ranking politician on the issue, with member states so far careful not to be seen as interfering in Ireland's vote.

Referring to a rejection of the treaty - which needs to be ratified by all member states to come into force - Mr Kouchner said this was "beginning to be envisaged" almost everywhere.

But he said that France, which holds the EU's six-month rotating presidency from July, would continue with implementation of the treaty anyway while trying to persuade Ireland, which already voted twice on the bloc's Nice Treaty, to "put this treaty back on the drawing board."

His comments mirror those of French Green MEP Daniel Cohn-Bendit who told Le Monde on Monday "Why say yes to something that forces them to share what they get with the new EU members from Eastern Europe? The basic reaction is to protect one's own interests."

"A referendum must have consequences: if we say 'No', we leave Europe," he added. 

Ireland is the only country to vote on the EU treaty and is feeling the strong pressure from the rest of Europe to secure a "Yes" vote. All the main political parties support the charter but the outcome is likely to hinge on turnout, with a low voter show at the ballot box aiding the anti-treaty camp.

Voting has already started in some part of the country on Monday. Five islands – with a total electorate of 745 people – off the coast of County Donegal traditionally vote early to avoid bad weather delay. The defence forces voted by post last week.

The main polls close at 10 pm on Thursday (12 June), but ballot counting will take place the next day.

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

Mr Kouchner is saying we are ungrateful to Europe Well Mr Kouchner Ireland joined the EU in 1973 as you quiet rightly pointed out,what you fail to mention is Ireland was still a country close to becoming a 3rd world country until "American" company's started to come to Ireland in the middle to late 80s.This is not to say the EU didn't help Ireland but by claiming only the EU helped us is a lie.

[Sub-X]

Irish Examiner: Public’s key concerns ‘ignored in Lisbon debate’
http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/323
By Paul O’Brien, Political Correspondent
10 June 2008

THE issues in the Lisbon Treaty about which the public are most concerned have largely been ignored, an anti-Lisbon group claimed yesterday.

People Before Profit said that the key issues of concern to citizens were EU militarisation and Irish neutrality, public services and privatisation, workers’ rights, and democracy and accountability in the union.

But these issues were being “underplayed, misrepresented or simply ignored” by the yes campaign and some sections of the media, said the group’s spokesman, Richard Boyd Barrett.

He took a thinly-veiled swipe at fellow anti-Lisbon group Libertas, which has warned of the threat to Ireland’s corporate tax regime if the treaty is passed.

Mr Boyd Barrett said the opinion polls showed the public were “largely uninterested” in this issue.

Despite this, there had been an “obsessional media focus” on the argument of “one small but well-financed element of the no campaign”, he said.

Mr Boyd Barrett said the yes campaign had simply refused to discuss the substantial issues in the treaty and instead “tried to browbeat the public” into voting for the treaty “using fear and the dishonest argument” that it was about being pro- or anti-Europe.

“Yet the majority of those campaigning against Lisbon made clear from the outset that they were pro-European but against the direction that the Lisbon Treaty takes Europe,” he added.

He said the treaty significantly advances the militarisation of the EU and threatens Ireland’s neutrality.

“The treaty also clearly establishes or strengthens rules, mechanisms and policies that can facilitate the privatisation of vital public services and limit workers’ rights,” he added.

Mr Boyd Barrett said the Lisbon treaty also “gives greater power to people who are either not elected at all, or who are not directly elected by Irish citizens”.

[Sub-X]

Cowen will take responsibility for Lisbon result
http://www.irishexaminer.com/irishexaminer/pages/story.aspx-qqqg=ireland-qqqm=ireland-qqqa=ireland-qqqid=64692-qqqx=1.asp
10 June 2008

TAOISEACH Brian Cowen said yesterday he would take responsibility if the Lisbon treaty were defeated, but confidently asserted: “I believe we’re going to win this referendum.”

Mr Cowen was speaking with Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny and Labour counterpart Eamon Gilmore as the three main political parties united to drive home the message for a yes vote.

Mr Kenny welcomed the fact that a recent opinion poll, which showed the no side leading by five points, had been “so stark”, as it would encourage yes supporters to get out and vote.

Mr Gilmore said rejecting the treaty would throw Ireland into “uncertain waters”, and, pointing to the deteriorating economic climate, added: “This isn’t the time for this country to throw a wobbly on Europe.”

But Mr Cowen said he was confident “more and more people” were now realising that the treaty was in Ireland’s interests.

Asked where the blame would lie in the event of a no vote, he said: “Obviously, [with] the position I hold, I’ll take whatever responsibility I have to take, but I believe that the responsibility I’m taking will be a positive one. I believe we’re going to win this referendum. And I think we’re going to win it because more and more people are coming to the conclusion that this is in Ireland’s interests.”

The press conference was held in the IFSC in Dublin, the location central to the theme that a yes vote would be good for the economy.

Mr Cowen said that Ireland had achieved “unimagined progress” after 35 years of positive engagement with the European project.

“I believe passionately that Europe is not ‘them’, it is ‘us’,” he said. “It is the greatest enabler of real sovereignty in our history. It has enhanced our capacity, in concert with others, to make the decisions that have brought real and lasting benefits to our country.”

Both Mr Kenny and Mr Gilmore urged their supporters to refuse the temptation to give the Government “a bloody nose” by voting no.

Their appeal came in the wake of the TNS mrbi opinion poll showing a majority of Fine Gael and Labour supporters planning to reject the treaty.

“My message, not just to Fine Gael supporters, is that this is about your country,” said Mr Kenny.

“Europe has been good to us and for us. It is part of our lives… part of the best of our lives.”

Mr Gilmore stated: “What I’m saying to supporters of the Labour Party is, firstly, this treaty is important for the country, and that we have to step outside the normal party political issues that divide us and look at the treaty itself and make a decision as to whether or not this is good for the country, and secondly, I say very emphatically… that this treaty is good for people who support the Labour party.”

But campaigning in Limerick, Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams insisted that Ireland could get a better deal if voters rejected the treaty and sent the Government back to Europe to renegotiate.

Similarly, anti-Lisbon group Libertas held a press conference outside the gates of Government Buildings to display airline tickets it had purchased for Messrs Cowen, Kenny and Gilmore to travel to Brussels on Friday night and “begin the renegotiations”.

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


Has anybody seen any airborne pigs ,because theres a politician taking responsibilty for something,next thing we'll know they'll be telling us the truth and being honest.

[Sub-X]

Turnout low as the islanders go to polls
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lisbon-treaty/turnout-low-as-the-islanders-go-to-polls-1403850.html
June 10 2008

A little over a third of registered voters on five remote islands turned out to cast their ballot on the Lisbon Treaty yesterday.

Both the 'Yes' and 'No' camps will be hoping the low turnout in the Donegal islands is not repeated when the rest of the country votes on Thursday.

The day got off to a shaky start, with poor visibility resulting in a two-hour delay in the delivery of ballot boxes. Voting finally got under way at lunchtime.

By close of polling on Tory Island at 5pm, just under 50pc of the 734-strong electorate had voted.

Islanders complained of a lack of information with some, including the King of Tory Patsy Dan Rodgers, claiming that they were being disadvantaged by having to vote early.

"In this election, above all, we feel we should not be voting until the exact date, so we have as much information as possible," he said.

On Arranmore Island, with 505 registered voters, just 35pc had polled by close.

"People are definitely confused. Also there is a general discontent with the EU among fishermen," said one Arranmore islander.

Inishboffin reported a 22pc turnout, while on Gola Island, 29pc turned out to vote.

Impressive

On the tiny island of Inishfree an impressive 71pc, or five out of the seven islanders, voted.

Islanders off Galway and Mayo are not voting until tomorrow and Cork islanders will go to the polls on Thursday.

Speaking yesterday, Majella Ni Chriochain, manager of the islands' representative body, Comhdhail Oileain na hEireann, said that all islanders should have the same access to information and argument as voters on the mainland.

"We believe that all islanders should not be discriminated against and be let to vote on the same day as everyone else."

She added that if Cape Clear Island, situated almost 13 km from the mainland, could manage to hold its ballot on the same day as the mainland, there was no reason why Tory, 11 km offshore, couldn't.

"Even in winter, there is now a helicopter service available so there really is no excuse," she said.

[Sub-X]

Gormley sparks opposition row
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lisbon-treaty/gormley-sparks-opposition-row-1403754.html
June 10 2008

ENVIRONMENT Minister John Gormley has sparked a row with the opposition by highlighting the lack of Fine Gael and Labour voters who are in favour of the Lisbon Treaty.

He said that his party could not be blamed for a 'No' victory because it was the most "pro-European" and had more supporters intending to vote 'Yes' than any other party, according to the opinion polls.

"More so than FG and Labour, who apparently have a majority of people who are going to vote against. That is something they are going to have to ask themselves," he said.

He was speaking at a press conference organised at the request of the European Green Party movement, which is strongly in favour of a 'Yes' vote.

However, Fine Gael European Affairs spokeswoman Lucinda Creighton reacted angrily to Mr Gormley's comments.

Ms Creighton said she personally had been campaigning for the treaty in the Dublin South East constituency they share for the past three months.

"John Gormley hasn't appeared until last Saturday, with TV cameras on Grafton Street. That speaks for itself. No sign of him at the shopping centres, no sign of him at the doors, no sign of him at church gates," she said.

Labour Party campaign director Joe Costello TD said Mr Gormley would be better off avoiding recriminations at this stage.

"His own party have not been terribly active but we have been campaigning very strongly since our first press conference on December 12 last," he said.

Although 63pc of Green Party members voted in favour of the Lisbon Treaty at a special convention, the party has adopted a neutral stance -- with members free to campaign either way -- because this fell short of the two-thirds majority required.

But yesterday Mr Gormley said his party was "pro-Europe" for the simple reason that Europe had always been good for the environment.

He said the provision in the treaty for a petition from one million citizens to ask for legislation from the European Commission -- which he himself helped to draft -- was very positive. Even though the Commission is not obliged to respond, he said it would be "very unwise" to ignore it.

[Sub-X]

'Yes' camp's empty Eurobabble should be met by a simple 'No'
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/yes-camps-empty-eurobabble-should-be-met-by-a-simple-no-1403695.html
By Kevin Myers
June 10 2008

Seldom have the proponents of any political cause done as much damage to their case as have those urging us to vote 'Yes' in the referendum for our future.

They have attempted to reassure us with their Eurobabble of majority qualified voting, harmonisation and of subsidiarity, and soon; but they have raised more questions than the ones they unsuccessfully tried to answer. And when the august judges of the Referendum Commission are unable to answer relatively simple legal questions without lapsing into a baffled Urdu, then we know that the waters ahead are as clear as mud.

Our Euro-indoctrinated political classes insist that our tax laws will remain solely at the discretion of our sovereign parliament, and that no measure introduced by the EU can change those laws. But these are just opinions, not binding legal undertakings. Who knows what some future European supreme court or European Parliament might not rule? We have not got the immutable right to levy taxes (or not, as we please) enshrined in some specific, legally clear and watertight codicil, immune to subversion or invalidation through some so far undetected sub-sub clause in the bottomless verbiage of Eurobabble.

Any future consideration of our tax laws might well be by a Euro court, presided over by Euro judges who are well-steeped in the ideological dogmas of the European project. What is to stop them prospecting for the legal gold nuggets that would enable Europe to impose tax uniformity on the entire EU? To look for a vindication of an autonomous Irish tax regime from them would be like looking for a directive on pig farming from the Iranian supreme court.

And I simply do not understand why a political party which is re-creating an annual jamboree over the murderfest of 1916 is simultaneously immersing us in the new empire of Europe. Once in, it will be incredibly difficult to get out. We shall be a tiny tile in the vast mosaic that is Europe. Merely (to mix our metaphors) because, politically, we punch above our weight should not blind us to this truth. Lisbon is the fork in the road (new metaphor) that could take us to a politically united Europe, and we need take no more decisions, or even be allowed to take any, for that to happen.

If we vote 'No', won't we be cutting our own throats? No, we won't. Norway and Switzerland have free trade with the EU. If the EU wants to make itself a superstate, good. But we don't have to be part of it.

But surely, isn't a united European superstate a good thing? Well, it might be, if composed of idealised versions of the respective countries and cultures involved. But what is the reality? Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway: between them, perhaps, a million men under arms, yet only a a couple of thousand deployed in NATO's main area of operations, Afghanistan. The small German contingent there won't even patrol at night, and their soldiers cannot watch 'Thomas the Tank Engine' on their i-Pods; and in a combat zone, what you don't hold with feet on the ground, you forfeit. And we know about Spanish resilience in the face of terrorist attack.

Tell me, do you really think that the Eurocracy in Brussels is capable of mobilising popular will about a serious, militarised foreign policy? Mainland Europe is a large outdoor playground, with lots of posturing children playing at soldiers; meanwhile, who minds the schoolgates, as always, but the USA?

This infantilised condition is nowhere so advanced as in Ireland, where we have done two things: (a) refused to protect ourselves effectively by arms or treaty during the most dangerous time and in the most lethal area in world history, Europe, 1939-1989; and, (b) condemned those who have protected us for their immoral expenditure on arms. So, I don't expect mature debate on this subject in Ireland, merely inane playground pieties, which is, of course, what we've been getting on the subject of defence, from both camps.

The reality is that, once again, the war against Islamo-fascism is being fought by the common-law Anglophone countries that defeated fascism in 1945, and communism in the half-century which followed. This is the great historical truth of the 20th century.

The penultimate argument for 'No' is that 'Yes' finally means this island shall never have any control over its frontiers or who crosses them. 'Yes' is the open sesame to Ireland becoming what other European countries already are: socially divided and angry, with autonomous little Islamistans emerging in every major city. And, of course, they never remain little for long. And when EU dogmatists finally achieve their ambition of fully including Turkey in the union, we -- or, more to the point, our children -- will fully understand the demographic consequences.

The final argument from the 'Yes' camp is that the 'No' side really doesn't understand Lisbon. And, for once, they're right. So why should I say 'Yes' to a legal document I don't understand? My lawyer would never urge me to buy a house under such conditions.

Why would we follow different rules when voting for the future of our country?

[Sub-X]

Sinn Fein warns of 'scaremongering'
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lisbon-treaty/sinn-fein-warns-of-scaremongering-1403756.html
June 10 2008

SINN Fein has attacked 'Yes' campaigners for "scaremongering" about the potential for job losses if voters say 'No' to the Lisbon Treaty.

The party also maintained that a "Plan B" could be renegotiated in Brussels if the Treaty was rejected, despite Green Party leader John Gormley' claims that this was "unrealistic".

SF's sole Senator Pearse Doherty said: "'Yes' campaigners are trying to scare the Irish public by saying a 'No' vote will result in damage to our economy and loss of jobs.

"Nothing could be further from the truth: when the French people rejected the European constitution [in 2005], foreign investment increased to levels they hadn't seen in a decade."

He also rejected comments from Government ministers such as Dermot Ahern about the irony of Sinn Fein -- with its past links to the IRA -- talking about the dangers of increased military spending as "provided for in Article 28" of the Treaty.

Mr Doherty called for the Government to obtain a new treaty which would guarantee pay and conditions for Irish workers, and keep the country's entitlement to an EU Commissioner, rather than having one for only ten years out of 15.

Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams repeated this message while campaigning in Limerick yesterday, saying it "would not be possible to get a worse deal". Mr Doherty rejected the argument that a 'No' vote for the Lisbon Treaty would result in the loss of the State's EU Commissioner next year.

"There is a protocol in the Nice Treaty which does allow for a reduction in the number of commissioners but it also says it will be up to the Council of Ministers to decide," he said.

He added that he believed the outcome of Thursday's referendum was still too close to call and said that the public was "split down the middle".

[Sub-X]

Three amigos will look like stooges if vote deserts them
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lisbon-treaty/three-amigos-will-look-like-stooges-if-vote-deserts-them-1403694.html
June 10 2008

ANY unwary souls entering the National College of Ireland in the concrete-and-glass heart of the IFSC yesterday afternoon might easily have thought they were suffering from heat stroke. For there, sitting on a couch together, was a mirage as unlikely as stumbling across a keg of Guinness in the Gobi Desert

It was a little disorientating to see Brian Cowen and Enda Kenny plonked side by side on a cosy sofa -- Eamon Gilmore sitting prudently on the far side of the table, just in case skin and fur began flying. But then the breathless scramble to woo voters has thrown together some very strange bedfellows on both sides of the Lisbon Treaty divide -- 'No' advocates Youth Defence and Sinead O'Connor being just such an example.

And so the Taoiseach took a deep breath, counted to ten and stepped over the political divide and into a Band-of-Brothers photoshoot with the Head Blueshirt on one side of him and the Labour leader on the other. "This is Ireland's Call -- we're shoulder-to-shoulder," joked Enda , while keeping a wary eye to his left in case the Taoiseach reverted to form and broke into a haka.

While the photographers snapped away, the three leaders did what all men do when forced into an unfamiliar social milieu -- they talked sport, with phrases like "second-half" and "back-door" drifting over the clatter of cameras. Although it may be possible they were discussing a Plan B in the event of the electorate deciding on Thursday they are less Three Wise Men and more Larry (Brian), Moe (Enda) and Curly (Eamon), aka the Three Stooges.

But after, oh, at least three minutes of hanging out together, they headed into the building's atrium for the press conference. Perhaps they were planning to send a subliminal message to the media about the perils of global warning, which is why they chose a venue with a glass roof on a sun-drenched day.

Yesterday was all about harmony and presenting a united front -- particularly after the Taoiseach's inner Biffo got loose recently and suggested the opposition parties haven't been putting their shoulders whole-heartedly to the wheel.

The leaders sang like a well-rehearsed barbershop trio, and tried to emphasise that the whole thing was all quite simple, really.

Eamon pointed out that "its two simple aims are to make the EU more accountable to its citizens, and to ensure it can deal with a range of problems that affect our lives".

Enda stressed the treaty was "profoundly important and quite simple. It is an agreed response to changing the way that Europe does its business for and on behalf if its people" -- a description echoed by Brian who described it as "a good and balanced treaty which directly respects Ireland's national interest while allowing the union to be more efficient and dynamic".

They were all as good as gold, and Enda even elected to out-Offaly Brian and borrow a few oratorical flourishes from Moneygall man Barack Obama. "Out of the despair and destruction of the Second World War came a dream. A dream of peace. A dream of equality. Of shared strength. Ireland committed to that dream in 1973," he lyrically declared, part-Michael Collins, part-Michael Flatley.

Even when Brian Cowen earnestly assured one questioner he was "very careful" and "very moderate" in his choice of language, Enda and Eamon did their best to stifle spontaneous grins, for fear he might take the hump. The sacrifices they make for their country.

And if the Three Amgios did bond yesterday, there could still be an upside if the country goes for a 'No' vote. Declan Ganley, chairman of the anti-Lisbon group Libertas, dropped off at Government buildings three airline tickets for Brian, Enda and Eamon to fly to Brussels on Friday and renegotiate a better deal.

Or perhaps they should take the ferry. For if the three party leaders between them can't swing a 'Yes' vote, they'll all be in the same boat.

[Sub-X]

LISBON: PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO SAY NO
http://www.people.ie/press/080610.pdf
10 June 2008

The following is a final campaign statement by the People’s Movement at their press conference in Dublin today.The press conference was chaired by independent TD Tony Gregory and participants included,Senator David Norris,Finian McGrath TD,Cllr Bronwen Maher, former TDs Joe Higgins & Dr. Jerry Cowley,Cllr Declan Bree,Robert Ballagh and Patricia McKenna.

Irish voters do have the right to say ‘no’ to the Lisbon Treaty if they wish.The threats and bullying by the powerful EU leaders is a disturbing interference in our decision making process demonstrating the lengths the political elite will go to get their own way.These
threats are just that, empty threats.If we vote ‘no’ nothing will change,we will still be full members of the EU and will not be isolated as is claimed.This is not about being In or Out of Europe but about the type of Europe we want.

Yesterday on liveline, it was repeatedly said, “If you don’t know, vote NO”.The Lisbon treaty is confusing, this is not by accident,it is deliberately so as the architects have openly admitted and planned it to be.

The reason for this is simple; the political elite of Europe want to bring into force the failed EU constitution that takes Europe in a new direction without the knowledge or approval in referendums of the Peoples of Europe.

In Ireland the treaty is being sold as a necessary“tidy up”that is needed to make Europe more democratic & efficient this is a lie.This hard sell is coming from an unholy alliance of some of the most incompetent politicians in Europe and vested interests that are being
supported by public figures who have been bought and paid for through political appointments.

In recent weeks our democracy has witnessed elements of the media abandon all pretence of journalism in an open attempt to sell this constitutional treaty.

The Referendum Commission we now know has been receiving its legal advice from a law firm that provides services to those campaigning for a YES vote while the public information campaign is being run by consultants who were appointed by a tender offered by the department of foreign affairs.Despite this the recent opinion polls have shown the people are rightly suspicious that the Lisbon treaty is a step too far,whereby too much power will be handed over to the unelected bureaucracy in Brussels.Lisbon provides the
framework for moving the EU from an economic community to a political union.


This new EU is designed not for the benefit of its 490 Million people;Lisbon is designed to facilitate the privatisation of public services and the militarisation of Europe.

With panic now setting in the hard sell has turned from a con job to the bullying of the Irish people by both local and EU politicians.
This referendum has exposed a democratic deficit not just in Ireland but also across the EU where the political elite and their supporters are increasingly held in contempt.

Many people cannot understand or believe that our politicians would want to give up so much of their remaining power, as this is normally an unnatural act for politicians, but for those that have run out of ideas and vision it is a completely natural act.

The Irish people are now the only people who can defend the European project and protect Irish sovereignty,a no vote will not provoke a “crisis” in Europe, a no vote provides the basis of a cure for the EU’s democratic deficit,We believe that on June 12th the Irish nation will speak for the people of Europe who have been silenced and in doing so reclaim the EU for the people of Europe.

[Sub-X]

Final push for votes ahead of referendum
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0610/eulisbon.html
10 June 2008

Opponents and supporters of the Lisbon Treaty have been making their final push for votes today in advance of Thursday's referendum.

With broadcasting organisations observing the traditional eve-of-vote moratorium on referendum news tomorrow, today was the last chance for the various parties and campaign groups to set out their stall for voters.

Taoiseach Brian Cowen has told RTÉ's Six One News that if there is a No vote, Ireland could not wait another eight years for reform of the EU in order to compete with emerging economies such as China and India.

He added that Europe will go back to an uncertain situation if the Lisbon Treaty is defeated. 

In a final push for a yes vote, Mr Cowen said all of Ireland's concerns had been catered for in the treaty. Asked about Ireland's neutrality, Mr Cowen said the treaty respects Ireland's position and the triple-lock policy would remain.

He said Ireland was not going to get involved in any mutual defence pacts. In response to concerns that Ireland would lose its commissioner, Mr Cowen said there is already an agreement in place to reduce the number of Commissioners under the Nice Treaty. 

He added that Ireland retains its current commissioner until 2014. 

On the same programme, Sinn Féin MEP Mary Lou McDonald said that she believes 'there is a better deal to be negotiated', and that the Lisbon Treaty is 'a bad deal for Ireland and the union as a whole'.

On the question of European institutions, the loss of Ireland's permanent commissioner 'has been very, very contentious', and Ms McDonald has 'absolutely no doubt that...very many member states would...understand the common sense of maintaining a commissioner'.

There is 'an echo of some of the issues raised in France and the Netherlands' when they rejected 'this same package' in voting against the European Constitution, and what is needed is 'strong public pressure...and a clear mandate to renegotiate the treaty', she said.

In the aftermath of the rejection of the European Constitution by French and Dutch voters there was a process 'of repackaging', and 'a political decision was made to make cosmetic changes' to the constitution. 'Ireland is a fly on the ointment because a referendum is needed here', Ms McDonald asserted.

Sinn Fein has identified issues 'which must be renegotiated', and Mary Lou Mc Donald believes that such a move 'can command support across member states'. What is key is that 'the Government with the ball at its foot taking the initiative and taking up the political challenge', she said.

'If we vote it (Lisbon Treaty) down, it does not come into effect', and this will create 'a political opportunity', she said. 'We need to take a measured a long term view of treaty', she said, as Ireland's 'key interests are not protected'.


Campaigns clash over treaty renegotiation

Earlier, minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin stressed it was 'dishonest to suggest' that the Lisbon Treaty could be renegotiated if it is rejected.

Speaking on RTÉ Radio's News At One, Mr Martin accused the No campaign of creating 'a sense of conspiracy' when Ireland had nothing to fear from Europe. 

However, anti-Lisbon campaigner Senator Shane Ross said on the same programme that there was 'no doubt' the Treaty could be renegotiated if we voted No.

Libertas chairman Declan Ganley told reporters that Irish voters are being bullied and lied to about the consequences of a rejection of the Lisbon Treaty.

Mr Ganley urged voters to come out on Thursday and reject the Treaty so that politicians would have to renegotiate it.

He also defended his organisation's campaign, insisting that it complied with electoral legislation.

Mr Cowen earlier addressed a Fianna Fáil news conference in the Burlington Hotel in Dublin.

He said it was his deeply held belief that the Lisbon Treaty was crucial to Ireland's future prospects. He was convinced people would see through the negative arguments and expressed confidence that by close of polls the Yes side would have prevailed.

Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny, who was joined by his four predecessors in The Shelbourne, described Thursday as a moment of truth for this country.

He said he had put party politics aside to campaign for a vote that would determine whether or not Ireland remained at the axis of influence in Europe.

Labour's Eamon Gilmore said a No vote would result in confusion and uncertainty with people worried about their jobs and unemployment topping 200,000 today. He said this was not the time to raise doubts about our relationship with Europe.

The Irish Alliance for Europe brought together a range of people from different sectors of society to call for a Yes vote this afternoon.

Treaty opponents were also pushing strongly for votes - a number of Irish trade unions called for a No vote this morning.

At a final news conference on O'Connell Street in Dublin, Gerry Adams repeated his belief that a better deal was possible, saying Sinn Féin's experience in the peace process showed it was possible to continue negotiations.

And he said the Government were not 'wilting violets', and would be able to go back to Brussels to renegotiate if voters turned down Lisbon on Thursday.

The People's Movement accused the Yes side of bullying the Irish people as panic set in, and claimed Lisbon was designed to facilitate the privatisation of public services and the militarisation of Europe.

And a group of trade unionists, including Unite and the Technical, Engineering and Electrical Union, urged workers to reject Lisbon as it was good for big business, not for workers' rights.

[Sub-X]

Call to reject 'neo-liberal' Lisbon bias
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0610/breaking65.htm
10/06/2008

Private and public sector workers have today been urged to reject the “neo liberal” bias of the Lisbon Treaty and to ensure that Europe is as much about social as economic well being.

Speaking at a Dublin press conference attended by representatives of six trade unions, several of whom were appearing in a personal capacity, Jimmy Kelly, Irish regional secretary of the Unite union said it had advised its own membership to vote against the treaty from the outset.

He highlighted the impact of three recent judgments of the European Court of Justice which he said would have a serious impact on workers, and said there was a need for a “social progress” clause to be inserted to protect their rights.

He noted that the outcome of these judgments, known as the Laval, Viking and Ruffert cases, was not known when the treaty was being drawn up.

“Equal recognition of the rights of working people is essential if Europe is to deliver a sound, fair future for its citizens,” he said.

“Lisbon does nothing to recognise this…..we now appeal to all workers to stand up for their rights by rejecting Lisbon and sending a clear message that Europe should be as much about social as economic well being.”

Several contributors to today’s press conference argued that the treaty served to promote the “neo liberal” agenda and privatisation of services in areas such as health and education.

Eddie Conlon, a former national secretary of the Teachers Union of Ireland (TUI), said the Charter of Fundamental Rights “will not give workers the rights” which those on the “Yes” side had claimed.

He said it was noteworthy that a deal on the rights of agency workers had been agreed, after being opposed by the Government “all along”, just days before the polls opened here.

[Sub-X]

Irish 'no' camp says Paris hiding plans for EU defence
http://euobserver.com/9/26305/?rk=1
11 June 2008

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - On the eve of Ireland's referendum on the EU treaty, the Irish "no" camp has accused France of trying to hide its intentions to push for beefing up EU military capabilities and creating an EU army commanded by Brussels.

According to Kathy Sinnott, independent MEP and fervent opponent of the Lisbon treaty, the French government is keeping a promised blueprint on European defence and security secret until after the crucial vote on Thursday (12 June).
 
"The French white paper on EU defence has been ready for release since May, but the French government are withholding it until after the Irish referendum," the MEP said, demanding that the text be released immediately.

According to the MEP, the Lisbon treaty would force member states to contribute substantial amounts of cash and military expertise to comply with the text's provision on boosting EU military capability, a provision that Paris is ready to take up on as soon as the text has been ratified by all EU member states.

The Lisbon Treaty states that Ireland is not obliged to take part in, or be bound by, decisions in the area of freedom, security and justice, such as military cooperation.

But Ms Sinnott insists that under the new treaty, Ireland could lose its long-cherished military neutrality. She points to a clause in the treaty which states that "member states shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities."

"Even if the Lisbon Treaty gives us the right to keep our veto on sending Irish soldiers to the world's hot spots under an EU flag, we would not have the right to refuse to join the EU arms race," Ms Sinnott told EUobserver.

"In the name of solidarity with the other member states, we would have to keep our machinery up to date, send our military experts and increase defence spending. Irish tax-payers would have to pay for EU weaponry."

Irish neutrality

The Irish Labour party, a strong supporter of the treaty, in an immediate response to Ms Sinnott's accusations, on Tuesday (10 June) said that Irish neutrality had never and would not in the future be jeopardized by the Lisbon deal.

"Ireland has a veto on EU defence policy, and Ireland is not bound by any mutual defence commitment, nor is Ireland party to any plans to develop a European army," Eamon Gilmore, leader of the Irish Labour party said in a statement.

A spokesperson for the French government, surprised by the accusations from Ms Sinnott, told EUobserver that the white paper on defence was an "internal exercise" and that his government had never made any promises concerning the publication date to its European colleagues.

"It was always said it would come out in June, but we never talked about whether it would be before or after the Irish referendum; this is an entirely French paper," he said.

French newspapers reported last month that the Irish government had explicitly asked the French government to keep its defence strategy quiet until after the 12 June referendum. The spokesperson denied knowledge of such a deal.

France pushes defence

Paris' intention to reassert itself at the centre of European politics in an area where it has considerable assets (defence) and to kick-start a new era in European security policy is well-known to European policymakers since the arrival of latest president to the Elysee palace.

Nicolas Sarkozy said already in August last year that France would push for a bolder strategy on defence when it holds the rotating presidency - the political leadership - of the EU, starting on 1 July this year.

"Europe must progressively affirm itself as a first-rank player for peace and security," Sarkozy said, suggesting among other things to strengthen Europe's shared defence forces and set out a blueprint for the future deployment of troops from all member states, commanded from a new EU military headquarters in Brussels.

Last week, French defence minister Herve Morin suggested that EU countries on a voluntary basis create a common market for weapons, an area where currently EU common market rules or rules on procurement and tenders do not apply.

EU capitals have so far jealously protected their arms industries from the EU open market, claiming the defence market is a crucial matter of national security. Previous calls for a European defence have also sparked fears that it could undermine the work of NATO.

[Sub-X]

Tony Gregory urges Treaty rejection
http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/325
HARRY McGEE, Political Staff
11/06/08

The veteran Dublin Central deputy, who has been ill for some time, returned yesterday to chair the final press conference of the People's Movement, a group comprised of politicians and other public figures which is calling for a No vote tomorrow.

"We will lose a commissioner and lose voting strength. We will also be giving in to the military and nuclear industries," said Mr Gregory.

He was one of nine speakers who urged voters to reject the proposed amendment on grounds that ranged from the increased militarisation of Europe, the implications for workers, the loss of democratic accountability and what most speakers said were the "bullying tactics" of the Yes camp.

Independent Senator David Norris said he had come down on the No side because of the growing militarisation of the EU. He also accused the Yes side of bullying.
"What kind of democracy are they giving us? Apparently they think they can buy us. This may be a small country but it's a proud country," he said.

Evoking Winston Churchill,the Senator said: "Never in the course of European history has so few voted for so many who are denied the vote." Independent TD Finian McGrath said he believed that the momentum was with the No side but still put the outcome at "50-50".

The artist Robert Ballagh said that anybody who was confused should vote No. He also questioned the argument of the Yes side that 27 commissioners was far too unwieldy.

"The people who are arguing this case are the people who have 35 Ministers in Ireland to administer a nation of four million people. The Yes side is being utterly hypocritical in this argument."

In a criticism of The Irish Times , he said: "There have been eight editorials in the paper of record with one editorial saying we would be out of our minds to contemplate a No vote. Is this the way that democracy should work?"

Green Party councillor Bronwen Maher said that nothing in the treaty would significantly change the EU's ability to take action on climate change. She said there were no new legal powers on the environment.

Referring to the protocol inserted in Lisbon on the Euratom Treaty, she said: "It does mean that we will have to support further expansion of nuclear power plants and to accept nuclear power through the national grid."

Her Green Party colleague Patricia McKenna said the People's Movement was not anti-Europe. "It is pro-Europe and wants an open and democratic and demilitarised Europe."

Former Socialist Party TD Joe Higgins said the treaty was bad news for workers. "The Taoiseach over the weekend demolished the exaggerated claims made by Ictu and the Labour Party about the Charter of Fundamental Rights by his point-blank refusal to provide legislation to allow collective bargaining for workers in their workplace," he said.

Former TDs Declan Bree from Sligo and Jerry Cowley from Mayo also called for a No vote.

[Sub-X]

Treaty demands a No vote
http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/326
Vincent Browne
11/06/08

Indefensible 'defence' dimension demands a No vote

We have been told the European project was inspired by an ideal of peace in Europe. Lisbon defiles that ideal, writes VINCENT BROWNE

TOMORROW I will vote No in the Lisbon Treaty referendum and will do so primarily because of the intensified "defence" dimension that the treaty introduces to the European Union. This opens the way to the EU's involvement in an undefined and limitless "war" against undefined "terrorism"; it puts the EU at the centre of the armaments industry and it draws all member states into the terrorism paranoia.

While Ireland may opt out of any military engagement, the Lisbon Treaty ties Ireland into the military conglomeration the treaty envisages. This is bad for Ireland and bad for Europe and I will vote No on both counts.

Foreign and security policy had nothing to do with the European Community we joined in 1973. A defence dimension emerged 20 years later in 1993 with the Maastricht Treaty and we signed up to that on the basis of a promise of massive structural funds. The Lisbon Treaty takes this to a new dimension.

Yes there is a "unanimity" provision regarding military engagements but what it will mean in particular circumstances is unclear. For instance, Article 11.3 states, without qualification, member states "shall" make civilian and military capabilities available to the union for the implementation of the Common Security and Defence Policy. The treaty states: "Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities."

The military thrust of the Lisbon Treaty is further underlined by Article 28 A.4. It incorporates into the EU structure the European Defence Agency which will have a wide-ranging role in defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments. It "shall identify operational requirements, shall promote measures to satisfy those requirements, shall contribute to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector, shall participate in defining a European capabilities and armaments policy, and shall assist the Council in evaluating the improvement of military capabilities".

Aside from its other responsibilities this European Defence Agency will evaluate "the improvement of military capabilities" of member states. It is envisaged that there will be "permanent structured co-operation" on military matters and capabilities.

The military tasks envisaged shall include not just humanitarian and rescue tasks, but disarmament operations, conflict-prevention tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including post-conflict "stabilisation". And it is added: "All these tasks may contribute to the fight against terrorism, including by supporting third countries in combating terrorism in their territories".

There is a requirement on the union to "mobilise all the instruments at its disposal, including the military resources made available by the Member States" to "prevent" terrorist threats in the territory of the member states. Not just actual terrorism, however defined, but terrorist "threats". And there is an obligation on member states to "assist" a member state that is the object of a terrorist attack, again without a definition of what constitutes a "terrorist attack" and, it seems, there is no "opt out" here.

I do not think we should have any part in this, nor do I think Europe should be engaged in this. We have been told repeatedly the European project was inspired by an ideal of peace in Europe. The Lisbon Treaty defiles that ideal.

I have a further reason for voting No. It is because of the democratic deficiency of the European Union and the cynical contrivance on the part of the Euro bosses, including all member state governments, to exclude the electorates of Europe, aside from Ireland, from having a say in this treaty. Effectively, the Irish electorate is also being denied an opportunity for a meaningful say on this treaty by the presentation to it for ratification of a treaty that is utterly and, I believe, intentionally unintelligible.

Yes, there are some improvements on the democratisation front in the treaty but they are inadequate. The Council of Ministers remains the major powerhouse of the European Union and remains entirely unaccountable (no, the ministers are not accountable to their national parliaments, for the inter-governmental nature of the council obscures this).

Yes, there well may be no Plan B, but so what? A continuation of the EU on its present basis is preferable. The argument about us losing influence and respect in Europe if we vote No is a piece of emotional and economic blackmail. We are entitled to make up our own minds without such pressure and we have a right to expect that our partners in Europe would respect our conscientious decision.

I also acknowledge our involvement in the EU has been enormously beneficial to Ireland, not just economically but culturally and socially also but isn't that a reason to vote in the best interests of Europe as we see them? I am unhappy to be at odds on this issue with people I respect such as Garret FitzGerald, Noel Dorr, Brian Cowen, Bertie Ahern, Eamon Gilmore and many others.

But in my view the two overriding issues - defence and democracy - demand a No vote.

[Sub-X]

Trade Unionists: No could bring better deal for workers
http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/327
11/06/08

Trade unionists say No vote could bring better deal for workers

A REJECTION of the treaty would bring forward the prospect of a better deal on workers' rights, trade unionists campaigning on the No side said yesterday.

They said a No vote would increase the prospect of a "social progress" clause being agreed to protect the rights of workers.

They said this was something which was not achieved by the inclusion of the Charter of Fundamental Rights within the treaty.

Speaking at a final press conference at Unite's offices in Dublin, Jimmy Kelly, regional secretary of the union, said he was urging private and public sector workers to reject the treaty.

In a strong criticism of the attacks launched by the Yes side on the anti-treaty campaigners, Mr Kelly said it was not just the "rich and powerful" who were entitled to a voice.

He said the treaty had been formulated before the findings were known of three key European Court of Justice rulings which cover the rights of unions to take industrial action.

At a European level, work was already under way by the union movement to address the consequences of the Laval, Viking and Ruffert cases.

"[The idea of] a social progress clause is already at the top table within the European trade union movement," he told The Irish Times . "What we're saying is that a rejection of the treaty in Ireland moves it centre stage."

The possibility of a victory for the No campaign was "absolutely on the table", Mr Kelly said, adding that this was "an important week for the Republic of Ireland".
The press conference heard a range of contributions from senior members of various unions, including Siptu, ASTI and the Civil Public and Services Union (CPSU). Many appeared in a personal capacity to argue the case for a No vote.

Several contributors argued that the treaty served to promote the "neo-liberal" agenda and privatisation of services in the health and education sectors.
Eddie Conlon, a former honorary secretary of the Teachers Union of Ireland (TUI), said the Charter of Fundamental Rights would not give workers the rights which those on the Yes side had claimed.

He said it was noteworthy that a deal on the rights of agency workers had been agreed - after such measures were opposed by the Government "all along" - just days before the referendum.

Frank Keoghan, a member of the executive committee of the Technical, Engineering and Electrical Union, said the impact of the recent European Court of Justice rulings was that "market rights come first, and workers rights come second".

[rick reuben]

This thread has been a great resource. Thanks for putting the work in.