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

[Sub-X]

Libertas boss Ganley slated for skipping EU debate
Irish Independent
19 August 2008

LIBERTAS chairman Declan Ganley has been accused of "chickening out" of his pledge to take part in a major debate on the Lisbon Treaty.

Mr Ganley pulled out of the high-profile Humbert School foreign policy forum on 'Europe with or without Lisbon', which is being held on Saturday in Ballina, Co Mayo.

Expert speakers will include Noel Dorr, former Irish Ambassador to the UN and Secretary General of the Department of Foreign Affairs, and Senator Eugene Regan, the Fine Gael Seanad spokesman on Justice.

Humbert School director and Irish Independent journalist John Cooney said he was told only at the weekend by a member of Mr Ganley's staff that he would not be taking part as "he has to be in America".

"Mr Ganley's unexpected late withdrawal came as shock, because he had personally assured me that he would be there to take part in the debate. I feel badly let down by Mr Ganley for not keeping his word."

Mr Cooney said he suspected Mr Ganley's staff were shielding him from a debate with "acknowledged EU experts" such as Senator Regan and Mr Dorr.

"Faced with such heavyweights Mr Ganley has chickened out and made America his priority instead of honouring his commitment to take part in the only public forum on the difficulties facing Ireland in the wake of last June's defeat of the Lisbon referendum," he said.

Mr Cooney said he had rejected a proposal from Libertas to supply a replacement for Mr Ganley as two other prominent anti-Lisbon Treaty campaigners -- Ulick McEvaddy, the chief executive of Omega Air, and Cork solicitor Joe Noonan -- are taking part.

Afraid

Fine Gael Senator Eugene Regan said Mr Ganley was afraid of answering difficult questions about his organisation and its funding.

But Libertas executive director Naoise Nunn said the only reason Mr Ganley could not make the debate was the urgent business commitments that had cropped up with his Rivada Networks company.

"Declan Ganley took part in extremely robust debates during the campaign. I think it's fairly clear that he hasn't chickened out of any opportunity to address anybody about the Lisbon Treaty," he said.

Mr Nunn said Libertas had complied with all the funding rules.

[Sub-X]

Brady criticises EU attitude to religion
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0824/eulisbon.html
24 August 2008

Cardinal Séan Brady has suggested that EU hostility to religion may have prompted some Irish voters to reject the Lisbon Treaty.

He said a succession of anti-family, anti-life and other anti-Christian decisions by Brussels have made it more difficult for committed Christians to maintain their instinctive support for Europe in the Lisbon Referendum.

Speaking in Co Mayo, the Catholic Primate added that it may be important for the EU to review its pragmatic attitude that compromises essential human, moral and social values.

Cardinal Brady made his remarks during a lecture at Killala's Church of Ireland cathedral on the final day of the Humbert Summer School.

He criticised the EU for promoting secularism at the expense of the Christian heritage of the vast majority of its member states.

He also suggested some Europhile and committed Christian voters in Ireland were prompted by that widespread hostility to religion to reject the Lisbon Treaty.

He warned that ignoring this trend had inevitable political and social consequences, not least on levels of support for the European project itself.

He said it may be important for the EU to review its prevailing pragmatism that results in Christians being denied the right to intervene in public debates, or at least having their contribution dismissed as an attempt to protect unjustified privileges, such as the right to employ supporters of the Christian ethos of institutions like schools.

He said the same might be said of controversies over stem cell research, the status of same sex unions, the primacy of the family based on marriage, and the culture of life.

Complaining that Irish media are so secular, Dr Brady also warned that the founding ideals of the EU could not succeed unless public debate in Ireland reconsidered more strongly our traditional moral values.

[Sub-X]

Minister admits we need new Lisbon poll
Irish Independent
25 August 2008

EUROPEAN Affairs Minister Dick Roche raised the prospect of a second Lisbon Treaty referendum last night, saying he believes it is "the appropriate response" to the country's continuing political crisis.

Mr Roche's controversial comments, in an interview with the Irish Independent, came as the Catholic Primate of All Ireland yesterday voiced fears that some Christians had voted against the treaty because the EU was becoming ever more secular in its outlook.

Mr Roche said: "My personal view is that a referendum is the appropriate response to the position we are in. This is very much a personal view at this stage."

He added: "If we want to retain our position as a constructive EU member state, we cannot simply sit on our hands, as some would have us do, and keep saying that 'No' means 'No'."

Mr Roche is the first minister to publicly suggest an eventual re-run of the treaty referendum, defeated last June.

Some members of Government may be relieved that the unpalatable truth is now being aired -- but the minister's intervention will dismay 'No' campaigners, many of whom had predicted after their victory that the Government would not heed the result.

The minister sought to downplay any controversy about his remarks by saying the Government would make no decision on the matter until after its detailed analysis of the referendum defeat had been completed and considered.

A government spokesman said last night: "Mr Roche is not calling for a second referendum to be put. That would not be a fair reflection. The Government is instead following the steps it said it would take in the wake of the referendum outcome."

Mr Roche yesterday attended the Humbert Summer School, where Cardinal Sean Brady warned of Christian "unease" at the European project and a growing belief that EU policy was not formulated on the basis of religious values, but on purely secular terms. He said he believed this had played a role in the defeat of the treaty.

The differing views from senior members of Church and State will this week reopen the entire Lisbon debate -- but may not bring closer the finding of a solution that would ensure our continued full-membership of the EU.

The Government is especially wary of being seen to be offer a prescription to the people before it even receives an analysis of why the people voted 'No'.

The results of a major survey of public opinion on the referendum will be received next month, and the Taoiseach will then present his analysis of why the treaty was defeated to other EU leaders. A Government spokesman said yesterday that some of the reasons cited for voting 'No' had contradicted one another.

Ireland has been given until October to tell our partner states what we intend to do to rectify the situation.

"We now need to take a hard look at our situation within the EU," Mr Roche said. "We have to recognise, however, that all other member states -- 26 sovereign, democratic parliaments -- are likely to have ratified the treaty by the end of the year. This will leave Ireland in an isolated position.

"In the view of the other member states, we will be preventing the EU from equipping itself to deal with the many political and economic challenges facing today's Europe."

The European Affairs Minister privately does not see any chance of resolving the problem by trying to put elements of Lisbon into Irish law by passing Bills in the Dail. If the legislative route was not adopted the first time out, it could not be resorted to now, he believes.

"'Not an inch' is not a policy that has much to commend it in a dynamic Europe that wants to move forward," Mr Roche said. "We have to explore all possible solutions. We cannot exclude the possibility that, at some stage, and in the right circumstances, it may be necessary to consult the people once again. My personal view is that a referendum is the appropriate response to the position we are in; this is very much a personal view at this stage."

[Sub-X]

Prepare For Lisbon II Publicised - Propaganda Translation
http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=483
25 August 2008

The following quotes are from the August 25th Irish Independent article by Senan Molony:

“EUROPEAN Affairs Minister Dick Roche raised the prospect of a second Lisbon Treaty referendum last night, saying he believes it is ‘the appropriate response’ to the country’s continuing political crisis.”

“the Catholic Primate of All Ireland yesterday voiced fears that some Christians had voted against the treaty because the EU was becoming ever more secular in its outlook.”

Propaganda Translation: The Irish are idiots as Mr Sarkozy, EU Commission President stated, and we voted for invalid silly reasons. The Irish No vote has has nothing to do with the fact that the treaty is self amending, makes the EU even more unaccountable and undemocratic, our fellow EU citizens were not allowed vote the Lisbon treaty (aka EU Constitution 2.0) this time, or many other relevant issues.

“Mr Roche said: ‘[…]If we want to retain our position as a constructive EU member state, we cannot simply sit on our hands, as some would have us do, and keep saying that ‘No’ means ‘No’.”

Propaganda Translation: You must always vote Yes, if you don’t do as we say we will try to intimidate you with name calling such as nonconstructive.

“Some members of Government may be relieved that the unpalatable truth is now being aired.”

Propaganda Translation: The unpalatable truth is democracy by the people does not exist.

“A government spokesman said last night: ‘Mr Roche is not calling for a second referendum to be put. That would not be a fair reflection.’”

Propaganda Translation: Engage in double think.

“The differing views from senior members of Church and State will this week reopen the entire Lisbon debate — but may not bring closer the finding of a solution that would ensure our continued full-membership of the EU.”

Propaganda Translation: Even though it’s legally impossible following the EU’s own rules we still can generate fear in you by tell you Ireland is currently not a full-member. You must vote Yes next time to continue being a “full” member. I’m not legally lying because I have my own personal view of what “full” means.

“Ireland has been given until October to tell our partner states what we intend to do to rectify the situation.”

Propaganda Translation: The government are not going to stand by the Irish democratic vote and in October will announce a way to “rectify the situation,” so prepare your mind consciously or subconsciously.

“‘We now need to take a hard look at our situation within the EU,’ Mr Roche said. ‘We have to recognise, however, that all other member states — 26 sovereign, democratic parliaments — are likely to have ratified the treaty by the end of the year. This will leave Ireland in an isolated position.”

Propaganda Translation: Voting rights for politicians are democratic, voting rights by the people get in the way of democracy (double think). Instead of telling the other member states to stop ratifying the treaty like France and the Netherlands did in 2005 with the EU Constitution (when their people were allowed vote and voted No) the Irish rogue government will hope other EU governments will ratify it, not changing the situation legally but which will help pressure the Irish in voting again, and voting the only way allowed, yes of course.

“The European Affairs Minister privately does not see any chance of resolving the problem by trying to put elements of Lisbon into Irish law by passing Bills in the Dail. If the legislative route was not adopted the first time out, it could not be resorted to now, he believes.”

Propaganda Translation: We tried to avoid a democratic referendum the first time and legally could not unlike the other lucky 26 parliaments. Passing the Lisbon Treaty now after the public already voted No would really destroy the illusion of democracy (sometimes people deserve “more” than the truth). We should stick to the recipe of bullying the people, terrifying them, making up silly reasons why they voted No and add lashings of pressure.

[akston]

Hey Ireland - screw you.

- Love, your elected leaders.

Irish 'need new EU treaty vote'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7580870.stm



The Irish Republic may need to hold a second referendum on the EU's Lisbon Treaty, despite its rejection by voters in June, an Irish minister says.

Irish Europe Minister Dick Roche said that "because we've already had a referendum on this issue I think the people will have to be consulted".

He told the Irish broadcaster RTE that this was his "personal view".

The other 26 EU member states will probably all have ratified the reform treaty by Christmas, he said.

Previously Irish ministers have insisted it is too early to say how best to proceed with treaty ratification, following the No vote - by a margin of 53% - in the 12 June referendum.

Mr Roche said that before a possible second referendum "there's a lot of work to be done".

"The government is involved in detailed research to isolate the specific matters that were most sensitive in the minds of voters as we went to the polls on 12 June… those matters then have to be addressed," he said.

Last month Italy became the 23rd EU member state to approve the reform treaty, which is aimed at improving decision-making in the enlarged EU.

EU summit briefing

The Irish government will present a "position report" to an EU summit in October, Mr Roche said, which would not be a final roadmap.

"Towards the end of the year we'll have to decide what our timetable is," he added.

"We cannot exclude the possibility that at some stage and in the right circumstances it may be necessary to consult the people again," he said.

He argued that there was no appetite for renegotiating the treaty in Europe and that it was "the product of many years of hard work".

He said work must be done to "disengage Ireland" from Eurosceptics such as the UK Independence Party and others "who regard the European project as anathema".

The treaty has to be ratified by all 27 member states in order to take effect.

The treaty was originally meant to be in place in January 2009 - well ahead of the European Parliament elections in June 2009.

The Irish Republic was the only EU member state to hold a referendum on the treaty. The other countries that have not yet ratified it are the Czech Republic, Poland and Sweden.

Critics see the treaty as further evidence of a federalist, pro-integration agenda at work in the EU. They say the treaty is just a modified version of the EU constitution, rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005.

[Sub-X]

Irish Minister backs another EU referendum?
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/88829
25 August 2008

In the European countries 70% want their voice and vote back.

The EU 'presidents' and prime ministers keep betraying the 490 million people in the 27 EU countries. To avoid another defeat, the managers of the EU decided not to hold any referenda at all, but the referendum in Ireland could not be avoided. The Irish European Affairs minister Roche however, said the Irish had to vote in another referendum. Until they vote Yes?


Monday, 25 August 2008 - The Irish republic’s European Affairs Minister, Dick Roche ''raised the prospect of a second Lisbon Treaty referendum last night, saying he believes it is "the appropriate response" to the country’s continuing political crisis. The Minister said: "My personal view is that a referendum is the appropriate response to the position we are in. This is very much a personal view at this stage. If we want to retain our position as a constructive EU member State, we cannot simply sit on our hands, as some would have us do, and keep saying that 'No means No'."

This Roche is not only bad for the Irish people, but also bad for humanity in general, especially in the European Union. 490 million human beings (minus some profiteers) in the other 26 EU countries, pinned their hope on the Irish NO-voters, which - and that was great! - used their brains too. Other European people we like too, but not this 'fine print EU treaty' which nobody could nor can read. And no normal human being wants to sign a blank check. Right?

ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE AND A SHAME

And, it's expected but still absolutely incredible and a shame, what kind of lies and propaganda this Roche for his managers dares to spout: "We have to recognise, however, that all other member states - 26 sovereign, democratic parliaments - are likely to have ratified the treaty by the end of the year."

This cowardly compliant Roche knows it as well, but he's lying about it, that NONE of the other European countries even was allowed to hold a referendum about the totalitarian EU production unit and their own future. A totalitarian future with low wages and high taxes. One named, not chosen EU president, one (named, not chosen) 'parliament', one kind of money, the Euro, one police, one mail, one of everything, and the owners of those 'ones' decide how and what, and of course all the prices people are going to pay.

VOICES AND VOTES STOLEN

Their voices and votes have been stolen from them by EU creatures like Roche, even if Ireland twice, and the French and Dutch people loudly said NO to this blank Euro check earlier.

'European Affairs' Roche also said: "This will leave Ireland in an isolated position," and that's a lie too. Ireland is not isolated, on the contrary, the EU crooks are up against the wall, and the rest of the EU wants their voices back, like the Irish have them, and vote NO!

As written earlier: Like in Ireland, 70% of the Europeans want a referendum. The majority of people want their voice and vote back: ''Voters in five EU countries want treaty referendum,'' was the result of a poll published by Thomson and the Financial Times in London, a scoop-like item which was also reprinted in the bible of the money makers, Forbes: "A substantial majority of voters in five large European Union countries want a referendum on the bloc's new reform treaty, according to a poll published Thursday."

70% WANT THEIR VOICE AND VOTE BACK

To phrase it nicely, the 'very underreported' result of a poll last november, among people in five EU countries, resulted in an average of seventy percent (70%) saying they want a referendum. They want their voices and votes back, want the "Treason of Lisbon" stopped in it's tracks, and people absolutely do NOT want a totalitarian European Union, as planned. They want their right back to vote NO too! And protested in Lisbon too: https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/10/384109.html

Because what happened in the Portuguese capital, was the EU presidents and PM's betraying the hundreds of millions of people in the 27 countries. As I also wrote: "In Lisbon, and to avoid another defeat, the managers of the EU have decided not to hold any referenda at all. Hundreds of millions of EU people in the 27 countries thus have the right to vote about their own lives and destiny stolen: they have all been betrayed again by their champagne drinking political personnel, and the screwed people pay the bill too.

Whether they want it or not, the Euros are taken from their wallets. To take just one EU example: 61% of the Dutch has sleeping problems because they don't know anymore how to pay the bills in the highest taxed country in the world. And - according to official figures (CPB) - more than one million people must be seen as poor. In one of the richest countries in the world! It proofs again how the usurers write 'EU-rules' which result in rampant poverty for the majority of the people in the EU countries.

THIS IS CROSSING THE RUBICON

As former Czech President Vaclav Klaus, in 'Mlada Fronta Dnes' said concerning the EU plans: "This is crossing the Rubicon, after which there will be no more sovereign states in  Europe with fully-fledged governments and parliaments which represent legitimate  interests of their citizens, but only one state will remain. Basic things will be  decided  by a remote 'federal government' in Brussels and,  for example, Czech citizens will be  only a tiny particle whose voice and influence will be almost zero. We are against a European superstate." [andend] - More information at Url.: http://antwerpen.indymedia.org/news/2007/10/12837.php

According to the writings of the EU crooks themselves, the so called and by them made 'agreement' or 'treaties', like the treacherous Lisbon Treaty, have by the NO votes become 'null and void'. It says so explicitly in the referenda rules. But here again is this traitor Roche doing the bidding of the London 'dark forces', the financial cartel and the warlords in The City.

Quote concerning the European Union too: "As the former British Prime Minister of England during the late 1800s Benjamin D'Israeli wrote: "So you see... the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes" (Coningsby, The Century Co., N.Y., 1907, p. 233)." And for those who don't know yet who decides what the funny money in their wallets is worth: "The Evil Empire Revisited" - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/zqzy8

ANALYSIS OF WHY THE PEOPLE VOTED NO

According to the Belfast Telegraph article today: "The Irish government is especially wary of being seen to be offering a prescription to the people, before it even receives an analysis of why the people voted No. The results of a major survey of public opinion on the referendum will be received next month, and Taoiseach Brian Cowen will then bring his analysis of why the plebiscite was defeated to other EU Heads of Government."

Concerning the expected profit and power for the criminal cartel in London, Roche dared to say: "In the view of the other member states; we will be preventing the EU from equipping itself to deal with the many political and economic challenges facing today’s Europe."

What Roche and his EU mafia in reality mean is: we want to rob all of them, not just a small group of countries. And he, representing the murderous money mafia in London, fakes - like the gangsters - to not understand that NO means NO!

But please, take them down! One way or another and as many as you can. For what they do, better said commit, we have a word in The Netherlands where in dutch it's called 'roofmoord'. Meaning robbery and murder in one. And that's what they further want in the European Union.

We are doing our best in Holland and the rest of the EU too.

Because we better stop them. before they stop us.

HENK RUYSSENAARS

Source: belfasttelegraph.co.uk - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/63ct8k

Related: HR & 'European Union' - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/5nokas

* THE GLOBAL ELITE: WHO ARE THEY? - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/2y5854

* AMERICA (PLUS THE EUROPEAN UNION, AFRICA, LATIN AMERICA, JAPAN ETC. ETC.) PLUNDERED BY THE GLOBAL ELITE - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/2gfynw

* THE USE OF THE PHRASE ‘ANTI SEMITISM’ IS PURE NONSENSE - Many only claim to be jewish, so they can hide behind the false phrase when their global criminal and inhuman activities rightfully are attacked. - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/y8fwhf

IT'S DANGEROUS TO BE RIGHT, WHEN YOUR GOVERNMENT IS WRONG. - VOLTAIRE

FPF-COPYRIGHT NOTICE - In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107 - any copyrighted work in this message is distributed by the Foreign Press Foundation under fair use, without profit or payment, to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the information. Url.: http://tinyurl.com/3z3r6

FOREIGN PRESS FOUNDATION
Editor: Henk Ruyssenaars
http://tinyurl.com/2wegpc
The Netherlands
fpf@chello.nl

[Sub-X]

CÓIR warns that EU Agencies are increasingly encroaching on Irish social laws
http://www.lisbonvote.com/
22 August 2008

Cóir has criticised the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) of the European Union (EU) for its "imperious attitude"� towards the right of each EU member state to make sovereign decisions on social laws. Spokesman Richard Greene said that the FRA was following the federalist trend which was undermining democracy in the EU, and which sought to overrule the right of Irish citizens to decide on issues as important as the definition of marriage.

The FRA's most recent report has called for binding EU regulations that would equalize the legal status of married heterosexual couples with that of same-sex and opposite-sex couples across Europe. Mr Greene said that the Irish Constitution protected natural marriage, and the family based on marriage, and that outside agencies should respect the right of the Irish people to decide on social issues without any outside interference or pressures.

The European Parliament requested FRA's opinion in drafting a new EU law, called a directive that would prohibit discrimination based on "sexual orientation" in employment, education, social security, health care, and access to goods and services.  Current EU laws extend that kind of protection to the area of employment, leaving other areas to be treated in national legislation, though this restriction would have most likely been extended had the Lisbon Treaty passed.

The 165-page report goes beyond examining the proposed directive and contains analysis of all possible aspects of EU and national laws that the agency feels may possibly discriminate against homosexuals. Areas include employment, freedom of movement, asylum, family reunification, freedom of assembly, and criminal law.

Cóir's high-profile campaign for a No vote to Lisbon warned that changes brought about by the treaty would result in the European Court of Justice have increased powers to decide on important social issues, such as abortion and same-sex marriage. 

Now this new report argues that EU law should force member states, in which there is no registered-partnership or "gay marriage" legislation, to treat people in these arrangements as married couples. It argues that the extension of marital privileges to same-sex and cohabiting opposite-sex couples is justified in the report by reference to the EU's "fundamental principle" of "equal treatment."

[Sub-X]

'Yes' and 'No' camps attack Roche over call for Lisbon II
Irish Independent
26 August 2008

'YES' and 'No' campaigners rounded on Europe Minister Dick Roche yesterday after he said he felt a second Lisbon Treaty referendum would be necessary.

But despite berating the Government for lack of initiative, the opposition were last night unable to offer their own proposals for a way out of the crisis.

Mr Roche made the controversial comments in an interview with the Irish Independent, stressing it was his "personal view at this stage".

Government ministers have mostly insisted it is too early to say how best to proceed with treaty ratification, after the 'No' vote in the June 12 referendum.

Opposition parties yesterday queued up to condemn Mr Roche, although they stopped short of offering their own solutions.

The Labour Party's Joan Burton said Mr Roche's remarks were "unwise and unhelpful", while Fine Gael spokeswoman on European Affairs, Lucinda Creighton, said it showed the Government had "learned nothing from its disastrous referendum campaign".

Fine Gael MEP Gay Mitchell also criticised the remarks, while Sinn Fein MEP Mary Lou McDonald said last night that Mr Roche had "some cheek", adding that his suggestion of a re-run was "another example of a government without a plan".

Ms Burton said it was only three months since the Irish people had voted to reject the treaty and politicians had to respect the verdict of the electorate.

"There can be no question of simply putting the same proposition to the people once again," she said.

"There is no basis for believing that a second referendum would produce a different outcome to the one we got on June 12," she said.

"Minister Roche's comments may simply have the effect of driving even more people into the 'No' camp."

Despite the fact that Labour has not offered its own proposed solution, she criticised the Government for lack of direction.

"The only initiative they have come up with was a totally futile plan to set up a new committee, which would duplicate the work of the existing committee on European Affairs," she said.

Nothing

"We have had nothing from the Taoiseach or the Minister for Foreign Affairs."

Ms Burton was joined by Mary Lou McDonald, of Sinn Fein, in concluding that Mr Roche was engaged in a kite-flying exercise -- to gauge reaction to a possible second treaty.

"There is no political crisis as Minister Roche has suggested," Ms McDonald said. "There is simply a political task to be dealt with. The Irish people, like the French and Dutch before them, rejected this treaty. A new deal now needs to be negotiated."

But Mr Roche was unrepentant yesterday, saying the victorious 'No' campaign had "not always been frank or honest", but had touted "vague arguments about voting 'No' for a better 'Yes'." And he said that none had explained how to get a better deal.

Gay Mitchell MEP said on radio: "I think he is jumping the gun. I don't think it's helpful. We may have to say at the end of the day that the people have spoken, and take the consequences. But I don't think it's helpful to be coming out in the month of August with proposals or solutions one way or the other."

But he said that his personal view, like that of Mr Roche, was that a second referendum would ultimately be needed for at least part of the treaty provisions.

His colleague, Lucinda Creighton, said that a second treaty would only be rejected a second time unless concerns were addressed.

She said her party fully supported, and still supports, the Lisbon Treaty -- but there were issues including "concerns over social and moral issues, taxation and representation on the European Commission".

The Government should address concerns, "rather than threatening to ram another referendum down people's throats".

[Sub-X]

Simplicity the best way forward for commission
Irish Independent
27 August 2008

CONGRATULATORY statements have not been heaped on the Referendum Commission during the prolonged post-mortem debate on the rejected Lisbon Treaty.

Foreign Affairs Minister Micheal Martin, junior minister Noel Ahern, Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny and a myriad of campaign groups have questioned the performance of the independent commission with the €5m fund to communicate concise and clear information. But, despite its pronouncements, the Referendum Commission is likely to return in its current format unless new legislation is introduced by the Government.

Limited

The Referendum Commission will continue to act within its limited role of "explaining the subject matter of referenda, promoting public awareness and encouraging the electorate to vote".

But, it will again receive some €5m in the event of a Lisbon Treaty re-run some time next year.

The Referendum Commission must now enter a period of reflection and introspection if it is to improve on its recent Lisbon Treaty performance.

A repeat of the infamous press conference on June 4, when the eminent chairman Justice Iarfhlaith O'Neill hesitated on a series of questions about EU voting rules, cannot be allowed to happen again.

The expectation for the independent commission is to be decisive, knowledgeable, concise, direct, wise and clear.

To that end, it must use simple language to convey information to voters. Simple language and simple arguments should become the cornerstone of the commission's future performances.

[Sub-X]

Ireland shoots down idea of swift Lisbon revote
http://euobserver.com/9/26648
27 August 2008

The Irish government has insisted that no second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty is in the works after Europe minister Dick Roche on the weekend told press that another vote on the text would be "appropriate."

"Nothing whatsoever has been decided vis-a-vis the next step, because we're only in the process of analysis at this stage," the Irish Times quotes an unnamed government spokesperson as saying.
 
"People who are saying 'another referendum or legislation,' they are all jumping ahead to an outcome, and the government isn't anywhere near that."

Meanwhile, the UK's Financial Times reports that Irish government officials have privately conceded that any second referendum, should one take place, would not occur before next year's European Parliamentary elections, but rather in the second half of 2009.

The government clarification comes after a storm of criticism attacking Mr Roche's comments from campaigners for both the Yes and No sides in the failed June referendum as well as all main opposition parties.

Irish Europe minister Dick Roche had told the Irish Independent newspaper earlier this week: "A referendum is the appropriate response to the position we are in", while stressing that it was his "personal view at this stage."

"The government has made it clear that no option has been ruled in or out. We cannot exclude that at some stage and in the right circumstances it may be necessary to consult the people once again."

In response, the Labour Party's deputy leader, Joan Burton, described the minister's comments as "unwise and unhelpful," adding: "There can be no question of simply putting the same proposition to the people once again."

"There is no basis for believing that a second referendum would produce a different outcome to the one we got on 12 June," she said, saying the government should not be "threatening to ram another referendum down people's throats".

Leading opposition party Fine Gael's European affairs spokesperson, Lucinda Creighton, said Mr Roche's remarks showed the government had "learnt nothing from its disastrous referendum campaign."

Meanwhile, her colleague, MEP Gay Mitchell said of the minister: "I think he is jumping the gun. I don't think it's helpful ... I don't think it's helpful to be coming out in the month of August with proposals or solutions one way or the other."

According to the Irish Independent newspaper, both Ms Burton and Sinn Fein's Mary Lou McDonald believe the government was using Mr Roche's comments as a trial balloon in order to see what the popular response to a second referendum would be.

Ms McDonald said the move displayed "another example of a government without a plan."

[Sub-X]

Taoiseach not ruling out second referendum
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0827/eulisbon.html
27 August 2008

Taoiseach Brian Cowen has said that he has not ruled out the prospect of a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

When asked if he thought that there would be a second referendum, Mr Cowen said that it was a matter the Government would have to consider in due course.

He said that the Government were not at that point in the discussions yet and that they were examining the outcome of the referendum at the moment.

AdvertisementMr Cowen said that the Government would be meeting with other EU colleagues between now and the end of the year.

Fine Gael said the Taoiseach must provide an explicit assurance that the same question would not be put to the people in a new referendum.

The Party's Europe spokeswoman Lucinda Creighton said the concerns expressed during the last referendum would also have to addressed if a new one was to be put.

Sinn Féin MEP Mary Lou McDonald said the Government could not re-run the same referendum and if there was to be a new referendum it would have to be substantially different from that rejected by the people.

The EU Affairs Minister, Dick Roche, had said earlier this week that his personal opinion was that a second referendum would be necessary.

[Sub-X]

Roche exposes government’s real plans on Lisbon Treaty
http://www.people.ie/press/080825.pdf
25/08/2008

Leading anti Lisbon group the Peoples Movement says the governments secret plans on Lisbon have been exposed by Minister for European Affairs Dick Roche and that his assertion that a new referendum on the Lisbon Treaty will be necessary displays the most accurate picture yet of how the government intends to address the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty by voters earlier this year.

The chairperson of the People’s Movement and former Green Party MEP, Patricia McKenna, said today:‘Minister Roche’s comments that a second Lisbon referendum was needed has confirmed the public’s fear that the government,despite claims that it would respect the result of the Lisbon referendum,intends to re-run the Lisbon vote when the time is right and an effective pro-treaty marketing strategy has been put in place.While the government claims it will make no decision on this matter until after its detailed analysis of the referendum defeat has been completed and considered,it is clear that it intends using the findings of this research to present to the public with the same rejected treaty dressed up as something new.The words of Giscard d’Estaing come to mind:“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.” ’

Ms McKenna said: ‘Irish people must not allow our government treat us with such contempt our politicians must respect their  constitutional duty and obey the sovereign will of the voters’. McKenna called on the leaders of the Progressive Democrats and the Green
Party to make a public statement on this matter and declare their position in relation to a second referendum. ’The people are fed up with politicians avoiding giving answers’ she said, ‘it’s time for openness and honesty in politics.Prior to the result of the referendum
Minister Roche claimed that there would be no second vote if we said “No” but now in typical Fianna Fáil fashion he is reneging on that position.’

Ms McKenna also raised concern about the publicly-funded analysis of the referendum which she claimed was a ‘secret survey’.She said:“the government is using taxpayers money to mount an extensive confidential poll to“clarify the reasons underlying the
referendum result” but intend withholding the results from the public’.She said that ‘despite repeated calls the government has refused to state if it will make the findings of this research public as soon as it is available.’

‘To withhold the findings of this research from the people who are paying for it is unjustifiable and implies the government intends using the information to circumvent the will of the people it’s elected to serve. Both Minister Gormley and Minister Harney must make their position clear on this issue and state whether or not they will ensure that the public’s democratic right to access to information they have paid for will be respected’,McKenna concluded.

[Sub-X]

The Scandal of the Referendum Commission in the Lisbon Referendum
http://www.nationalplatform.org/
28 August 2008

(N.B. This press release is being posted to all TDs, Senators and MEPs, to the members of the High Court and Supreme Court, the Referendum Commission and the Catholic Hierarchy, and to the media and leading activists on the Yes and No sides in the Lisbon Treaty referendum, in the interest of public information. Acknowledgment is made to the web-site posting by Mr Patrick Egan for the information below on the role of A&L Goodbody Solicitors and Murray Consultants.)

The sheer dereliction of duty of the statutory Referendum Commission during the Lisbon Treaty referendum will assuredly be found shocking by future historians of our times.

The Oireachtas voted the Commission over €5 million to enable it do its job of informing citizens what the Lisbon referendum was about. Rarely can public money have been spent to such ill effect. The Commission spent €2.7 on media advertising. It paid An Post €1 million to deliver 2.2 million information handbooks to households. In the circumstances it was a democratic miracle that the majority of Irish voters rejected the proposal to amend the Irish Constitution. If the Commission had done the job it was statutorily required to do, the No-side majority would almost certainly have been much larger, for people would have learned of the constitutional revolution which Lisbon proposed, instead of being kept in ignorance of it.

The Commission Chairman and its members:

The Government appoints the chairman of the Referendum Commission on an ad hoc basis for every referendum. For Lisbon it chose High Court Justice Mr Iarfhlaith O’Neill as Commission chairman. It is a legitimate career expectation of High Court judges that they will be appointed to the Supreme Court or the European Court in Luxembourg. The chairman of the Referendum Commission during the Amsterdam Treaty and Nice Treaty referendums was retired Chief Justice T.A.Finlay, for whom prospects of judicial promotion were irrelevant.

The regular members of the Commission are the Clerk of the Dail (Mr Kieran Coughlan), the Clerk of the Seanad (Ms Deirdre Lane), the Ombudsman (Ms Emily O’Reilly) and the Comptroller and Auditor-General (Mr John Purcell).

Rubber-stamping its Chairman’s remarks instead of speaking with a collective voice:

The Referendum Commission is statutorily bound to act as a collectivity. The statements it issues should be approved by all its members. There is no provision in the Referendum Act which permits the Chairman to arrogate to himself the job of “clarifying” or explaining contentious issues of the referendum debate. Previous Referendum Commissions never attempted to do anything like that. Yet at two press conferences during the Lisbon referendum Mr Justice O’Neill took it upon himself to “clarify”, as he put it, contentious issues dealing with the implications of the Lisbon Treaty for such matters as company taxation, abortion, neutrality, a WTO veto etc., where political and legal judgments about what could happen if Lisbon was ratified were closely intertwined.

Judge O’Neill’s “clarifications” in each case lent heavily towards the Yes-side interpretation of these matters and were fulsomely welcomed by Government and other Yes-side spokesmen. Because of the impromptu nature of oral statements the other Commission members could not stand over everything said by Judge O’Neill on these occasions. They thereby failed in their duty to express at all times an agreed collective view. They must have been embarrassed when their Chairman was unable to answer a question on the Treaty at his second “clarificatory” press event.

On Tuesday 13 May Judge O’Neill made a clear error of fact when he stated on RTE that the Laval/Vaxholm judgment of the EU Court of Justice was given before and not after the Lisbon Treaty was signed. The implication of this was that this judgment had been taken into account by the signatories of the Treaty and there was therefore no case for rejecting the Treaty because its framers had not known of it. In fact this Court judgment was given five days after the Lisbon Treaty was signed, so that it could not have been taken into account or responded to by the signatory States. This was an important referendum issue for some No-side campaigners.

Mr Justice O’Neill’s mistake thus helped one side as against the other. Future Referendum Commissions should veto any attempts at such solo flights by their chairman and follow the sound procedures set out in previous referendums by retired Chief Justice Finlay.

Conflicts of interest on legal advice and public relations consultants:

The Referendum Commission paid €47,000 for legal advice, mostly from solicitor firm A&L Goodbody. It paid €358,000 for printing and design of publications, part of the design being done by DMH, a company linked to Murray Consultants, public relations advisers. Ms Olivia Buckley, one of the two Murray Consultants executives dealing with the Referendum Commission contract, whose name appeared as a contact on Referendum Commission press releases, was, for a period of five years up to the May 2007 general election, the press director of the Fianna Fail Party. She is a native of Ferbane, Co Offaly and has been closely associated with Taoiseach Mr Brian Cowen. A&L Goodbody are one of the patrons of Chambers Ireland, an organisation that campaigned for a Yes vote in the referendum, as well as acting as legal adviser for IBEC, another organisation that campaigned for a Yes vote

These conflicts of interest might be overlooked if one could be satisfied that the Referendum Commission itself selected Murray Consultants and A&L Goodbody. Section 4 of the Referendum Act 1998 provides that the Referendum Commission may from time to time engage such consultants and advisers as it considers necessary or expedient for the performance of its functions, thereby clearly envisaging that any such consultants or advisors will be selected and appointed by the Referendum Commission itself.

The Government’s own E-tenders website, however, showed that the request for tender for €3.5 million of ‘Marketing, Communications and Project Management Consultancy services for the Referendum Commission’ was published on 19 February 2008, three weeks before the Referendum Commission was called into being on 6 March 2008. Disturbingly, the request for tender stated that tenders were to be submitted to the Department of Foreign Affairs, even though the holding of referendums and the establishment of the Referendum Commission is a matter for the Department of the Environment and Local Government. No explanation has been provided for the involvement of the Department of Foreign Affairs and no confirmation has been given that the choice of Murray Consultants was that of the Referendum Commission itself and not the Department of Foreign Affairs.
In relation to the selection of A&L Goodbody Solicitors as legal advisers to the Referendum Commission, there was not even a public tender process carried out, whether by the Referendum Commission itself or by any government department on its behalf. No information has been disclosed as to when A&L Goodbody Solicitors were selected, who selected them and indeed how they came to be selected.

Under the Referendum Act the Referendum Commission is required to furnish, within six months of the referendum, a report to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government on the carrying out of its functions. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government is to lay this report before the Dail. It is to be hoped that the serious questions relating to the appointment of the Commission’s legal advisers and PR people, and the validity of the tendering process, will be addressed in this report or else raised in the Dail.

The most sensible, effective and probably the cheapest way for the Referendum Commission to get legal advice on an EU Treaty if it needs that, is to hire two top-rank authorities on EU law, one who favours a Yes vote and the other who favours a No, and when they cannot agree on a matter of legal interpretation, the members of the Commission should make up their own minds. If the disagreement on interpretation persists among themselves, it should inform the public of that fact. This is the way in which the function of providing the public with accurate information on contentious issues is carried out by statutory bodies similar to the Referendum Commission elsewhere, for example in Denmark.

The Referendum Commission’s profound failure to carry out its statutory function of explaining the actual

Constitutional Amendment and its text to Irish voters:

The poor quality of the legal advice adopted by the Referendum Commission is shown by the fact that the Commission substantially failed to carry out its statutory duty under the Referendum Act establishing it.

Irish referendums are a form of direct legislation in which citizens are legislating on a Bill to amend the Constitution and deciding whether to adopt or reject that Bill. In the case of the Lisbon Treaty, the proposed constitutional amendment was set out in the 28th Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2008.

To help Irish citizen-voters carry out their legislative task the Referendum Act imposes on the Referendum Commission the statutory obligation “to prepare a statement or statements containing a general explanation of the subject matter of the proposal (i.e. the proposal to amend the Constitution) and of the text thereof in the relevant Bill and any other information relating to those matters that the Commission considers appropriate”.

In view of this clear injunction from the Oireachtas it is surprising that neither the Referendum Commission’s web-site when it was first set up, nor the Handbook which it sent to all voters, gave the text of the proposal to amend the Irish Constitution, or even a summary of it. The text was put on the web-site following private representations by this organisation, but no change was made to the Handbook.

The Commission’s Handbook to Voters was significantly misleading - by omission - in that it stated, on Page 2: “You are being asked to decide whether or not to change the Constitution of Ireland to allow Ireland to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon.” But that was only part of the decision Irish voters were asked to make on 12 June 2008 in the proposed Constitutional Amendment.

The first sentence of the Constitutional Amendment which was set out in the 28th Amendment of the Constitution Bill made clear that the Amendment’s purpose was for the people to give permission to the State to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon AND to “be a member of the European Union established by virtue of that Treaty.”

However, the Referendum Commission’s explanatory material made no reference whatever to the latter part of this sentence, despite its obvious importance. Nor did it make any reference to the important sentence following, which would give the “laws, acts and measures” of the proposed new post-Lisbon European Union constitutional supremacy over the Irish Constitution and laws.
The following are the first two subsections - the centrally important ones - of the English text of the Constitutional Amendment which was put before Irish voters on 12 June 2008 and which was “the subject matter of the proposal and text thereof in the relevant Bill” that it was the statutory duty of the Referendum Commission to explain to citizens:

“10: The State may ratify the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, 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.

11: 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 referred to in subsection 10 of this section, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State.”
(emphasis added)

By omitting any reference in the explanatory material on its web-site or in its Voters’ Handbook to “the European Union established by virtue of that Treaty”, viz. the Lisbon Treaty, the Referendum Commission failed fundamentally in its statutory duty of explaining to voters the profound constitutional difference between the European Union which would be established by the Lisbon Treaty and the European Union which we are currently members of and which was established by the 1993 Maastricht Treaty.

The Commission thus failed to inform voters that the legally new European Union which would be established by Lisbon would, unlike the present EU, have the constitutional form of a supranational Federation in which Ireland and the other EU Member States would have the constitutional status of regional or provincial states, and of which we would all be made real citizens for the first time, rather than our being just notional, symbolic or honorary EU “citizens” as at present.

One can only be a citizen of a State and all States must have citizens. As real citizens of the constitutionally new European Union to be established by Lisbon - and in contrast to the current EU which was established by the 1993 Maastricht Treaty - we would owe the post-Lisbon EU the normal citizens’ duty of obedience to its laws and loyalty to its authority over and above our obedience and loyalty to the Irish State and the Irish Constitution and laws.

Lisbon would amend the existing European Treaties to make EU citizenship “additional to” rather than “complementary” to national citizenship. We would still retain our Irish national citizenship in the post-Lisbon Union, but our new dual citizenship post-Lisbon would not be citizenship of two different States, but rather of the federal and regional-provincial levels of one State, as is normal in such classical Federations as the USA, Federal Germany, Switzerland and Canada.

The Irish Constitution would remain in being after Lisbon - just as the various states of the Federal USA still retain their constitutions - but it would be subordinate to the EU Constitution in any case of conflict between the two. The rights and duties attaching to our new EU citizenship would also be superior to the rights and duties attaching to our national citizenship in any case of conflict, because of the primacy of EU law over national law in the post-Lisbon Union, as indicated in the second sentence of the proposed Constitutional Amendment quoted above.

The present EU is not a State and does not have legal personality such that it can have citizens as members. The “European Union established by virtue of the Lisbon Treaty”, which is referred to in the first and most important sentence of the 28th Amendment of the Constitution Bill, would be quite otherwise in this and other respects.

These are major constitutional changes by any standard - for the EU, for its Member States and for Irish citizens. Yet there was not a hint of them in the publicity material issued by the Referendum Commission Š Not a word about EU citizenship Š Not a word about Lisbon’s abolition of the European Community that we have been members of since 1973 Š Not a word about Lisbon’s establishing a constitutionally new European Union, with legal personality for the first time, with power to sign international treatries in all areas of its competence, with the same name but politically, legally and constitutionally with the form of a supranational European Federation - a very different entity altogether from the present EU.

The result? . . . Concealment from the Irish people of the constitutional implications of what they were voting on Š By the very body which was set up by the Oireachtas to inform them!

One can understand that the Government and Yes-side proponents would wish to keep these major constitutional changes which would be made by the Lisbon Treaty from the attention of Irish voters. But for the Referendum Commission to say nothing about them in its publicity material was a shocking delinquency. It could have had dire constitutional results for this and future generations of Irish people if Irish voters had voted Yes Š Not to speak of their implications for the peoples of Europe, who are being denied referendums on this profound political and constitutional change by private agreement among their Prime Ministers and Presidents at their October 2007 summit meeting.

Positively misleading statements in the Referendum Commission’s publicity material on the mode of appointment of European Commissioners under Lisbon:

The Lisbon Treaty provides that Ireland’s present right to “propose” and decide its national Commissioner, and in effect to have that proposal accepted by the other Member States if their proposals are to be accepted by Ireland (Art. 214, current TEC), would be replaced by a right to make “suggestions” regarding a name, for the incoming Commission President to decide (Art.17.7, amended TEU). Member States would thus lose their present right to decide who their national Commissioners would be. In other words, the Lisbon Treaty, if ratified, would replace a bottom-up process for appointing European Commissioners by a top-down one.

The Referendum Commission deliberately concealed this important change, which would undoubtedly alarm some voters. Its Handbook to Voters stated on page 5 that “At present, each Member State nominates one member of the Commission” and then goes on to say: “The right to nominate a Commissioner will rotate among the Member States on an equal basis.”

The use of the same word “nominate” to describe the mode of appointment of European Commissioners pre-Lisbon and post-Lisbon was quite misleading and concealed from Irish voters the fact that the Lisbon Treaty proposes a significant change in the mode of appointing a fellow-national as an EU Commissioner.
This misleading nature of the phrase “right to nominate” was brought privately to the Referendum Commission’s attention by the undersigned when it first appeared on the Commission’s web-site, but that led to no change. The same misleading statement later appeared in the Referendum Commission’s Handbook posted to voters.

(Signed)

Anthony Coughlan
Secretary

[Sub-X]

Cannon risks PD split with call for second treaty vote
Iirsh Independent
28 August 2008

FIANNA FAIL's PD partners yesterday exposed a fault line on the Lisbon Treaty.

The Progressive Democrats are unable to state categorically whether they agree with European Affairs Minister Dick Roche's expressed belief in the need for a second referendum.

And a PD spokesman would not say whether the party leader's clearly expressed view on the issue represents official party policy.

Leader Ciaran Cannon says he believes another poll will have to be held -- but it isn't clear whether the luckless figurehead might be contradicted again by the PDs' sole member of Cabinet.

Senior minister Mary Harney recently slapped down her own party leader after Senator Cannon rejected the possible introduction of third-level fees and said his party would not stand for it.

Former leader Ms Harney instead declared that it would be appropriate to consider all avenues to enhance the resources of the university sector.

Mr Cannon has now declared: "One way or another, we will have to return to the Irish people to consult them on the way forward with the European Union.

"I believe we must fully analyse why it was that the recent referendum was rejected and we must construct a fresh proposition, with the help of the European Union, which will find the clear support of the Irish people."

Mr Cannon's belief exactly parallels Mr Roche's thinking, but Ms Harney -- currently on holiday in Spain -- has not spoken on the issue.

A PD spokesman said last night: "I have not heard of Mary Harney having a contrary view [to Mr Cannon].

"Mr Cannon has made a statement and I haven't heard it contradicted," he added.

[Sub-X]

The Real Face of the European Union
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2699800300274168460&q=real+face+of+european+union

The EU has been sold to Britain as our best hope for the future . . . But behind the scenes, has another, more unsettling agenda been ... all » unfolding? The European Economic Community (EEC) began for Britain as a free-trade agreement in 1972. Today's European Union is well on its way to becoming a federal superstate, complete with one currency, one legal system, one military, one police force â?? even its own national anthem. In this shocking new documentary featuring EU insiders and commentators, independent author Phillip Day covers the history and goals of the European Union, as well as the disturbing, irrevocable implications this new government has for every British citizen. Whether the viewer is for or against Britain's participation, this film asks the troubling questions the mainstream media has refused to confront.

[Sub-X]

Cowen is forced to abandon 'summit' on Lisbon
Irish Independent
1 September 2008

Taoiseach Brian Cowen has been forced to abandon plans for a new high-powered body to salvage the Lisbon Treaty amid ongoing disunity in the 'Yes' camp.

The Dail was due to be recalled this week to set up the cross-party committee to examine the outcome of June's referendum defeat and decide on the future of the treaty ratification.

But failure to reach agreement with Fine Gael and Labour has resulted in the plan being dropped.

Although it is widely acknowledged there will have to be a second referendum, the Government is aware it needs to keep the other 'Yes' parties onside.

The Government is now weighing up its options, but is not in favour of passing the problem on to an existing Dail committee covering European affairs. The move comes as pressure continues to be brought to bear on the Government to come up with a solution.

Among European leaders there are concerns a change of Government in Britain may present further obstacles to the ratification process. Mr Cowen is in Brussels today for a special EU summit on the Georgia crisis.

If Prime Minister Gordon Brown wereas to lose an election before Ireland has ratified Lisbon, it would cast further doubts over the future of the treaty.

On the margins of the meeting, Mr Cowen may be informally asked by European leaders about how his plans are progressing.

He is not due to formally report back to his EU counterparts on the process until the middle of next month.

After rejecting the Government's proposal to set up an Oireachtas Commission, Fine Gael is to come up with its own plans to proceed with Lisbon. Alongside Lisbon II, the party wants to run a separate referendum strengthening the country's rights to set its own tax rates, without any interference from the EU.

Debate

Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny wants the political debate to be conducted by the Oireachtas European Affairs committee, chaired by his party's backbencher, Bernard Durkan.

But there is little appetite in Government circles to hand over the deliberations to this committee. The coalition's plan was to set up a specific committee with a small number of senior TDs from each party and have it focus solely on coming up with recommendations in a short period of time.

Foreign Affairs Minister Micheal Martin is now considering what approach to adopt towards involving the opposition in the decision making process.

"The Oireachtas will have an important role to play in the follow-up to dealing with the outcome to the Lisbon referendum. The precise role the Oireachtas will play is currently being worked on," a spokesman said.

The prospect of the Tories coming to power in Britain -- before Ireland ratifies Lisbon -- and holding a referendum on on the treaty, which would almost certainly be defeated, is also on the minds of European leaders.

"That would be where the concern lies. The threat is there," a Government source said.

[Sub-X]

Officials drafted rebuff to Libertas claims months before treaty vote
Irish Independent
1 September 2008

GOVERNMENT officials prepared briefing papers rejecting controversial Libertas claims as far back as March, in anticipation of a difficult Lisbon Treaty campaign.

Documentation, obtained by the Irish Independent under the Freedom of Information Act, outlines 10 general claims and six business arguments from Libertas which the Government deemed inaccurate. Each claim by Libertas is followed with a Government explanation as to what the "real situation" is.

The ministerial document was prepared in March for the then Foreign Affairs Minister Dermot Ahern.

At the time the document was prepared, former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern had still not announced the referendum date. But Libertas had been actively campaigning against the treaty for several months, after its launch last December.

In an effort to counteract the group's growing momentum and extensive arguments, the briefing document claims that Libertas, headed by Declan Ganley, was "only telling part of the story" when it claimed the Lisbon Treaty would weaken Ireland's voice.

Government officials preparing the documents noted that the claim by Libertas that the treaty represented a back door to increased taxes, and that the European Court of Justice would apply internal market rules to matters of corporation tax, was "simply unsupportable".

"Article 2.79 of the Reform Treaty, which Libertas confuses with Article 93 of the existing treaty, does not open the back door to tax," the document states.

In outlining how to respond to the chief claim by Libertas that Ireland's European commissioner could be saved by voting 'No', the briefing document fails to mention that agreement was previously reached under the Nice Treaty about reducing the number of commissioners.

Instead, the document focuses on the fact that the treaty guarantees equality of treatment among member states -- an argument ministers rigidly stuck to throughout the campaign, failing to employ the stronger argument that voters had already voted to reduce the size of the European Commission.

"Every state will forego the right to nominate a comm-issioner for one Commission out of three. Ireland will do so. Britain and Germany will do so. We are all being treated equally," the document argues.

The Libertas claim that the treaty would make members of the European Parliament, who are, at present, "representatives of the peoples of the member states" into "representatives of the union's citizens", is branded an "unfounded assertion" in the document.

In pursuit of a 'No' vote, Libertas spent over €1.3m on booklets, posters, billboards and advertisements -- significantly more than the main political parties on the 'Yes' side.

Since the defeat of the Lisbon Treaty in June, the Government has been blamed by opposition parties for failing to robustly rebuff the arguments made by Libertas and its chief Declan Ganley.

[Sub-X]

Cowen says Dail can pass parts of treaty without a referendum
Irish Independent
2 September 2008

Taoiseach Brian Cowen said last night the Lisbon Treaty cannot be passed in its entirety without a referendum.

It is possible for the Dail to pass some parts of the treaty without a public vote, and it is understood that Mr Cowen sees this course of action as an option.

It leaves the way open for a second controversial vote, but Mr Cowen refused to say if there would be one.

"The advice to Government was that a referendum was required. We put the usual, general question to people and it was rejected," he added.

The Taoiseach said any discussion at this stage about how the Government would proceed was just "speculation".

Mr Cowen and Foreign Affairs Minister Micheal Martin spoke to some of their European counterparts about the Lisbon situation on the fringes of the emergency summit on the crisis in Georgia.

The Taoiseach said he told colleagues who asked about the situation that the Government was about to receive the results of the research on the referendum defeat and he would report back to the European Council in October.

Discussions

Mr Cowen also said that the Government was putting together plans for cross-party discussions on the future of the treaty.

Also yesterday, the head of the European Parliament said the Lisbon Treaty was important for building solidarity between EU member states.

EP President Hans-Gert Pottering called on all member states to ratify the treaty and said the crisis in Georgia showed why it was needed.

"Solidarity between the member states in the energy sphere is a principle laid down in the Lisbon Treaty.

"For this reason as well, it is particularly important that the Lisbon Treaty should be ratified as quickly as possible.

"The European Parliament calls upon all member states which have not yet ratified the treaty to do so as soon as possible.

"The events in Georgia dramatically underline the necessity of the treaty," he said.

Meanwhile, Declan Ganley, the head of the 'No' group Libertas, will meet with some MEPs in the European Parliament today.

Campaign

Mr Ganley is being described as "the leader of the 'No' to Lisbon campaign in the recent Irish referendum".

He is visiting the European Parliament to discuss why he and other Irish voters rejected the treaty and to propose alternatives. He will also be answering questions from MEPs.

Fine Gael MEP Avril Doyle says the meeting is a further sign of Mr Ganley's future intentions becoming clearer.

"This is more evidence of Mr Ganley's networking and furthering connections on behalf of his political group Libertas in advance of the European elections next June," she said.

Ms Doyle also pointed out that the MEP who notified fellow parliamentarians of Mr Ganley's appearance is a leading British Eurosceptic.

[Sub-X]

Irish campaigner pleads for EU-wide Lisbon vote
http://euobserver.com/9/26676
3 September 2008

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - The leader of the Irish No campaign, Daclan Ganley, has renewed calls for an EU-wide referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, as Irish media reported parts of the pact may be ratified by the Irish parliament instead.

"I can tell you as a citizen having read the Treaty and campaigned on it, it is undemocratic and unacceptable to the majority of my country. Nor do I believe it is acceptable to the majority of the citizens in other countries", Mr Ganley said at a public debate in the European Parliament on Tuesday (2 September).
 
In the view of Mr Ganley - who dislikes being labelled as "anti-European" - the Lisbon Treaty has no future, but if it were to be revived, the only option would be to hold a pan-European referendum.

Recognising the need for a new treaty that responds to the current international situation, Ganley said that the only viable formula would be a text "that is short, readable and that everyone gets to vote on."

Asked if he plans to run in the 2009 elections for the European Parliament, the head of Libertas said he didn't take that decision yet.

He was also unwilling to give any details about the external funding received by his campaign, adding just that "all of the money that Libertas has raised will be disclosed in due course, under the regulations that both parties have made themselves."

On Monday, the president of the European Parliament, Hans-Gert Poettering, had called on all member states to ratify the Lisbon Treaty "as quickly as possible," saying the Georgian crisis proved why it is important for the EU to be united.

The view echoes previous comments by French president Nicolas Sarkozy following the outbreak of the Georgia war.

"Some people are saying that Georgia - which has changed the atmosphere in Europe - could be used as a pretext for the Irish to hold a second referendum," a European Commission official said.

The irish No campaign saw the Lisbon treaty defeated by a margin of 53 percent in June.

Meanwhile, the Irish Independent newspaper has reported that Irish prime minister Brian Cowen in comments after the EU's Georgia summit on Monday backed plans to pass the treaty without a second mass vote.

"My reading of what he [Mr Cowen] said was that one option was to remove all elements that are impacting on the Irish Constitution and for the Parliament then to approve by parliamentary ratification the non-constitutional elements," Irish Labour MEP and former social welfare minister Proinsias de Rossa told EUobserver.

"Then we'll have to consider if those elements should be approached by referendum or if opt-outs should be negotiated at a European level in relationship to them."

But no decisions have been made so far, he added. "There are as many opinions on what happens next as there are people in Ireland."

Media impact

A fresh poll by the Irish Sunday Independent suggests that if a referendum were to be held again, 44 percent would vote No (a drop of eight per cent since the last poll four weeks ago) 42 percent would vote Yes (a one per cent increase) and 14 percent are undecided (a seven per cent increase).

An internal briefing document of the European Commission seen by the Irish Times has criticised Irish media for becoming more eurosceptic since the second Nice Treaty vote in 2002.

The paper focuses on the presence of Irish editions of UK newspapers, such as the Irish Sun, Irish Mirror, Irish News of the World and the Irish edition of The Sunday Times.

"Editorial is highly critical of the European Union and even more so of the Lisbon Treaty. What has changed is that these papers were previously printed in the UK, but now they are printed in Ireland. Also more of its editorial content is produced by Irish journalists on Irish issues - but subject to the London editorial line," it said.

The document also highlights the importance of the Internet in the Lisbon No campaign.

"Apart from official websites, the internet has largely been a space left to anti-European feeling."

[Sub-X]

Libertas may field up to 30 candidates in EU vote
Irish Independent
3 September 2008

MULTI-millionaire Declan Ganley yesterday revealed plans for an audacious bid to take his 'No to Lisbon' campaign across Europe as an organised political party.

The Libertas leader gave his strongest indication yet that his group would contest next year's European elections across the EU.

Mr Ganley again refused to say where Libertas was getting its funding from or how much it spent in the Lisbon Treaty referendum campaign.

But he did confirm Libertas was involved in preparing the ground for a European election run, and the group would need 30 MEPs from across the continent to be effective.

No firm decision has been made yet, but Mr Ganley clearly indicated one plan which would involve running candidates in several countries.

He was in Brussels yesterday to address an open meeting of MEPs in the European Parliament where he discussed the outcome of the Irish referendum on Lisbon.

Mr Ganley said a decision would probably be made on the elections in January 2009 and Libertas was about six steps away from being able to decide.

"In terms of what Libertas does, we are talking to lots of people, we are fact-finding, we are doing our research, we are fundraising and all of those things have to be done in proper order before you decide 'go' or 'no go' on any other move that we would take," he said.

Impact

Mr Ganley said a group would need to get at least 30 MEPs elected from its candidate base to make an impact in the European Parliament.

"You could be effective in here -- depending on how the other groups were formed -- you could be effective in here with 30 people.

"You'd be a lot more effective with a lot more people. The question is do you want to do that at all," he said.

Mr Ganley yet again refused to say where Libertas got the money it spent over the course of the referendum campaign -- estimated to be well in excess of €1m.

He said the figures "bandied about" regarding the Libertas spend were untrue.

"We will disclose what we spent and how it was all resourced in full accordance with all of the regulations in the same way as all of the other parties are required to do. I didn't make the rules, they did," he said.

Rules

Spending and donations rules for non-parties mean Mr Ganley does not have to say where the money spent came from.

Mr Ganley said he was aware of the law and when asked directly when he was going to publicly disclose where Libertas got its money, he responded: "When the regulations require us to do so."

Mr Ganley said he didn't know if he himself would run as a candidate.

"I don't know. I would find it difficult to. I'm not a natural politician.

"I would be reluctant to. I don't feel like a politician, but I don't know what other politicians feel like," he said.

The wealthy businessman said he didn't know how much money would be needed to run an election campaign across Europe.

"The thing is to avoid any ability to open ourselves up to false accusations of, you know, being funded by one person or overseas organisations or any of this stuff.

"The big overseas money in this campaign all came from the 'Yes' side and it came from the European Parliament groups that were funding the 'Yes' side," he said.

When asked when a firm decision would he taken, he replied: "It's probably January."

"It wouldn't be a matter of talking to groups. It would be a matter of talking to individuals across Europe in terms of resources and whether or not there was a need and anything that would be constructive that we could offer to the debate in different member states across the European Union. And as I say, that is a decision that is very far from being made just yet," he added.

[Typhoon]

amazing posts Sub-x, thx for that!
We have all been betrayed here. No leader of any state (except in Ireland) asked their people if they want the treaty or not. Most leaders didnt even read it!! And all of these Illuminati slaves are signing this shit of a treaty! The problem is, every1 of the high leaders is a Freemason. They can do what they want without being sued. Either there will be a nuclear world war or a civil war in the end of days.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg9cCXjiASs

[Sub-X]

Martin pours cold water on re-run of Lisbon poll
Irish Independent
3 September 2008

FOREIGN Affairs Minister Micheal Martin last night cast doubt on the prospect of a Lisbon II referendum -- just 24 hours after Taoiseach Brian Cowen said the full treaty could not be passed without one.

Mr Martin poured cold water on speculation that a rerun of the Lisbon Treaty was imminent and said that no decision had been made by the Cabinet.

His comments will only add to the confusion surrounding the next step the Government will seek to take in ratifying the controversial document.

But the minister stressed that the Government needed to wait for the findings of strategic research on the Lisbon Treaty rejection.

Along with the opposition parties, it would then need to consider what alternatives were available.

His comments came just three weeks after European Affairs Minister Dick Roche, voicing his personal view, raised the prospect of a rerun of the Lisbon vote.

But Mr Martin played down any such notion.

"The bottom line is that the people have spoken -- they have made their decision. You just cannot brush that aside. You have to study it, analyse it and see what is possible for Ireland now," he added.

"It is far too early, to be frank with you, to decide on one option or another.

"The position within the Government is very clear -- and that is that no decision has been taken at all."

He added: "We have commissioned research on the attitudes that led to the people's decision to vote against the Lisbon Treaty -- and indeed of those who voted for it as well.

"We (need) to do that analysis and then to commence the domestic phase of consultations within the Oireachtas and within civil society.

"Prior to the August break I spoke to Opposition leaders - we didn't set down any proposal in stone in terms of a parliamentary commission but we did propose it, and suggest it to Opposition parties, and we asked them what their ideas are on it."

Mr Mr Martin said he hoped to hammer out an agreed position between the various Dail parties soon.

He also welcomed Cardinal Sean Brady's contribution to the debate on the EU.

"The Church has traditionally been very supportive of the EU, and successive popes have been very supportive of the EU as perhaps the most fundamental instrument that has given peace in the European continent since its establishment."

[Sub-X]

Finding a way out of the Lisbon deadlock
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0910/1220919677389.html
10 September 2008

OPINION: A mixture of a referendum, Oireachtas votes and opt-outs might provide a solution to the Lisbon Treaty problems, writes Eugene Regan


THOSE WHO interface with Europe at the political level fully appreciate the fallout from the Irish No vote on the Lisbon Treaty and the need to act. Those who voted No will not admit that we have a problem. The implications for this country of that No vote are not readily apparent and to date there have been no perceptible negative consequences. But the reason for this is that the EU expects the Irish Government to resolve the current impasse.

What has become apparent is that Ireland and its referendum process is now an obstacle to the standard method of EU integration, which involves periodic amendments of the existing treaties. If this proves to be a continuing obstacle Ireland will be seen as responsible for the fragmentation of the EU. This may involve further development taking place through enhanced co-operation within the EU or through new spheres of activity outside the EU framework. Alternatively, integration may proceed without Ireland.

The argument of the No campaign has been that there should be a renegotiation. This can take the form of renegotiation of the treaty itself or the extent of Ireland's acceptance of the treaty. As to whether a wholesale renegotiation is likely, the continuing process of ratification by other members states would seem to suggest that it is not.

Lisbon would, in fact, facilitate one important change: that of one commissioner per member state. As regards renegotiating the extent of Ireland's acceptance of Lisbon, other member states are likely to be accommodating. Clearly, assurances in the form of a declaration on such issues as abortion, tax and neutrality would be forthcoming, as would agreement on requests by Ireland for opt-outs from Lisbon.

The question is where we go from here. As we move tentatively towards a second referendum on Lisbon, although no one yet admits it is on the way, we should consider how that referendum should be conducted and begin by re-examining our referendum process.

In doing so we need to address two issues. Firstly, referendums in Ireland are for the sole purpose of amending the Constitution, not for ratifying international treaties per se. Secondly, one of the main reasons Lisbon was rejected was that it was simply too complex to understand.

Bearing in mind that the Oireachtas, under articles 29.5 and 6 of the Constitution, has the right to ratify an international treaty that does not interfere or breach the Constitution, I believe we need to identify those elements of Lisbon which raise constitutional issues. We must then examine whether or not any such constitutional element is already covered by previous Irish referendums.

All constitutional issues which arise and are not already covered by the constitutional licence given to the Oireachtas by previous referendums approving membership of and changes to the European Community and the European Union, should be the subject of specific questions in any new referendum. If approval were not forthcoming on these specific questions, then the Oireachtas would seek to exercise opt-outs in those areas and could proceed to ratify Lisbon without those elements forming part of the treaty being ratified by Ireland.

This would avoid the need to have a referendum on the entire 300-page text of the Lisbon Treaty. Instead, any referendum would now be confined solely to questions concerning transfers of competencies and issues of sovereignty, which fall to the people to decide under the Constitution. Such issues may include the charter for fundamental rights, the solidarity clause, transfer of certain matters to qualified majority voting and the inclusion of new competencies such as energy security, climate change and tourism.

This approach would prevent the diplomatic nightmare of Ireland blocking improvements in the EU institutions and measures contained in the treaty to which 26 other member states are committed.

At the same time, Ireland would remain a fully functioning member of the EU while the choices of the Irish people in the referendum would be respected.

In the long term, this would also have the advantage of showing our EU partners that not every new issue needs to be put to the Irish people in a referendum and, therefore, they need not exclude Ireland from future discussions on integration. Nor need they discard a form of integration which has served all countries, both large a small, very well to date: integration by grand treaty by unanimous agreement.

Given the problem of putting a full treaty to the Irish people, is it not the better approach to put specific propositions which are intelligible and reasonable? A referendum on specific propositions would make for a more meaningful referendum debate.

Accordingly, in order to regularise the situation in relation to Lisbon, it is not a question of whether the Oireachtas should ratify the treaty or whether the treaty should once again be put to the people in a referendum. It is not an either-or situation. The Oireachtas should exercise its prerogative in ratifying that part of the Lisbon Treaty which does not involve a material change to the Constitution. The people should exercise their constitutional prerogative in deciding on any changes to the Constitution to which the Lisbon Treaty gives rise.

This approach may have to be tested by the courts, but it would appear to offer our democracy the opportunity for a more meaningful referendum debate; respect for the constitutional framework for deciding matters of this kind; and the means of securing our role in Europe, even if that entails opt-outs from significant tracts of the European integration process.

It involves simplification of the referendum procedure by clarifying the decisions on the Constitution arising from Lisbon which the Irish people have to decide. Furthermore, it provides a procedure whereby, if the people reject changes in the Constitution necessitated by Lisbon, the Government can still proceed to ratify the treaty by excluding those parts which the people have rejected.

What is proposed is a mechanism to deal with the situation we are faced with at present, and may face again after a second referendum, where a vote against the Lisbon Treaty stymies our membership of the European Union.


• Senator Eugene Regan of Fine Gael was elected to the Seanad on the agricultural panel. This article is linked to an address he gave to the recent Humbert Summer School discussion on the Lisbon Treaty referendum.

[Sub-X]

Lisbon vote research published
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0910/eulisbon.html
10 September 2008

The Government has published its research into the reasons behind the No vote in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.

42% of people questioned said they voted No because of a lack of information or understanding.

Other reasons given were neutrality and loss of a commissioner.

AdvertisementThe survey also shows that the vast majority of voters view the EU positively, with 70% considering the EU a good thing. 63% of No voters also have a positive view of the EU.

The research was carried out at the end of July.

Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin confirmed that the Government will not be putting forward any definitive proposals for how to deal with the result of the Lisbon Referendum at next month's European Council meeting.

He said the Government was 'examining all options', and that nothing was ruled out at this stage.

Asked about the likelihood of a second referendum, Mr Martin said the people had decided about the Lisbon Treaty, and it was 'far too early to be prescriptive about the future'.

[Sub-X]

Topolánek admits constitution change because of Lisbon treaty
http://www.praguemonitor.com/en/419/czech_national_news/27842/
10 September 2008

Prague/Zagreb, Sept 9 (CTK) - Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek said in Zagreb Tuesday he will support a change in the Czech constitution if this helped solve a possible disharmony between the constitution and the EU Lisbon reform treaty.

Czech Constitutional Court chairman Pavel Rychetsky said on Czech Television Tuesday the court started to deal with the Lisbon treaty at a closed organisational meeting Tuesday.

Topolanek, making a speech at the Journalists' Union in Zagreb, also said the Czech Constitutional Court has already made it clear that it has problems with the Lisbon treaty.

"There are two possible solutions to the situation. One is a change in the constitution, the other one that radicals would like to push through rests in negotiating an exception with the EU. I have said I will support a change in the constitution," Topolanek told CTK.

This has been for the first time that he has allowed for a change in the constitution.

Former Czech president Vaclav Havel has been talking about a possible change in the Czech constitution for some time.

Rychetsky said previously it is possible to change the constitution, but that "a change in the constitution is something that is almost impossible in this country."

The Constitutional Court has interrupted discussing all other cases. Rychetsky said Tuesday a public discussion on the matter will be convoked within maximally two months.

All participants involved, that is representatives of the two houses of Czech parliament, the government and President Vaclav Klaus will be able to present their arguments.

Rychetsky pointed out that the court has never before been deciding about the consistence of an international treaty with the country's constitution.

"It is a premiere, we must deal with a number of procedural and methodological matters," Rychetsky said.

He said the court will not deal with the whole Lisbon treaty, but with only seven of its articles that the upper house of Czech parliament, the Senate, attacked.

The Lisbon treaty that sets new rules for the Union's functioning after it was enlarged by admitting 12 countries in the past few years, can only take effect if all 27 countries ratify it.

Czech parliament has interrupted the process of ratification pending the Constitutional Court's verdict.

[Sub-X]

Lack of information was top reason for Lisbon No vote
http://euobserver.com/9/26729
11 September 2008

Irish government research into why voters rejected the Lisbon Treaty in a June referendum has revealed that the biggest reason for voting No was citizens simply did not have enough information about the 400-page document.

A combination of a survey of voters and focus groups revealed that 42 percent of people said they had voted No due to a lack of information or understanding.

Neutrality and taxation issues also played key roles in people's thinking.

A third of voters in neutral Ireland thought that the treaty would permit conscription into a European army. Many left wing and pacifist No campaign groups made the "militarisation of Europe" a core message in their anti-Lisbon literature.

Forty percent thought the treaty would affect the country's low corporate tax levels - a key message of the free-market No campaign group Libertas.

Fears relating to what could loosely be described as Ireland's place in the European Union also had an impact, with 13 percent worried about domination by larger countries; five percent believing the treaty represented a loss of sovereignty; four percent worried about the loss of an Irish commissioner; and some eight percent just thought overall it was "a bad deal for Ireland."

Some six percent voted No due to their lack of confidence in the Irish government.

Despite media reports to the contrary in the immediate aftermath of the June vote, immigration did figure amongst the reasons offered.

The research has also revealed that the No vote was not a vote against the EU, but a vote against this particular document, as 70 percent of voters overall and 63 percent of No voters believed the union is a good thing.

Unlike other polls about the No vote, citizens were not given a list of possible reasons from which to choose. Instead they offered their own explanations.

Unveiling the results, foreign minister Micheal Martin said that the government would still not be able to deliver to European leaders a way out of the impasse by the next EU summit, due to take place in October.

Questioned by reporters about whether a second referendum on the treaty was under consideration, Mr Martin said: "It is far too early to be prescriptive about the future."

The minister said that the government was "examining all options," and did not rule out passing elements of the treaty through the Irish houses of parliament, reports the Irish Times.

Mr Martin added that the next step is "to initiate a national public discussion that would be inclusive of the issues that have surfaced" from the survey.

[Sub-X]

Failure to understand Lisbon the key reason for No vote
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/0911/1221039067528.html
11 September 2008

THE DIFFICULTY faced by the Government in getting the Lisbon Treaty passed in a second referendum has been underlined by its own research which found that a significant number of people did not understand what they were voting on last June.

An opinion poll commissioned by the Government found that 42 per cent of people cited a lack of knowledge, information or understanding of the treaty as the reason for voting No. It was by far the most significant reason given for voting against the treaty.

The poll also showed that a third of voters believed that conscription into a European army and an end to the country's ban on abortion were part of the Lisbon Treaty.

Over 40 per cent thought the treaty would end Ireland's corporation tax regime.

The positive news for the Government, and the main Opposition parties who campaigned for a Yes vote, was that 70 per cent of people believed the EU was a good thing and 60 per cent thought Ireland's interests were best pursued by remaining fully involved.

Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin said, in response to the poll findings, that the Government was considering all the options open to it, including the possibility of ratifying parts of the treaty through the Oireachtas.

He said the Government would have to study the legal issues arising from this option, while also refusing to rule out the prospect of holding a second Lisbon referendum.

The opinion poll and focus group research, carried out for the Government by Millward Brown IMS during the summer, has highlighted the scale of the task involved in trying to explain the Lisbon Treaty to the electorate.

The research confirmed that the biggest No vote came from the lower income group where 65 per cent voted against the treaty.

There was also a clear No majority among women with 56 per cent against, while in age terms, the highest No vote, 59 per cent, came from the 25 to 34-year-old category.

After a lack of knowledge about the treaty, the other main reasons given for voting No were the fear of domination by large countries, 13 per cent; a bad deal for Ireland, 8 per cent; and lack of confidence in the Government, 6 per cent.

A loss of sovereignty was cited by 5 per cent and the loss of an Irish commissioner by 4 per cent. The answers were unprompted.

Immigration did not emerge as a significant reason for voting No in the spontaneous responses, but the pollsters said it was clear from the data and focus group research that No voters viewed immigration considerably less positively than Yes voters.

A majority of people felt that Ireland's influence in Europe had not been affected by the rejection of the treaty and a similar number felt it would not affect foreign investment here.

Speaking at the launch of the survey, Mr Martin accepted that the Government had failed to run an effective referendum campaign and he said there was a need to communicate about Europe much better to the public.

The Minister also said that Ireland would not be able to provide its European partners with a definitive solution to the problem created by the referendum defeat at next month's EU summit.

"It is far too early to be prescriptive on the future," said Mr Martin, who announced the Government would shortly begin a national consultation exercise in the Oireachtas to explore all options open to it to ratify the treaty.

[Sub-X]

EU officals expect Ireland to hold second Lisbon Treaty referendum
Telegraph.co.uk
10 September 2008

An internal EU briefing paper, entitled The Solution to the Irish Problem, predicts that Dublin will accede to the re-run at a meeting of Europe's leaders on October 15.

Ireland has been under French and German pressure to hold a second vote and Autumn 2009 has emerged as the favoured date among officials and diplomats ahead of the European Union summit on the future of the Lisbon Treaty next month.

Ireland has refused to deny that a second referendum could occur, following the 'No' vote in June.

The document has been written by an influential group of French officials, called Le Amis du Traite de Lisbonne or Friends of the Lisbon Treaty.

According to the briefing, a second Irish vote will follow a guarantee that Ireland will not lose its European Commissioner and "declarations" on neutrality, abortion and taxation - all issues that dominated the Irish campaign.

"The second Irish referendum could take place, on this new basis, during Autumn 2009, pushing back the coming into force of the Treaty of Lisbon until 2010," says the document.

The text, by a senior European official called Jean-Guy Giraud, who is based in Paris, is widely regarded as reflecting the view in France, current holder of the EU's rotating presidency.

Other EU officials have confirmed that next year's Autumn referendum fixture is gaining ground in informal and formal talks between diplomats ahead of the summit next month.

"This date is the one being mentioned in discussions," said a source.

Ireland's referendum rejection on June 12 means that the Lisbon Treaty can not enter into force until all the EU's 27 countries have ratified it.

Ireland is looking increasingly isolated as ratification has continued across the EU and, barring technicalities, the Lisbon Treaty has now been approved in 24 countries.

The Lisbon Treaty has a controversial past as the successor to the EU Constitution rejected by French and Dutch voters three years ago.

Like its Constitution forebear, the Lisbon Treaty creates an EU President, a "foreign minister" and establishes an European diplomatic servive.

Nicolas Sarkozy, President of France, met with senior Euro-MPs over lunch in Paris to discuss the Lisbon Treaty and other issues.

President Sarkozy is planning a visit to Dublin in December "with a message for the Irish", by which time the Lisbon Treaty is expected to have been ratified in all EU countries except Ireland.

"It is clear that the only question over a second referendum for Sarkozy is that of timing," said one MEP at the lunch.

Hans-Gert Pottering, President of the European Parliament, is still pushing for the Irish to vote again before euro-elections next year amid fears that the Europe-wide poll will become a referendum on the unpopular EU Treaty.

"The President of the European Parliament has - several times - wished that the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force before June 2009 (in practice, in March 2009 at the latest for the organisation of the poll in the member states)," says the briefing document.

An Irish spokeswoman said: "The government position is no decision has been taken. All options are on the table."

Key to a deal on a second Irish vote will be the issue of the future size of the European Commission, because the Lisbon Treaty envisaged a cut in the number of Commissioners by 2014.

While the current Nice Treaty preserves the one country, one commissioner principle it also states that when the EU consists of 27 countries the "commission shall be less than the number of member states".

The current European Commission's term expires at the end of next October and talks on how to manage the appointment of a new EU executive, whether under Nice or Lisbon rules, are underway.

Diplomats have considered extending the current Commission's mandate into early 2010, clearing the way for a second referendum in October next year.

Also on the table, according to the briefing paper, will be "a political declaration confirming that the Treaty of Lisbon does not jeopardise Irish neutrality, or the rule of unanimity on tax matters and will not oblige Ireland to modify its legislation on abortion".

The same issues were also identified as key to Irish voters in research published by Ireland's Minister for Foreign Affairs, Micheal Martin.

"The main issues of concern are the composition of the Commission, the corporate tax base, workers' rights, neutrality and abortion were factors," he said.

[Sub-X]

Cowen's finally facing up to the 'No' vote shambles
Irish Independent
11 September 2008

IT cost Irish taxpayers €163,000 for scientific research to confirm the blindingly obvious: that the Government's campaign on the Lisbon Treaty was a calamity.

Although it is tarted up with tables, charts and colour coding, the published research cannot disguise the sheer scale of ineffectiveness and even indifference of the 'Yes' campaign.

This Government continually congratulates itself on its electoral success and takes great pride in its pragmatism and professionalism. "We get things done," is the ministers' boast.

Their arrogance occasionally prompts them to point at the opposition and say: "If you think we're bad, what about that lot?"

But their hubris has taken them into uncharted waters from which there is no easy way back. Even now they are afraid to spell out the potentially seismic consequences that voting 'No' vote could deliver. They didn't seriously address the supposed threat to our low corporation tax, the fear of young Irish men being conscripted into an EU army, the loss of an EU commissioner, the introduction of abortion, sovereignty. Each of those and other phoney concerns could and should have been energetically rebutted and effectively neutralised in the course of the campaign.

There was always going to be serious and even grim consequences for the Irish people losing the run of themselves and indulging in a 'No' vote. And when Brian Cowen faces the other 26 heads of government at the EU Council of Minister on October 15, all he has to offer is a book of research confirming his government's incompetence.

How, some of the other prime ministers will ask, can 70pc of the Irish people say they believe that membership of the EU is a good thing and then 54 pc of them vote against the Lisbon Treaty?

How, they will ask, could 42pc of those same Irish voters say that a lack of knowledge or information was their reason for voting 'No'?

The answer is painfully obvious: the Government spectacularly failed in its duty to persuade them to ratifying the Lisbon Treaty. This failure of leadership becomes even more obvious when ministers spell out the bleak future for Ireland if they cannot sell the Lisbon Treaty to the electorate.

The Government and the Attorney General can, of course, legislate for many of the provisions in the treaty, but it does need a referendum to ratify it.

They will not call for another referendum unless success is almost guaranteed -- for losing it a second time would lead to a political crisis. The last resort would be to put their own political future and reputations on the line and call a general election incorporating the 'Yes' vote as the main plank of their manifesto. The Taoiseach is now acknowledging the first major crisis he has had to face since taking charge in Government Buildings.

There was something surreal about the Government's collective remedy to the Lisbon dilemma; form a committee. The Minister for Foreign Affairs told a press conference in Government Buildings, and then repeated it on 'RTE News': An Oireachtas Committee will examine future options.

Micheal Martin, who had the onerous responsibility of leading the Government's campaign for a 'Yes' vote on the Lisbon Treaty, didn't grin ironically when he said it.

Neither did he blush or blanche when he was asked if the Government's campaign was a disaster: "It is clear we did not succeed in communicating effectively". It was, of course, ministerial-speak admitting abject failure on what his Government believes is the biggest political challenge the country has faced in a generation.

The biggest failure in the Government's campaign was to convince young voters and women of their message. Both came out decisively on the 'No' side -- 59pc of voters aged between 25 to 34 and 56pc of women.

And people in the poorer social and economic groups were even more opposed to Lisbon -- 63pc in the C2 category and a massive 65pc in the D&Es.

If, through gross political incompetence, Ireland finds itself as an 'associate' member of the EU, it is not the same as being asked to use the tradesman's entrance in Brussels.

As one minister explained: "If some huge US corporation wanted to set up a manufacturing plant in Europe, the IDA would approach them; but the US firm will also be approached by, say, the Slovenian government, who will say that they are full EU members and we are not." Brendan Butler, of IBEC, put it bluntly: "The rejection of the treaty has damaged our international reputation and, consequently, reduced our ability to influence decisions that impact on the Irish economy."

In response to the publication of the research yesterday, the president of the European Parliament issued one of those bland statements we expect from people like him at times like this." This study is most helpful to those of us within the European Union who want to understand the concerns of the Irish people and to ensure that Ireland remains at the heart of the EU," said Hans-Gert Pottering. Be afraid, very afraid, of soft-spoken, well-meaning friends in times of trouble.

[Sub-X]

No bullying on Lisbon - Miliband
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0911/lisbon.html
11 September 2008

David Miliband webcast-56 minutes

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband has said there could be no question of Ireland being 'bullied' by other EU states over the Lisbon Treaty.

He characterised as 'striking' the finding by a Government survey released yesterday that 42% of people questioned said they voted No because of a lack of information or understanding.

He added that while he was a supporter of the treaty, he believed the EU must operate on the basis of equality and that every member state had an equal right to say no.

AdvertisementSecretary Miliband was speaking at an event entitled 'Delivering a Global Europe' in The Mansion House in Dublin.

[Sub-X]

Government 'told EU to stay out of Lisbon vote'
Irish Independent
12 September 2008

The Government requested the European Commission not to get involved in an information campaign to promote the Lisbon Treaty, a leading EU diplomat has claimed.

Olli Rehn, the European Commissioner responsible for enlargement, said that the Irish government asked the Commission to stand back from the divisive campaign, which ended in defeat, with many of those who voted 'No' citing a lack of information.

During a private but on-the-record meeting last Tuesday, Mr Rehn told a delegation of journalists that the Commission was asked -- at the request of the Irish Government -- not to take part in the information campaign.

Last night the EC denied that a formal request had been made, stating that it has reached a "mutual decision" with the Government not to campaign directly in the weeks running up to the referendum.

A spokesperson for Margot Wallstrom, vice-president of the EC, said that it had facilitated media inquiries and several visits by high-profile Europeans in advance of the referendum, but ceased any activity in the weeks preceding the poll.

The role of the EC in promoting the Lisbon treaty came into sharp focus earlier this year following the publication of a leaked diplomatic email.

Briefing

The email was sent to the British government by Elizabeth Green, a senior diplomat in Dublin, after a briefing she received from Dan Mulhall, a senior official in the Department of Foreign Affairs.

In the email, Green said Mulhall told her that Margot Wallstrom told former foreign affairs minister Dermot Ahern, that it was "willing to tone down or delay messages that might be unhelpful".

Last night Mr Rehn's office sought to draw a line under his remarks, stating that he had "nothing more to add".

Meanwhile, Labour leader Eamon Gilmore believes there will be another referendum on Ireland's relationship with the EU -- but he isn't talking about the Lisbon Treaty.

Mr Gilmore's party will get a chance to put its position forward when the Government sets up a new Oireachtas committee to assess Ireland's role in Europe.

Foreign Affairs Minister Micheal Martin said that the committee would examine Ireland in the EU, rather than just the Lisbon Treaty.

British foreign secretary David Miliband agreed after a meeting with Mr Martin in Iveagh House, Dublin, and said he does not describe the Lisbon outcome as a problem.

There is no question of bulldozing or bullying Irish people. The Irish people deserve respect," he said. Mr Miliband also sought to reassure people on EU defence and security issues. "There is no question of decisions being taken on defence and security without every government being in agreement," he said.

[Sub-X]

Juncker rules out Lisbon treaty before 2010
http://euobserver.com/9/26759
17 September 2008

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS – The European Union's Lisbon Treaty will not enter into force before the European Parliament elections in June 2009, as was initially hoped, and is unlikely to do so before 1 January 2010 either, Luxembourg's Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker said in Brussels on Wednesday (17 September).

"I don't think that the treaty will be in place in June [2009], when the next European elections will take place," Mr Juncker, who is also the president of the eurogroup - gathering the finance ministers of the eurozone - said at a conference organised by the Brussels-based European Policy Centre (EPC).

In order for the document to be in place by June 2009, it would have to be ratified by all 27 EU member states by February - something which according to Luxembourg's premier is "not realistic."

"It's not possible to have this treaty enter into force before the year 2010," he stressed.

Mr Juncker is the first high-level politician to publicly state the Lisbon treaty may be impossible to adopt next year.

Originally, the document - aimed to replace the failed European Constitution and to provide for a better and more efficient functioning of the EU - was planned to enter into force in January 2009.

But Irish citizens voted No in a referendum on the treaty in June, casting a doubt over the possibility to reach the goal.

EU leaders will be expecting to hear from Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen on the issue at a summit meeting in October, with the EU insisting ratification of the document should continue in other member states, and a second referendum in Ireland seen by some as a possibility to bypass the June No vote.

Mr Juncker, however, said that a possible revote in Ireland should not take place in the immediate future.

"Given the economic crisis we're living in, given the confidence that's lacking, given that governments are increasingly unpopular all over Europe, organising a referendum around a European treaty is a dangerous road to take," he said.

"If I was the Irish Prime Minister, I wouldn't go for a referendum in the next few months."

If the Lisbon treaty does not come into force in 2009, that will affect the composition of both the European Parliament and the European Commission next year.

Both would have to be conducted under the EU's current set of rules, the Nice treaty, which would mean that there would be 785 instead of 751 seats, as foreseen in the Lisbon treaty, in the parliament.

But it would also reduce the number of commissioners in the next commission - to be nominated by November 2009 - as under Nice, the number should be "less than the number of member states."

[Sub-X]

Speech by Declan Ganley in Paris
http://www.libertas.org/content/view/313/1/
21 September 2008

Remarks by Declan Ganley at Universités d’Eté du Mouvement Pour la France, September 21 2008

Mesdames, Messieurs, Chers amis,

You are Europeans as I am a European

I am proud to be an Irishman and a European

Indeed, we are all proud to be European.

But when will Brussels have pride and trust in the citizens of Europe ? Because until they have trust in the citizens of Europe, logically those citizens cannot have trust in them.   

In the past few days, in the statements and actions of the combined defeated Yes side in both Dublin and Brussels, it is becoming clear to me that it is the determined intention of the unelected, unaccountable Brussels elite and the servile yes men that seek their favour, while failing to fulfill their solemn duty to their own electorates, to categorically reject once again the voice of a sovereign people raised against the antidemocratic draft of the European constitution, or as they now prefer to call it, the Lisbon Treaty.   

In Ireland sooner or later, and probably sooner, in a move and using tactics reminiscent of anti-democrats everywhere, there will be a second referendum designed to produce the only result acceptable to Brussels.    Their pre-referendum lying has already begun.  A second referendum for which there is no mandate in Ireland, is not democracy it in fact mocks democracy.  (Perhaps we should have a new word for this Brussels phenomenon; it is “re-mockracy” in the making).   

We are here today from Lyon, Paris, Marseille, La Vendée and from our villages, cities and towns across France and indeed this Union of ours, I say our union, not theirs, not of the unelected, unaccountable elites but OUR European Union, the peoples, the hundreds of millions of individuals that are Europe. This Union is OURS! And we the people must be empowered to decide the future of Europe and our role as individuals within it.

To be empowered as an individual, one must have a voice, to have a voice one must have a vote, it is our fundamental right as Europeans to individually, NOT just collectively, but individually to choose our futures and our leaders. 

As I pointed out to President Sarkozy a few weeks ago : “le Traité de Lisbonne est mort”. 

According to its own rules, the European Union cannot now ratify this rehashed Constitution. This, a Constitution already rejected at the ballot box by your own countrymen and women and those of the Netherlands just three short years ago.

And what has changed in those three short years, what ? 

The unelected, unaccountable European elites willfully ignored the democratic will of the peoples of France and the Netherlands and now they are doing the same to Ireland.   

Those elites conspired to change only those elements of the Constitution which would again trigger referendums in member states.

Those elites decided that they know what's best for all of us and that we do not need to be consulted any further.

And now, in Ireland, the quiet men of Brussels seek to crush the final free voice of a people who were the only citizens of Europe to have their voices heard, and most heartbreakingly they conspire and connive with the mediocre so called leaders of those people.   To have those leaders betray their own people.     

Is this really how Brussels proposes to redress the democratic deficit at the heart of the European project?

Is this really how we Europeans will build a strong, sustainable and successful future for the European Union? 

Is this really how we can turn the most successful peace project of modern times into the most successful economic, democratic and social achievement of the 21st century and beyond?

Is it ?   No !

Exactly how stupid do they think we the people of Europe are?

Why do they fear the almost half a billion citizens of Europe so much? Why do they so despise the people?

Why are they not as proud of those citizens as those citizens are proud of being European?

I am so very proud of the people of Ireland for stopping the Lisbon Treaty in its tracks and for giving our fellow Europeans this opportunity to really think about where we need Europe to go, how we should embrace the future.   

It is clear that in order to succeed; the European Union must be built from the sovereign citizen up; not from the elite down.

If Europe is to have a new Constitution / Treaty, call it what you will, it must have the legitimacy of the support of its citizens.  If it is to gain that legitimacy the citizens of Europe, all of them, must have their say.   

Such a Constitution / Treaty needs to be upfront and honest in what it seeks to achieve.   

I accept it must be ambitious, it must be Just…… it must be readable, it must speak to European hearts by showing that it regards and respects them as individuals in whatever communities, cultures, nations, or identities that they hold dear.  It must provide for democracy, accountability and transparency at the heart of European governance.   

Rule one of a new Fundamental Treaty/Constitution, might be that if it is more than twenty five pages, then the answer is no.  Such a Treaty must then be put to the vote in referenda; right across Europe and the people will grant or withhold their approval.   

Their wishes will be final because it is from the people that all political power and legitimacy devolves.  It is an important part of the very essence of our freedom.  If the people say no it’s back to the drawing board, Brussels doesn’t get to keep asking the same stupid question.   

Here we are in France, a nation whose very name derives from the meaning of freedom, of liberty. 

France, the eldest daughter of Europe, this great corner of the earth, through the ages. 

From Gaul, Brittany, Burgundy, Vendee and Normandy, the Gauls, the Franks - the French people - have always lived and breathed that spirit of liberty, of justice and of courage in the face of adversity. 

France is Europe's beating heart.

And France can be the keystone to building Europe's future.

It is here that Europe's future must be decided and guaranteed for its citizens, for our future generations and for the survival of our civilisation.

It has been France’s role through the ages, to rise to the great challenges that faced Europe.

In 1940, a great Frenchman stood alone on a foreign soil and said No to enemies of Liberty. 

With his great victory, Charles de Gaulle, that noble son of France helped secure the hopes of Western Civilisation and kept a candle burning for those principles which were to underpin European culture for future generations. Principles rooted in our ancient foundations in Greek democracy, the Roman Republic and Judeo-Christian values.

The precious dignity of the individual, the rule of law, the value of hard work and sacrifice, the rejection of slavery of the body and of the mind. 

And, most importantly of all, the value and power of love and respect for one's fellow man.

One of many places we can look to see that respect being represented is in the democratic process, where the people are engaged in the decision making process in the most fundamental way. It is that they, the people, who are sovereign and all political power derives from them as individuals, delegated to elected representatives through the ballot box. Democracy, it’s a good idea the French people, in their wisdom, figured that out quite some time ago.

Other parts of the world can rightfully congratulate themselves on their recent preparedness to promote women into positions of power.

In France a young woman from Orléans donned her armour for truth, justice, faith and France almost 600 years ago.

The truth is that France is a place where good ideas have existed and been championed for a long, long time.

Like Joan of Arc, like Charles de Gaulle, I believe that for France, and for Europe, our best days still lie ahead of us.

Among those many good French ideas was the French people's courage and foresight in saying No to the European Constitution.

What the unaccountable elite in Brussels has failed to understand as they try to define Europe through ever-growing piles of directives, treaties, rules and regulations is that Treaties are only written on paper.

They are not written on the hearts of men and women. 

That Europe, in the current Brussels variant, has failed to speak to the hearts of Europeans is clear to us all.

But the fact that this failure, if continued is highly likely to result in the overall failure of the European project needs to be shouted from the mountaintops across Europe.

The good news is that it can be saved.

It can be saved by opening the windows and letting the light of democracy, transparency and accountability shine into every dark corner of the Brussels establishment.  That’s the kind of Europe Schuman and Monnet would have wanted.   

Indeed that champion of the European Union and great Frenchman, Jean Monnet, pointed out that:

"People only accept change when they are faced with necessity, and only recognise necessity when a crisis is upon them"

With the current Brussels Elite’s denial of democracy their self imposed illegitimacy, their impotence in the face of outside threats, their contempt for the voice of the sovereign individual, the looming possibility of an economic crisis not seen for over half a century.  And worst of all our failure as a civilization to make the most important investment and manifestation of all hope, having enough children, we are now reaching that crisis and change is not only necessary but inevitable.  It is inevitable because we must and will rise to these challenges, we can no longer ignore them, they will not be fixed by someone else, they must be grappled with and overcome by this generation, here and now.   
 

In June of next year at the European Parliament elections, the people of France will have their say on the Lisbon Treaty - you have already said No, its time to say No again to the same anti-democratic formula and to demand an accountable, democratic Europe.   Next years European elections can be the referendum that the people of Europe have been denied – there can be a clear choice, candidates that support and will not stop the antidemocratic Lisbon Treaty – and those that will, doing so from a positive pro European perspective championing democratic accountability at the heart of the union.   

Let France lead again, say No to anti-democracy - Join with us in helping to place France at the heart

of the challenge to return Europe to those to whom it really belongs : it’s almost half a billion

citizens and their aspirations for their children, grandchildren and our future generations. 

Let us step forward together, with courage and confidence and say Good Morning Europe, that this

new century belongs to us, to the people of Europe, that once again we have what it takes to lead the

world. 

Let’s invite the world to watch and witness a new European Renaissance, in economy, in industry, in learning, in championing the value of the individual and the liberty of mankind. 

Let us take up the mantle here in France and recognize that it falls to all and every single one of us, to this generation, to wake Europe from our slumber and say as Churchill said for European democracy when its flame was almost extinguished “We will not go quietly into the night”. 

For this is France and we are the people of Europe, we know where we came from we can and will define a new vision, let us fulfill that destiny, rise to the challenge, say no to the antidemocratic Brussels of the Lisbon Treaty and Yes to a democratic, transparent and accountable Europe that can lead the world to a place worth going to.     

Non à la faillite démocratique du traité de Lisbonne,   

Oui à une Europe des démocraties,  transparente,  et responsable

Une Europe qui illumine  et étonne le monde… 

Vive la France 

Vive l’Irlande 

Vive l'Europe

[Sub-X]

EU President demands probe into source of Libertas funding
Irish Independent
23 September 2008

THE president of the European Parliament yesterday demanded a full investigation into anti-Lisbon treaty group Libertas over the source of its funding.

Hans-Gert Poettering said serious questions needed to be asked about where Libertas had got its money from and the links of its chief Declan Ganley to the US military.

"We require total transparency. We need to know how much money Libertas had and where it came from," Mr Poettering said at the opening of this week's plenary session in Brussels.

Investigation

"A total of €200,000 came from a single donor who was a key organiser for Libertas and has military procurement contracts with the US government. I ask Dick Roche, the Irish Europe minister, to make sure he carries out a full and thorough investigation so that we can have full transparency."

Speaking as he arrived in Brussels last night, Mr Roche said his European counterparts had "huge concerns" about Libertas's funding and its fundraising plans for the future.

"During the campaign, Mr Ganley talked about lack of transparency, lack of accountability and lack of democracy in Europe, which I disagreed with. Yet, he's the very one who has shown absolutely no transparency and no accountability," the Irish European Affairs Minister said.

"Reviewing the Libertas funding, which is the same for all parties as we all have to make a disclosure, is a matter for the Standards in Public Office Commission (SIPO). I've no doubt that given recent statements about €200,000 loans there will be significant interest in Libertas."

Mr Ganley last week admitted to loaning €200,000 of his own money to Libertas after reports had surfaced that his company Rivada has contracts with the US military worth hundreds of millions of euro.

Under campaign finance laws, loans which are not subject to normal commercial terms -- involving interest, a repayment schedule and a formal agreement -- can be classed as donations.

Mr Ganley has insisted the loan he gave to the organisation was a normal commercial transaction subject to standard terms. However, he has also confirmed that Libertas has yet to begin repaying the loan.

Maximum

Under EU rules, the maximum donation allowed is just over €6,000, meaning that if Ganley's loan is classed as a donation, he could be liable to prosecution.

"There is now a direct link between Irish referendum, the US military and the Pentagon. I call on the authorities to probe the matter," said Greens' leader Daniel Cohn-Bendit.

[akston]

So the pro-Lisbon hordes are trying to pit anti-American sentiment against Irish Nationalism?

That's a good one.

[oshea.declan]

EU President demands probe into source of Libertas funding
Irish Independent
23 September 2008

"A total of €200,000 came from a single donor who was a key organiser for Libertas and has military procurement contracts with the US government. I ask Dick Roche, the Irish Europe minister, to make sure he carries out a full and thorough investigation so that we can have full transparency."

  That's a good one alright, and the people who would like to see the Lisbon Treaty passed to further the NWO agenda have pilfered TRILLIONS of Dollars from Pentagon funds -- Nice to see that a measly €200,000 , whatever the intentions of the donor, was put to good use in countering the NWO's psychopathic criminal plans.

[Sub-X]

Libertas responds to European Parliament President's statement
http://www.libertas.org/content/view/314/1/
25 September 2008

In response to the Conference of Presidents of the European Parliament statement today - Libertas categorically refutes these entirely baseless allegations.

Speaking today, Libertas Chairman Declan Ganley said "this statement gives us grave concern for the state of democracy in Europe".

"The approach adopted by this European Parliament President's group is a throw-back to an earlier era in history."

"The Irish people made their decision on the Lisbon Treaty. That decision must be respected."

"In the past, those that dared to defend freedom and democracy were forced to pay an inordinate price. The allegations are utterly baseless and have no grounds."

"Libertas is obliged to communicate the details of its funding to the Irish authorities in 2009. Libertas will comply with this obligation, as it has complied with the rules and campaign funding regulations."

"Neither Libertas nor I have done anything illegal or wrong - this is interference in the electoral process in Ireland, something that Brussels has no business getting itself involved in and for which the people have not at this point given it competence".

[Sub-X]

Labour Party urged to clarify position on Lisbon
http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/387
The Workers’ Party
NEWS RELEASE
Tuesday, 23 September 2008

CALL ON GILMORE TO CLARIFY LABOUR POSITION ON LISBON

The Workers’ Party have called on Labour Party leader Eamon Gilmore to clarify for once and for all the Labour Party’s position in relation to the future of the Lisbon Treaty.

Workers’ Party spokesman Padraig Mannion, who was the party’s campaign director during the referendum, said that there was need for clarification from Labour since the utterances of its leader Mr. Gilmore and those of Dublin MEP Proinsias De Rossa are entirely contradictory of one another.

Mr. Mannion was responding to comments made by Mr. De Rossa on Raidio na Gaeltachta’s news programme Admhaidin this morning (Tuesday) in which the Labour MEP, in announcing his intention to seek a further term in the European Parliament, said that if the Irish government cannot pass the Lisbon Treaty that we should stand aside as a country and let the rest of Europe move ahead.

“Eamon Gilmore has on a number of occasions called for the democratic outcome of the Irish referendum to be respected. Shortly after the referendum he said that that any attempt to ignore the results of the Irish poll or in some manner to attempt to sidestep the verdict of the Irish voters would cause untold damage to the EU. What Mr. De Rossa is proposing is the polar opposite of his party leader’s position”.

“Proinsias De Rossa’s position on the future of the Lisbon Treaty creates a dilemma for the Labour Party and its leader Mr. Gilmore, who yesterday welcomed Mr. De Rossa’s decision to put his name forward to run for the European Parliament again. Who is dictating the Labour Party policy on the Lisbon Treaty, Mr Gilmore and the members, councillors and Labour parliamentary party or Mr. De Rossa? The public deserve to know where Labour stands and whether it is prepared to allow itself collaborate in an underhand effort to overthrow the democratic result of the June 12th referendum”.

[Sub-X]

MEPs to ask US Congress about funding for Irish No vote
http://euobserver.com/9/26815
27 September 2008

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - The European Parliament's delegation to the US will on its next trans-Atlantic visit ask Congress about allegations that the Irish anti-Lisbon Treaty campaign was funded out of America.

The parliament's political group leaders - the "conference of presidents" - made the decision on Thursday (25 September) following calls for transparency by the Irish and French governments and the European Commission.

The move also comes after Declan Ganley - an Irish businessman with US interests who ran the prominent No-vote lobby, the Libertas group - admitted loaning it €200,000 of his own money. Under Irish rules, donations must be capped at €6,348.

The conference of presidents decided not to set up its own commission of enquiry, leaving any investigation to Ireland's Standards in Public Office Commission (SIPO). But the parliament's administration will "regularly and closely monitor the situation."

Using language that puts Mr Ganley in an unsavoury light, the parliament statement noted that SIPO "enjoyed real investigative powers and that any proven misuse of funds ... could lead to sanctions, including of a criminal nature."

The leader of the Liberal group, Graham Watson, said he supported contacting the US Congress because Irish-American groups had funded the Irish terrorist group, the IRA, in the past.

The idea that Mr Ganley fronted a US plot to kill the Lisbon Treaty emerged when Irish media reported that his US firm, Rivada Networks, had a €200 million communications equipment contact with the Pentagon.

The French leader of the Green group in the European Parliament, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, popularised the theory at the opening meeting of this week's plenary session in Brussels.

"The Irish press revealed that there possibly exists a link between the financers of the No campaign in Ireland and the Pentagon as well as the CIA ... If proved true, this would clearly show that there are forces in the US willing to pay people to destabilise a strong and autonomous Europe," he said.

"We stand on the side of those who strive for absolute transparency in all of these questions in order to keep Europe from suffering harm," parliament president Hans-Gert Poettering added.

No means no?

Ireland rejected the Lisbon Treaty in a referendum in June, with most No voters saying they lacked information on the treaty contents. Those who voted No were also concerned about threats to Irish neutrality, Europe's 'democratic deficit' and a weakening of Ireland's position in the European Union.

The main thrust of the treaty was to tidy up EU institutions after the 2004 round of enlargement and help create a robust EU foreign policy, its supporters say.

Mr Ganley is now campaigning around Europe to launch an anti-Lisbon political group in time for European Parliament elections in 2009. A second Irish referendum on Lisbon is not expected before late 2009.

"Libertas is obliged to communicate the details of its funding to the Irish authorities in 2009. Libertas will comply with this obligation," Mr Ganley said in response to what he called the parliament's "baseless allegations."

"This statement gives us grave concern for the state of democracy in Europe," he added. "Neither Libertas nor I have done anything illegal or wrong - this is interference in the electoral process in Ireland."

[Godfather77]

CIA ‘backed’ Irish battle against Brussels treaty
September 28, 2008
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4837672.ece

First it was the sheer ingratitude of the Irish, then it was the failure of the Dublin government to mount a successful yes campaign. Now Brussels has found a new explanation as to why Ireland voted down the European Union treaty in June - a CIA and Pentagon-backed plot, devised by American neoconservatives to weaken the EU.

The European parliament wants an inquiry into whether Declan Ganley, the multi-millionaire chairman of the Libertas group that campaigned against the treaty, could be in the pockets of US defence and intelligence services.

The calls have been led by Daniel Cohn-Bendit, the firebrand 1968 student leader turned Green MEP, who pointed to Irish press reports that “revealed there possibly exists a link between the financiers of the no campaign in Ireland and the Pentagon as well as the CIA.

“If proved true, this would clearly show there are forces in the US willing to pay people to destabilise a strong and autonomous Europe”, he said.

Cohn-Bendit’s suspicions were backed by Hans-Gert Pöttering, president of the European parliament: “The facts must be put on the table. We cannot allow Europe to be harmed by people who demand transparency but do not provide it themselves.”

Last week the parliament’s most senior MEPs discussed the issue and urged the Irish Standards in Public Office Commission to investigate Ganley’s finances.

“The suggestion is not only wrong but ludicrous,” said a CIA spokesman.

Speculation by MEPs appears to rest on the fact that Ganley’s company Rivada Networks has telecoms contracts with the US military worth more than €200m (£159m).

He disclosed last week that he loaned €200,000 of his own money to fund the Libertas campaign against the treaty. It is not clear on what terms the loan was given or if it breached rules on political donations.

Ganley said he considered Pöttering’s remarks to be “absolutely outrageous” and insisted that neither he nor Libertas had done anything wrong.

Cohn-Bendit pointed to the right-wing Heritage Foundation in Washington as the intellectual source for the CIA’s plans to derail European unity.

His claims were dismissed by Sally McNamara, a senior EU policy analyst at the foundation. “This administration is one of the most pro-European we have seen in a long time. There is no sinister antiEU conspiracy,” she said.