• Recent Posts

  • Really Simple Syndication

  • Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 46 other subscribers
  • Twitter@NatPlat

  • People’s Movement Ireland

  • Archives

  • Posts by Category

  • Blog Stats

    • 43,933 hits

⚠ Spoofing the Irish media and public with Lisbon “guarantees” that guarantee nothing

The central point to grasp about the current EU Summit proceedings on the Lisbon Treaty is that Messrs Brian Cowen’s and Micheál Martin’s “legally binding guarantees” to meet Irish voters’ concerns do not change a jot or tittle of that Treaty.

If they changed even a comma, the Lisbon Treaty would become a different Treaty and would have to be ratified again from scratch by the National Parliaments of the 27 EU Member States.

EU politicians cannot change the treaties, or their effects, just by signing a new agreement: the Court of Justice will always say that the provisions of a fully ratified European Treaty trump any attempt to modify the operation of the Treaty through an unratified agreement.

EU treaties cannot be amended in any way unless the document embodying the amendments has been both signed by EU leaders, and then ratified by all EU Member States “in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements”. That is not happening here.

Thus the Lisbon Treaty which the Irish people will be voting on in the autumn will be exactly the same Treaty as the one which the majority of voters rejected in last year’s referendum by 53% to 47% on a 53% turnout.

If the Lisbon Treaty comes into force, it would be the EU Court of Justice which would interpret it, as the EU Court is the only body authorised under the European Treaties to interpret them and decide how they should be applied.

The “decision” or agreement of the European Council that certain provisions of the Lisbon Treaty mean such and such is just that – an agreement between the 27 Prime Ministers and Presidents. It is legally binding on them as individuals, but it is not an international Treaty between States which would require ratification by the 27 EU States putting it before their National Parliaments for approval, as is the normal mode of ratification of treaties.

The text of the introduction to the Summit “decision” states that it is made by the Heads of State or Government “desiring to address those (Irish) concerns in conformity with that Treaty”, viz the Lisbon Treaty.

Being in conformity with the Lisbon Treaty, the “decision” or agreement cannot add to or substract from Lisbon in the slightest, and it would be for the EU Court, and the Court alone, to decide what Lisbon and its manifold provisions would mean if Lisbon should come into force.

So far as one can ascertain, the Summit “decision” or “agreement” is not actually being signed by the 27 Prime Ministers and Presidents who agree it, as would be normal with an international Treaty pending its formal ratification. Note that it is not being called a Treaty, but rather a “decision” or “agreement”.

Formally registering this decision at the United Nations as a political agreement between the Prime Ministers and Presidents concerned, is intended to make it look more significant to the Irish public. This would confer on it a minor status in international law, but not in EU law. It would not and could not override EU law.

Some future meeting of the European Council of EU Prime Ministers and Presidents could make some other decision or agreement, possibly even in contradiction to this agreement, and that would be equally valuable or valueless, for it would not add to or take away from the Treaties one iota.

The whole process is meant to give the Irish media and public the impression that some real change is being made to the Lisbon Treaty, when nothing like that is happening.

Nor is the Summit “decision” or “agreement” a legally binding Protocol attached to Lisbon, which would form part of that Treaty and which would be binding in European law and on the EU Court of Justice in interpreting and applying European law. For that would require opening the Lisbon Treaty and ratifiying the new Protocol anew as part of it.

Promise of a special Irish Protocol or “clarificatory declaration” to be attached to some future EU Treaty, possibly years away, would be just that – a promise. It would not affect the Lisbon Treaty coming into force, with all its legal obligations. It would not prevent the constitutionally new European Union which Lisbon would create being established.

In no way could a promised Protocol to some future EU Treaty resile or pull back from the obligations entailed by the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty once Lisbon had come into force.

What could such a promised future Protocol do in any case, for Ireland is not seeking any opt-outs from the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty?

In 1992 when the Danish people voted No to the Maastricht Treaty, its Government sought and secured legally binding opt-outs from the central provisions of Maastricht – the euro-currency, EU military and security commitments, and Maastricht’s provisions on EU citizenship. These provisions of Maastricht were never applied to Denmark and that position was formally recognised by a Protocol in the EU Treaties at the time of the 1998 Amsterdam Treaty, and these Danish opt-outs still apply.

Nothing like that is being sought by Ireland, whose Government has signed up to and accepted the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty and the EU Constitution which it embodies in their entirety.

That is just as true now as it was last year.

(Signed)

Anthony Coughlan
(Contact for further information: 01-8305792 )

☟Non-Irish Bodies

☟Irish Organisations

☟EU ABC

About Us ☚

The National Platform EU Research and Information Centre is based in Ireland at 24 Crawford Avenue, Dublin 9.

It advocates a Europe of Independent, Democratic, Cooperating Nation States

WHO ARE WE: The National Platform EU Research and Information Centre is a voluntary research and information body on EU affairs. Its Director is Anthony Coughlan, who is an economist and Senior Lecturer Emeritus in Social Policy, Trinity College Dublin. He acts as coordinator of a loose group of lawyers, economists and politically interested people who come to the fore when their expertise is needed. The group seeks to produce legally accurate documentation on EU matters for the use of organisations and individuals on the centre, left and right of Irish politics who are concerned at the development of the EU in an undemocratic and highly centralised direction. Its members stand for a Europe of independent, democratic and cooperating Nation States.

OUR ORIGINS: In 1986 when the Irish Government sought to ratify the Single European Act (Treaty) by majority vote of the Dáil (Parliament), a number of professional lawyers along with Anthony Coughlan and others advanced the view that, according to the Irish Constitution, the surrender of sovereignty to Brussels which the SEA involved could only be done by the Irish people themselves in a referendum.

They invited the late Raymond Crotty, the distinguished economist, to challenge the Irish Government’s proposed mode of ratification in the Courts, which he courageously did.

In its judgement the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Crotty. It is the Irish people, not its politicians, who alone can amend the country’s basic law, the Constitution. Any surrender of sovereignty to the European institutions must therefore be decided by the people themselves in a referendum. Therefore the Single European Act could only be ratified by popular referendum, not by parliamentary majority vote.

This referendum was duly held in 1987 and the Single European Act(Treaty) passed into law, having received majority approval of the people.

It is because of this Crotty judgement that successive EU Treaties have had to be put to referendum in Ireland.

Activities: The National Platform EU Research and Information Centre has been actively involved in all subsequent EC/EU referendums, mainly in providing documentation and a speaker service to other organisations.

It was also involved in supporting the McKenna(1995) and Coughlan(2000) cases before the Irish High Court and Supreme Court. These led to two important Supreme Court judgements governing fair referendum procedures. The McKenna judgement prevents the Irish Government from using public funds to obtain a particular result in a referendum. The Coughlan judgement requires that there should be equality in the allocation of free broadcasting time in referendums.

The National Platform EU Research and Information Centre is affiliated to The European Alliance of EU-critical Movements(TEAM) and its Director is President of the Foundation for EU Democracy, Brussels. It has no party-political, religious or ideological affiliations or orientation, apart from supporting the principle of a Europe of independent, democratic, cooperating Nation States.

Between one half and two-thirds of legal acts affecting Ireland each year now come from Brussels. The European Treaties amending the Irish Constitution on which referendums have been held are:

Ireland’s Accession Treaty to the European Communties (1972)
The Single European Act (1986)
The Maastrict Treaty on European Union (1993)
The Treaty of Amsterdam (1998)
The Treaty of Nice (2002), on which two referendums were held, as the Irish
people rejected this Treaty in 2001 and the Government re-ran the same
Treaty under different referendum rules in 2002.
The Treaty of Lisbon, which was rejected in the 12 June 2008 referendum and
which the Irish Government proposes to re-run unchanged in a second
referendum in autumn 2009


DONATE TO HELP OUR WORK:
We are a wholly volunary body and depend on private donations to meet the expense of researching and circulating our documentation. If you would like to help this work, please send a donation to us at the address above. Cheques should be made out to our account at the Bank of Ireland, No.30081817

※ Welcome to the Lisbon Treaty News Service

Effective today, this blog will now track latest important Lisbon Treaty news.

 

You can still follow the broad-based service of the National Platform EU Research and Information Centre (NP-EURIC) at:
www.nationalplatform.org

⁂ Belgian Foreign Minister: EU increasingly governed by the few

Every year some 120 Belgian ambassadors abroad come to Brussels for an information day. This year foreign Minister Karel De Gucht outlined the priorities for the Belgian EU presidency, the second half of 2010. He especially wants to combat the tendency of the bigger EU countries to dominate.

“The European Union may not become an institute run by a small elite group consisting of the larger member states. And this is exactly the direction we are going in at the moment. It’s the big dream of more than one leader of a big member state or a state that thinks it is big to run the show.”

Mr De Gucht points out that in the spirit of the treaties there must be cooperation, not domination. In his opinion Belgium is certainly not alone in its criticism of the growing influence of the larger member states.
“We’ve been saying this for some time- and now I’m noticing that increasingly more countries share our analysis- except for the big countries themselves- that Europe is not served by an elite group of directors.”

Belgian Foreign Minister: EU increasingly governed by the few

Euractiv reports that Belgian Foreign Minister Karel de Gucht has said that the ‘institutional balance’ of the EU is in “danger”. With just a year to go until the Belgian EU Presidency, he warned that the EU is increasingly governed by an “executive board of big countries”. Citing the recent G20 summit in London he said, “The London G20 meeting has first been prepared in Berlin by a small group of [EU] member countries, that is, those of them who are G20 members. The General Affairs Council was barely consulted, in fact only post factum.”

EurActiv Knack

⁂ The EU, the US founding fathers and the “last word”

ft.com/brusselsblog
by Denis Cooper

There can be few more terrifying sentences in contemporary English than: “The Treaty of Lisbon is not the last word.”

The sentence appears in “Saving the European Union” a new book by Andrew Duff, a British Liberal Democrat who sits in the European Parliament. It is certain to raise the hackles of anti-Lisbon campaigners, who have said all along that the EU can never resist the temptation to keep tinkering with its institutional arrangements, no matter how strong the evidence that European voters are thoroughly turned off by the whole process.

Before I develop this point, let me note that Duff’s short book is an excellent introduction to the Lisbon Treaty and to the challenges facing today’s EU. Friends and foes alike of the EU will benefit from reading it. Duff is one of the European Parliament’s top constitutional affairs experts, and he writes clean, crisp prose.

The Lisbon Treaty’s fate hangs mainly on the outcome of a referendum, expected to take place in October, in Ireland, whose electorate rejected the document in June 2008 by a 53.4 to 46.6 per cent margin.

If the Irish reverse their verdict and Lisbon comes into effect, EU leaders have solemnly promised us that there will be no more institutional tinkering, no more inter-governmental conferences, no more constitutional conventions – in short, no more attempts to ape Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and the other US founding fathers – for a long time to come. “We’re in tune with the voters,” is the message. “We know they wouldn’t forgive us.”

The institutional reform efforts that are encapsulated in Lisbon began as long ago as 2001 and have been plagued with embarrassing setbacks, so it is understandable that most EU leaders have little appetite at the moment for yet more self-punishment. Still, I have always had a sneaking suspicion that the adoption of Lisbon would in fact serve as a prelude to another bite at the institutional cherry.
Duff’s book strengthens this suspicion. “The founding fathers of the United States admitted from the outset that the Constitution as drafted was not the final word. Far from over-selling the text as the ultimate settlement, as some Europeans have done with Lisbon, the Americans were bold enough to admit that further amendment would be both desirable and necessary.”

Duff continues: “So the Treaty of Lisbon is not the last word. Europe can decide whether it wants to be more united or more divided: it neither can nor will stay as it is. The challenge is to manage this federalisation process with similar skill and boldness to that evinced in their time by Messrs Madison, Hamilton and Jefferson.”

Well, there you have it. Lisbon isn’t the last word. Europe must move on with its “federalisation process”. You can’t say you haven’t been warned.

⁂ French Europe Minister – We want a single EU military HQ; plus – gravy train, directive costs, lack of confidence

French Europe Minister: We want a single EU military HQ

French Europe Minister Bruno Le Maire has announced in an interview with French radio that France wants the EU to have its own single defence headquarters, autonomous of NATO. He said: “While it may be a difficult objective, in time we will need to have a single military command for the European Union, a European staff headquarters which could be installed for example in Brussels, and which would allow us to command European operations wherever European security interests are at stake. Today there are three staff headquarters which do that: one in England, one in France, one in Germany. I think it would be more logical, more reasonable and also more economic for public money to have a single operational headquarters.”

He admitted it would be “very difficult” to convince Britain of the need for a single headquarters, which has for years blocked the creation of a proper permanent EU military headquarters, because of the risk of duplicating NATO structures. But, Mr. Le Maire said, with the return of France into the integrated military structures of NATO, “we can no longer be accused (…) of doing it against NATO because we are now fully in NATO.”

Meanwhile, Le Figaro reports that Le Maire has said that he wants a “politically strong Europe, with an autonomous defence force, which is responsible and advocates financial regulation”. Le Maire also said that Nicolas Sarkozy’s Presidency of the EU has changed Europe for the better and he hopes that Sarkozy will become involved in the election campaign. He argued that the French Socialist Party is “neither honest nor responsible” and wants to transform European issues into national issues.

AFP Le Figaro Open Europe blog


MEPs create new scheme allowing them to claim £257 for each journey to work;
Taxpayers to fund £100m hole in MEP pension fund created by financial crisis

The Mail reports that from June MEPs will be able to claim up to £257 per journey under a ‘duration allowance’ which reimburses them for the time spent travelling between their homes and European Parliament buildings. The article notes that this comes on top of free business class travel to anywhere in the EU and a ‘distance allowance’ – which is supposed to cover the cost of meals, taxis and any other expenses incurred while travelling.

There is also further coverage of the revelations on Tuesday that the European Parliament has guaranteed that all MEPs who are members of the institution’s voluntary supplementary pension scheme will receive their full entitlements even though the fund currently has a deficit of ¤120 million because of the financial market crash. According to the Mail, between £35 and £50 million was allegedly lost in the Bernie Madoff debacle. According to the Telegraph, the European Parliament’s authorities are expected to bypass a decision by its budget control committee not to bail out the scheme in order to “honour legal requirements”, meaning that additional taxpayers’ money could be used in future to cover the deficit.

The Telegraph notes that two thirds of the optional extra pension is paid for in supplementary payments by the taxpayer. MEPs pay £1,052 (€1,194) a month into the scheme. That cash is added to by a publicly funded payment of £2,104 (€2,388). MEPs, on reaching retirement age, can expect an extra pension benefit, on top of generous national schemes, worth an annual £14,736 for every five year term of office. An MEP benefiting from the perk can net a combined pension of over £35,000 after just 10 years in office.
The management of the supplementary pension fund has repeatedly been criticised since 1999 by the European Court of Auditors, which questioned the legality of the scheme.

Telegraph: Waterfield blog



Costs of EU directive on biofuel to be passed on to motorists

The Times reports that the EU’s directive on biofuels, recently passed as part of the EU’s climate and energy package, will raise the cost of motoring for drivers. The EU rules state that 13 per cent of petrol and diesel fuels need to be derived from biofuel by 2020. Oil companies have had to spend more than £100 million in the past year on adapting refineries and storage facilities to cope with biofuels. The paper notes that the costs of complying with the EU directive will increase sharply over the next five years and most of the cost will be passed on to drivers.
A Friends of the Earth report this week said that biofuels could increase emissions because forests were being cut down to clear land for crops.

Times


Confidence in EU institutions at an all time low ahead of European elections

El País reports that public confidence in EU institutions has plummeted with the economic crisis and that record levels of abstention predicted for the European elections threaten Europe’s future. According to the Eurobaromoter survey, in Spain only 27% of the electorate are likely to vote, and yet in 1987, the year after Spain joined the EU, turnout was at 69%.
Le Figaro has published an article by Jean-Dominique Giuliani from the Fondation Robert-Schuman analysing the European elections. Entitled “A Parliament in search of credibility”, the article highlights voter apathy and explains that while the electorate demands more transparency and proximity to EU issues, the majority of French citizens prefer national politics. He argues that the candidates chosen by political parties and the size of the constituencies contribute to the nationalisation of European elections. However he also emphasises how the Parliament has become increasingly powerful and influential.
In article in the Independent looking at the European elections, Adrian Hamilton writes that the expected low voter turnout “is an indication of just how little the great European experiment has impressed itself upon the consciousness of the ordinary citizen.”
He writes that, with a resurgence of the Franco-German axis, evident at the G20 summit, and with the recession testing the EU’s ability to co-operate, “All of a sudden Europe has become an interesting place, although you won’t have any reflection of that when voters come to choose their European candidate in June.”

El País Independent: Hamilton Le Figaro

⁂ Two important articles on the Banking crisis

Is America the new Russia?
The Financial Times
By Martin Wolf


Ruminations on banking
ft.com/maverecon
Professor Willem Buiter
The auto-da-fé of the unsecured creditors is coming to a US bank near you…
Too big to fail means too big…
The repatriation of cross-border banking…