Brian Cowen is talking to the EU Legal Service about drafting opt-outs and protocols to make the Lisbon Treaty “palatable to the Irish public” according to Jamie Smyth and others this morning.

Cowen, who said the France, which is the current president of the EU, had also asked the Council of Ministers’ legal services “to see what can be done and what can be achieved”, listed the composition of the European Commission, defence, social issues and taxation as “areas that need to be addressed” to satisfy Irish voters, who rejected the treaty in a referendum held in June. The Council’s legal services are thought to be examining whether declarations or protocols can be drafted on these issues to make the Lisbon treaty more acceptable to the Irish electorate ahead of a possible second referendum.

But Cowen remained non-committal on the idea of a second vote. “We had a referendum on the last occasion [that Irish voters rejected an EU treaty, the Treaty of Nice in 2001] and we have to see where this process that we are now engaged with brings us this time. We’ll discuss it in December when it will be far clearer what the options might be.”

“We will define the elements of a solution in December and I shall have the opportunity to make proposals,” France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy told journalists late on Wednesday.

I’m one of those people who hasn’t quite decided which way they’re going to vote on in the referendum. This is because I haven’t got around to reading all of the text I’m voting on yet. However, there’s one incredibly stupid argument the no camp is bandying about right now. It’s an argument that does an incredible amount of disservice to everybody. That argument is:

The Lisbon Treaty is an incomprehensible document, which is NOT readable in a linear way. It was NOT meant to be read by anyone, just to be blindly accepted. It is against basic common sense and against the sense of responsibility to sign any treaty or contract without fully knowing its contents and understanding its consequences.

So writes howardh (who I’m presuming is the Howard Holby who wrote this Indymedia article, which reads like he thinks the EU is one big conspiracy) of the The Lisbon Treaty Blog. I’ve heard this thrown about a lot, and I have to dispel it. Here’s an example he gives:

GENERAL PROVISIONS
64] Article 61 shall be replaced by the following Chapter 1 and Articles 61 to 61 I. Article 61 shall also replace the current Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 61 D shall replace Article 36 thereof, Article 61 E shall replace Article 64(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community and the current Article 33 of the Treaty on European Union,

Yup, completely unreadable to the average person. Frankly, I can see how people would have difficultly reading this. However, to assume that this is what you’re meant to read is to confuse the map with the territory.

I’m a software developer, and the text of the Lisbon Treaty is what we call a diff. Diffs are useful and describe in succinct terms the changes between two different version of the same piece of software. It’s not surprising that the legal profession and the software development profession both came up with the same idea: we both deal with large reams of text, we both need to be able to trace the change in those reams of text, and need to be able to distribute those change in a manner that shows the changes explicitly. However, the diffs themselves are rarely read in isolation. Sot it is with the Treaty.

When you’re voting on the Lisbon Treaty, you’re voting on a whole bunch of changes to existing treaties to consolidate them into a single body of law: if you want to know what you’re really voting for, it’s this consolidated body of law you need to read. And guess what, there’ve been copies of the consolidated treaties floating around for ages.

For instance, if you type “lisbon treaty consolidated” into Google, you get Peadar Ó Broin’s consolidated text, which has been around since January 16th of this year. Alternatively, Libertas, if you’re suspicious that Ó Broin might have some pro-treaty bias, also have an excellent consolidated text with annotations. Read and download one or the other. If you want a good overview, head to the Wikipedia page on the treaty, but don’t forget to read the treaty text too.

Contrary what some in the No camp say, the consolidated treaties, though running into over 300 pages in total, is actually pretty clear. Best as I can tell, there’s no great, if any, effort at obfuscation. So please, ignore the scaremongering from both the Yes and No camps, read the consolidated treaty text, and make your own mind up.

And if anybody brings up the incomprehensibility argument, print out the consolidated treaty and whack them across the back of the head with it. You’ll be doing them and the country a service.

*Sub-Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Fine Gael Spokesperson on Foreign Affairs Bill Timmins met with the Foreign Minister of the Tibeten Government in-exile today and suggested that the visit of the Dali Lama to the UK (May 20-31) represented a great chance to have him address the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Why not the Oireachtas as a whole?

Libertas have an outraged press release accusing the Irish government of a systematic campaign to hide information on the Lisbon Treaty based on what they call “an email from a very senior Irish official to his British counterpart” which the Daily Mail published today. Headlined the Treaty Con, this story is picked up by a few other bloggers such as Iain Dale , the Daily Telegraph Blog and Open Europe.

Unfortunately, not for the first time Libertas are engaging in sharp practice. According to the Mail (story on politics.ie) there was no email from a very senior Irish official, rather the leaked email is a briefing from the British Embassy in Dublin to London, on a briefing they received. As such, it ain’t form the horses mouth.

But anyway, noting that the Daily Mail hasn’t published the email itself - one wonder’s why? - let’s look at what they claim, the British Embassy are claiming the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs are saying.

Essentially, it amounts to five things:

1) The decision to hold the vote this side of the summer was chosen because of fear of what President Sarkozy may say or do during the French presidency in the second half of the year;

2) There was a desire not to associate the Treaty with anything to do with the UN military operation that Ireland is participating in in Chad with France, Poland and others;

3) There was some form of agreement with the Commission to delay “bad news”;

4) The government is concerned about the WTO talks on the farming vote; and

5) The government may pull a fast one on the date, and move it forward a week which would unsettle the no campaign it is claimed.

So, based on points 1-4 the government is keen to keep stuff which has nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty away from the debate on Lisbon. Is that really that Machiavellian? After all, whatever emerges in Chad, the WTO, under the French presidency or from the Commission over the coming months will all have emerged in an EU without Lisbon. The Lisbon Treaty won’t herald in a Common Corporation Tax base, yet has that stopped some from calling for us to reject the Treaty on those grounds.

Point 5 is little more than sharp practice, which undesirable is hardly a massive matter.

The Open Europe blog has a text which it claims is the memo (not sure how they got their hands on it). Bar the revelation on the date, it doesn’t seem to be that explosive.

By the way, anyone think that the Daily Mail might have an agenda here?

Despite operating under the slogan, “Facts, not Politics”, eurosceptic organisation Libertas have been accused by EU Commissioner Margot Wallstorm in her blog today for carrying out “a case study in distortion through selective quotation”. Essentially, Libertas quoted a speech she gave where she said “Whatever we win in efficiency we might lose in democratic legitimacy because we need someone who can speak their own language and be acceptable to their people and stand up for them”. However, when it came to doing up a press release on this subject, the might was droped and as such what Wallstorm said became fairly different.

However, as is frequently the case the answer may not be so much devious as just simple error which is the line on politics.ie where the press releases author states that it was a typo. As such, the current press release on the site has been amended. The original is on the politics.ie thread.

Unless one is a fan of some of the organisations which generally only come to our attention courtesy of the Cedar Lounge’s Irish Left Archive, chances are you don’t generally follow the Korean Central New Agency. Unfortunately, you would be a lesser person for that, as the voice of the world’s most secretive regime is always worth a gander. Now, bar the odd visit from Workers Party grandees to North Korea, or the holding of pro-North Korean events over here, Ireland doesn’t get much of a mention by the North Koreans. However, one thing which we always got was a friendly message from one of the head honchos in the North Korean government wishing us a happy St. Patrick’s Day.

For example in 2005:

Greetings to President of Ireland

Pyongyang, March 17 (KCNA) — Kim Yong Nam, president of the Presidium of the DPRK Supreme People’s Assembly, sent a message of greetings to Mary Mcaleese , president of Ireland, on Mar. 17 on the occasion of its national day. In the belief that the friendly and cooperative ties between the two countries would grow stronger, he wished the Irish people well-being and prosperity.

Obviously these important messages were not covered by the Irish media - capitalists running dogs one and all. However, these messages have stopped, and none is to be seen on the KCNA website for March 17th, or days around it.

So, what’s changed? Why don’t we get any happy Paddys Day messages from the North Koreans? Did we not say thanks, or did we forget to return the favour? Have we offended them more generally, or do they no longer think us important enough for this postcard? Surely, the citizens of Ireland deserve answers?

At the Saint Patrick’s Day reception –

President, as we say good-bye on this occasion, but hopefully we’ll keep in touch over the years, I will remember — and I hope that everyone in Ireland will — how kind, how favorable you’ve been, how really open you’ve been to helping us, and the amount of time that the President has given to us.

Of course it’s Bush’s last St Patrick’s Day. But he still has another very scary 10 months on the job. Does Bertie not think he’ll see him again as Taoiseach?

George seemed to have a similar impression –

Perhaps when we join the ex-leaders club, we’ll sit back and put our feet up — (laughter) — and talk about the good old times. In the meantime, I know you’re going to sprint to the finish, as am I, for the good of our countries.

“Sprint to the finish” was also Bush’s formulation for his last press conference with Tony Blair, who by then had a public deadline for quitting.

From RTE.

Amnesty International has said Ireland is clearly contravening international law by allowing its territory to be used to facilitate the practice of extraordinary rendition.The group is basing its claim on the findings of its latest report.Amnesty in Ireland claims Shannon Airport was used to refuel an aircraft that the following day was allegedly used to move a man from Iraq to Afghanistan.

Now reading the report here it is pretty harrowing stuff, but there is always a but. The allegation is that the plane used by the CIA refueled in Ireland on its way to Baghdad to pick up the guy. So in Shannon this plane did not have any prisoner in it.

So when Dermot Ahern said this.

The Government has received specific assurances from the US authorities, including US President George W Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, that no prisoners have been transferred through Irish airports, nor would they be without Irish Government permission, he added.

Nothing in this report contradicts this. If they searched this plane they would have found no prisoners. This was a flight by private jet registered by a CIA front company. How was anyone in government or air traffic control or the Gardai supposed to know what this plane was going to do once it landed at its destination. How were they to know that this plane was not a simple business flight. To have stopped this flight landing would be to stop every single private jet going through Shannon. Do we presume guilt and demand proof of innocence.  If we were breaking international law woudn’t stopping every plane landing in Shannon and arresting them for conspircy to commit torture also be breaking international law?

Update: Labours Eamon Gilmore seems to have thought about the report.

 The Amnesty Report also strong reinforces the case for the Irish authorities insisting on the right to inspect aircraft suspected of being involved in extraordinary rendition.

It is difficult to dispute the assessment of Amnesty that Ireland is clearly contravening international law by allowing its territory to be used to facilitate extraordinary rendition. Indeed, I would go further and say that the failure to assert our right to check these planes, leaves Ireland potentially complicit in the kidnap, detention and torture of people against whom no charges have been proven and who, in many cases, are totally innocent.

——————————————————-

The government must now insist on the right to inspect aircraft suspected of being involved in rendition. If, as the United States insists, there are no suspects on these planes, why should they object to this being independently verified by the Irish authorities?

Eamon if they check this plane (something I have no problem with) they would have found no suspects on it as the plane had no suspects on it. It was on its way to get him it did not have him. If the searched the plane they would just have found flight crew. (maybe some hand cuffs but who is to say the flight crew or not just kinky it certainly would not stand up in court on a charge of torture)

Eamon also says.

Serious consideration should also be given to banning from Irish airports any aircraft established to have been involved in extraordinary rendition.

While interesting I doubt it is any good something tells me if the CIA wants to hid the history of a plane it could easily do it. Also are we basing “established to have been involved ” by groups such as Indymedia or like Amnasty or by actually courts of law.