In a great day for Irish and European democracy, the Irish people, on a higher turnout than Nice II, rejected the illegitimate and anti-democratic Lisbon Treaty by 53.4% to 46.6%. In doing so, they have struck a blow for freedom and against remote, unaccountable and undemocratic rule by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. They have shown great courage in the face of an Establishment media blitz by Independent Newspapers, the Irish Times, the Sunday Business Post, The Tribune and others who bombarded us with a relentless torrent of black propaganda about the “disaster” a no vote would be for Ireland. As I pointed out on a previous post, the final day before polling was marked by a disgraceful attempt at scaremongering on the front-page of the Irish Independent, claiming that a “No” vote would accelerate rising unemployment. It is interesting that while the margins were not as large on the day, the poll on the Independent’s own website and the story’s comment pages were deluged by angry criticism of the story and support for a “No” vote.

This outcome cannot be separated from the context in which it takes place, which relates to one of my biggest grievances against our party-political culture - namely the culture of the “cosy-consensus”, in which like the ideological equivalent of a business-cartel cornering the market by refusing to compete with one another on price, the political-elites insist on refusing to compete with one another on a certain set of political issues. The Irish elites insisted - like with immigration - on refusing to represent the huge segment of public opinion that has historically opposed closer European political integration. Never has that been more true that now, with the elites continuing to display open contempt for our decision. Only yesterday, Una Claffey, former government spokesperson, argued that in Lisbon “we” had gotten all we wanted. Who is the “we” in this? This mantra continues to be repeated by members of the FF elite, who insisted during the referendum campaign that “we” had gotten all our “redlines” in the negotiations. Again who are “we”? The answer is clear - they are referring to themselves - the elite. Never in the history of Irish politics as an independent country have our political-class be so out of touch with the people they claim to represent.

It is infuriating to me, as a “no” voter, to hear Barroso, Wallstrom, Polish PM Donald Tusk, French Secretary for Europe Jouyet, German Foreign Minister Steinmeier and others insist that the ratification of the Treaty must go ahead. On the contrary it must not go ahead, and most certainly must not apply to Ireland in its current form. The Irish people have said “no” and if the elites persist in trying to railroad us into ratification by trying to isolate us by getting the other 26 governments and parliaments to ratify Lisbon, then it will only reinforce Irish and European public opinion of Brussels as a remote and anti-democratic project. While a pro-European myself, I had not choice but to vote no due to a number of factors including those I have described in the previous post. The French and Dutch peoples have already said no. Now the Irish have said no. You don’t need to be a rocket-scientist to deduce how the British would vote had they been given the opportunity. When the Irish politicians tell the other states should continue ratification, what they really mean is that the governments and parliaments of those countries should do so - for not one of them will dare put this to a referendum in their respective countries due to the certainty of a “no” vote. Sarkozy said as much in a meeting with journalists some months ago.

Our decision on the current package is final. Another tarted-up copy of the rejected formula rejected by the Dutch, French, and now Irish is a non-runner. We Irish are tiring of the “permanent revolution” of European integration. We want to remain in the EU and the euro, but not at any price. The recent reintroduction of the annual 1916 parades have served to remind the Irish people of what was sacrificed for our freedom, and I believe a richer Ireland is now more self-confident and inclined to defend its sovereignty in a way that was not the case in the past. If they come back to us again with a new package, we must insist it be radically different - at least in its application to Ireland - from the one we have rejected. That must include the deletion of the self-amending Article 48 that allows for treaty ratification without referenda, the retention of our Commissioner and voting weight on the Council, an opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights like Poland and the UK obtained, and the retention of our national vetoes on issues like energy, public health, and tourism and sport. Anything less deserves the same answer we gave on June 12th.

The people of the country have spoken, for good or ill. That must be respected.

Accordingly, I do not want to see another referendum - the outcome of this one must be heeded. The people are sovereign. The Constitution, deeply flawed as it is, governs this country over anything else; it is the source of power exercised by the legislative, judicial and executive branches of government in Ireland. It is also the source of our connection to the EU, but that does not mean it should not be altered to suit the EU over Ireland.

Listening to the tallies as they come in, the socio-economic breakdown was very clear - working class voters opposed it very much. It is purely my own view, but I’d be inclined to suggest that the left-wing arguments against privatisation were the ones that had the most impact, as opposed to the Libertas arguments. It was not, I believe, an anti-government vote - the two main opposition parties called for a Yes vote along with the Government. I do not believe it was a Eurosceptic vote either. Ireland is pro-Europe and pro-EU.

I never agreed with the the way the Treaty was being ratified across Europe and that was my primary reason for voting no. I know some people reading this will be very displeased at the outcome, and I am genuinely sorry for that. I want to see Europe integrated better than it is now. But not this way. 3 million people determining the outcome of a treaty by a direct vote, with the other several hundred million not having this same very powerful method of determining the outcome, is, to my mind, profoundly undemocratic. I do not believe either, that the people in the other EU member states gave their governments a mandate to decide on this treaty; they gave their governments a mandate to govern on domestic issues.

Another issue that bothered me was the Laval case. I hummed and hawed over this one, initially inclined to accept it and hope it was a one off. The Laval case gives rise to fundamental questions under EU law, namely, whether Community law can restrict or prohibit trade unions in one Member State taking industrial action. It also considers whether the application of collective agreements in a host Member State be restricted by EU law.

In the case, Swedish unions took action against a Latvian construction company - Laval - over the working conditions of Latvian workers refurbishing a school in a town called Vaxholm. Laval refused to sign a collective agreement, and a blockade of the work place was initiated by the trade unions as a consequence. The Swedish Labour Court referred the case to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

In December 2007, the ECJ indicated that the right to strike is a fundamental right, but not as fundamental as the right of businesses to supply cross-border services. It is my opinion that the ruling amounts to a licence for social dumping, and key features of national industrial relations systems face being superseded by the free movement provisions. This puts a fundamental right of an individual or group of individuals at a disadvantage to a company. It is my view that this is wrong. I had to vote no on this ground also.

I spent a great deal of time considering how I would vote on this momentous treaty. I am satisfied with my vote, and I am satisfied that I considered it from a European, and not an Irish perspective. I am a passionate European. I am not a Euro-sceptic. This was my first No vote on a European referendum. I fervently hope that it will be my last.

He was speaking after the no vote and it was very brief. Barroso though did point up the major EU talking point over the next couple of days.

18 States have approved the Treaty and the remaining ratifications should continue their course. European institutions will continue to work delivering for citizens of Europe.

Image by infomatique via Flickr

Anyone interested in making an informed decision on the Lisbon Treaty would do well to read the Special Report by the Oireachtas Committee on European Affairs on the role of National Parliaments if the Treaty is ratified. Published on Friday, it is a straight-forward and relatively brief document which makes for interesting reading and as such there is little point rehashing the main points here. However, what does come across is a very strong sense of the possibilities that the various TDs and Senators see Lisbon offering in increasing the role of the Dáil and Seanad in European Affairs and reducing the so-called democratic deficit.

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.

Arguments about democratic deficit within the European Union are always a tad odd, as those who frequently bleat most about democracy, are also those who are most attached to notions of sovereignty. It is a difficult balance to maintain, as increased democracy at a European level (say the election of the president of the European Commission) will generally result in a diminution of national sovereignty (in a democratic European vote, Ireland’s voice will always be weak). A way around this, is largely seen by giving national parliaments an increased role in the European system of governance.

Up until now, National Parliaments have a very limited role in European Affairs. Theoretically, parliaments should be strongly influential, as each national government is accountable to their respective parliaments. However, to date the role of national parliaments in European affairs has largely been a result of domestic forces. For example, in Denmark their parliament, through their European Affairs committee, has had a strong role in the nature of Danish participation in Europe. At the other end of the extreme, the other two members who joined the then EC with Denmark, Ireland and Britain have not – until recently – given much prominence to national parliaments.

Since the early 1990s, there has been an acceptance that it is desirable to increase the direct role of national parliaments within the European Union. We don’t vote for our government, but we do for our parliamentarians, and it is only right and proper that these sentinels of the people have a strong role within the European system of governance. After all, roughly half of each parliament is in opposition, and therefore their views are not included in European decision making. As such, with Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice, there were small steps in providing rhetorical and actual support to national parliaments in this system of governance. However, with Lisbon a number of large steps are taken, steps which I believe will positively impact our perception of the democratic responsiveness of the EU.

The main change Lisbon brings through, is the role of national parliaments in enforcing subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is an important, but all too often ignored concept, which believes political power is best exercised at the lowest level that it can be efficiently and effectively done. In the context of Europe, it is that the European Union should look after matters which are most efficiently and effectively dealt with at a supra-national level , while national parliaments (and ideally regional parliaments) should deal with those matters which are more efficiently dealt with at a national level. Under Lisbon, the following system will be in play (explanation below from here);

• “if one third of national parliaments consider that the proposal is not in line with subsidiarity, the Commission will have to re-examine it and decide whether to maintain, adjust or withdraw it
• if a majority of national parliaments agrees with the objection but the Commission decides to maintain its proposal anyway, the Commission will have to explain its reasons, and it will be up to the European Parliament and the Council to decide whether or not to continue the legislative procedure.”

In manner in which the number of parliaments will be counted will be that each national parliamentary system will have two votes. Where there is a bicaramel parliament there will be vote for each parliament which, as I have suggested earlier, may prove significant in terms of Irish democracy, as it would give the Seanad an equal voice in European matters – one it may seek to assert.

Other areas where the national parliaments role changes are for example, the consideration period for legislation from Europe by National Parliaments has been increased by two weeks to eight weeks – an important improvement given the volume of such secondary legislation which can be produced from the Commission.

Another potentially important change is that National Parliaments will have to be informed at the start of the process of any request to join the European Union. While not having a direct decision making role, I believe this change will be important as it will probably mean that this subject will be debated in the chambers of each countries parliament before the relevant European Council meetings. In the context of Turkish membership, this is has the potential of being quite a significant block to a rapid decision on the matter.

In the matters of further changes to the Treaty, any moves away from unanimity to QMV will require the consent of national parliaments, as will moves away from the special legislative procedure to the ordinary legislative procedure. Furthermore, any major changes to the existing European treaties will need to see the calling of a convention to discuss the matter, and any such convention will include “representatives of the national Parliaments of the Member States, of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States, of the European Parliament and of the Commission.”

This was the case in the convention on the Future of Europe, and in Ireland’s case, the most effective Irish participant was probably John Bruton who was there in his capacity as an Irish parliamentarian.
These are some of the ways in which the role of national parliaments is increased through the Lisbon Treaty – there are others in the area of Justice which I hope to go into in the future. Overall, the national parliaments’ powers in enforcing subsidiarity are important, and will hopefully be utilised efficiently. Given the increased inter-parliamentary co-operation over the past decade, while the hurdle of 1/3 support initially is high, I believe it can be achievable. Furthermore, the recognition of parliaments role in further changes to the European Union is also important, as it will ensure as wide a representation of European citizens in the process as possible. Considering that the Treaty is aimed at improving the running of our Union, rather than instigating radical reform, these changes are significant, to be welcomed, and another reason I’ll be voting Yes to Lisbon.

Anyway, inform yourself on all this - the consolidated version of the Treaties as amended by Lisbon is available here.

There are a few people blogging out there on the Lisbon Treaty and the referendum, but there is - to my knowledge - only one person going through it forensically - Ralf Grahn, a Finnish lawyer. While I wouldn’t be in accord with all of his views, his work on this is first rate and anyone taking an interest in the Treaty should definitely take a look. The consolidated version of the Treaties (i.e. what we are voting on) is available from the Institute of European Affairs.

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?

The press releases today were absolutely hopping up and down to make sure everyone was aware that the French Finance Minister and the EU Tax Commissioner should be given no weight whatsoever when considering their comments on a common-consolidated-tax-base.

French Economy Minister Christine Lagarde told reporters on Monday, April 7, that France is “determined to push” for a common corporate tax base in the 27-member bloc when it takes over the EU presidency in July.

EU Tax Commissioner Laszlo Kovacs has expressed support for the plan, which would cut red tape and simplify cross-border business deals.

“There is a real need for the member states to act together in certain tax policy areas,” said Kovacs on Monday.

The area is governed currently by national Veto power so all states would have to agree to the proposals before it became law. However I would be astonished to think that the French Finance Minister and the EU Tax Commissioner would be so politically naive to suggest this as a referendum campaign is underway in Ireland, with the power to shoot down the Lisbon Treaty.
Clearly the major parties appreciated the damage it could do as one after the other the Alliance for Europe, Fianna Fail, Labour and others sought to rubbish such talk as mere grand-standing.
Its a dangerous time for EU officials to engage in this if they don’t know what is at stake and if they do know what is at stake, what are they at?

Simon had given the most recent account of the phenomenon: the government toying with days of the week and seasons when scheduling elections and referenda for political advantage.  Now Bertie has a new twist: a Lisbon vote in June, on a day yet to be scheduled, but in the middle of when many first-time voters will be taking their Leaving Cert.  Others might have some college commitments.  This one is especially bizarre as it’s surely easiest to sell young people on the benefits of further European integration.  As Sun Tsu said, “Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat”.