updates:
if we had signed Lisbon Treaty Brian Cowen would not have been able to exact the Irish Bail-out, so he too has now (virtually) voted "no"

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS – Irish leader Brian Cowen on Wednesday (15 October) briefed EU colleagues on Ireland's progress since its rejection of the EU's Lisbon treaty in June, promising to present an action plan on a way out of the deadlock by December.

"Four months have elapsed since our referendum and our domestic political debate is taking its course, but still has some way to go," he told EU heads of state and government gathering for the October summit in Brussels.

Mr Cowen insisted that "it is not yet possible to be prescriptive about outcomes" of the Irish debate, but said he aimed to "have identified the necessary steps that need to be taken next year" by the EU leaders' next meeting in December.

the Lisbon Treaty

IT WOULD BE ADVISABLE TO BE AWARE OF THIS TYPE OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS PROPAGANDA FROM USA FLOATING AROUND THE LISBON TREATY:

RE EUROPE MILITARISM I thought Max Boot was a neoocon, but it says here he is "a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations." This is the conclusion of his article in Wall Street Journal:

-- today's Eastern Europeans have to do much more to prepare a robust defense. They should double their military spending to make themselves into porcupine states that even the Russian bear can't swallow. The US can help, as we helped the Afghans in the 1980s and as the French helped the Poles in 1920. That will require a readjustment in our military assistance strategy, which has been to create in Eastern Europe miniature copies of our own armed forces. Our hope, largely realized, has been that these states will help us in our own military commitments in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. But in addition to developing NATO-style expeditionary capacity, these states need to be able to conduct a defense in depth. That means having large reserves ready for fast call-up and plenty of defensive weapons -- in particular portable missile systems such as the Stinger and Javelin capable of inflicting great damage on Russia's lumbering air and armor forces. That's more important than fielding their own tanks or fighter aircraft. We should offer to sell them these relatively inexpensive defensive systems, and to provide the advisory services to make the best use of them. But the first step has to be for the Eastern Europeans to make a larger commitment to their own defense.COMMENT BY ROWAN BERKELEY ON XYMPHORA.

it would also be a good idea to be aware of the propaganda lies that the EU is prepared to indulge in and will expect Ireland to be a party to if signing the Lisbon treaty:

EU capital faces Georgia and Russia propaganda campaign

LEIGH PHILLIPS

30.08.2008 @ 17:02 CET

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - The guns may have fallen silent in Georgia but the propaganda war on who started the conflict has just begun, with Russia and Georgia each selling their side of the story to diplomats, MEPs and media in Brussels.

EU diplomats refuse to discuss - publicly - who struck first, preferring to focus on Russia's subsequent actions and delivery of aid. But while most of Europe stands shocked after Russian jets bombed towns deep inside Georgia, Tbilisi's decision to attack Tshkinvali has not gone unnoticed either. A Georgian government advisor told EUobserver. "Georgia only attacked Tskhinvali after Russia entered Georgian territory," he said, adding that Mr Saakashvili "had no other option" and that "in the course of the Georgian action, there were no known atrocities."The Georgian timeline describes how from 15 July to 2 August, Russia conducted military exercises near the breakaway regions. After the manouevres (code-named "Caucasus 2008") ended, the troops were never redeployed.Georgia also highlights a 29 July escalation in which rebels began shelling Georgian-controlled villages and the subsequent mobilisation of North Caucasus mercenaries, whom Tbilisi blames for a series of atrocities in the 1990s."If the Georgian attack was such a 'surprise,' as the Russians repeatedly call it," the Georgian advisor asked, "how were they able to mobilise 80,000 troops on such short notice?"

The centrepiece of the Georgian narrative is that at 23:30 local time on 7 August, the Georgian government received intelligence reports from an unnamed foreign government that some 150 Russian armoured vehicles were approaching the Roki Tunnel - the only road connecting Russia and South Ossetia.It was only after Russian armed forces crossed into Georgian territory - at 23:50 - that Georgia attacked Tkshinvali. At 00:45 on 8 August, Georgia fired on a Russian column south of the Roki Tunnel, the Georgian advisor said.

"This is a blatant lie," Russia's ambassador to the EU, Vladimir Chizhov, told EUobserver in his turn, saying that Georgian military action began in mid-afternoon on 7 August not just before midnight, as the Georgians claim."At 14:42, Georgian officers in the joint peace-keeping headquarters [where Russian peacekeepers were also based] suddenly left, saying they were following the instructions of their capital. Shelling of the headquarters started thereafter and an hour later we had lost 10 Russian peacekeepers from the contingent."The Georgian general in command of the Georgian peacekeepers, Mamuka Kurashvili, then appeared on television in the early afternoon of 7 August to announce that a military operation "to restore 'constitutional order'" had begun."The Georgians began shelling the capital, Tskhinvali, at 22:35, using long-range artillery and multiple rocket launchers," Mr Chizhov said. "At 00:45 on 8 August, the Georgians were not firing on invading Russian forces, he added. "They were firing on a sleeping city."

Counting the dead

The day after fighting broke out, the South Ossetian separatists' leader, Eduard Kokoity, said Georgian forces killed some 1,400 people. Russia backed the figure, then spoke of 2,000 deceased civilians, repeatedly calling Georgia's actions "genocide."The Georgians say that as of 25 August (the most recent date for which they have offered figures), 75 Georgian civilians had died as a result of Russian actions and 273 wounded. Tbilisi scorns the Russian Tskhinvali death-toll, but has not offered an alternative count.

Human Rights Watch has also questioned the Russian numbers. "That the Russians came up with such a figure so quickly - within 48 hours - gives solid grounds to question the accuracy," the group's Rachel Denber said. "It takes a long time to gather accurate statistics on casualties, not just from hospitals, but [also] families who have buried relatives without reporting a death.[But] there is no doubt that the Georgian attack produced serious civilian casualties, as any indiscriminate use of force will do," she added. As to the question of genocide, "this is perhaps the gravest crime there is," Ms Denber said. "One has to begin asking if when governments are increasingly throwing out terms like that, whether it is diminishing the meaning of the word."

European capitals don't want to talk about who started the war, turning attention to the aid effort and saying Russia has failed to adhere to the six-point ceasefire plan it agreed with France and Georgia. "Who started the conflict is not an easy question with an easy answer," the spokesperson for the German mission to the EU, Ricklef Beutin, said. "It's up for historians to decide," the spokesperson for the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Rob Dekker, indicated. Spain "cannot take a concrete position" on the matter, a Spanish diplomat added.

But one EU diplomat privately blamed Georgia for the mess."Of course it was Georgia that started it, and the dialogue we have with Georgia will have to include this," the contact said, explaining that the EU is keeping silent on the matter so as not to diffuse its message on Russia's subsequent actions. "We need to send a very strong message to Russia that what they did is not OK. On that, we're all very unified. That's got to be the focus."

nor should we forget this event early this year:

'Britain planned secret camp in Afghanistan to retrain Taliban soldiers to fight for Nato'

Last updated at 10:11 04 February 2008

Britain drew up secret plans for a military training camp in Afghanistan for former Taliban fighters, it was claimed today.The covert operation would have seen as many as 2,000 Taliban fighters retrained to fight in local militias alongside Nato forces.The revelation has placed relations between Britain and President Hamid Karzai's government in Kabul at a new low.

It is understood the project was uncovered when the Afghan secret police seized documents from a team of Western officials travelling to Helmand Province in December.Two diplomats among the group - Mervyn Patterson, a United Nations political officer, and Michael Semple, deputy head of the EU mission in Afghanistan, were ordered to leave the country by President Karzai for "threatening national security".

At the time it was thought the two men had been expelled for allegedly attempting to negotiate with the Taliban. But it has now emerged their plans may have gone much further and involved trying to exploit divisions within the rebels.Senior Taliban commander Mansoor Dadullah was thought to have been willing to bring over his 1,800-strong force who would have been retrained at the secret camp near Musa Qala.The fighters would have been given military training and equipment including satellite phones.Others would have received vocational training to try to help stop them from growing opium.

Western diplomats say it was a British-led initiative but Britain has said neither of the expelled diplomats worked for Britain.Members of the team carried business cards saying they worked for the European Union Peace Building Programme. There is no evidence such an organisation exists.The latest disclosure is potentially a serious embarrassment for Gordon Brown who told MPs in December that no negotiations would take place with the Taliban."We are isolating and eliminating the leadership of the Taliban. We are not negotiating with them," he said.

The alleged scale of British involvement with the enemy is understood to have been one of the reasons why President Karzai rejected Lord Ashdown's appointment as the UN special envoy to his country.

Long live the Irish, say Europe's bloggers

According to European Business News from the EU Parliament - bloggers in many European newspapers have acclaimed theIrish NO Vote on the Lisbon Treaty. Here are some of the succinct blog statements:Staying independent and keeping their (Irish)culture is more important that creating a huge political monster,"KS in The Times

"This is the result of the short-sightedness of European leaders who have failed to take their people with them as they plot this grand design,"French "Liberation"

"We have lost control over who is selected to represent us (and I use the word represent lightly). Perhaps the public should be encouraged not to vote in EU elections at all, and to ignore the whole farcical exercise altogether."Josephine White Financial Times

....that streamline sounded like a synonym for "removing decision-making responsibilities from all those awkward national governments." Ed Ward The Times

Blogs also voiced the opinion that many European Countries would have rejected the Treaty if put to the popular vote.

HUMBERT SUMMER SCHOOL

23 August 2008

LIFE AFTER LISBON : SOVEREIGNTY & JUSTICE

by

Joe Noonan Solicitor

www.nlcc.ie

‘Spin reinforced a vicious circle of suspicion in politics, while a calculating politician, a cynical media and a distrusting public reinforced one another to hollow out the national conversation.’  Alpha Dogs by James Harding

We are in a very serious situation.  160 of our 166 TD’s urged us to vote Yes.   Some were more vocal in their urgings than others.   Six TD’s recommended a No vote.    862,415 people voted No and 752,451 voted Yes.   The importance of the Lisbon Treaty was initially downplayed.   The Minister for Foreign Affairs described the changes under the Treaty as ‘minuscule’.   The reality of course is far different.  The changes are significant far-reaching and in many respects unclear in their implications long-term.  There is no doubt that the Treaty was a big deal. 

Therefore the rejection by the people of the recommendation of the Government and largest opposition parties can fairly be described as a vote of No confidence in those parties on an issue of vital national importance.  It is not unreasonable to suggest that the proper course of action in these circumstances would be to have general election so that the breakdown in trust between the electorate and the elected representatives could be assuaged. 

Of course we are not going to have a general election however merited in principle it would be.   Instead what appears to be happening is that our Government is engaged in feverish furtive attempts to bypass or reverse the effect of the sovereign decision of the people.  I will say a little bit about the particular strategems later.

To begin lets briefly recall some salient facts.

The Treaty of Lisbon was a major document in every sense.  We are told it was the product of seven years’ negotiations.  If so then the negotiations may have overlooked the small matter of bringing the people along with the process.   As Oscar Wilde said ‘to lose one parent may be regarded as a misfortune;  but to lose both looks like carelessness’.  The product of these years of negotiations whether in the form of the Constitutional Treaty or the Lisbon Treaty has now been rejected by the electorate in no fewer than three countries, France, the Netherlands and Ireland.  It is commonly recognised that it would be rejected in many others if the opportunity was given to their electorates to vote on it.

‘The most striking change [between the Lisbon Treaty and Constitutional Treaty] is perhaps that in order to enable some governments to reassure their electorates that the changes will have no constitutional implications, the idea of a new and simpler treaty containing all the provisions governing the Union has now been dropped in favour of a huge series of individual amendments to two existing treaties.  Virtual incomprehensibility has thus replaced simplicity as the key approach to EU reform.  As for the changes now proposed to be made to the Constitutional Treaty, most are presentational changes that have no practical effect.   They have simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum’.  Garrent FitzGerald  Irish Times 30 June 2007

I respectfully agree with Dr FitzGerald’s view although of course I disagreed with his recommendation to vote Yes.

A remarkable feature of the Lisbon campaign and one that received little attention, was the mulish refusal of Government to refuse to tell the electorate why a referendum was necessary.  In other words what was it that Lisbonwould change in our Constitution that required us to ratify it by way of a constitutional amendment.    The Government had advice on this precise point from the Attorney General but refused to divulge it to the public who had paid for it.   The public was instead presented with a deliberately cynical strategy which the Government wrongly thought would stampede people into voting Yes in sufficient numbers.  That strategy, as well including the withholding of essential basic information about why we were asked to vote on this, also included withholding final confirmation that there would in fact be a vote by way of referendum until shortly before the Referendum Bill was put through the Dail.   While people assumed they would have a vote,  if you look closely at the official position you will see that this was never confirmed until very late in the day and as I say, this was then done without explaining to people why a referendum was necessary.

We had the astonishing report (leaked through the British Foreign Office) of discussions between our Department of Foreign Affairs and the British Foreign Service about elements of this strategy which were very disturbing.   The overall picture was one of a Government ganging up with other interests against its own people.  The situation was truly shocking.

People are not naïve and the Irish electorate is one of the most sophisticated in Europe.  They saw what was going on and they knew that it was wrong and they voted accordingly.

They did this after a campaign in which the Government failed completely to give any reasoned justification for a Yes vote and confined itself to personalised vicious attacks on anyone who dared to put their head above the parapet and call for a No.    Dissent was not to be tolerated.  It was to be rendered unthinkable.  Apart from abuse, the other tack taken by the Government came in the form of vague platitudes to the effect that we needed to ‘remain at the heart of Europe’ where we ‘punch above our weight’  whatever that may mean.

Well we all now know the outcome.  In Mayo 18,624 voted Yes and 30,001 voted No.  In every part of the country, urban, rural, North, South, East and West people turned out to vote this Treaty down in unprecedented numbers. 

We joined the people of France and the Netherlands in having expressed our view on the Lisbontype formula which sees greater centralisation of power in the EU and in the hands of the individual Ministers of Government who make up the Council of Ministers.

The promoters of the Treaty do not like being opposed and moves are now afoot to overcome the irritation of our No vote.

The proud Scot Sean Connery in his book ‘Being a Scot’ recalls how the first big break in his life came when he was five years old.  He says he did not realise it for another 70 years.  Age five was when he learned to read.  Reading the Lisbon Treaty was something we were told we did not need to do.  We simple needed to trust the judgement of our betters and do as we were told.  That is never a wise course of action particularly when our betters are seeking to improve their powers and job prospects at our expense.   Mr Cowen and Mr McCreevy could have saved themselves some embarrassment had they learned the lesson so eloquently expressed by Sean Connery on the wisdom of reading.

I work as a solicitor concentrating currently in the areas of environmental and planning law.  These are areas of practice that have significant European law components.  One of the basic needs in any civilised society in an effective system of access to justice.  Without that the powerful can trample on the powerless with impunity.    Traditionally the Irish legal system has striven to ensure that access to justice is as widely available as possible.  In part access depends on formal rights such as the standing to bring a court case and availability of legal aid.   Equally it depends on more intangible factors such as the availability of a body of lawyers equipped to argue cases competently across a broad range of areas.  The issues of access to justice are problematic at EU level for reasons that are clear enough once we look at the history of the EEC.     

Initially established to serve an organisation dealing primarily with trade and market issues the European Court of Justice had a limited remit. although it had a vocational role in enlarging its scope and powers, and those of the communities it was set up to serve.   The ECJ’s role was to resolve rows between the EC’s institutions and member states.   Big corporations which were directly affected by Community decisions also a right of access to the ECJ.   However, the access of individual citizens to the ECJ in general depends on the grace and favour of our Supreme Court to refer a case to the ECJ,  or on a decision by the Commission to act on a complaint. 

In the early stages, it may have been appropriate for individuals effectively to have been shut out from having any right of access to the ECJ.  As time goes on and the role of the European Community and the Union and the ECJ expands, this exclusion of people from direct access to justice is indefensible.   The informal complementary problem has also become more severe, namely the difficulty in finding accessible affordable legal advice from people equipped to give that advice in areas involving the interplay of European and Irish law.  Compartmentalisation and specialisation are accompanied by increasing remoteness from people.   The Lisbon Treaty by expanding further the areas of competence of the EU and ECJ  would have compounded these problems but even without the Treaty, these remain real problems in need of urgent attention.

The Government is now attempting somewhat desperately to find a way out of its proper role which would be to effectively represent the people and to do so by respecting and vindicating the decision to reject the Lisbon Treaty.

The British Foreign Secretary made it clear before the summit which followed the No vote that Brian Cowen had the right to bury the Lisbon Treaty.  Mr Cowen chose not to do so and instead appears to have been put into a position of adversary to his own people.  The current straws in the wind indicate that there are two possible avenues being explored by Government and its acolytes to bend us to their will.

One is the suggestion that the Treaty really did not need a referendum at all and that therefore it will be possible to ratify it by resolution by the Dáil and Seanad. 

We had a referendum because it was necessary legally to have referendum.   It was not held as an optional extra.  While it would have been courteous to the electorate to explain why it was necessary and to publish the Attorney General’s advice in that regard,   failure to do so does not change that essential fact.  By the same token, attempting or purporting to ratify the Lisbon Treaty by the Oireachtas would be illegitimate and would precipitate a constitutional crisis.  The fact that normally serious commentators have actively promoted this idea does them no credit.   If the Government attempt this they can expect trouble.   

The second method under consideration is simple rejection of the validity of the No decision by ignoring it and asking us to try again.   As a fig leaf there is a talk of declarations being somehow tacked onto the Treaty as if these would have any meaningful effect in law.  Of course they would not.   Declarations are of no legal significance when it comes to Treaties of this kind.  They are not part of the Treaty and they do not affect its content or interpretation by the European Court.   That is what differentiates them from the text of the Treaty itself or Protocols appended to the Treaty which do have those effects.  Presenting the Lisbon Treaty with as many declarations as they like is, in legal terms, simply asking us to vote again on the same legal document.   The Government has the capacity to do this in that they control the legislature and can pass as many referendum bills as they like.  That does not make it legitimate to do so.  In fact it would be an unprecedented breach of faith with the citizens of a most egregious nature.

The EU/EC has many virtues and many failings.  Like any organisation there are people involved at its core who spend much mental energy devising ways to aggrandise their positions and enhance their influence.   Lisbonis part of that process and it has been soundly thrashed now three times.   The EEC/EU is beginning to resemble a multinational HSE, a body stuck in perpetual efforts to restructure itself instead of concentrating on the job it is paid to do.  This must stop.  It is time to get back to work.

If a case for sensible constructive change exists and can be shown to exist then let us hear it.  We have not heard it so far.    Meanwhile let’s have some respect for the people of Europe in whose decisions commonsense and wisdom reside. 

The dilemma facing Europe is not an Irish dilemma.  It is a European wide dilemma of constitutional legitimacy.   We are told that we gain by pooling our sovereignty in the EEC.  No doubt there is truth in that.  However, sovereignty must be accompanied at all stages with its partner justice.  ‘Without Justice’ St Augustineasked ‘what is Sovereignty but organised robbery?’ 

Thanks to our Irish constitution, born of our historical experience which gives the right to individuals to restrain efforts by elected representatives to abuse their powers, or to enlarge those powers or give them away, Irish people had the opportunity to vote on the Treaty.   Deliberate obfuscation as Garret FitzGerald described, succeeded in depriving other European citizens of that opportunity.    This is all the more ironic when we read the fine words in Lisbon:

‘Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union.  Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen’ (Article 8.A.3 Treaty of European Union as it would have been amended by the Treaty of Lisbon).

Ireland has preserved for the European Community and Union the opportunity now to come to its senses.   It is time to address the practical problems that need to be faced in a way that will ensure the organisation’s survival into the future. 

End.

Ireland says No to the Lisbon Treaty

By Joe Noonan.

[Joe Noonan is a partner in Noonan Linehan Carroll Coffey, Solicitors, Cork.   He was an expert witness on foreign and security policy in the landmark Crotty case (1987) in which the Supreme Court decided that the Single European Act should be put to the Irish people by way of referendum.  The Crotty judgement is the reason Ireland held a referendum on the Lisbon treaty on June 12^th.  By a margin of 53.4 to 46.6 % voters rejected a proposal to allow the government to amend the Constitution to enable Ireland to ratify the treaty]

Leonard Cohen, the Canadian poet and songwriter, drew cheers from his Dublin concert audience a few days after the No vote: As we saw from the vote last week, Ireland continues to bewilder the world as you shape your destiny in this vale of tears. And at the risk of offending any atheists in the audience, God bless you.

Other comments from government circles in Paris and Berlin were in some cases frankly dismissive of the result. The Irish vote would be ‘respected’ but that word appeared to take on new meaning in this context, closer to the term ‘temporarily tolerated’. The Irish would have to vote again and come up with a more acceptable result next time. 

Subsequent events in Poland and the Czech Republic, as well as the agreement by the German government to defer further ratification steps pending the outcome of a challenge in the Federal Constitutional Court suggest that the Irish No was merely one expression of a wider concern – that the Lisbon prescription may not be universally welcome after all.

The cliché that there is a ‘disconnect’ between the national political leadership and the citizens in Ireland is now heard increasingly in other member states of the Community.  That term is shorthand for what Dr Roman Herzog, former President of Germany and former President of the Federal Constitutional Court, described in this way –

" Most people have a fundamentally positive attitude to European integration. But at the same time, they have an ever increasing feeling that something is going wrong, that a non-transparent, complex, intricate, mammoth institution has evolved, divorced from the factual problems and national traditions, grabbing ever greater competencies and areas of power; that the democratic control mechanisms are failing: in brief, that it cannot go on like this."

[Dr Roman Herzog, former President of Germany and former President of the German Constitutional Court, writing on the EU Constitutional Treaty, Welt Am Sonntag, 14 January 2007]

Dr Herzog wrote of ‘an ever greater, inappropriate centralisation of powers away from the Member States and towards the EU’.  The Irish No vote had many strands but it is fair to say that this was one of them.  While a number of specific concerns – taxation, defence, social policy, voting power - were mentioned by various interest groups the underlying theme was a sense of unease about further power slipping away.

The Treaty of Lisbon cannot come into effect unless it is ratified by all 27 member states. All member states agreed that ratification was a matter for each state to pursue in accordance with its own domestic constitutional requirements. In the case of Ireland, that was by way of an amendment to the Constitution which in turn requires the consent of the public by way of referendum. From an Irish  lawyer’s perspective, the suggestion that the Irish No vote was somehow unacceptable, is therefore challenging.  It will be for Irish politicians to address that challenge in the coming months.

The Irish government is now retaining pollsters to undertake a survey to help it ‘understand the voters’ attitudes’. That tactic smacks more of a Marketing Department trying to find ways of persuading consumers to switch from Coke to  Pepsi rather than a government in a parliamentary democracy seeking to implement a clear national mandate.

Law is ultimately about power and how it is to be exercised.  The Lisbon treaty  is about the redistribution of power between citizens and their governments, between big and small states in the EU, and between the member states and the EU itself.  The re-ordering of those complex power relationships can only succeed in the long term if there is a minimum level of popular support across the member states.  Governmental support alone is not sufficient.  The Irish No has brought to the surface the possibility that EU governments may have to revisit the Lisbon treaty and its vision of the EU in order to win that necessary support.  End.

Policy Transfer in European Union Governance

This new book presents a clear conceptual framework for understanding the transfer of policy ideas between EU states, together with an empirical study of regulatory change within European utilities.

Policy transfer is a new instrument for understanding EU policy-making. This volume shows how the nature of institutions, interdependence between trans-national and national jurisdictions and social systems, relate to policy actors across geographical boundaries, identifying four basic types of EU policy transfer and learning:

- uploading – how member states compete to shape the EU agenda in line with their own institutional arrangements and policy preferences

- downloading – how states adapt to changing EU incentives and constraints

- socialization – how EU policy norms are internalized in the belief systems of domestic actors

- information exchange – between national actors in the course of EU interactions leading to a horizontal diffusion of policy ideas.

The authors use an institutionalist perspective to show how these forms of policy transfer operate across the diverse systems of governance found across the EU.

Policy Transfer in European Union Governance will be of great interest to students and scholars of European Union politics and policy, comparative public policy and political economy.

• ISBN: 9780415374880
• Publisher: Routledge
• Author: Bulmer, Dolowitz, Humphreys and Padgett
• Language: English
• Type: 240mm X 160mm

Price: 104.25 €

Irish campaigner pleads for EU-wide Lisbon vote

VALENTINA POP

03.09.2008 @ 09:39 CET

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."

Copyright © 1999-2008 EUobserver.com, All rights reserved

Brussels in 'frightening' grab for personal information

Civil liberties and privacy are being eroded at a "breathtaking" rate by European Union governments, according to a report.

By Christopher Hope, Home Affairs Editor
Last Updated: 1:13AM BST 11 Sep 2008

Civil liberties watchdog Statewatch criticised the EU's post-9/11 security strategy as a "frightening" grab for every aspect of individual information.

The 60-page report - published on the seventh anniversary of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington - said that the EU now saw data privacy and judicial scrutiny of police surveillance tactics as obstacles to efficient law enforcement co-operation, rather than rights to be safeguarded.

The report, The Shape Of Things To Come, described a so-called EU "Future Group" preparing a new five-year security strategy as "shadowy".

It said that plans to co-operate with the US on "extremely controversial" techniques and technologies of surveillance and "enhanced" co-operation.

The group is accused of trying to harness a "digital tsunami" to aid law enforcement.

The Statewatch report quotes an EU Council of Ministers document on justice and security which declared: "Every object the individual uses, every transaction they make and almost everywhere they go will create a detailed digital record.

"This will generate a wealth of information for public security organisations, and create huge opportunities for more effective and productive public security efforts."

The report responds: "The implications of this statement are breath-taking. Across the EU, governments have, or are, adopting national laws for the mandatory retention of everyone's communications data - all forms of communication (phone calls, faxes, mobile calls including locations) which will be extended to keeping a record of all internet usage from 2009 - even though few are aware this is happening.

"This allows law enforcement and security agencies to get access to all traffic data - in the UK access is already automated."

The report goes on: "When traffic data including internet usage is combined with other data held by the state or gathered from non-state sources (tax, employment, bank details, credit card usage, biometrics, criminal record, health record, use of e-government services, travel history etc) a frightening detailed picture of each individual's everyday life and habits can be accessed at the click of a button."

The report adds: "The harnessing of the 'digital tsunami' by public security organisations means that expected behaviour can be assessed by 'machines' on the basis of which directions are given to state officials on the spot."

Statewatch says that, ever since 9/11, Washington has "got its way" on security policy to the detriment of privacy and protection data about EU citizens.

Statewatch director Tony Bunyan said: "EU standards have been by-passed or undermined and the USA has steadfastly refused to offer Europeans the equivalent level of privacy protection to US citizens."

On plans for the EU and Washington to now develop even closer co-operation across the entire justice and security policy area, he said: "It is hard to think of a greater danger to our privacy and civil liberties."

He called for a "meaningful debate" about the direction of EU justice and security policy, but warned: "There is now only a slim chance that the political elites in the Council of the European Union, the European Commission, national governments, the law enforcement agencies and the multinationals will change course - they have already invested too much to allow a meaningful public debate to take place."

Mr Bunyan said: "The national and European states require unfettered powers to access and gather masses of personal data on the everyday life of everyone in order so that we can all be safe and secure from perceived 'threats'.

"But how are we to be safe from the state itself, from its uses and abuses of the data they hold on us?"

French cabinet row over 'Big Sister' database

An embarrassing row has erupted within the French cabinet over a controversial "Big Sister" database in which the intelligence services will store details on millions of citizens, including their health, social life or sexual orientation.

By Henry Samuel in Paris
Last Updated: 7:28PM BST 08 Sep 2008

Hervé Morin, the defence minister, broke ranks to join an army of associations, the main judges' union, civil liberty groups, unionists and opposition figures all opposed to Edvige - the acronym for the computer system.

Edvige, also a woman's Christian name, was created by decree in July to collect information on anyone aged 13 or above who is "likely to breach public order". But it can also list anyone in politics or trade unions or with a significant role in business, the media, entertainment or social or religious institutions."Surely this is a curious mix-up of categories," said Mr Morin, a centrist party MP who joined President Nicolas Sarkozy's "rainbow" cabinet last year. "Is it useful to gather data such as telephone numbers, sexual orientation, and details of taxes and assets and the like without knowing exactly what the point is?" Mr Morin was firmly rebuked by the prime minister François Fillon. "I don't think it is necessary to create suspicion when none exists and I had the occasion to tell him so," he said.

Michèle Alliot-Marie, the Interior Minister, who is tasked with pushing through Mr Sarkozy's tough law-and-order agenda that helped him win last year's presidential election, was equally vociferous."It is odd that Mr Morin has not managed to find my telephone number. I would have set his mind at rest," she said.

Edvige, according to the government, is simply a spruced-up version of a file system already used by the Renseignements Généraux (RG), a police intelligence service which civil liberties groups claim has files on 20 million people. The RG has spied on French citizens since it was founded by Napoleon Bonaparte's police chief, Joseph Fouché and was merged this year with the DST, France's MI5 responsible for counter-espionage and anti-terrorism. Edvige is to be the tool of the new merged agency called the DCRI (Central Directorate of Internal Intelligence).The campaign to dump Edvige - dubbed "Sarkozy's Big Sister" by the French press - began after France's data privacy watchdog, the National Commission on Information Technology and Freedom (CNIL), obliged the government to go public on the system.

Since then, the anti-Edvige revolt has gathered pace. More than 120,000 people have signed a petition to have it dropped and more than dozen lawsuits have been filed against it at the Conseil d'Etat, France's highest civil court.Unionists and left-wing groups were the first to complain. Laurence Parisot, the head of the Medef employer's union, has demanded an "explanation" from the interior ministry while Michel Pezet, a former member of the CNIL agency, described the system as an "electronic Bastille".

"There is nothing to be worried about," countered Brice Hortefeux, minister for immigration and national identity. "Today there's a debate. Complaints have been filed, let them be examined."

Multilingualism a 'damned nuisance' says Dutch academic

TERESA KÜCHLER

15.09.2008 @ 18:35 CET

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - On the eve of the release of the European Commission's first-ever communication on mulitlingualism, a Dutch academic has called multilingualism "a pain in the neck" at an EU debate on the topic in Brussels.

Abram de Swaan, emeritus research professor for social science at the University of Amsterdam, put a cat amongst the pigeons at a recent debate organised by the European Commission by attacking the need to employ multiple languages.

"Language diversity is not of itself a wealth, treasure or richness. On the contrary: it's a damned pain in the neck," he said on at the debate exploring whether multilingualism is a bridge or a barrier to intercultural dialogue within the EU, jointly organised last Thursday (12 September) with the European Union of National Institutes of Culture - the group that brings together language promotion organisations such as the Goethe Institut and the Alliance Francaise.

Mr de Swaan said he believes that the complexity of European communication is leading to an impoverished political debate, and, curiously, it is the very usage of a multiplicity of languages that is leading to the dominance of English. "[Multilingualism] makes it very, very difficult for us to communicate and have a shared public space in which the citizens of Europe can congregate and act out European politics. It's a damned nuisance," Mr de Swaan added. "Cultural diversity is guaranteed much more by the free-flowing traffic and the encounters between people in one language community in which they can clash and argue, than by the fact that some people can speak more than one language - and all those languages may basically represent the same culture. The more languages we allowed to flower, the more English will prevail. And that is exactly the present predicament of the European Union."

The debate was the fifth of six planned gatherings as part of the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue that have taken place in Brussels throughout 2008, with each debate taking on a specific sectoral view on intercultural dialogue, such as media, arts, the workplace, inter-religious dialogue, education, integration and, on Monday - language.Sandra Pralong, a member of the so-called "group of intellectuals for intercultural dialogue" much preferred a multilinguistic option for Europe, and suggested that every European should "adopt" another language that would be his or her second mother tongue - a key recommendation of her clatch of boffins.

Several members of the audience in Brussels however pointed out that the panel was "preaching to the converted", by promoting multilingualism in the already very international Brussels environment. In the EU capital, thousands of children are schooled in one language, speak to their parents in one or two other languages, have a nanny they address in yet another language and playground friends who speak a whole set of other languages.

Commissioner Orban however very much sided with Ms Pralong."Multilingual people act as intercultural mediators and therefore are a precious asset to Europe," Leonard Orban, the Romanian commissioner for multilingualism said in his own proficient English.'Languages are one of the most effective tools for achieving intercultural dialogue," he said, although his comments did seem to concede some of the Dutch academic's points: "But we must recognise that diversity can also act as a barrier between cultures," the commissioner, whose native language is Romanian and also speaks French upon request. "Excessive assertion of identity can lead to intolerance and fanaticism. Accepting linguistic and cultural diversity is a powerful antidote to extremism."

On Wednesday, Mr Orban is expected to launch a new strategy - the first in his time as commissioner - which brings cultural, national identity and business issues together into one policy. One of the aims of the non-binding strategy would be for EU citizens to speak at least two foreign languages in addition to their mother tongue."I'm not convinced by the arguments of those who propose just one or two languages as the sole means of intercultural exchange," Mr Orban concluded.

According to a number of studies, EU businesses loses hundreds of thousands of euros each year due to communication barriers.

21:11 CET 16.09.2008

Copyright © 1999-2008 EUobserver.com, All rights reserved

MEPs say EU anti-pirate mission is 'military nonsense'

VALENTINA POP

15.10.2008 @ 15:02 CET

The EU naval mission to be deployed against pirates off the coasts of Somalia is a "military nonsense," "morally wrong" and has "no international legal basis," several MEPs said at a hearing in Brussels on Wednesday (15 November), as delegates from the EU council and the bloc's military co-ordination cell defended the project.

If approved by member states in November, the EU's first naval mission will consist of five or six ships from different EU countries under the command of UK vice-admiral Philip Jones and with headquarters in Northwood, Great Britain, Mrs Claude-France Arnould from the EU council - the secretariat of EU top diplomat Javier Solana - told MEPs.

Russia is also in "military talks" to offer help, but with no political decision reached yet, captain Andres Breijo Claur, the head of the EU's "NAVCO" co-ordination cell, said. NAVCO was set up in order to co-ordinate the different existing naval forces in the waters off the Somali coast, including NATO and US led counter-terrorism task forces.

Since January this year, heavily armed pirates operating in the region where Somalia's northeastern tip meets the Indian Ocean have carried out 71 attacks on ships and still hold 11 ships for ransom. The maritime route is of strategic importance not only to food aid for African countries, but also because it leads to the Suez Canal through which an estimated 30 percent of the world's oil transits.

NATO members at an informal meeting last week in Budapest agreed to despatch immediately a joint fleet of NATO ships to escort UN vessels delivering food in the area.

Under fire from several MEPs who said the EU is needlessly duplicating NATO efforts, the council's Mrs Arnould said NATO has not actually deployed any ships yet, with individual efforts from countries like Canada, Denmark and the Netherlands now and then escorting UN ships for the time being.

Calling the planned EU mission "military nonsense" and a "desperate attempt" by the French EU presidency "to run up the EU flag on another military operation during its time in office," British Conservative MEP Geoffrey van Orden said.

"It is a pity that the British government has agreed to an EU naval operation at the same time that NATO will be engaged in the same waters. Not only does this introduce unnecessary complexity and political confusion but it stretches our meagre naval assets even further. Bear in mind that in the last 10 years the destroyer and frigate fleet of the Royal Navy has been reduced from 35 to 25," he told EUobserver.

Greek MEP Giorgos Dimitrakopoulos from the EPP-ED group criticized the set up of a "global armada," while German green MEP Angelika Beer underlined the lack of international law to sustain the proposed European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) mission.

"There is no clarity to the limitations of this mandate. Will the EU be able to sink ships and arrest pirates?" she asked.

Portuguese socialist MEP Ana Maria Gomes gave a fiery speech on the "moral problem" of the EU mission, which, in her opinion, is only about "protecting oil tankers."

"Nobody gives a damn about the people in Somalia who die like flies," she said.

16.10.2008

Copyright © 1999-2008 EUobserver.com, All rights reserved