Statement by Anthony Coughlan, Director
The National Platform EU Research and Information Centre, Dublin

Sunday 1 November 2009

Czech and Irish opposition to ratifying the Lisbon Treaty has been dealt with by different political promises that are supposed to be embodied in the next EU Accession Treaty.

This can be seen from the text of Friday’s October European Council Conclusions, as compared with those of June last, which prepared the way for the Ireland’s second Lisbon Treaty referendum. Relevant excerpts are given below.

The Czechs have been promised an opt-out from Lisbon’s Charter of Fundamental Rights at some future date, even after the Charter has become legally binding on them as a result of Lisbon coming into force. A Draft Protocol that could - or might - do this when the time comes is annexed to last Friday’s European Council Conclusions.

Last June the Irish were given interpretative declarations on concerns such as tax, abortion and neutrality and were promised that these would be embodied in a future Accession Treaty Protocol. In contrast to the promise to the Czechs, no draft of such a Protocol was agreed, but the European Council Conclusions stated that it “will clarify but not change either the content or the application of the Treaty of Lisbon” (See text below).

So the Czechs have been promised a real change in the Lisbon Treaty at some future date, and an actual draft of such a Protocol has been drawn up to keep them happy while President Vaclav Klaus permits the ratification of Lisbon. The Irish have been promised a draft Protocol to meet their concerns in some future EU Accession Treaty, but the promise has been accompanied by a statement that this Protocol will not change anything in Lisbon.

Will these promises be fulfilled?

There is no problem with the Irish. Their promised future Protocol will be redundant anyway, for it will not change anything which is already contained in Lisbon. This qualification was explicitly made when this future Protocol was first mooted.

The promise to the Czechs is more problematic, for the following reasons:

1. When the next EU Accession Treaty comes around the Czech Government then in office may no longer wish for a full opt-out from the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, either because it takes a different view of it from the present Czech Government or because of domestic opposition at the time to such a step, in particular from the Czech trade unions.

2. The main Hungarian Opposition party, Fidesz, which is expected to win next year’s elections in Hungary, has stated that it will vote against ratification of the EU’s pledge to give the Czechs an opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights because of its concern over Hungarian property claims arising from the post-World War 2 Benes decrees; and any such opt-out would have to be unanimously agreed by all Member States when they come to ratify the future Accession Treaty to which it was attached.

3. Czechs, Germans, Hungarians etc. will all become citizens of the constitutionally new European Union which would be established by the Lisbon Treaty once that Treaty comes into force. In implementing Union law at national level thereafter the Member States will have to recognise the EU citizenship of their national citizens and the rights and entitlements as EU citizens which their national citizens will acquire under the Charter. It would be open to all EU citizens - Germans, Hungarians, Czechs or whatever - to institute legal actions and claims under the Charter of Fundamental Rights immediately the Lisbon Treaty comes into force, including property claims arising from the Benes decrees - and to expect that such actions would be justiciable in national courts as actions of EU citizens. If legal actions over such claims are already instituted under the Charter, it is hard to see EU Governments whose nationals are involved in such legal actions agreeing to ratify an Accession Treaty one of whose purposes would be to make such actions invalid or ultra vires.

4. The Heads of State or Government who will be in office when the next EU Accession Treaty comes up for ratification will be different from the present group. There is no guarantee that they will all feel similarly bound by the political commitment regarding the Czechs given by their predecessors the other day, not least because the legal status of the European Council itself will be changed by the Lisbon Treaty. For Lisbon proposes to make the European Council into an EU institution for the first time, whose actions and failures to act would thereafter be subject to review by the Court of Justice. It is arguable therefore whether the present European Council can bind a future one based on a different legal constitution in the way that is proposed in last Friday’s EU “summit” Conclusions.

October 2009 European Council Conclusions … Excerpts re the Czech Republic

2 ) The European Council recalls that the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon requires ratification by each of the 27 Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. It reaffirms its determination to see the Treaty enter into force by the end of 2009, thus allowing it to develop its effects in the future.

On this basis, and taking into account the position taken by the Czech Republic, the Heads of State or Government have agreed that they shall, at the time of the conclusion of the next Accession Treaty and in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, attach the Protocol (in Annex 1) to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

In this context, and with regard to legal application of the Treaty of Lisbon and its relation to legal systems of Member States, the European Council confirms that:

a) The Treaty of Lisbon provides that “competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States” (Art.5(2)TEU);

b) The Charter is “addressed to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law” (Art 51(1) (Charter)

ANNEX 1:

PROTOCOL ON THE APPLICATION OF THE CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION TO THE CZECH REPUBLIC

The Heads of State or Government of the 27 Member States of the European Union, taking note of the wish expressed by the Czech Republic,

Having regard to the Conclusions of the European Council,

Have agreed on the following Protocol:

Article 1

Protocol No 3o on the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to Poland and to the United Kingdom shall apply to the Czech Republic.

Article 2

The Title, Preamble and operative part of Protocol No 30 shall be modified in order to refer to the Czech Republic in the same terms as they refer to Poland and to the United Kingdom.

Article 3

This Protocol shall be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

June 2009 European Council Conclusions … Excerpts re Ireland

The European Council also agreed that other concerns of the Irish people, as presented by the Taoiseach, relating to taxation policy, the right to life, education and the family, and Ireland’s traditional policy of military neutrality, would be addressed to the mutual satisfaction of Ireland and the other Member States, by way of the necessary legal guarantees. It was also agreed that the high importance attached to a number of social issues, including workers’ rights, would be confirmed.

4 ) Against this background, the European Council has agreed on the following set of arrangements, which are fully compatible with the Treaty, in order to provide reassurance and to respond to the concerns of the Irish people:

(a) Decision of the Heads of State or Government of the 27 Member States of the European Union, meeting within the European Council, on the concerns of the Irish people on the Treaty of Lisbon (Annex 1); (b) Solemn Declaration on Workers’ Rights, Social Policy and other issues (Annex 2).

The European Council has also taken cognisance of the unilateral declaration of Ireland (Annex 3), which will be associated with the Irish instrument of ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon.

5 ) Regarding the Decision in Annex 1, the Heads of State or Government have declared that:

(i) this Decision gives legal guarantee that certain matters of concern to the Irish people will be unaffected by the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon;

(ii) its content is fully compatible with the Treaty of Lisbon and will not necessitate any re-ratification of that Treaty;

(iii) the Decision is legally binding and will take effect on the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon;

(iv) they will, at the time of the conclusion of the next accession Treaty, set out the provisions of the annexed Decision in a Protocol to be attached, in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

(v) the Protocol will in no way alter the relationship between the EU and its Member States. The sole purpose of the Protocol will be to give full Treaty status to the clarifications set out in the Decision to meet the concerns of the Irish people. Its status will be no different from similar clarifications in Protocols obtained by other Member States. The Protocol will clarify but not change either the content or the application of the Treaty of Lisbon.

The Northern Ireland Assembly motion of 20th October 2009, passed by 47 to 19 votes, indicated:

“That this Assembly notes the verdict of the Republic of Ireland electorate on the Lisbon Treaty referendum; reaffirms its support for a referendum in the United Kingdom on the Treaty; and calls for a declaration from those parties aspiring to form the incoming Government of the United Kingdom to give an unequivocal commitment to hold, within a twelve month period from assuming office in 2010, a binding referendum on the Lisbon Treaty that is unconditional and unrelated to how other member states choose to vote, and the result of which will not be held in abeyance pending a further referendum on the subject.”

tnx to eGov monitor

We wish to inform you that a Website has been set up to provide information on the current status of affairs concerning the irregularities that surround the Referendums concerning 28th Amendment to the Irish Constitution and on details on how these matters are progressing through the courts.

The Website can be viewed here.

In brief:

The website outlines details of five cases brought on 12 October 2009 by Four Concerned Citizens of the Republic of Ireland which challenge, by way of Judicial Review, the validity of the 28th Amendment to the Constitution Bill (2009). The Attorney General had indicated that Ireland was not in a position to ratify the Lisbon Treaty unless there was a successful referendum and an amendment to Bunreacht na hÉireann - the Irish Constitution.

The cases are:

1. REA -V- IRELAND & ORS 2009/1042 JR;
2. MC CRYSTAL -V- IRELAND & ORS 2009/1043 JR;
3. BEHAL -V- IRELAND & ORS 2009/1044 JR;
4. BENNIS -V- IRELAND & ORS 2009/1045 JR.

These cases, all of which were refused ex-parte leave for Judicial Review are now formally appealed to the Supreme Court and this process of appeal is ongoing. Priority listing will be applied for but it is unlikely that the appeal will be heard within the next two weeks and likely even longer.

Yours sincerely,

Concerned Citizens

Lisbon court challenge rejected

The High Court has rejected an application by four people challenging the result of the Lisbon Treaty Referendum.

The four, Nora Bennis from Limerick, Harry Rea from Blarney Road in Cork, Mark McCrystal from Swords in Dublin and Richard Behill from Killarney, Co Kerry were told by Mr Justice Sean Ryan that their case contained technical legal points with which he disagreed.

He said the case was also ‘based on politics and not law’ and provided no legal basis on which to seek a judicial review of the result of the Referendum.

The court heard the four were seeking to have the result of the referendum declared null and void, a declaration that the Government had acted unlawfully by failing to lay the guarantees before the Oireachtas and that the amendment was repugnant to the Constitution.

The text that accompanies the video on Youtube:

While following the van carrying ballot boxes from a Boyle, Roscommon polling station to the counting centre at Roscommon town with an unmarked detective car behind it all the way, we witnessed an inexplicable stop-off at a petrol station for between 15 to 20 minutes. The driver of the van got out of the van, leaving the ballot boxes unattended, and entered the garda car. I only started filming the scene after he entered the garda car but you can hear from our chit-chat that we are talking about it etc. About 3 minutes and 50 seconds through the video you can see the driver getting out of the garda car and walking to the petrol station shop. After a minute or two he comes back and enters the van. After a further minute he then drives of with unmarked garda car following.

The van was left apparently unattended for between 8 and 9 minutes with 13 ballot boxes from a number of different Boyle polling stations. At no time did we see whether there was anybody else in the back of the van or not. We believe this could be a perfect opportunity for ballot boxes to be tampered with in the back of the van.

My earlier experiences while monitoring the polling in Boyle included security issues regarding the seals on the boxes. They were badly sealed with ribbons and wax seals and one of the boxes out of the 6 at my polling station was not sealed at all, just triple knotted. I addressed this issue and it was rectified, but I was still not happy with the seals. When I informed the garda on duty at the polling station he refused to look at the seals with me as a witness, but he took my name and ID details!

In fact there was no garda on duty when the polling station was opened at 7am. I managed to get in there and handle the boxes even though I did not have at that point in time the official authorization letter from the returning officer ( I did receive authorization later on). In my opinion anyone could have bluffed their way in there.

Please bear in mind that this petrol station is just round the corner from the counting house about 20 seconds. Therefore they did not stop off for a mere half-way rest!

I believe that just these many experiences of mine, from one small polling station in Ireland, are indicative of potential voter fraud built into the whole Lisbon referendum. I am receiving many stories from across Ireland that are very similar and there appears to be many patterns.

Please add comments or ask me anything you like. I would also like to hear more stories from people about possible vote fraud and lack of security.

Now it stands at one-one. When will Ireland vote a third time?

“The people has spoken with a clear voice” declared the Irish prime minister Brian Cowen, when it was apparent that the yes-side had won the second round in the match between Ireland and the Lisbon Treaty. Last time in June 2008 after the Irish people spoke “with a clear voice” and rejected the treaty with 54.3 percent vote Brian Cowen asked his colleagues in the other 26 member states to give time to analyse why the people voted as they did.

Half a year later the Irish government had reached the conclusion that it was not (of course) the Lisbon Treaty per se people had rejected, but their “concerns” only dealt with the abortion issue, the tax and neutrality politics and that Ireland should lose “its” EU-commissioner.

At the European Council meeting last December the Heads of States agreed to use an emergency exist in the still not ratified treaty and promised that the Commission should be composed of one commissionaire per member country even after 2014. (But as nothing should be changed in the treaty this promise is only written in sand). In addition the Heads of States agreed to invent some form of “necessary legal guarantees” concerning the other “concerns” as these had been defined by the Irish government.

From January negotiations took place behind closed doors in Brussels. “It is difficult, the guarantees must be formulated in way that they will give security to the Irish but also convince the other member states that nothing will be changed in the treaty today or tomorrow”, declared the Swedish minister of European Affairs after consultation with the Consultation Board of the Swedish Parliament in June just before the Council meeting.

After some trouble initiated by Great Britain the Council meeting took a “decision” which implied that Ireland got “legal guarantees” concerning “taxation policy, the right to life, education and the family, and Ireland traditional policy of military neutrality”.

In essential these “legal guarantees” are nothing new. The intent was to “provide reassurance and respond to the concerns of the Irish people” as it was formulated in the decision. It was not a question to make any change in the Lisbon Treaty. “The legal guarantees are only valid for Ireland and will change nothing in the treaty per se” the current president of the EU Fredrik Reinfeldt told at a press conference in Brussels after the meeting.

The editorial of the Svenska Dagbladet (a conservative morning paper) wrote “EU cosmetic will win the Irish votes” when it was clear that the Irish should vote another time of “in principle the same thing”, and added “We guarantee that you will not be compelled to do what you anyway don’t need to do”.

Such empty words were enough for Brian Cowen to decide upon a second referendum. This time 67 percent voted as the Irish and European power elite requested. The yes win is indisputable (even if the methods used were dubious). Congratulations, Brian Cowen. Now it stands one-one in the match Ireland versus Lisbon Treaty.

Now we expect that the Irish government at the next European Council meeting in October once more will ask the governments in the 26 member states to get time to analyse why the Irish people voted as it did and that Brain Cowen soon will set up a parliamentarian committee with the task to single out to what the Irish voted yes. Can we be sure that the Irish voted yes to the treaty? And if so, why, as the Irish voted the exact same treaty as they earlier rejected?

The yes campaign before the second vote dealt with other problems than the Lisbon Treaty. None of the numerous posters the yes side political parties and their cover up organisations like “Ireland for Europe” and “Europe for Ireland” had posted in Dublin and around Ireland dealt with treaty. Instead the message was “Vote for jobs”, “Yes for the Economy”, “Vote for recovery” just to mention a few.

Under the headline “Thanks to the crisis” the editorial of Expressen (liberal evening paper) concludes: “If it had not been for the global financial situation and the serious economic situation the Irish may had kept its no”. Against this background it would be natural that the Irish government immediately makes a formal request to the next European Council to deliver “legal guarantees” to the Irish people so that the Lisbon Treaty will get rid of the unemployment and solve the economic crisis and then let the Irish people vote a third time.

Anything else would be a “democratic circus” (to borrow an appropriate editorial expression from the liberal morning paper Dagens Nyheter). We do not believe that it is only when the people vote against what the establishment requests that referendums are rerun.

Brian Cowen and Fredrik Reinfeldt: When will we see the third round in the match Ireland versus Lisbon Treaty?

Jan-Erik Gustafsson and Gösta Torstensson
People’s Movement No to the EU, Sweden

Klaus Won’t Sign the Lisbon Treaty
The Czech president will hold out until the Tories bury the EU’s power grab.

The Irish may have said Yes to the Lisbon Treaty, but the bureaucrats in Brussels have not yet won. If anything, the shameful browbeating of the Irish electorate into reversing its previous rejection of the Treaty will steel the resolve of those who oppose additional centralization of power in Brussels. Czech President Vaclav Klaus has so far refused to sign off on the Treaty that the Czech parliament has already adopted. The president is officially waiting for a decision from the highest Czech court on the treaty’s constitutionality.

And much more in the WSJ article by Mr. Marian L. Tupy from the Cato Institute.

The last referendum on European Treaties

By Jens-Peter Bonde
Author, Member of the European Parliament 1979-2008

Friday 2 October 2009 will be seen as a sad day in European history. A re-run of a referendum rejecting the Lisbon Treaty has been approved by some 67% of Irish voters on a turnout of 58% of the electorate.

This may be the last referendum on EU Treaties. Next time they will amend the Treaties without asking any voters.

We have to recognise that there is a new majority in Ireland; but I will never regard the outcome as a popular approval of the Lisbon Treaty.

First, the original EU Constitution was rejected in 2005 by 55% of French voters and 62% of Dutch ones. Legally, that should have been the end of it. Then all the provisions of the Constitution were presented again in a new envelope, to use the words of Giscard d`Estaing, the former French President who chaired the Convention on the Future of Europe which drew it up. I promised a bottle of first-class wine to anyone who could give me just one example of a European law that could be passed by the EU Constitution but not by the Lisbon Treaty. To include non-drinkers in my target group I have since added a box of the best Belgian chocolates to that offer, but I still have not received an example.

The EU Constitution and Lisbon Treaty are the same. The approval of Lisbon by the French Parliament is illegal politically because in a democracy a parliamentary law cannot undo a referendum. Referendum re-runs have taken place in Venezuela and Zimbabwe, but such behaviour is not for true democracies. Then all other planned referendums in the EU countries were cancelled. The Irish voters rejected the Lisbon Treaty on a 53% turnout on 12 June 2008 - against a 95% majority in the Irish Parliament, the Dail, who favoured the Treaty.

The 27 Prime Ministers and Presidents of the EU would not take No for an answer. They prepared a re-run by offering so-called legally binding guarantees. This allowed the Irish Government and the main Irish political parties to present a new package that supposedly respected all the Irish concerns.

First, these “Irish assurances” cannot be legally binding in European law, since it is forbidden to settle any dispute on the interpretation of European Treaties outside the European Court in Luxembourg. The exclusive right of the EU Court to adjudicate on all disputes about the Treaties is set out in Art. 344 TFEU.

Secondly, the “assurances” contain a specific clause stating that they do not change “either the content or the application of the Treaty of Lisbon”. These simple facts have not prevented the Irish Yes-side from presenting a set of politically opportune words as legally binding Treaty changes. Ireland’s independent statutory “Referendum Commission” used half the space in the leaflet it sent to all Irish households to describe these “assurances”, despite that document not being approved or adopted by the Irish Parliament, or referring to Ireland’s Constitutional Amendment or making any changes in the Lisbon Treaty.

Voters were told that they would lose the Irish Commissioner if they voted No, but would keep it with a Yes. The fact is that Art. 213 TEC of the Nice Treaty guarantees a Commissioner for each EU member state until all member states unanimously agree on a reduction.

The Lisbon Treaty on the other hand reduces the Commission to 18 members until the member states unanimously agree to continue with one Commissioner each. They have decided to make that amendment politically - at least until the next enlargement of the EU.

Therefore the next EU Commission will consist of one Commissioner from each Member State, regardless of whether the Irish vote Yes or No. This fact was concealed from Irish voters.

The simple facts have been turned around in a concerted campaign of misinformation coordinated by the European Commission, by Ireland’s own Referendum Commission and by the Irish Government illegally using taxpayers’ money to further one side in a constitutional referendum, even though the Irish Supreme Court has explicitly forbidden that.

These three institutions also agreed to hide the most important changes in the Lisbon Treaty, for example the change in the voting system for making European laws, whereby Ireland and other small member states lose half their share of the vote, while the largest member states increase their voting power by from 50% to 100%.

The European Commission also assured Irish voters that nothing would change as regards taxation, despite the fact that a harmonisation of the corporate tax base is in the Commission`s own working programme, and a proposal to that end has already been drafted by the Commission services. Art. 113 TFEU inserts a new clause on distortion of competition in tax matters. How can the European Commission or anyone else guarantee that it will never be used?

I did not see one single poster in Ireland in favour of the Lisbon Treaty. The Yes posters were all promoting Irish membership of the European Union or even Europe itself, which no one was arguing against. Former President of the European Parliament Pat Cox offered an easy choice between “ruin” and “recovery” in a masterly propaganda campaign that was financed by many millions of taxpayers’ and big company money. The Yes side must have outspent the Nos by at least ten to one.

It is really quite amazing that 33% of Irish voters nonetheless voted for ruin!

“Europe For Ireland.eu” did not have one word about the Lisbon Treaty in a full-page advertisement in various Irish newspapers the day before the referendum. Instead it offered “Cheap flights, Champions League, Jobs, Equal Pay, Eurovision Song Contest, Food Safety, Heineken Cup, New Motorways, Modern Agriculture” - as if an Irish song or singer could never again win the European Song Contest if the Irish voted No to Lisbon!

One of the No-side groups suggested that the Irish minimum wage might be lowered from €8.65 to €1.84 - with a question mark on the actual amount. They were called liars by the European Commission even though the Commission itself has proposed to allow all non-Irish migrant workers to work for their home country wage in Ireland - which can be even less than the ¤1.84 stated. That figure is the average minimum wage in the ten new Member States.

The Laval Court case forbids trade unions from taking industrial action for higher wages than the statutory minimum or the generally applicable national wage standard. This means that 95% of Irish workers earning more than the country’s minimum wage of €8.65 an hour may be affected by the Lisbon Treaty’s copperfastening of that verdict.

The issue is actually worse than that implied by the much criticised No-side poster. Only 5% of workers are on the minimum wage in Ireland. They may not suffer from any change. It is the 95% of the workers earning more than the minimum who may see their wages attacked by the Laval principle forbidding industrial action over wage-rates higher than the Irish minimum of ¤8.65 per hour.

The Rüffert case has gone even further and permitted 53 Polish workers to be paid only 46% of the minimum wage as set down by the German state of Lower Saxony for construction work. It is now illegal in all EU Member States to require the normal payment for public contract workers. All Member States have to permit home country levels of wages and salaries as long as they are above the statutory minimum wage covering all workers.

This is the simple result of the EU Court’s radical decisions. These were hidden in all official information in Ireland’s referendum, which instead promised a new social guarantee based on the Irish assurances, which in reality were empty words that do not change one dot or comma of the Lisbon Treaty or the Laval, Rüffert and related EU Court judgements.

The Irish Yes-side succeeded in calling the No-side liars, even though that word would have better described their own concerted misinformation.

The major difference between the first and second Irish referendum is the economic crisis in Ireland - an expected fall in national output in 2009 of one-tenth, a Budget deficit of 12% of Ireland’s GDP, unemployment of 450,000 out of a workforce of 2.2 million and a resumption of net emigration from the country.

Voters were scared by the Yes side’s threat to their jobs. Many Irish employers told their employees that they would lose their jobs if it was a No-vote. The Yes side promised economic recovery in return for a Yes. After three weeks in Ireland I could never accept Ireland’s referendum re-run as a free public assessment on the Lisbon Treaty. I did not meet voters who had changed their minds on the Treaty since last year, but I met many who changed their votes from No to Yes out of fear.

This country is broken, said a leading businessman with whom I debated on Irish radio. We must accept what they want. We need the European Central Bank to bail us out.

That is where we are. The Lisbon Treaty has not been agreed upon, but has been adopted by Ireland.

What should Poland and the Czech Republic now do? Wait for final ratifications until the British election by next summer and see if a new British Government will deliver the Referendum promised by Blair and Brown before the last UK general election. Since Blair and Brown have reneged on a clear electoral promise to the British people, it is absolutely justified to wait another few months. British elections will take place by May 2010. The Conservative Party has promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty if it is not already ratified by all member states when they enter into office.

On 30 June 2009 the German Constitutional Court made a radical criticism of the Lisbon Treaty. The Court went so far as to suggest that ratifications of the Treaty in different countries might be unconstitutional unless they are accompanied by national rules on parliamentary approval of various modes of implementation of the Treaty, and laws that safeguard the possibility of voters changing the laws that govern them through elections to their National Parliaments.

That German Court verdict is an open invitation to encourage similar court cases in all countries where parliamentary procedures for controlling the executive’s handling of EU affairs under Lisbon have not been introduced or are too weak. I would like to hear from legal experts in the different member states on the possibility of safeguarding the principles of democracy which would otherwise be breached by the Lisbon Treaty unless such national laws are first introduced, as they have now been - inadequately - by legislation in Germany and by the constitutional amendment just voted on in Ireland.

The core of democracy is the ability to stand for elections, create a new majority and consequently have new laws. This principle is abandoned in 49 new areas by the Lisbon Treaty. The European Parliament will gain in influence, sure, but it will not gain as much as voters and members of the National Parliaments will lose. The net result will be an even worse EU democratic deficit. And this flies in the face of the German Constitutional Court judgement.

Court cases in different countries may be a way to safeguard the idea of democracy in Europe, which was born in Athens some 2500 years ago. This idea could be implemented as three concrete demands on the EU institutions, which all can be implemented with and without the Lisbon Treaty.

1. We must insist on the basic principle of democracy whereby all laws are adopted by elected members of parliament, either national or European;

2. We must reform the rules on transparency in the EU so that all legislative meetings and documents are open and transparent unless reasoned derogations are agreed;

3. We cannot continue leaving the monopoly of legislative initiative with non-elected Commissioners. Why not elect them by direct elections in each Member State? That may now be the only method to ensure that they are appointed bottom-up instead of top-down, as provided for in the Lisbon Treaty, which only allows Governments to put forward suggestions instead of proposals for their nominees.

Such reforms could be the joint result of a series of court cases which could focus on the constitutional need to overcome the EU’s democratic deficit that will be increased by the Lisbon Treaty.

These demands could also be the basis for establishing new political movements, parties and alliances across Europe in defence of democracy in the EU and at national level.

The Irish referendum makes clear that voters deserve a better choice of representatives than those established political parties which stole taxpayers’ money to undo the legally binding Irish referendum result of June 2008.

We cannot afford to bury the idea of European democracy by not acting - now.

Jens-Peter Bonde has edited “The Lisbon Treaty - The Readable Version”, which can be downloaded for free at euABC.com. In the net lexicon you can find interesting relevant information under words like Democracy, Number of laws or the German Constitutional Court case

Criminal Complaint against The Referendum Commission, Returning Officers, José Manuel Barroso, The European Commission, Brian Cowen and subsequent persons involved in the Lisbon Treaty Campaign

by Alan Keenan, Citizen of Ireland

Can be downloaded here. If you are an Irish Citizen use your basic rights and file similar complaints.

The facts outlined below will prove that the Lisbon Treaty Referendum of 2/10/09 is Null and Void under Irish and European law. I present two separate points that shall subsequently be proven:

I. The Irish Government, alongside the European Commission ran a fraudulent and illegal campaign for the Lisbon Treaty Referendum.

II. Numerous violations of Irish Referendum law and discrepancies that call into question the security and validity of the votes themselves, default the Irish vote to the result of the last Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

1) The intervention of the European Commission, entailing massive expenditure of money to influence Irish opinion towards a Yes, the running of a web-site and the issuing of statements that sought to counter No-side arguments, and the advocacy of a Yes vote by Commission President Barroso and other Commissioners and their staffs during visits to Ireland. This is unlawful under European law, as the Commission has no function in relation to the ratification of new Treaties, something that is exclusively a matter for the Member States under their own constitutional procedures;

2) The part funding of the posters and press advertising of most of Ireland’s Yes-side political parties by their sister parties in the European Parliament, even though it is illegal under Irish law to receive donations from sources outside the country in a referendum and even though, under European law, money provided by the European Parliament to cross-national political parties is supposed to be confined to informational-type material and to avoid partisan advocacy;

3) The Irish Government’s unlawful use of public funds in circulating to voters a postcard with details of the so-called “assurances” of the European Council, followed by a brochure some time later containing a tendentious summary of the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, as well as other material - steps that were in breach of the 1995 Irish Supreme Court judgment in McKenna that it is unconstitutional of the Government to use public funds to seek to obtain a particular result in a referendum;

4) The failure of the country’s statutory Referendum Commission to carry out its function under the Referendum Act that established it of explaining to citizens how the proposed constitutional amendment and its text would affect the Irish Constitution. Instead the Commission’s Chairman, Judge Frank Clarke, turned the Commission into an arm of Government propaganda, while the judge indulged himself in various “solo-runs” on radio and in the newspapers, giving several erroneous explanations of provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, even though this was quite beyond his powers under the Act;

5) Huge expenditure of money by private companies such as Intel and Ryanair to advocate a Yes vote, without any statutory limit, in possible breach of Irish company and tax law, and undoubtedly constituting a major democratic abuse.

6) Breaches by the Irish broadcast media of their obligation under the Broadcasting Acts to be fair to all interests concerned in their coverage of issues of public controversy and debate. Newstalk 106, owned by Mr Denis O’Brien, a committed supporter of the Yes side, was quite shameless in its partisanship on its current affairs programmes.

I have personally posted a petition online containing this information. To date 614 signatures have been received in 24 hours, and the number is steadily increasing. Petition and signatures can be viewed here.

Attached is a small section of the signatures.

613 Ms Catherine Kelly Roscommon Ireland Ireland View Oct 05, 2009
612 Mr Geoffrey Duggan Tallaght Dublin Ireland Oct05, 2009
611 Mr Michael McEvoy London UK Oct05, 2009
610 Mr André Jönsson Malmö Sweden Oct 05, 2009
609 Mr adam kukoleck saint petersburg florida USA View Oct 05, 2009
608 None Paul Brooks Bristol UK Oct05, 2009
607 Mr Brian Jørgensen Odense Denmark View Oct 05, 2009
606 mr ciaran delaney PORTLOAISE Ireland View Oct 05, 2009
605 Mr Chris Ridgway Altrincham, Cheshire UK View Oct 05, 2009
604 mr terry simkins st austell UK View Oct 05, 2009
603 Mr Kieran Cosgrave Milltown Co. Kerry Ireland View Oct 05, 2009
602 Mrs Stella Ridgway Altrincham, Cheshire UK View Oct 05, 2009
601 Mr Mark Ashworth London UK Oct05, 2009
600 Mr Howard Johnson London UK Oct05, 2009
599 Ms Evangeline Hyland navan Meath Ireland Oct05, 2009
598 mr anthony tierney dublin Ireland View Oct 05, 2009
597 Mr Derek Bennett Walsall UK Oct05, 2009
596 mr brendan drew plainfield ct USA Oct 05, 2009
595 Mr Gareth Cooper Dublin Ireland Oct05, 2009
594 Mr. Niall O’Riordan Conna Co. Cork Ireland View Oct 05, 2009
593 Mrs Marie Campbell Longford Longford Ireland Oct05, 2009
592 Mr Shane Clarke Letterkenny Donegal Ireland View Oct 05, 2009
591 Ms Caroline M Ryan Staten Island NY USA Oct 05, 2009
590 mr kido sjorre berlin Germany Oct 05, 2009
589 Mr Anthony Flynn mullingar Ireland Oct05, 2009
588 Mr Donnecha Clancy Staten Island NY USA Oct 05, 2009
587 ms debbie downes dublin Ireland Oct05, 2009
586 Ms Brenda Walsh London UK View Oct 05, 2009
585 Mr Danny Kiernan Longford Ireland Oct05, 2009
584 Mr Barry O’Riordan Cork Ireland Oct05, 2009
583 Ms Jennifer Connell Galway city Connacht Ireland Oct05, 2009
582 Mr Nigel Reid Dublin Ireland Oct 05, 2009
581 Mr Richard Shaw Dudley UK Oct05, 2009
580 Ms Hazel McCoy Glendalough Ireland Oct05, 2009
579 An t-Uasal Máirtín Ó Maoláin Gaillimh Ireland Oct05, 2009
578 miss Joanne Finnegan Dublin Ireland Oct05, 2009
577 ms mag kinsella new ross co wexford Ireland Oct05, 2009
576 Ms Sarah Heavey Ballivor Ireland Oct05, 2009
575 Mr Robert Yarham Norwich UK Oct05, 2009

II.

Under Irish law, ballot boxes are required to be delivered by members of the Gardai to the polling stations at 7:00 am on the date the election takes place.

This legal requirement applies to ALL polling in Ireland, whether elections or referendums.

On this occasion, however, the ballot boxes were delivered to the private residences of the polling/Returning Officers, 48 hours prior to the Referendum.

A number of honest Returning Officers formally objected to this BREACH OF PROCEDURE, and to the concomitant prospective breach of security, let alone of the electoral legislation.

We understand that such objections were officially dismissed out of hand on the spurious and diversionary grounds that the ballot boxes possessed no commercial value, so it would be in nobody’s commercial interest to steal them.

The central issue – that since the Irish ballot boxes were delivered 48 hours early they could be ‘stuffed’ with YES votes by returning officers, as routinely happens in places like the former Soviet Republic of Georgia – was of course not addressed.

The Irish voters were given pencils to make their mark on the ballot, even though all Irish electoral ballots are supposed to be filled with black pen.

Almost nobody was asked for any form of ID or information at the polling stations.

The ballot boxes were left unattended and moved about by many people without question.

At least one box in Cork was removed from the count centre by an unknown individual as shown in the attached picture and video link.

Many foreign nationals and others who were not legally entitled to vote voted in this Referendum. Irish Times article “Gardai to investigate suspected vote fraud”, shows seven voters registered to an empty house.

It follows that, given that the local electoral law was flouted, THE OUTCOME OF THE IRISH REFERENDUM IS FRAUDULENT AND MUST IMMEDIATELY BE DECLARED NULL AND VOID.

Video here: Irish Referendum Count at Cork City Hall

References:
http://www.nationalplatform.org/
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/94119
http://www.dublincity.ie/YourCouncil/LocalElections2009/Documents/LocalElectionsRegulations1995consolidatedFeb09.pdf - Local Elections Regulations 1995 -2009
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1254787096&view=ag-view&numhitsfound=7&query_rule=%28%28$query3%29%29%3Alegtitle&query3=Electoral%20Act,%201992&docid=48488&docdb=Acts&dbname=Acts&dbname=SIs&sorting=none&operator=and&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1 - Irish Electoral Act 1992
http://www.worldreports.org/news/235_the_irish_referendum_outcome_is_null_and_void

Video 1

During the European Election count in the Ireland North West thousands of votes were discovered to have been misallocated from one candidate (Fiachra Ó Luain) to another (Declan Ganley) during a recheck of a random 10% of the votes. Following over three months of ‘investigation’ the Garda Siochána (Police) of Co. Mayo failed to gather a single statement other than those given by the candidate in question. In fact the same Garda put in charge of the ‘investigation’ had been in charge of the election count when the votes originally went missing. Would you trust these individuals to be in charge of the votes that will decide the future shape of the EU on the Oct 2nd Lisbon Referendum? Please inform the media in all European countries and elsewhere. Something is rotten in the county of Mayo…
If such irregularities could be discovered in 10% of the votes in one Euro constiuency, how many votes could potentially be misallocated in a national ballot?

Video 2

Evidence caught on video of vote fraud committed by Irish govt. officials for the Irish Referendum Count.
Ireland had previously, overwhelmingly, vetoed giving the European Union power to enact laws without Irish approval.
The media would have you believe that the Irish are fearful about job losses, want security-crap.
The media are all the government’s mouthpiece.
Ireland had it’s hard won Freedom stripped once again by foreigners.

Video 3

the pencils provided are very soft - 2B at least - and do not leave an imprint on the page - I know, I’ve tried! they could easily be rubbed out. Now, these pencils are harder to get than the average pencil, which is a HB - you can leave an imprint on a page with these, just by leaning a bit harder… I bring a black ink pen in with me… I know another man who cuts down the pencil and ties up a pen. B pencils are used by artists for shading & are dearer Bookies use pens, not pencils…

Video 4

Plus this:

Citizens prevented from monitoring the State?

and this:

Statement by Anthony Coughlan, Dublin, on Ireland’s Lisbon Two referendum result

and this:

THE IRISH REFERENDUM OUTCOME IS NULL AND VOID

and this:

Gardai to investigate suspected vote fraud

and this:

How secure is the Lisbon referendum against Fraud?

and this:

Im sure we have Election fraud

Make your mind up and perhaps choose to support the petition:

The Irish Government ran a fraudulent and illegal campaign for the Lisbon Treaty

No referendum to be held in EU after Irish yes to Lisbon

Prague - Czech President Vaclav Klaus today criticised the fact that the Irish had voted on the Lisbon treaty repeatedly and he said no referendum would be held in the EU after their yes.

“No referendum will be in the EU now,” Klaus told his supporters outside the Prague Castle, the presidential seat, today in reaction to the Irish approval of the treaty, which he refuses to sign.

Klaus told reporters later that the result of the Irish referendum was a fact that he would no longer comment but he would respect it.

“There is nothing to add to it,” he said.

Asked whether he will complete the ratification process by his signature, Klaus pointed out that the ratification process must not continue until the Constitutional Court’s decision whether the treaty is in compliance with the constitutional order.

The court is to examine the treaty on the basis of another complaint lodged by a group of senators, mainly from the Civic Democrats (ODS), this week.

The Czech Republic may be the last EU member state not to have completed the ratification.

Polish President Lech Kaczynski, who has not signed the treaty either, promised to do so immediately after the Irish “yes.”

Klaus today refused to say whether and when he would sign the treaty.

Participants in today’s march to Prague Castle to thank President Vaclav Klaus for his opposition to the Lisbon treaty carried Irish flags and banners reading “No to Lisbon.”

Klaus told them he “is in harmony” with their opinions.

The Irish approved the Lisbon treaty in a repeated referendum held on Friday after they rejected the document last June.

Klaus expressed the opinion that the referendum in Ireland would have been repeated if voters had said “no” to Lisbon so long until they said yes.

He compared a repeated referendum to a repeated football match.

source: ČeskéNoviny.cz

While the PM’s already pushing the EU bulldozer forward:

Czech Prime Minister Jan Fischer believes that the Lisbon treaty will be ratified in the Czech Republic soon so that it could come into force by the end of 2009, he said in a statement released by the Government Office today.

Still, for Klaus Lisbon Treaty is ‘not on the cards’.

Yes to Lisbon, Yes to FDI, Yes to New Jobs - Posted on 21/09/09 by Mary Coughlan

YES TO LISBON AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY - LENIHAN, Posted on 28/09/09 by Fianna Fáil

But today, after voters have been duped, Politics.ie notices:

Lehinan interview on RTE this morning in a counting centre. Presenter asked him “Was it the promise of jobs that swung the vote to a Yes”. Lenihan “We never promised jobs as a result of a Yes vote”.

People of Ireland, you will have to understand one day that one does not vote for a job, one has to work for it.

The National Platform EU Research and Information Centre
24 Crawford Avenue
Dublin 9
Ireland

Tel.: 00-353-1-8305792
Web-site: nationalplatform.org

Saturday 3 September 2009

Statement by Anthony Coughlan, Dublin, on Ireland’s Lisbon Two referendum result

Not the will of the people, but the fear of the people, has led a majority of Irish voters to approve ratifyng the Lisbon Treaty in yesterday’s re-run referendum.

Ireland’s voters voted not on the content of Lisbon but on membership of the EU, on fear of political isolation if they did not say Yes to the same Treaty as they said No to last year, and on the promise of jobs and economic recovery which the Yes-side bullied and bamboozled them into believing was they would get if they only voted Yes.

Thus the bankrupt Irish political Establishment, which has ruined its country’s economy, has opted through stupidity and fear to clamp an undemocratic Constitution on itself and most of Europe.

This year the Republic of Ireland will suffer a decline of nearly one-tenth in its economic output; it will have a Budget deficit equivalent to 12% of GDP, an unemployment rate of some 14% of its labour force and resumed net emigration from the country.

One accepts the result of the Lisbon re-run as a fact, but it is not a result that democrats need morally or politically to identify with or approve. This result does not have political legitimacy, whatever the voting percentages amount to, because of the fraudulent and undemocratic way in which the referendum was run, making it unique in these respects among the 30 or so referendums that have been held in Ireland since its Constitution was adopted in 1937.

With limitless money provided by the Brussels Commission, the political parties in the European Parliament, the Irish Government and private business firms, Ireland’s Yes-side forces easily outspent the Nos by at least ten to one in a referendum campaign which was unique in modern Irish history for its massive unlawfulness and breaches of the country’s referendum law.

There were at least six dimensions to this illegality:

1) The intervention of the European Commission, entailing massive expenditure of money to influence Irish opinion towards a Yes, the running of a web-site and the issuing of statements that sought to counter No-side arguments, and the advocacy of a Yes vote by Commission President Barroso and other Commissioners and their staffs during visits to Ireland. This is unlawful under European law, as the Commission has no function in relation to the ratification of new Treaties, something that is exclusively a matter for the Member States under their own constitutional procedures;

2) The part funding of the posters and press advertising of most of Ireland’s Yes-side political parties by their sister parties in the European Parliament, even though it is illegal under Irish law to receive donations from sources outside the country in a referendum and even though, under European law, money provided by the European Parliament to cross-national political parties is supposed to be confined to informational-type material and to avoid partisan advocacy;

3) The Irish Government’s unlawful use of public funds in circulating to voters a postcard with details of the so-called “assurances” of the European Council, followed by a brochure some time later containing a tendentious summary of the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, as well as other material - steps that were in breach of the 1995 Irish Supreme Court judgement in McKenna that it is unconstitutional of the Government to use public funds to seek to obtain a particular result in a referendum;

4) The failure of the country’s statutory Referendum Commission to carry out its function under the Referendum Act that established it of explaining to citizens how the proposed constitutional amendment and its text would affect the Irish Constitution. Instead the Commission’s Chairman, Judge Frank Clarke, turned the Commission into an arm of Government propaganda, while the judge indulged himself in various “solo-runs” on radio and in the newspapers, giving several erroneous explanations of provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, even though this was quite beyond his powers under the Act;

5) Huge expenditure of money by private companies such as Intel and Ryanair to advocate a Yes vote, without any statutory limit, in possible breach of Irish company and tax law, and undoubtedly constituting a major democratic abuse.

6) Breaches by the Irish broadcast media of their obligation under the Broadcasting Acts to be fair to all interests concerned in their coverage of issues of public controversy and debate. Newstalk 106, owned by Mr Denis O’Brien, a committed supporter of the Yes side, was quite shameless in its partisanship on its current affairs programmes.

Democrats across Europe will now hope that the brave President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, will hold back Czech ratification of the Treaty until the constitutional challenge that has been launched there is completed and there is a change of Government in Britain by next May. In that way the promise of a referendum made to the British people in the Labour Party’s Election Manifesto may yet be fulfilled under the Conservatives - something that would give our fellow countrymen and women in Northern Ireland a chance of voting on this EU Constitution.

In June the German Constitutional Court laid down that the basic principles of democracy required that there should be parliamentary control of how Government Ministers from the EU Member States exercised various implementing powers under the Lisbon Treaty - for example the “simplified revision procedure” of Article 48 TEU whereby policy areas can be shifted from unanimity to majority voting without need of new Treaties or referendums.

Germany instituted such parliamentary controls in September. Ireland has done so in the Constitutional Amendment people voted for yesterday. Similar parliamentary controls should now be sought through Court actions in as many EU countries as possible in the interest of defending what is left of democracy in Europe.

If Lisbon however should go through and come into force for all 27 States, giving the post-Lisbon EU the constitutional form of a Federation and turning 500 million people into real EU citizens for the first time without their being asked, that is bound to make the question of national independence and democracy the main issue of European politics for years and possibly decades to come - not least in Ireland, whose modern political history has been largely a struggle against the drawbacks of its people being made citizens of another country.

The Lisbon Two referendum has exposed the moral and political bankruptcy of Ireland’s main political parties. There is a vacuum in Irish politics, as there is in many other EU countries, when all the “Establishment” political parties line up on one side and so many of the country’s citizens are on the other.

Across Europe huge numbers of citizens are not being properly represented by those who have been elected to represent them. The coming period in history will see many attempts to fill this political vacuum, in Ireland and elsewhere.

What follows is not the single “problematic aspect” of the practice in the last Irish referendum. Many other reports will surely be collected and NO still looks fine, just before evening Guinness:

Cóir Crys “Foul”

Cóir Date: 02.10.2009

Cóir has said that the State has undermined the confidence the electorate can have in the referendum process by threatening citizens with arrest if they proceeded with plans to monitor the vote on the Lisbon Treaty.

“Today we were told by Dublin City Sheriff, Brendan Walsh, that he had asked the Gardaí to take action against any of our volunteers who sought information as to the number of votes cast in a polling station at the end of the day,” said Manus Mac Meanmain of Cóir.

“To say we are shocked is an understatement,” he continued. “In conversation with Cóir, Mr Walsh confirmed that the information being requested by Cóir was compiled by the Presiding officer at each polling centre at the end of the day’s voting in any case.”

“But now he has threatened any citizen who politely requests that information from the Presiding Officer with arrest! This is simply outrageous, and will shatter the faith citizens should be able to have in this referendum process.”

Cóir plans to monitor polling in the Lisbon Treaty referendum and the counting of votes to ensure the vote is fair, free and transparent.

“Our volunteers want some simple information: the number of ballot boxes in the polling station, and the number of votes cast in each ballot box at the end of polling,” said Mr Mac Meanmain.

“Requesting this information creates no undue pressure or additional work for the Presiding Officer in each polling station. Most importantly, it allows citizens to freely engage in the democratic process and ensures those same citizens can monitor the referendum and have faith in a democratic, free and fair vote.” Cóir pointed out that it was traditional for Presiding Officers in polling stations to give similar information to the media throughout the day, and at the close of the day. “We can see that in today’s reporting to date,” said Mr Mac Meanmain.

He said that the move by Dublin City Sheriff would create anger and suspicion amongst voters already alarmed that the requirement for equal airtime for Yes and No campaigners has been set aside, while the EU Commission was funding Yes propaganda.

“I would have previously said developments didn’t inspire confidence. Now, I would say the situation is downright alarming,” said Mr. Mac Meanmain. “Citizens should never have to seek the permission of the State to monitor the State. That’s not a democracy,” he concluded.

Today the people of Ireland go to the polls to vote in the second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Its previous reincarnation as the Constitutional Treaty was thrown out by the people of France and Netherlands after which there was, as you may recall, a period of discussion and dialogue. Dialogue of the deaf since the creators of the new treaty discussed matters only with organizations they had themselves created as part of a controlled civil society. All other opinions such as “no, we do not want a constitution for Europe” were ignored.

It will, of course, be awfully nice to have the Irish vote no; the treaty is an abomination, though no worse than Maastricht, but, much more to the point, it will be nice to watch the eurocrats’ faces and hear their screams.

But even if they get their treaty (and they are determined to get it) the victory will be a Pyrrhic one. The outcome of the bullying, lying and other shenanigans that characterized the campaigns around the Constitution for Europe and, even more so, the Lisbon Treaty is that far more people in the various member states view the project with suspicion and dislike.

Its inevitability is no longer obvious; the gap between the elite that is blatantly determined to impose its chosen political structures on the people and those people is ever larger; the legitimacy of the EU is weaker than ever and grows daily more so. And a yes vote today in Ireland may well speed that process up. Indeed, if the Irish vote yes, we may well date the beginning of the EU’s disintegration October 2, 2009.

Read the whole text on Your Freedom and Ours blog run by Helen Szamuely:

Microsoft international calls for Yes ahead of Irish vote

30.09.2009 @ 09:13 CET

Microsoft International has called for a Yes vote ahead of Ireland’s referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, Jean-Philippe Courtois, president of Microsoft International, said it was “very important” that the country approves the treaty, reports the Irish Times.

Courtois described himself as “more a European citizen than French.”

“News in brief” by EUobserver.com. Doublecheck here.

Ryanair, Dell, Intel, Microsoft… this is getting better and better.

“Two recent polls showed a clear majority of voters in favor of the treaty, The Financial Times reported, while fewer than 30 percent said they planned to vote it down.”

The polling companies really should check their programmes and machines and switch to more reliable open-source software.

And this also excludes any thoughts of digital voting in the future!

People across the whole of Europe are clamouring for a vote on the Lisbon treaty.

Please forward this to your friends.

Daughter of referendum case winner urges ‘No’ vote

Evening Echo 30/09/2009 - 16:02:46

The daughter of the man who secured the right of Irish people to vote on EU treaties today urged the electorate to reject the latest reform package.

More than 20 years ago the late Raymond Crotty won a case against the Irish Government which meant any EU rules that impacted on Ireland’s constitution must be approved by the people.

Mary Crotty said her father’s win has resulted in less than four million Irish people voting on behalf of half a billion Europeans on the Lisbon Treaty.

She maintains lawyers who worked on his case believe that, if implemented, the Lisbon Treaty will be Ireland’s last EU-related referendum.

“My father Raymond Crotty took the Irish Government to the Supreme Court in 1987 because that Government attempted to introduce the Single European Act without giving the people of Ireland a vote in the referendum,” said Ms Crotty.

“It is because of that Supreme Court ruling that we now have a vote in the Lisbon Treaty.“

“Ironically because of the Crotty case the Irish people get to vote twice on Lisbon while the rest of Europe get no vote at all.“

“Because this Treaty is so extensive I’ve no doubt that if passed it will be the last referendum the Irish people will have on Europe.”

Ms Crotty spoke out as part of the Women Say No To Lisbon camp, which includes 42 female politicians and activists.

However, she stressed she was concerned as a wife and mother of four, and had no political affiliation.

Elsewhere, in Dublin’s Buswell’s Hotel several other groups made a last ditch attempt to convince the electorate to vote ‘No’ on Friday.

The People’s Movement, the Irish Fishermen’s Organisation and Farmers for a No Vote held a joint press conference in the shadow of the Dáil to urge voters to reject the EU reform deal.

Caitlin Ui Aoghla said fishing was one of the industries that has seen first-hand what bad European policies do.

“Fishing has suffered, it is one of our indigenous industries, it is one of the industries where we’ve actually seen how the big boys dish out the share,” she said.

“We are concerned that Lisbon further consolidates all the bad policies the EU has done up to now.”

Mr. Crotty’s posthumously published book, When Histories Collide: the development and impact of individualistic capitalism (Altamira Press, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, New York and Oxford, 2001) surely will make a good read after the Good Friday Referendum.

“Cóir has said that its volunteers are making preparations to carefully monitor the second vote on the Lisbon Treaty referendum which will take place on Friday.

It has written to the Referendum Commission and the Department of the Environment outlining the actions that will be undertaken by Cóir members and supporters on Friday to ensure that every vote cast in the referendum is correctly accounted for and that the second vote on the treaty is absolutely free, fair and transparent.

On Friday, October 2nd, Cóir volunteers will visit every polling station in the country at the end of the day’s polling. They will count the number of polling boxes and confirm the number of votes cast in each polling station with the Returning Officer. Those totals will be checked against the total of votes counted the next day in each count centre. Cóir will also ensure that the seal on each polling box will only be broken before witnesses at the outset of the count the next day.

Cóir spokesman Richard Greene said that the measure was a “simple, yet 100% effective, means of ensuring the referendum process was free of any error or interference”. He added that the undemocratic nature of forcing the Irish people to vote again on the Lisbon Treaty has prompted many concerned calls to the Cóir office regarding the security of the vote.

“We’ve seen a shocking disregard for the spirit, not only of SIPO legislation, but of the McKenna and Coughlan judgments, during this referendum,” said Mr Greene. “Millions are being spent by Yes campaigners and no-one is asking where it came from. The requirement for equal airtime for Yes and No campaigners has been set aside, and the EU Commission is funding Yes propaganda. It doesn’t inspire confidence.”

Mr Greene said that Cóir’s canvass on the ground was showing that the treaty could be rejected. “We’re taking these actions on Friday to ensure that how people actually vote is reflected in the result,” he said.

Copied from Politics.ie forum.

The People’s Movement is calling for legislation to prevent multinational corporations from trying to sway voters’ opinions in future referenda.

The organisation is one of the main groups campaigning for a ‘no’ vote in Friday’s Lisbon referendum.

Its spokesperson Robert Ballagh said today that it was disgraceful that companies like Intel could spend millions pushing for a ‘yes’ vote without ever having to explain where the money comes from.

Source Breakingnews.ie.

Islanders off the north west coast of Ireland became the first people to vote on the Lisbon Treaty today, with the most remote said to be on the verge of rejecting it.

Ballot boxes were shipped and flown off Donegal to Arranmore, Gola, Inishbofin, Inishfree and Tory Island to let around 800 early voters have their say on Lisbon II.

Presiding officers remained tight-lipped on a possible outcome, but King of Tory Patsy Dan Rodgers said his 150 subjects were swaying towards a No vote.

“I think the majority is going to vote No,” he said.

Read more.

Tories and their King are EU-critical then :) Oh, Happy Day!

Former MEP and leading pro-life advocate, Dana Rosemary Scallon, has said that people should not be afraid to vote No to Lisbon. “The people must know the truth, that the guarantees are worthless and that the EU will have primacy over Irelands Constitution. Lisbon is not about tidying up the democratic process - it is about tying up the democratic process,” she said.

“I cannot be bought. I have always told the truth about what I saw happening in Europe, especially when it threatened our Constitution and our democratic rights as citizens of Ireland. I have no axe to grind, I am not seeking political office and as I don’t run a budget airline I don’t have to tread carefully and change my mind for the sake of a few euros,” she continued.

“During my time in office from 1999-2004, the building of an EU Constitution and the move towards and EU Superstate was clearly set out. I stated this in public many times and urged our political leaders and public representatives to uphold our Irish Constitution - they all refused to do so,” the former Independent MEP revealed.

“We have already rejected this Lisbon Treaty and in response our political leaders apologised to Brussels .“

“The Lisbon Treaty will give the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights primacy and a legally binding status. The fact is that in the case of conflict, between the rights contained in the EU Charter and those rights contained in our Irish constitution, the Lisbon Treaty will give the final say to the EU Court of Justice over our Irish Supreme Court,” said Dana.

“Voting NO will protect Ireland’s Constitution in matters such as the definition and protection of the family; children’s rights; parent’s rights; the protection of life and the child embryo; the right to a fair trial; the right to strike etc. Any so called ‘guarantees’ and protection of our Irish Constitutional position on these points, are not part of the Lisbon Treaty, they therefore have no legal weight what-so-ever and cannot be relied upon. They are, as we have been told many times, worthless,” she added.

Read more here.