Irish Will Be Forced To Vote Again

The Irish Republic will be forced to hold a second referendum on the Lisbon/EU constitutional Treaty, officials in Brussels have decided.

The Daily Telegraph reports that an internal EU briefing paper entitled “The Solution to the Irish Problem” says the Dublin government will give in to demands for a second vote to overturn the previous rejection of the treaty before an EU summit in October.

The briefing suggests that the second referendum would be held in the autumn of next year, leading to the final ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in 2010.

An influential group of French officials has written the document, the Telegraph says. They say Ireland will agree to a new vote because guarantees will be given on abortion, taxes, the country’s neutrality and the maintenance of the Irish Commissioner in Brussels.

However, the president of the European Parliament, Hans-Gert Pöttering, wants the Irish to vote again, and give the "right" answer, before next year’s European elections. He fears the poll will become a referendum on a treaty many people in Europe do not like.

The Telegraph's story about the Irish being pressed to submit to their would-be EU masters is here.

"What Price Democracy, Mr. Sarkozy?"

Nigel Farage is one of the most articulate and impressive young leaders in Britain. He is a founder of the eurosceptic United Kingdom Independence Party, and a member of the European Parliament for South East England. We're unabashed anglophiles here at Sunlit Uplands, and we think you will see in the following exchange between Farage and French President Sarkozy, how freedom loving Britons have routed the French in every conflict from Agincourt to the present day.

Irish Miracle

From The Wall Street Journal
By Norman Stone

The Irish find themselves for the first time ever being showered with compliments from the English. This writer -- a Scot -- does not really approve of Ireland's independence. They are us, bless them, and their independence has been a bore, a little bit like East Timor's. Friends, family, writers -- all belong to an Ireland that's greater than the sum of its parts.

Now that greatness has been manifested. The Irish have done a miracle and wrecked the latest project of the European Union, in a referendum where general cussedness has been expressed. The proposed changes to the way Europe works amount to a constitution, but the powers-that-be tried to smuggle it through as a treaty. The British were supposed to have a referendum as well but since everyone knows that Europe is just not a popular cause, the government weaseled out of one. The French and Dutch did hold referendums three years back and the formal constitution was turned down.

The Europeans -- at any rate the official classes -- would dearly love to project themselves as a Great Power, American-fashion, and in 2004 produced a constitution. It was prepared in an extraordinarily clumsy way, with vast gatherings presided over by the former French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, in a style that Margaret Thatcher found profoundly irritating ("Olympian without being patrician"). The best constitutions either do not exist, as with England, or they are short, as with 1787 in Philadelphia. The Germans had a shot at a constitution in 1848 and invited all their professor doctor doctors to have a say. There are few occasions to bless the arrival of the Prussian army and that was one: The beards were bayoneted.

You might even make a rule about this: The longer the constitution, the shorter its life. The Weimar Republic is a classic case, and it taught the West Germans in 1949 what not to do in such documents; the German basic law is almost a model. The other rule is of course not to let professors of political science anywhere near such documents.

The European constitution is a lengthy and unreadable one because so many different interests had to be squared. Thus for instance, toward the end of the near-five-hundred page effort, the "Sami" or, as they used to be called, Lapps get a look-in.

Now there was a certain obvious sense in getting the European institutions to work better. They go back 50 years or so, and even the present flag is vaguely copied from the banner of the Coal and Steel Community in 1951; the assembly and the court were thought up then, and maybe someone even conceived of an anthem. The founder, Jean Monnet, found it insufferably boring, and you could even make a case that the creative element in Europe was America. The first suggestion of a common European currency came from the deputy secretary general of the Marshall Plan.

The European institutions worked tolerably for a time with six member states, but even then they were not brilliant. They were secretive and lofty, in that French technocratic style that so irritates others, and the best monument to them is the Common Agricultural Policy, born in 1962 and since then notorious for corruption and unreformability. The institutions were again not very efficient when there were only nine members, in the seventies, and Mr. Giscard d'Estaing made another of his blunders when he tried to make the European cause more popular by arranging for the Community to have a popularly elected parliament. Any journalist with a taste for mockery had a wonderful time in the European Parliament, self-important and powerless.

Now, with 27 member states, there is an obvious need to change the rules, and even for allowing national vetoes to be lifted. One absurd example: Greek Cyprus was let in as a member and now has the power to disrupt Europe's negotiations with Turkey, a country 40 times larger, and in a hugely strategic position. It is also the case, under present rules, that the presidency of the Union shifts every six months round capitals -- Paris one minute, Riga or even Valetta in Malta the next. Those small states do not have the wherewithal for the job, and in some cases have appeared ridiculous. Thus, over the Yugoslav crisis some 16 years back, which was billed to be "the hour of Europe," a Mr. Poos appeared from Luxembourg and lectured the Slovenes as to how they had no right to be nationalistic -- Luxembourg, beside which Slovenia looks positively elephantine. Meanwhile, the Germans have become the most important power in the east and south, and they are also the paymasters.

It is all a strange echo of the world of 1918, after Czarist Russia had collapsed, and various new states emerged -- the Ukraine especially, but also the Baltic republics including Finland. Back then the Germans were intent on setting up a satellite empire. In Hitler's time a quarter-century later this was even more the case, with Slovakia and Croatia (and even, though in a muddled way, Kosovo) emerging as Nazi puppet states. Nowadays, the lines on the map can be strangely similar to those of Hitler's day. But of course we are dealing with an altogether different Germany -- a Germany which, for a long time, simply did not want to have a foreign policy. One foreign minister, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, once rejected a campaign for Germany to have a seat on the U.N. Security Council with the remark that it would be like giving a liqueur chocolate to an alcoholic.

This new peaceful Germany is one that the Anglo-Saxons always wanted to see -- arguably America's greatest creation, bar Japan -- and she has to deal with big problems -- the Balkans, Russia and the future of Turkey's relationship with Europe. Why make these matters dependent upon the whims of little local politicians in Greek Cyprus or wherever?

Now the Irish, with a referendum, express the general discontent and boredom that the European Union seems to inspire almost everywhere. Some commentators have responded more or less with Bertolt Brecht's line about the East German workers' uprising in 1953: If the people act against the will of the government, then perhaps the government should dissolve the people and elect another in their place. The German foreign minister even said that the Irish could just drop out of the Union for a bit -- an absurd remark.

There have been other lofty tickings-off: How could the Irish be so ungrateful, given what Europe had done for them? But of course the Irish might not see things that way. For instance, free movement of goods and people is not always positive. There has been a crime wave associated with the shift of East European immigrants. Then again, not everyone benefits from the huge rise in property prices which, rightly or wrongly, people associate with the euro; quite the contrary, life becomes very difficult for the young if they do not have parents who can support them. One nasty phenomenon in Spain or Ireland is that the young have to live with their parents and one sign of this is the used contraceptive in the public parks. So it is not altogether surprising that great masses of Irish voters voted against a "Europe" with which they cannot identify.

The sad thing is that Europe deserves better. It is associated with the recovery of a decent Germany, escaping from her awful past and now co-existing on civilized terms with Czechs and Poles and French. Yes, there should have been some briefly worded document to reform the creaking institutions of Europe. But true to form the Europeans mismanaged the entire affair. Having had the original constitution turned down, they should simply have lived with the consequences. Instead, they have behaved in a weaseling and dishonest way that would never have occurred to the great 1950s architects of Europe, men with culture, honesty and a sense of where their extraordinary civilization had gone wrong. Thank God for the Irish.

Mr. Stone is a professor of international relations at Bilking University in Ankara and author of "World War I: A Short History," forthcoming in paperback from Basic Books.

IRELAND SAVES EUROPE

Today is a great day for freedom! Freedom loving people in Europe and around the world owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the Irish people for voting "NO" on the Lisbon Treaty, which is effectively the constitution for a totalitarian superstate that unelected European elites seek to impose on that continent. It would have destroyed national sovereignty, made national parliaments irrelevant, and has even redrawn European maps with new regions and without national borders. It would accomplish, through bureaucratic fiat, what Napoleon and Hitler could not.


From The Telegraph
By James Kirkup, Tom Peterkin in Dublin and Bruno Waterfield in Brussels

Gordon Brown is under intense pressure to declare the Lisbon Treaty dead after Irish voters delivered an overwhelming vote against the European Union's drive toward greater integration.

In the only popular vote on the treaty to be held in the EU, 53.4 per cent of the Irish electorate rejected its terms – plunging the EU's plans to create a new European president and foreign minister into turmoil.

MPs and campaigners from across the political spectrum called on the Prime Minister to halt moves towards British ratification of the text in the wake of the vote, with David Cameron saying the treaty should now be "declared dead".

The agreement, which would sweep away dozens of national vetoes, must be ratified by all 27 European Union members before it can take force next year.

Opponents said the emphatic Irish result meant the project – described as an attempt to revive the defunct EU constitution – should be completely abandoned.

Mr Brown however, is preparing to defy British public opinion by pushing ahead with the treaty's ratification in parliament. Government legislation ratifying the text is due to get its third and final reading in the House of Lords on Wednesday.

David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, said: "It is right that we follow the view that each country must follow the ratification process to its conclusion. It is right that we continue with our own process."

Mr Cameron described the Government's plans as the "height of arrogance" and accused the Government of "flying in the face of public opinion."

He said that Mr Brown should go to the commons on Monday to explain what would happen now.

"If this is not dead, we must be able to have the referendum in this country so that we have the chance to pass judgment on this treaty and put the final nail in its coffin," he said.

Ministers privately concede that abandoning the ratification, Britain would seal the fate of the treaty.

Mr Brown is said to believe that doing so would reduce Britain's influence and split the EU, with countries like France and Germany press ahead with their own integration plans.

However, his determination to push ahead with the treaty puts him at odds with British voters, with opinion polls showing that most reject the document.

A Daily Telegraph campaign seeking a UK referendum on the text last year gathered well over 100,000 signatories.

William Hague, the Conservative shadow foreign secretary, insisted that the British parliamentary ratification process must be stopped immediately.

"The Irish people have spoken and they have made clear that they do not want a Treaty that takes so many powers from the countries of Europe and gives it to distant institutions in Brussels," he said.

"Despite all the threats that have been made they have had the courage to make their own decision. They deserve Europe's admiration and congratulations.

The call was echoed by Labour MPs. Frank Field, a leading Labour opponent of the treaty, said the British process should stop at once.

He said: "The result speaks volumes. The people in the one country given a chance to vote have clearly rejected the Treaty. The Government must now withdraw its Bill ratifying the Treaty which should now be dead'.

Ian Davidson, another Labour opponent of the document said: "It is enormously significant that the only people who have had the chance to vote on the treaty have rejected it by a substantial margin. Now is the time for a period of reflection."

However, European leaders were making plans to find a legal way around the Irish 'No' vote.

Nicholas Sarkozy, the French President, was working with EU leaders and diplomats to plan a special "legal arrangement" to bypass the referendum rejection.

In a joint statement with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the French leader insisted the treaty was "necessary" for the EU and would go ahead.

Mr Sarkozy assumes the rotating presidency of the EU next month, and at a summit in Brussels next week he and Mr Brown will insist that the ratification process continues unchanged.

British sources said that the summit is likely to conclude that the Irish vote is a problem for the Irish government, not the rest of the EU.

"The Irish government will have to go away and think about how to proceed, but the rest of us will keep going," said a Foreign Office source.

Jose Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, insisted that treaty would not be stopped.

"The treaty is alive," Mr Barroso said in Brussels. "The remaining ratifications should continue to take their course."

Every major political party in Ireland had backed a Yes vote, with opposition being led by Libertas, a small, privately-funded campaign group.

Declan Ganley, head of Libertas, said the vote should kill the Lisbon Treaty.

"The No result is the final answer on this particular Treaty That's democracy. That's how it works," he said.

Even the pro-European Liberal Democrats said the Irish result should halt Britain's move to approve the treaty.

Edward Davey, the party's foreign affairs spokesman said: "Once scrutiny of the treaty is completed in Westminster next week its ratification should be suspended."

Bill Cash, the veteran Tory eurosceptic, said: "Gordon Brown must now abandon the British moves to ratify the Treaty and renegotiate the treaties of the European Union. The Conservative party must seize the opportunity to decimate the government's European police and restore democracy to the UK."

Officials in London, Dublin and Brussels were at a loss to explain how Ireland's approval for the Lisbon Treaty can be secured following the result.

In 2001, the Irish rejected the EU's Nice Treaty, but were ultimately pressured into endorsing it in a second referendum after some sections of that text were re-written to address concerns about Ireland's military neutrality.

Privately, some diplomats fear that it will be impossible to address the Irish grievances against Lisbon, which are much wider than the objections raised to the Nice Treaty.

One senior British official said: "With the Nice vote, you could identify specific problems the Irish had with the text, answer them and then move on. But this is less focused, more a general rejection of the whole project, and accommodating it within the process could be very, very difficult."

Brian Cowan, the Irish Prime Minister, appeared to rule out a second Irish referendum to ratify the treaty, insisting that the issue of another vote "didn't arise".

He said: "The result does bring about considerable uncertainty and a difficult situation. There is no quick fix."

Ireland Sees Growing Opposition to European Constitution

From the Los Angeles Times

By Kim Murphy Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

CANVASSING: Maire Hoctor, right, Ireland’s minister of state for elder affairs, tries to convince a voter in Nenagh to vote “yes” in the June 12 referendum on the EU treaty.

The June 12 vote on the Lisbon Treaty now seems less certain, as opposition groups, some businessmen and farmers raise concerns about sovereignty.

NENAGH, IRELAND — The "Yes on the EU" bus rolled into town blaring a foot-stomping "Galway Girl" from its megaphone one afternoon last week, but what it got was a whole lot of no.

An Irishman has always been a hard sell, and never more so than when issues of sovereignty are at stake. "People died for your freedom," declares one of the signs that have popped up in this agricultural town as Ireland prepares to vote June 12 on the European Union's new constitution. "Don't throw it away."

Farmer Ida McLoughlin isn't sold on the other posters plastered around town: "Vote yes for jobs, the economy and Ireland's future."

"Since the EU, all you see are 4x4s going down the street and big buildings going up. The thatched cottages are gone," McLoughlin said. "You have all these Johnny-come-lately people who were poor and got rich, and they're dreadful people. We've lost our Irish values."

Adoption of the so-called Lisbon Treaty requires ratification by all 27 member states of the EU, which could take a much more prominent role on the world stage under the streamlined diplomacy and beefed-up military readiness the document envisions.

Fourteen nations have ratified the agreement through their parliaments, and the remainder are expected to do so by the end of the year. Only Ireland's constitution requires a referendum -- and that could make or break the long-awaited constitution.

The Irish government, most business leaders and political parties of nearly every stripe have come out overwhelmingly in favor of the Lisbon Treaty, pointing out how Ireland's membership in the EU over the last 35 years has helped transform the Emerald Isle of 4.1 million people from an impoverished backwater dependent on Britain to one of Europe's most robust economies.

But a newly vigorous opposition composed of farmers, a few wealthy businessmen with vague connections to the U.S. defense establishment and the leftist Irish republican party, Sinn Fein, have gained quickly in recent polls, and the outcome is suddenly no longer a sure thing.

It is not clear what happens if Ireland says no -- except that the union would surely be plunged, as it was when France and the Netherlands voted down an earlier EU constitution in 2005, into uncertainty and more tedious negotiations on what EU leaders say is a badly needed framework for decision-making among its suddenly more numerous member states.

"It would put us in the very tortured position of going back to the drawing board," said Marc Coleman, a Dublin-based economic analyst.

The treaty signed in Lisbon in December would help Europe project itself more forcefully on the international stage by creating a European Council president and foreign affairs representative while outlining a framework for EU troop deployments in peacekeeping and humanitarian missions.

The treaty would broaden and establish a legal basis for the EU's lawmaking powers in some areas while making them subject much more directly to national parliaments and citizens initiatives. It would set out voting weights between large and small countries, improve cross-border cooperation in areas such as crime fighting and climate change and streamline the European Commission to a manageable decision-making body of 18.

Under the treaty, member nations still would retain their historic veto power in crucial areas such as defense, foreign policy, taxation and social security, but not on issues like immigration and energy policy.

Voters in overwhelmingly Catholic Ireland worry that the nation would be forced to expand abortion rights (no), forfeit its long tradition of military neutrality (no) or give up the holy grail of the Celtic Tiger economic miracle, Ireland's 12.5% corporate tax rate (probably not, though some in Europe would like to try).

Treaty opponents say the government is too smoothly dismissing what may be legitimate fears and is too quick to warn that Ireland would incur the wrath of the rest of Europe if it voted no.

"People always say Ireland is in very good standing at the European level. But why wouldn't we be? We haven't invaded one of the partner countries, we haven't partitioned them. But we're also a small member state, and in the power structure that is the EU, small states have to be very careful in how they protect their status and institutions," said Mary Lou McDonald, a member of the European Parliament with Sinn Fein.

Here in County Tipperary, the "Yes on the EU" bus was stopping in front of village cafes and bakeries; young activists from the majority Fianna Fail party trailed out in yellow T-shirts. They smiled and passed out leaflets touting EU membership as a bonanza for Ireland -- the country received 58 billion euros in European funds for agriculture, infrastructure and other programs from 1973 to 2003. Its exports to other EU states increased from 45 billion euros in 1997 to 87 billion in 2006.

Maire Hoctor, a Fianna Fail lawmaker and a minister of state from Nenagh, strolled the sidewalks, stopping for hugs, handshakes and an occasional tongue-lashing. She was joined by party colleague Jim Casey, mayor of North Tipperary.

"They're not going to give us anything. They're going to take it away, for sure," said Bernie O'Brien, an elderly woman who resisted their overtures.

"I remember when we had nothing in this county: We had a one-way ticket to Britain, and that was our lot," Hoctor told her.

Much of the opposition in rural Ireland involves an issue that has nothing to do with the EU treaty at all: agriculture proposals submitted last month to the World Trade Organization by the European trade commissioner, who is Britain's former envoy to the British province of Northern Ireland.

Irish farmers say the trade proposals could put 50,000 cattle farmers in Ireland out of business by easing importation of Brazilian and Argentine beef and driving down prices. The Irish Farmers Assn. says it will urge its members to vote "no" on the EU treaty if Ireland doesn't exercise its EU veto to block the trade proposals.

"It's just going to decimate farms," McLoughlin told Hoctor. "Sure, we've gotten subsidies from the EU. We got the check in the post, like everyone else. We were bought. We were humiliated. My husband has been told what to grow, when to grow it."

Casey said the issue shouldn't be used to block a treaty that will be good for Ireland.

"We've always negotiated good deals for the farmers in Ireland in Europe, and I'm convinced that will continue," he said. "The EU has provided well for farmers. Since we entered Europe, everything has gotten much, much better." T

he other main source of opposition has come from a group called Libertas, fronted by two wealthy businessmen who have had extensive contracts with the U.S. military. This has caused some in the Irish media to speculate that the group is advancing the agenda of U.S. conservatives, some of whom worry that a stronger, united Europe would undermine U.S. interests on the continent.

But Ulick McEvaddy, a former military intelligence officer whose company has contracts for aerial refueling with the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps and who is one of Libertas' biggest supporters, said he was worried about threats to Ireland's independence.

"We're handing over direct responsibility and huge issues of sovereignty to the Brussels parliament," McEvaddy said. "If they believe in this great experiment, put it to all the people of Europe."

Even in County Tipperary, some are willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

"Europe hasn't let us down yet," said Mick Connell, a member of the local council in Templemore, not far from Nenagh. "That should be good enough."

Can A Catholic Support the Treaty of Lisbon?

From The Irish Society for Christian Civilisation

I am a Catholic.

Can I approve of the Treaty of Lisbon?

The violation of non-negotiable principles raises a grave question of conscience for Irish Catholics in the face of this referendum.

A spectre is haunting Europe—it threatens you, the Christian future of your family, of Ireland, and of the Continent. It is a European Union without God and without moral principles.

The Treaty of Lisbon seeks to reform, for you and for all Irish Catholics, the fundamental values which govern the functioning of the European Union. These new values are in stark contrast to the non-negotiable principles given by Pope Benedict XVI.

The Pope insists that, in the construction of Europe, there are three areas in which the Church defends “non-negotiable principles”:

• “the protection of life at every stage;


• “the recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family;


• “and the protection of the right of parents to educate their children”.

To be at peace with his conscience, when casting his vote in the referendum, a Catholic has to give absolute priority to these non-negotiable principles. The moral preservation of our children and the future prosperity of Catholic Ireland and of all Europe will depend on the level of respect that the E.U. shows towards these principles.

Catholics must reject the Treaty of Lisbon

Our Lord Jesus Christ commanded: “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His justice, and everything else shall be added on to you.” In contrast to the Divine commandment, if the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified by Irish Catholics:

• The E.U. will ignore God and the Christian roots of Europe and will create a new European identity based on radical secularism and atheistic philosophies.
  We do not want our children to grow up in an Ireland without God!


• The E.U. will impose a relativistic and evolving idea of human rights, contrary to Catholic moral teaching. We do not want the relativisation of the principles that we will pass on to our children and grandchildren!


• The E.U. will considerably restrict the protection of human life and will facilitate abortion, euthanasia, and embryo experimentation. We do not want the mass
  murder of innocents being promoted throughout Europe!


• The E.U. will destroy the family by dissociating it from marriage between one man and one woman. Our children have the right to live in a normal home, in accordance with Catholic principles!
  

• The E.U. will impose excessive limits on the right of the parents to educate their children in accordance with their convictions. The freedom to pass on the Faith is a legacy that can never be challenged in Catholic Ireland!


• The E.U. will recognise, for the first time in the history of international treaties, “sexual orientation” as a basis for non-discrimination, opening the way for homosexual marriage and adoption of children by homosexuals. If today promiscuity and immorality already invade our homes and ruin the education of our children, what will it be like when these kinds of practices are imposed on us?

Catholics: only by uniting our voices can we be saved from this tragedy and this chastisement

To prevent Ireland and all of Europe from distancing itself even further from the Kingdom of God, Irish Society for Christian Civilisation is campaigning for a rejection of the Treaty of Lisbon in the name of the Catholic non-negotiable principles.

According to the late Pope, John Paul II, it is “the laity which by its particular vocation has the specific role of interpreting the history of the world in the light of Christ.”

If you consider it a matter of conscience to make heard the voice of Catholic Ireland in this debate, then you already are part of this campaign.

Click Here to read the study: “9 reasons why a conscientious Catholic citizen should reject the Treaty of Lisbon.”

You will understand why this referendum is happening at this crucial time in our history, and why it is not right for a Catholic to abstain in this hour of need. Above all, you will be able to influence and direct others among your acquaintances, clarifying the issues for them to prevent them from voting for the Treaty of Lisbon through ignorance or because of media or peer pressure.

Participating in this campaign you will be doing your bit to alert our fellow Catholics so that, at the moment of casting their votes, they will remember what Jesus said: “He who is ashamed of Me and of My words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes into His glory.” (Lk. 9:26)

For the honour and glory of the Most Sacred Heart of Our Lord Jesus Christ, say no to the Treaty of Lisbon and you will be saying yes to a Catholic Ireland and yes to a Christian Europe.