I suspect Dizzy’s right. But I also suspect 5/6 of the British Establishment would go into a blind panic too. Cameron has rather un-adeptly painted himself into a corner is now exiting the eurosceptic room by the quickest and most direct route possible: straight across the still wet and tacky floor.

In big ticket diplomatic terms it matters not, now Lisbon is dead as a containable issue (from a British point of view). If the UK had said No to Lisbon after an Irish No, then the political effluent would have flowed just one way, and Cameron would have been behind the eight ball.

If the UK were then to say No (and newly crowned PM Cameron would find it hard to lead a Yes campaign) now Ireland has said Yes, all the brown sludgey stuff can only flow back towards Blighty. Before, it was Lisbon: yes or no? Now it would resile to the Lib Dems preferred terms: EU: Yes or No? As a pragmatic politician Cameron is probably right to try to extricate himself from this messy situation.

Although it might have been less difficult for him with his own team if he’d not promised Eurosceptic opinion in his own party. I suspect it will do him little harm with that great swathe of liberal middle England that once voted so stubbornly for Tony Blair. Though it’s evidence of a degree of political incontinence when it comes to matters of Foreign Affairs. And - unlike Blair - a tendency to choose a path in the first instance which offers least resistance from his fundamentalist base, only to be forced to let them down at some point thereafter.

From the IT report

The cost: what the main groups spent 

YES

Fianna Fail €500,000

Fine Gael €300,000

Labour €200,000

Green Party €13,000

Ireland for Europe €500,000

Ryanair just under €500,000

Intel €300,000

We Belong €250,000

Ibec €150,000

Generation Yes €30,000

NO

Cóir €250,000

UKIP €190,000

Libertas €100,000-€120,000

Sinn Féin €100,000

Socialist Party €55,000-€60,000 No To Lisbon €30,000

People’s Movement €20,000

People Before Profit Alliance

under €10,000

National Platform €3,000

OTHER

Referendum Commission under €4 million

Department of Foreign Affairs €700,000

European Commission at least €150,000

Figures supplied by individual parties and groups

...sucked back into arcane discussions about rewriting the EU rulebook – and all 27 countries would need to agree to any change. It is not serious. Any country with something it wants from Britain would have us over a barrel. Our ability to argue for open trade, European enlargement and reform of the common agricultural policy would be compromised. [emphasis added]

And, although Tim Montgomerie may be right that Cameron’s got his eurosceptics covered regarding his expected standing down over the Referendum, here’s the real kicker for the Tories:

We have seen how quickly Mr Cameron’s bold plans on Europe disintegrate into farce. He promised to reconfigure the European parliament, yet only managed to surrender his party’s influence, swapping the respected European mainstream for the wilder fringes of far-right European politics.

Britain will not be able to tackle the economic challenges if faces unless we work with European allies. We cannot tackle climate change, international crime or energy if we refuse to deal seriously with Europe. Nor can the Tories hope to offer responsible government until they are straight with the British public.

Labour’s problem is that, as Mr Milliband concedes at the beginning of his piece, whatever internal discomfort Europe gives the party, it is not going to be a great vote loser Tories… With a 12 point deficit after his party’s conference he’s hardly speaking from a position of strength either.  The FT itself though wants to see intimations of much bigger things from Mr Cameron:

He uses European Union policy as a bribe with which to buy docility from the party’s backwoodsmen who are otherwise suspicious of his metropolitan liberalism. Earlier this year, he withdrew his MEPs from the mainstream European People’s party to keep party members acquiescent.

The Tory leader also eased their fears with a rash promise that he would hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. But following last week’s vote in Ireland, and notwithstanding the posturing of Vaclav Klaus, the Czech president, the treaty is likely to be in force before the UK election.

Mr Cameron has not yet set out what this means for his European policy. He should do so this week. He should explain that once the treaty has passed, a Tory government will live with it. With that simple stroke, he would show that he is unafraid of the swivel-eyed euro-frothing on the fringes of his party.

At the same time, he would show prime ministerial pragmatism, refusing to raise needless obstacles to engagement with Europe. Mr Cameron must use this conference to show that he will stand up for Britain’s interests, even against his own party’s destructive instincts.

Once bits of the Lisbon treaty have been implemented, it will be much easier to win the debate about accepting it as a reality (albeit an annoying one) and moving on. And I bet that is what they decide to do.

I’ve worked with William Hague on the Europe issue and I think I understand how he thinks. He moves when he has to and can shift straight to a new robust position. He doesn’t want a continually updated discussion. But if this is the view they take, they cannot object to the media noting that they have been required to put party management ahead of a clear Prime Ministerial course of action.

As Conall notes even the Czech President has just kicked David Cameron’s last viable eurosceptic stick away...

Of course foreign policy has never been a priority for Cameron, but by prioritising the management of his party’s internal conflicts over Europe - note the impetuous promise during his party’s leadership campaign to leave the EPP - may indicate that whilst Cameron has nerve aplenty, his longer term problem may lie the quality of his judgement.

After all, as Ireland has discovered to its cost, it is no longer the case that a country can deal with any single great issue on the purely domestic plane…

Now if the Treaty is ratified by then, to what end would a referendum be called you might ask? To “un-ratify” it? Ratting on an international treaty in the first few months of government would not be an auspicious start to a Tory government. Of course.

However the presumption amongst Cameron’s critics is that both he and the Tory party would automatically line itself up behind a NO vote. Yet, as Tory hack Matthew Parris revealed on Any Questions last night, he wants a referendum. And he wants to vote Yes.

In today’s Telegraph, Ken Clarke gives some indication as to how Cameron is planning to stage manage the climb down (with the help of some amnesia within the MSM no doubt):

A few months ago he appeared to let the cat out of the bag in an interview when he said that if the treaty was ratified before the election, the Tories would give up the fight. It drove his eurosceptic enemies to distraction: they want Mr Cameron to deliver a referendum come what may.

Mr Clarke urges his critics to stay quiet this weekend. He does not want a return to “the most absurd civil war” of the 1990s when the party “destroyed” itself over Europe. It would be a “disaster”. Under Mr Cameron the party is not interested in “punch-ups”.

If Gordon Brown ratifies Lisbon it could be viewed as a dead issue; and Cameron’s 2007 promissory note held to have expired.  If the Tory leader really does want to hold a referendum in order to demonstrate his open and democratic credentials (and justify his often vituperative attacks on the Labour leader; it is not a forgone conclusion that the people of the UK will say No.

Remember too that the 1975 referendum, held two years after the UK entered the EEC, effectively killed off Labour’s own, once dominant eurosceptic wing.

It may be that Mr Cameron plans to do the very same thing at a time of his own choosing… And, in the process, kill off several hoary old birds with the very same stone Wilson used back in the 70s… He can stand magisterially above the fray, and let the Ken Clarke europhiles side with Labour and the Lib Dems to rout his own eurosceptics on a battlefield of their own choosing…

He’s a canny boy that Call-me-Dave fellah… Cute, and light on his feet.  And, as he has demonstrated in the past, he can show the necessary nerve at moments when it counts.

By Eamon Gilmore TD

First, let’s get one thing straight: this treaty is not about transferring powers from national governments to “Brussels”. Rather, it changes the way the European Union exercises its existing responsibilities while adding extra checks and balances - both in terms of democratic accountability and in terms of social protection.

Let’s start with the democratic accountability. Under Lisbon, no EU legislation can be adopted without, first, prior examination of proposals by national parliaments, second, approval by the EU Council of Ministers (composed of national ministers accountable to those national parliaments) and third, approval of the European Parliament (composed of our directly elected MEPs).

This is a level of scrutiny that exists in no other international organisation. Anyone genuinely worried about accountability should focus on the IMF, the WTO, the World Bank, the OECD and so on, which lack such accountability.

The treaty will also require the Council of Ministers to meet in public when discussing legislation - entrenching a long overdue reform.

Lisbon also provides for the President of the Commission to be elected by the European Parliament. The European Council must make a nomination taking account of the European election results and the majorities that are possible in the European Parliament. At the very least, this (and the need for a vote of confidence by Parliament in the whole Commission) will make it clear that the Commission is not a group of unaccountable bureaucrats, but is a political executive dependant on the confidence of the elected parliament.

As an extra safeguard, the treaty obliges the EU institutions to respect a Charter of Rights, failing which its decisions can be struck down by the courts. This will ensure the EU cannot undermine rights commonly accepted across Europe, including key workers’ rights.

With these democratic reforms come some practical changes to help the institutions function better in an enlarged Union: merging the two EU foreign affairs positions into one role of High Representative and replacing the 6-month rotating European Council presidency (changing chairman every second meeting) with a longer 30-month term.

Equally important are the changes on the social front.

The Lisbon Treaty will strengthen the European Social Model. It will enshrine the values of social justice, full employment and solidarity in the EU’s mission statement and commit the EU to “a social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress”. The Treaty emphasises that the EU must work to “combat social exclusion and discrimination”, and will be legally required to promote social justice, gender equality and solidarity between generations. It is values such as these that clearly differentiate the EU from the American model of capitalism that allows private wealth and public squalor.

A new protocol will require the Union to safeguard public services, including the way they are organised and financed in each country. The treaty also requires the Union, in all policy areas, to take account of “the promotion of a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection, the fight against social exclusion, and a high level of education, training and protection of human health”.

Lisbon reaffirms the existing obligation on the Commission to “promote the consultation of management and labour at Union level”, to “facilitate their dialogue by ensuring balanced support for the parties”, and to “consult the social partners before submitting proposals on social policy”.

The Charter of Rights, approved by every Member State government in 2000, but which will with Lisbon become legally binding on the EU institutions, sets out the civil, economic and social rights that the EU will be obliged to respect. These include the right to fair and just working conditions, to collective bargaining and collective action, including strike action, equal pay for men and women, the right to social security and freedom from discrimination.

The Lisbon treaty is, of course, a compromise and, indeed, falls short of some aspirations. However, it provides a base to protect and develop a social vision of Europe. The overwhelming majority of socialist parties and of trade unions across Europe support the Lisbon Treaty, despite some reservations, precisely because it will enshrine the European Social Model.

Moreover,  a rejection of the treaty would further galvanize those who are bitterly opposed to the values of social inclusion and solidarity that are enshrined in the EU, and who instead call for unrestricted free-market capitalism. It is no coincidence that the treaty’s strongest opponents are the British Conservative and UKIP parties and the Czech President Vaclav Klaus. This would be a disaster - the social model is central to the European project and is too important not to be fought for.

For those of us who believe in a European Union that is fit for purpose, this treaty is a result to be welcomed - a set of useful reforms that should put an end to years of institutional wrangling and will make the EU institutions more responsive to citizens, to Member States, their parliaments and their peoples.

In other words, it will deliver a more focused EU, better capable of delivering in those policy areas where we benefit from common European action, not least the social, environmental and consumer protection legislation that tames market forces. At the same time, it subjects the EU to stronger safeguards and more scrutiny. This, surely, deserves our support.

Eamon Gilmore TD is Leader of the Irish Labour Party…

By Ciarán Toland

The fact of having to vote in a constitutional referendum suggests that the subject-matter has the significance of the Constitution which is being amended. We assume – reasonably enough – that when the Irish people are consulted, there must be a significant impact on the Irish Constitution. This assumption is misplaced, especially in respect of Lisbon.

Unfortunately, from this wrong assumption stem 2 unwarranted fears: first, an apprehension that every Treaty involves a substantial transfer of power away from the Irish people; and, second, a belief that other constitutional issues – such as abortion – are somehow in the mix. The undeserved importance we subconsciously attribute to questions put to the people distorts public debate.

That, however, is counterintuitive. After all, we’re voting on it, not the Oireachtas (who would ratify it, over the objections of only a handful of Deputies and Senators). So, just why are we, the Irish people, having to vote tomorrow?

In Crotty v An Taoiseach in 1986. The Supreme Court decided that a constitutional referendum is required where the proposed changes were outside the essential scope and objectives of what the High Court had described as a “living, dynamic” Community.

The Supreme Court therefore found that the creation of a new field of decision-making in foreign policy was outside the scope and principles of the original EEC. However, the Single European Act’s enumeration of specific objects, namely to create a single market, was within the scope and principles of the Community established to create a common market.

The Lisbon Treaty is a Treaty devoted to internal decision-making. From the Irish perspective, it is entirely constitutional to tinker with the method of appointment of certain offices such as the President of the Council or the merger of the positions of Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs with the Commission’s Vice-President for External Relations. It presents no constitutional problem to make the European Council (the meetings of heads of government) a European Union institution, nor to throw open the doors of the Council of Ministers when legislating.

Likewise, the introduction of consultation with the national parliaments is in no way outside the scope and principles of the current Treaties – and, as the German Constitutional Court has recently indicated, is beneficial to EU and national democracy. All these could have been handled by the Oireachtas.

Nor are the People voting because of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. As the Charter expressly states, with the backing of the French Constitutional Court, the Charter applies only to the application of Union law. It does not extend the scope of Union law. And, given that fundamental rights, and in particular many of those enumerated by the Charter, have been recognised by the Court as having the status of Treaty law for nearly 40 years, and have been expressly referred to in the Treaties since Maastricht, the Charter is not outside the scope and principles of the existing Treaties.

Although the Supreme Court in Crotty reserved its position on future moves from unanimity to QMV, the Supreme Court made clear that movement of areas to QMV where envisaged by the founding Treaties did not fall outside the scope and principles of the EEC. Therefore, whilst there remains unfortunate legal ambiguity on this point, it is at least arguable that a referendum is triggered neither by Lisbon’s introduction of a double-majority voting system, nor by the movement of many areas from unanimity to the ordinary legislative method (double-majority within the Council of Ministers and co-decision with the Parliament).

So, is it because Lisbon deepens European integration? Does it transfer competences away from Ireland to the EU? Despite certain claims, the Union already has competence in energy and climate change. Other areas (such as space) are areas in which the Union will be able to act, but not to the exclusion of the Member States. These do not represent the creation of a competence outside the constitutional licence given under the existing Treaties.

So what is in the Lisbon Treaty that requires the Irish people to make the decision? What’s the big deal?

As obscure as it sounds, it is a matter of legal structure. In 1973, Ireland joined the European Economic Community (EEC), a common market. In 1993, the EEC was renamed the European Community, by then a single market. Also in 1993, an umbrella international organisation (but not a legal entity) named the European Union was created, under which sat the European Community, and 2 new centres of European law and policy – on foreign and defence policy (the “Second Pillar”) and what is today police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters (the “Third Pillar”).

The important differences between the European Community and the European Union can be simplified as follows: the EU makes decisions by unanimity in the Council without full oversight by the European Court of Justice, but cannot sign Treaties; the EC makes decisions by qualified majority in the Council on a proposal by the Commission with co-decision of the European Parliament and with full oversight by the European Court of Justice, and can sign Treaties.

The Lisbon Treaty proposes to abandon this complex system. It proposes that the EC and the 2 other pillars will be absorbed into a new EU endowed with legal personality. It is this question of legal structure which necessitates the Irish people vote, as is evident from the text of the constitutional amendment.

And it is on this question that Declan Ganley and some on the left are focussed, saying that Lisbon gives the European Union the characteristics of a State. However, on 30 June this year, the German Constitutional Court addressed that very question. It held that “even as an association with its own legal personality, the European Union remains the creation of sovereign democratic states.”

It further found that the post-Lisbon European Union is not a federal state but remains an association of sovereign states to which the principle of conferral of powers by sovereign Member States applies, that the Lisbon Treaty did not permit even development towards Union statehood, and that the democratic right of citizens to elect those who make their decisions is not infringed by the Lisbon Treaty.

It is apparent – from both an Irish legal analysis, and after consideration of decisions of the French, German and Czech Constitutional Courts - that the Lisbon Treaty has the least impact upon the Irish Constitution of any Treaty the People have ever decided upon. Whilst the Constitution of Ireland will be amended, the sovereignty of the Irish people expressed in that Constitution will remain undiminished.

Moreover, it must be concluded that with the sole exception of the legal structural question of the merger of the EC and the EU (on which little turns), and with the possible exception of some moves of Council decision-making from unanimity to QMV (to which there has been little objection in the second referendum,), every element of Lisbon flows directly from the project to which we as a People have previously agreed.

Advocates of a No vote, particularly those (such as Sinn Féin and Libertas) who support the current European Union and who agree we have benefitted in our membership of it, must therefore explain why they support resiling from the living, dynamic partnership with which the Irish People have on 6 occasions contracted.

Ciarán Toland is a barrister specialising in European Union law.  You can read the rest of the Lisbon Essays here.

By John O’Farrell

Finally, the unacknowledged legislators have chipped in with their two cent. Asked by The Observer if Europe was as important for him culturally as it was economically, Seamus Heaney said: “I think it’s slightly more important, not only in terms of culture but in terms of credit, in terms of meaning.”

In terms of credit, in terms of meaning, the result of the second referendum on Lisbon will have profound implications for Europe’s soft power as a global player and even harsher implications on Ireland’s soft power. As Derek Scally, in the service of pointing out the obvious notes, “if Ireland votes No a second time, it is up to our EU neighbours – not us – to decide how we will be treated in the future.”

Ireland thrived in the polished corridors of the EU’s institutions for three decades by ruthlessly exploiting every foreign cliché about the Irish. We grinned and bore it as they sympathised about our backwardness and poverty and emigration. We nodded sagely as they assured us that they would do all that they could to help with the ‘situation’ up north. They joined in the ‘craic’ and tapped their toes to our ballads and cried at our poets.

We used our special relationship with the Brits to schmooze the continental powers on their behalf and translated back to the old imperialists what exactly ‘the frogs’ and ‘eyeties’ actually meant when they spoke that euro-babble that remained gobbledegook to the mandarins of Whitehall.

While the Brits sent second raters to keep an eye on things, the Irish sent the brightest of their civil servants, people who could understand the Delphic layers of the Bureaucracy and shone among the Anglophone pen pushers in the Berlaymont. They parlayed Berlay-speak. We told the money people exactly what they wanted to hear and we reaped the rewards.

It was more than Structural funds which flowed in as a result of their masterful exercise in soft power. During the remarkable period in which Ireland received over 40% of all US investment into the entire European Union, the same attributes of charm and pluck and strategic intelligence worked on the Americans as well as it did on the Germans and the Belgians and the other states, large and small.

It was as if Ireland understood better than anyone else (with the possible exception of Luxemburg) the import of Henri Spaak’s 1963 quip. “In Europe today,” said the wartime Prime Minister of Belgium, “all countries are small countries, but some don’t yet realise it.”

Those who think that a small state with less than one per cent of the EU’s population can say ‘eff off’ to 26 democracies who have ratified the Lisbon Treaty, mostly over stuff which is not in the Treaty, and get away easily, is missing something important. Before you can say ‘bully’, this is not that the elites in Brussels, even the Irish cohort, who will make us suffer and take their roads back. It is simple human nature.
It also forgets another basic fact.

The Lisbon Treaty is, in all essentials, the same thing as the ill-fated EU Constitution which (to declare my conflict of interest, I campaigned for) was initiated many moons ago in response to the attacks on the West on September 11th 2001. The forum which set up the Constitution was tasked with coming up with an answer to Henry Kissinger’s question about who he should call when we wanted to speak to ‘Europe’. It was also intended to be a simple statement to the peoples of Europe as to the aim and mission of the EU project.

And then it expanded and sub-claused when competing diplomats got around the table with their national agendas, hobby-hats and foibles. Which is what makes it unreadable to the masses and provides a paradise for the green crayon brigade.

In terms of meaning, it is triple tripe. It is impossible to summarise in one sentence, or one page, why we need it, or to oppose it. Therefore, it is easier to fret about how this or that obscure addendum or annex will enslave us all (except the elites, of course).

Soft power works in different ways. It is the mood music, not the libretto, which seduces. Tomorrow, the voters of Ireland will play their tune. If the rest of Europe accepts or declines to dance to our choice, it is their choice entirely.

John O’Farrell writes in an entirely personal capacity. You can pick up the rest of the LIsbon Essays here

By Declan Ganley

Thank you for the invitation to contribute.

If you have not made up your mind by now, my guess is that an intricate discussion of the provisions of the Treaty will not sway you either way, and that you have begun the process of balancing and weighing the arguments that will decide which box you tick on the morrow. Instead, I want to leave you with a few thoughts on what our vote will say about the direction of the Union in the years to come.

I was moved by Margot Wallström’s impassioned plea (LE20) for the EU to stop looking inwards when I read it on these pages the other day, and like her, I agree that suspicion towards our partners is counter-productive and corrosive. The EU has been great, and can be greater – on that we should all agree.

What worries me about our vote is this: of all the questions the yes side can answer about the Treaty, one has remained ignored. How do we stop it? Forget for one moment whether you like it, or not, for there is as in all documents of its scope much to commend, and much to commend its rejection.

Many people have spoken of things that will happen after our vote. Let me tell you one thing that will not happen if we vote “YES”: No survey will be commissioned to find out why we did. No studies will be done. Whether we voted out of fear or loathing will be ignored. Our vote will be placed in a box which says “right answer, move on”.

When our leaders go down the path of asking us to explain why we vote in a particular manner, the essential ideal behind the secret ballot is lost. Europe has started down a path whereby the culture has shifted to a situation where our leaders demand explanations from us, and not the other way around. Votes against a Treaty or any other document beloved of the project can, under this new definition of democracy, never be considered to be a vote against the direction of the project itself.

This is not the second referendum on this Treaty. It is the sixth. It has so far been voted on five times, and if it were a football match, the score would be 3-2 to the NO side. Despite this, the only changes that have been made to the document are cosmetic. It is a fact that no law that could have been made under the document rejected by the French could not be made under the document we decide on tomorrow, and vice versa. The democratic process has not changed the direction of the project at all.

So, how do we stop it? Even a “NO” tomorrow may not achieve that, our politicians say. A third referendum has not been ruled out. When you arrive at a situation in society wherein you must explain your secret ballot to the Government, and wherein your vote is not permitted to bring real change to the issue on which you were asked to adjudicate, it is time to look inwards. When you find yourself living in a democracy, but unable to join with a majority of your fellow citizens to influence a long term policy trend, it is time to look inwards.

Our decision tomorrow will indeed shape Europe. You have been asked to vote with fear in your hearts, and to consider the “consequences” of your decision. If that is what you do, then so be it. I will not question you, and nor will anybody else. I ask you only this – as your pen hovers over the ballot tomorrow, think for one moment about the message you are sending our leaders about how they should treat us in future. I have, and I’m voting for Europe, and voting NO.

From Professor John Keane

If the vote goes against the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty then this will undoubtedly add to the present woes of the Irish people, and of us all. The history of modern referenda shows that they are sometimes necessary, for instance when an outdated or unjust clause in a constitution needs to be changed in order to improve its legitimacy.

But in the history of democracy there are many recorded cases when referenda have had bad effects. Feather-brained populism flourishes. Practical complications get ignored. Wilful ignorance takes over. Disaffection finds a lightning rod. All in the name of a phantom People that acts like the enemies of democracy, as Plato said it always would.

When referenda campaigns go down this path, real people need to wake up, and get up. They should remember the remark of Albert Camus, written in 1944, when France had its back to the wall and nationalist sentiments were on the rise: I love my country, in all its diversity, far too much ever to be a nationalist.

It’s worth noting too that Ireland is one of a very few democracies in the world that uses this extra parliamentary mechanism for amending its Constitution…

By Dan O’Brien

Germans and their politicians have paid little attention to Ireland’s referendum on the Lisbon treaty. In the EU’s largest and most powerful country, they have been too busy following their general election, which took place on Sunday. Besides, they have worked on the assumption that Irish voters will change their minds on Lisbon, particularly after being given concessions on the structure of the European Commission and assurances on issues the Irish government told them were necessary.

If next Saturday, as the vote counting moves towards a conclusion and news filters to Berlin that Irish voters have endorsed the treaty, there will be a sigh of relief. A process of institutional reform that began in 2001 will finally be implemented. If ,on the other hand, the treaty is rejected, things will change for Ireland. And the change will almost certainly be profound.

Across the bloc opinions on Ireland differ, but in the two most important capitals—Berlin and Paris—it is not hard to find negative views and perceptions. Here is a synopsis of what I have heard repeatedly heard over the years, this week included.

No other country has done better from the EU. When Ireland joined in the early 1970s, it was by far the poorest country of the then nine members. It was therefore entitled to large cash transfers, which have been, cumulatively and on a per capita basis, larger than any other country that joined before or since.

Among the things this money was used for was to allow very low rates of corporation tax to be levied on foreign companies. That gave and continues to give these companies, which are mostly American, a competitive edge over their European rivals in the European market (some people here in Berlin and elsewhere on the continent become visibly angry at what they see as a link between cash transfers and corporation tax ).

Germans have another long-term bugbear—Ireland’s financial regulation. For years they have been critical of Dublin’s financial services centre because they believed it was a dark crevice in which institutions could get away with things that would not try in Frankfurt or other continental locations. When German bank, HRE, blew up earlier this year and had to be nationalised, its Dublin based off-shoot, Depfa, was blamed by many.

Another gripe relates to monetary union. Germany only grudgingly agreed to give up the Deutschemark—it was the price to be paid for reunification. As negotiations took place in the 1990s on how the common currency would function, serious players in Germany sought to exclude countries with poor economic management records, such as Ireland, because a currency union would only be as strong as its weakest link.

Earlier this year both the German chancellor and finance minister felt obliged to state publicly that the no euro area country would be allowed to default as the financial crisis threatened to spiral out of control. They were referring to Ireland, along with Greece, as the two countries slid towards bankruptcy.

From a German perspective, Ireland causes more than its fair share of problems in the EU. For a small, peripheral country to be viewed as the source of so much trouble makes it vulnerable. But the killing of the Lisbon treaty by Ireland would be more than just another problem. It would say that the entire process of European integration has come to a halt because one of the smallest countries in the bloc says so.

The EU, as a Union of laws, cannot implement a treaty that has not been ratified by all members. But the EU is also a political entity. Politics, as the cliché goes, is the art of the possible. The political reality in Germany and most of the other key member countries is that there is a deep belief that an enlarged EU has to be made more effective and that it needs the changes in the Lisbon treaty to achieve this.

There are numerous ways that change could take place within the law. A core group of those countries who want to implement Lisbon could do so, creating two classes of membership. Alternatively, a new treaty could be agree, but with the explicit stipulation that if it is not ratified the EU is dissolved and a new entity to replace it be established (existing members would have a straight choice between being in or out). A worst case scenario for Ireland would be that it comes under pressure to withdraw voluntarily.

It would be a gross misreading of the dynamics of modern European history to believe that a strategically inconsequential country that has benefited so disproportionately from EU membership could now, for reasons that appear to outsiders to be capricious if not malicious, wreck an initiative that is almost universally supported by Europe’s political parties and took so long to put together.

O’Brien’s new book “Ireland, Europe and the World” is published this week. You can read the rest of the Lisbon Essays here.

By Naoise Nunn

I campaigned against the Lisbon Treaty last time on the basis that a better deal was possible for Ireland. This time I am urging a Yes vote to lock in the better deal we got from our No vote. It’s basic, simple common sense. I am also calling for people to vote Yes to Lisbon because the Treaty represents some of reform we could badly do with at home.

The buses, taxis, offices, factories, hairdressers, waiting rooms and kitchens of Ireland are seething with anger about the state of the nation. Unemployment is rampant, net emigration has returned and women and men everywhere are finding it tougher and tougher to provide for themselves and their children. People feel a powerful and urgent need to give something or someone the lash and the Government, the builders and the bankers are natural and justifiable targets. What is not a natural or justifiable target for this anger is the Lisbon Treaty upon which we give our verdict on October 2nd.

We now require radical reform at every level of society to deal with our current crisis. We must either shake up or scrap those systems which have run this country up to now but are no longer fit for purpose. Legislation is too slow and lacks adequate consultation with those affected. Decisions made at national level have impacts at local level. Government and State bodies cost too much and lack transparency and accountability - we need only look at the disgraceful conduct of FÁS which has emerged. More importantly, we can’t seem to reach a consensus on what strategy will get us out of this mess.

It probably won’t at all surprise you to read that these problems have all in some way been faced by the European Union too. The difference to us though is that the European Union has found some sort of consensus on how to reform the way it does its business. It’s called the Lisbon Treaty and it aims to make Europe’s institutions more responsive to ordinary people, transparent and democratic. Lisbon also spells out strategies to address the challenges of energy security, climate change and globalisation which cannot be dealt with by countries acting alone.

Let’s be clear about this: Lisbon is no conspiracy being foisted upon the people. It was negotiated over seven years by the democratically-elected governments (and oppositions) of every single one of the 27 member states. It’s not perfect by any means but it is now the best deal possible for Ireland. It provides a platform for reform of the EU present and future. Furthermore, the economic circumstances in which we now find ourselves make the approval of the Lisbon Treaty the sensible choice for our future. It just makes plain common sense to give ourselves in Ireland - and in Europe - a platform for further much-needed reform.

The EU still has many failings in terms of communicating with the citizens of the member states. It must involve us more in the decision-making process. It must do better to give us a sense of ownership of the European partnership. My central point is that these and other problems can be much better addressed by a European Union reformed by Lisbon. The alternative is to struggle under the current state of uncertainty. At the same time, many of the criticisms made by eurosceptics are actually the failings of member states, some are exaggerated and others, to be frank, are just plain nuts.

The Lisbon Treaty is a complicated document but it must be so to reform the rules of such a unique and complex entity. The EU enables 27 countries to voluntarily co-operate in areas of mutual. Crucially, however it retains for each of those diverse countries the fundamental sovereign power to decide their own policy on issues of vital national interest.

There are many specific measures provisions in the Treaty which can give us in Ireland some inspiration for some of the reforms which would benefit this country. Specifically, it gives more say to the directly-elected European Parliament in making laws together with the European Council, made up of the relevant ministers from all the member state governments.

For the first time, the Treaty makes public and transparent the meetings of the European Council so that citizens can see how their own government ministers perform and arrive at their decisions. This means we can hold them responsible when they arrive back from Brussels.

The Treaty also introduces much greater powers for the Dáil so that TDs and Senators can judge on our behalf whether or not new EU laws are suitable for us. The new arrangements also give the EU new power to deal more effectively with the very real and present challenges of energy security, climate change and globalisation which simply cannot be tackled by countries acting alone.

There are also a number of aspects of the Lisbon Treaty which have been completely misrepresented and misunderstood. The European Commission does not make or pass any laws. It is effectively the civil service of the EU and can only propose laws which must then be amended, agreed or rejected by the ministers of the member state governments. Lisbon also gives the European Parliament more power to decide on laws in many areas.

The proposed President of the European Council will act as a chairperson and will co-ordinate summit meetings. That’s it. The post does not carry any executive power or legislative power and as such cannot be described as a “President of Europe” in the common understanding of that term.

The European Court of Justice has been used as a convenient bogeyman. No campaigners have claimed that its 27 judges (one of whom is nominated by Ireland) might interpret the Treaties to come to a wide range of imagined and highly improbable decisions such as allowing for the involuntary euthanasia of the elderly or the micro-chipping of children. The fact is that the ECJ can only make rulings on issues over which the EU has been given power voluntarily by member states.

In the area of ethical and family issues, for example, the Nold case found that the Court: “cannot uphold measures which are incompatible with fundamental rights recognised and protected by the Constitutions of those States”. This principle is reinforced by the Lisbon Treaty with protocols. It essentially means the Irish Constitution is untouchable. The European Court cannot interpret the Charter of Fundamental Rights in any way that would change this. Most importantly, the overwhelming experience of the ECJ is that it acts in a fair manner to balance the rights and responsibilities of member states and the EU institutions, principally for the benefit of citizens.

 

Like the EU, the Lisbon Treaty is not a conspiracy. It is a sovereign agreement by 27 very different member states to co-operate. They do so - we do so - in the firm belief that we must hang together or most assuredly we will all hang separately.

We must let our common sense and positive experience of Europe for the past 35 years inform our decision on Lisbon rather than the fearful, paranoid notions of what might happen in the future.

This time we have nothing positive to gain by voting No but by voting Yes we can lock in the concessions we won in that first No vote.

By ratifying Lisbon, we will also provide the framework and platform for further reform of those elements of the European Union of which many are critical.

We can confidently vote Yes for reform in Europe as the beginning of a process that can and should lead to real reform at home. In the words of Franklin D Roosevelt, preparing the American people for recovery from the depths of the Great Depression: “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself”.

Naoise Nunn is an independent political consultant and producer of the monthly Leviathan: Political Cabaret series and the Mind Field spoken word arena at the Electric Picnic festival. He was executive director of Libertas until September 2008.

The Government wants us to vote for the Lisbon Treaty. One of their main selling points is that the Treaty contains the Charter for Fundamental Rights.  Vote yes and the Charter is yours.  There’s only one problem with this argument – it’s not true.  Indeed, the Government has gone out of its way – in both this and the last referendum campaign – to make clear that it will not implement key provisions of the Charter into national law; namely, the right to collective bargaining. 

Article 28 states:  ‘Workers and employers, or their respective organisations, have, in accordance with Community law and national laws and practices, the right to negotiate and conclude collective agreements at the appropriate levels . . .’

However, in Irish national law (and industrial practice), while the right to join a trade union is constitutionally protected, the right to bargain collectively is not.  We are one of the few, in only, EU countries not to have such a right.

In effect, the Government is asking us to support the ‘form’ of fundamental rights but will refuse to implement the ‘substance’ of those rights.

During the last referendum, a number of trade unions demanded that, in return for their support, the Government would have to commit to implementing the Charter into law.  Fianna Fail refused, stating this was a matter for ‘social partnership’ negotiation’.  Of course, when the subject came up at the talks, the Government washed their hands of the matter, claiming IBEC wouldn’t support it.  It can’t be much of a fundamental right if employers can veto it. 

The issue of collective bargaining rights is not, as some have claimed, a sectional issue.  In the first instance, it is about according all workers throughout Europe the same rights and ensuring that the Charter has equal force.  Second, it is about ensuring that workers have the same bargaining rights as employers.  While workers can be denied the right to professional representation during negotiation, employers are entitled to it.

It goes beyond industrial issues, however.  The economic benefits of implementing the Charter into national law are considerable.  Trade union membership, where it is accompanied by the right to bargain collectively, provides a wage premium for workers.  Simply put, you’re more likely to earn more if you’re in a union then if you’re not (studies in Europe and the US show this premium can range anywhere between 5 and 15 percent).  In addition, during a downturn, collective bargaining can protect wages and conditions.

This premium would, of course, help maintain tax revenue (wage increases are more beneficial to the Exchequer than retained profits) and shore up domestic demand.  The irony is that, while some claim the right to collective bargaining would degrade ‘enterprise efficiency’, the fact is that, through the premium and increased wages, more enterprises would stay in business as consumer spending wouldn’t fall by as much as they are doing now.

In addition, collective bargaining is key to improving our productivity.  The National Centre for Partnership and Performance has shown that companies where workers have the right to bargain collectively are more productive – by a wide margin – than companies that don’t.  This shouldn’t be surprising.  Collective bargaining is the minimum in treating employees with respect.  In such an environment, productivity will be higher than in one where workers are denied such respect.

So Fianna Fail is about more than sabotaging the Charter of Fundamental Rights.  They are about treating workers as second class citizens in the industrial sphere (what kind of ‘partnership’ do we have when one partner refuses to recognise the other?), exacerbating the fiscal crisis and making our economy more uncompetitive. 

That’s what at stake in this referendum.  Even at this late stage, it is open to the Government to reverse its position and commit itself to implementing the Charter into national law.  However, until they do, the correct course is to vote ‘No’.  A ‘No’ vote would show solidarity with the Charter and a social Europe. 

The next step, of course, would be to bring about a change of Government, a change that will ensure the Charter is taken seriously.

Jobs. Inward Investment. Influence within the institutions of…..bleugh. You’ll have heard all that stuff from people smarter than me.

Here’s why I’m voting Yes.

The EU works. It does more good than harm, and I’ve not come across a proposal from Sinn Fein or Joe Higgins or UKIP or Coir/Youth Defence which makes better sense, and wins as much support among European people, as the EU.

We’re not voting on the EU itself, true, but here’s my problem:

If we vote No, the rest of Europe will respect our decision. They will accept that we have voted twice against further integration, and that we are sincere in our beliefs that this is as far as we go. In short they will, much to our surprise, believe us.

Is it unreasonable to suggest that those other countries that want to move on will negotiate amongst themselves, and not invite us?

After all:

A) We have said (Three out of four times.) that we’re not interested.

B) Why would anyone believe an Irish government could get anything it negotiated through a referendum anyway, after failing twice in a row? Involving us just makes it more complicated.

They will respect us and leave us be, and I don’t want us to be left be. I want us at the table when Angela Merkel turns and says “What does Ireland think?” and no one on the No side can assure me of that.

There is good stuff in the treaty, but it is technical. The Council will vote in public, for example. Does that excite you? Does that cause your nether regions to stir? Is there anyone closing their curtains, and sweatily slipping “Red Hot Council Decisions Volume 2.” into their DVD player? No there isn’t.

But then there are no teenagers slipping a well thumbed copy of “Aircraft Window Sealant regulations” under the sheets either, but next time you get on a plane, and look at the seal around the window, I bet you’ll think: “I hope someone checks this stuff.” Stuff can be boring AND important and this is one of those things.

Many of the people opposed to the treaty are sincere. Joe Higgins is, but Joe is also using the treaty to fight for a vision of society that he has never succeeded in doing in a general election. Trying to turn Ireland into North Korea without the psychotic midget dictator and the daily diet of tree bark and weevils is going to be a hard enough sell. At least turn up on the right battlefield , Joe.

Sinn Fein are still moving away from a 19th century view of the world towards modern times. Sinn Fein say that they are now committed to the EU, using the same tone that the PSNI use about their commitment to human rights.

Certainly, when you look at the way Sinn Fein ministers in the North talk about the EU (Quite nicely in a More tea, Vicar? Chocolate Hobnob? kind of way.) they’re either two-faced, with a partitionist approach to the EU, or the ministers in the North show the way Sinn Fein is heading on Europe.

Either way, their alternative has almost no support in the rest of Europe, and believing that Sinn Fein can make the other 26 countries surrender everything is a bit hopeful: When they tried to negotiate with just one country (The Brits), the best they got us were all-Ireland telly ads telling us how to not get the runs from food poisoning.

Coir/Youth Defence have it in for, well, 21st Century life on Earth. As an architect friend described Coir’s view to me: “Vote Yes and the gays will make aborted children fight in Afghanistan for €1.84 an
hour.”

We have problems, big giant Godzilla-without-cute-Godzuki sized problems coming at us. We don’t need to create new problems for the sake of it, and that’s what we will do with a No vote. If you’re pissed off with the government and the political establishment, that’s fine. Kick the crap out of them at election time.

But voting No to get at the government is like being one of those morons who throws rocks at the fire brigade. As Iceland discovered, the EU is the fire brigade, and it’s damn handy having a direct line to the station.

Yes is, quite simply, the sensible self-interested way to go.

Le Concubhar O’Liathain

  Táim go fll ag su? ar an gclaí maidir le Conradh Liospn.  V?táil mé i gcoinne an Chonartha an uair dheireannach agus is dócha go bhfuil mé claonta sa treo sin an uair seo – ní fheictear dom go bhfuil aon údar agam m’aigne a athrú.

      De réir dealraimh bhí an Taoiseach i gCill Airne le déanaí ag lorg votaí ar son an chonartha – ach ba bheag fograíocht a deineadh faoin chuairt ar eagla go meallfadh sé níos mó ná tacadóirí Fhianna Fáil.

      Ar ndóigh is dhá cheist difriúil iad an fhearg atá ar an bpobal leis an Rialtas agus an suim atá againn i gConradh Liospóin.

      Níl an difríocht chomh soiléir nuair a fheiceann tú ar phostaer FF (a chonaic mé ar an bpriomh bhóthar go Corcaigh) a fhograíonn: “We are stronger with Europe”.  An fadhb atá agamsa leis an bpostaer seo nach bhfuil a fhios agam an bhfuil an ‘We’ sin ag tagairt do Fhianna Fáil nó don tír ina iomláine?  Is minic é curtha in iúl ag ionadaithe an pháirti sin gurb ionann leas Fhianna Fáil agus leas na hÉireann agus leas na hÉireann agus leas Fhianna Fáil.

      An oiread is nach dtéann na mannaí folmha sin ó na mór phairtithe i bhfeidhm orm, ní théann an maíomh ó lucht ‘Níl’ I bhfeidhm orm ach an oiread.  Maíonn siad gur ionann tacú le Conradh Liospn anois agus streachailt na ngl?inte ag leithéidí Wolfe Tone, Robert Emmet agus Pádraig Mac Piarais ar son ‘the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies’ a chur ar ceal.

      Nuair a chuimhníonn tú gur sin an seasamh ag Sinn Féin agus an UK Independence Party, uber náisiúnaithe na Breataine, araon, ní chuirfí locht ort as ucht bheith faoi mearbhall.

      Tá an soiniceas i réim anois in Éirinn agus tá amhras ann faoi gach rud a deir gach duine.  Nior gheill mé go dtí seo ach anois táim ag geilleadh.

      Creidim gurb é an t-aon chúis go bhfuil polaiteoirí agus feidhmeannaigh araon ar son an chonartha seo mar go dtugann sé níos mó cumhachta dóibh.  Maith go leor dá mbeadh bannaí ann go mbeadh an cumhacht sin á úsáid ar leas an Aontais agus an ghnath phobal san Aontas, sinne a íocann as ticéad na maorláthach is na bpolaiteoirí ar an ‘gravy train’.  An t-aon dream a bhfaighidh buntáiste as seo ná na maorláthaigh is na polaiteoirí céanna.  I bhfocail Bertie Ahern (geall leis), the gravy train just got gravier.

      Ach ní h-é sin mar a thiteann amach ar chorr ar bith – is amhlaidh gurb é leas na bpolaiteoirí agus na bhfeidhmeannach an chéad chloch ar an bpaidrín ag na polaiteoirí agus ag na feidhmeannaigh agus má tharlaíonn sé go mbionn leas eigean ann don ghnath phobal, ó am go chéile,  nach leor sin chun ár ngearáin a chur ina dtost.

      Níl lucht ‘Níl’ aon phioc níos fearr.  Tá amhras orm go bhfuil leithéidí SF in éadan Chonradh Liospóin de bharr go gcreideann siad go gcothóidh sin íomhá i measc an phobail gurb iad an ‘fíor freasúra’.  Ach mar a fuarthas amach ó thuaidh, nuair a fuair siad suiocháin timpeall bhord an Fheidhmeannais dá dtónacha, shuigh siad ar na suíocháin sin agus ba bheag a d’athraigh siad chun leas an phobail.

      Níl mo sheasamh in éadan Chonradh Liospóin bunaithe ar fhiricí nó staitisticí nó argnt loighici?íil.  Is aisfhreagra é seo a thagann ó mo phutóga.  Tá mé in amhras faoi.  Sin é.

      Is léir go bhfuil amhras ar na bpolaiteoirí faoi nó níl siad ag iarrraidh casadh liom agus mo vóta a lorg mar a dheineann siad nuair a bhionn votaí á lorg acu ar a son féin trath toghcháin.

      Níor nocht polaiteoir ó phairtí ar bith i mo cheantar ag lorg vóta ‘T n? ‘Nil’.  Labhrann siad liom le postaeirí agus suíomhanna idirlín.

      Níl sé sin maith go leor.

      Níl sé maith go leor ach an oiread go bhfuil ar votairí na hÉireann an ualach seo a iompar inár n-aonar de bhrí gur fúinne atá sé ‘T n? ‘Níl’ a bheartú.  Fiú is gur votáil an Isiltír agus an Fhrainnc in éadan an Chonartha, chuir rialtais sa dhá thír cluain ar an bpobal agus sheiftigh siad ionas nach mbeadh guth an phobail le cur san áireamh.  Tá an dhá rialtas sa dhá thír sin tar éis Conradh Liospóin a dhearbhú in ainneoin guth an phobail.

      Tá rud éigean bunusach micheart le sin.  Cuireann sé drochchlú ar an ndaonláthas.

      Mar sin táim buioch don eacnamaí cantalach, Raymond Crotty, laoch i bhfirinne,  a chur iachaill ar an Rialtas le dúshlán dlithiúil ceisteanna mar seo a chur os comhair an phobail.  Tá Ray Crotty anois ar shlí na fírinne ach tá an t-adh linn go bhfagann sé neamhspleachas linn mar oidhreacht.

      Mar chomhartha omóis do, mar chomhartha agóide in éadan paisinéirí is tiománaithe an ‘Gravy Train’ agus mar fainic do na glúinte atá le teacht, táim ag teacht anuas den gclaí chun votáil ‘Níl’.

By Niamh Uí Bhriain

Right now, two issues causing serious concern for many Irish people are jobs and taxes. To be precise, there are not enough jobs and too many taxes. Unemployment has reached a staggering height, with 450,000 people now out of work. The government has indebted future generations to bail out the banks – who then went on to increase mortgage payments for cash-strapped customers.

Savage cuts in spending are set to hit the most vulnerable hard, and many agree that the largesse of the Celtic Tiger was simply wasted.

The strain of all this on ordinary families is simply enormous, and the political leadership required for recovery is not in evidence. Instead, the government and opposition are joined in a mad fandango which hopes to persuade the Irish people to vote Yes to the Lisbon Treaty.

The following facts are important to remember. Without the Lisbon Treaty, we’re still a full member of the EU, and we can’t be thrown out. We still have access to all EU markets. We can still borrow from EU Banks.

That’s because the Lisbon Treaty is not about providing jobs or encouraging enterprise – it’s a treaty designed to centralise political power in the European Union. But that bid to create a federal super state also

Professor Ray Kinsella of UCD, an economist and expert in banking, was one of the few who foresaw the crash. Now he warns that “Lisbon will not aid the recession, and is, in fact, likely to make things worse.” Here’s why.

Up to 150,000 people are employed by multinationals based in Ireland. Those companies come here because of our low corporate tax rate; something which has long rankled with other EU member states who feel this policy gives Ireland has an unfair advantage in attracting investment. The Lisbon Treaty allows our low taxes to be attacked – with disastrous effects as multinationals leave taking badly-needed jobs with them.

The government is desperately denying that this is the case, but the truth was exposed by none other than the Irish EU Commissioner, Charlie McCreevy. He admitted in an Irish Independent interview that the EU’s ‘long term hidden agenda’ was to ‘take control of taxation’.

And the French finance minister, Christine Lagarde, let the cat out of the bag when she announced plans to push hard to encourage EU states to agree a common method of computing corporate taxes – the Common Consolidated Tax Base. “It has been going on for a long time, it’s an issue that we are determined to push” she said.

The government wants the electorate to accept assurances issued by the EU Council on taxation – and other important issues such as abortion – but as Judge Frank Clarke, Chairman of the Referendum Commission wrote in the Irish Times, those statements won’t change the Lisbon Treaty. They are not part of EU law and are not legally binding in EU law.

And at a time when wages are already being hit hard, the treaty also allows big business to import cheap labour and undercut Irish workers. This is grossly unfair on both sets of workers, but has been given the stamp of approval in a series of recent EU court cases. Lisbon will bring a race to the bottom in terms of wages – a serious blow to struggling families who will be forced to take a paycut or see their jobs go elsewhere.

Cóir’s ?1.84” poster highlights this downward pressure on wages, which is being driven by the EU in support of big business. Quite simply, if the EU allows contractors to import labour to Ireland and pay them the minimum wage of their country of origin, Irish workers face a very bleak future. We’ve already lost our fishing industry to the EU – and that loss has been valued at a shocking €200 billion by the EU Commission.

The EU hampers our right to promote Irish goods, and is now threatening our ability to attract foreign companies here to provide jobs. And under Lisbon , the EU can levy direct taxes on us for the first time; the last thing we need as levies and extra taxes hit our wages and pensions.

We were repeatedly told last year that if we voted No to Lisbon we would see a fall in job-creating direct investment from abroad. But an Ernest and Young report issued in June showed that such investment increased substantially in 2008 as companies like Hewlett Packard brought a glimmer of hope, creating up to a 1,000 new jobs in the midst of the crash.

It’s important for investors to see that we can retain control of our economy. We’re a small country in crisis, and we need to be able to set the policies which can help us to recover. Eurozone policies have been generally set to suit bigger countries such as France and Germany. This meant that interest rates were too low at a crucial time for Ireland, something that, according to Minister Brian Lenihan, helped to cause the bubble.

But the Lisbon Treaty loses us power and influence in Europe. It means we become less influential at a time when we need to be in control. It means our needs will be secondary to what the bigger member states desire. We just can’t afford this bad treaty.

By Daniel Cohn-Bendit

The Lisbon treaty is certainly no thing of beauty. It is not a work of constitutional prose that will inspire pride in future generations of Europeans. However, anyone who argues that it could or should be is either naive or willfully ignoring the reality of a European Union with 27 member states, in which decisions on institutional reform are made by consensus among these conflicting national interests.

It is hard to passionately promote this treaty, which, in reality, is the unloved bastard son of the European Convention. The Convention brought together stakeholders from across Europe to draw up a blueprint for a more democratic, transparent and efficient EU. That the outcome of this process, which began 8 years ago, should be the complicated and unloveable treaty that was signed in Lisbon is unfortunate but also inevitable.

That is not to say that the Lisbon treaty represents a failed attempt to make the EU more democratic, transparent and efficient. While the treaty certainly does not go as far in these areas as most of those involved in the Convention wanted, it clearly represents a step forward.

It strengthens the role of national parliaments in the EU decision-making process. It increases the powers of the directly-elected European Parliament. It gives EU citizens a more direct route for influencing EU policy. It adapts the decision-making process to the reality of an enlarged EU and reforms the EU institutions to enable them to better operate in a changed international environment, with the expectations this brings for the EU.

There is no doubt that it could and should have gone further in all these areas but the Lisbon treaty would clearly represent an improvement on the status quo.

There is a myth being perpetuated that if the Lisbon treaty fails it would create the possibility for a new and better treaty. The reality is that there is no ‘better deal’. The argument that by rejecting the Lisbon treaty we will get something better simply does not stand up to any objective analysis.

The European Union now consists of 27 member states, which not only have their own national interests but also myriads of sub-national interests, covering a population of almost 500 million. A treaty to reform the EU must balance all these interests and try to accommodate them. Clearly, nobody will ever be fully accommodated but a consensual democratic decision-making system, like in the EU, must try to find a solution that is broadly acceptable.

That is what the Lisbon treaty is. It is hideous in its complexity; it is a compromise for all involved; but, after 8 years of deliberation, it is the only deal in town to try and improve the way the European Union works.

Those of us who are unhappy that it does not go further to make the European Union more democratic or transparent are naturally frustrated. However, we must also recognise that it does include improvements that will make the EU more democratic and transparent.

To reject the treaty outright is to reject these improvements: throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. That would be a mistake for Europe and a mistake for Ireland.

You can view the full set of essays here: http://sluggerotoole.com/index.php/weblog/C44/

By Richard Gowan

Most American policy-makers don’t understand all the internal workings of the European Union.  But the Obama administration knows that it wants an EU that can speak with a single voice on global issues like climate change, nuclear proliferation and the recession.

And the U.S. wants the EU to stabilize its neighborhood.  When Vice President Joe Biden visited the Balkans in May, he took EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana with him.

Since coming into office, Mr. Obama’s officials have been frustrated to find their European partners disunited on many issues.  This has been a particularly big problem in international institutions such as the UN and the G20, which the administration sees as essential to forging stable working relationships with rising powers like China and India.

But American officials find that much of their time is chewed up in bilateral talks with the EU’s 27 members.  They’d like to see the Europeans rationalize their diplomacy so that the U.S. and EU alike can concentrate on reaching out to Asian and African states.

So the new administration welcomes the opportunities provided by the Lisbon Treaty to streamline European foreign policy-making.  The Americans don’t imagine the Treaty will turn the EU into a superpower or transform Europe’s military capabilities.  But they hope that it will turn the EU into a more effective advocate for international cooperation.

An effective EU wouldn’t always be at one with America.  That has become clear in the climate change debate, in which European leaders have been critical of U.S. positions. 

The Obama administration may not enjoy that sort of criticism.  But, unlike the Bush team, it understands that diplomacy isn’t as simple as “you are with us or you against us”.

What the President and his colleagues do grasp is that – as Senator Deirde de Burca wrote on this blog (LE17) in the week – “collective action is not a choice, it is a necessity.”

That was Obama’s message at the UN last week: “no longer do we have the luxury of indulging our differences to the exclusion of the work that we must do together.”

Put more bluntly, the new administration has gone from the rhetoric of “you are with us or you are against us” to the logic of “we stand together or we hang alone” in facing global threats.  The speed of this strategic shift has caught many in Europe off-guard.

Some skeptics argue that the transformation is only temporary.  Mr. Obama’s domestic struggles on healthcare reform this summer certainly distracted him from global concerns.  The Republican Party is not as moribund as it seemed in late 2008 – and its right wing will pick up on, and try to block, examples of the President’s internationalism.

But the anti-internationalists’ case will be strengthened if a feckless EU fails to get its act together on foreign policy.  If U.S. diplomacy becomes entangled in constant efforts to keep bickering European leaders together, Republicans will accuse Obama of weakness.

The Lisbon Treaty won’t resolve any of these issues overnight – its initial impact on US-EU cooperation in the UN or G20 may be slight.  But if the Treaty fails – whether thanks to Ireland, the Czech Republic or British Conservatives – the Obama administration will look elsewhere for allies.  Europeans can’t opt out of globalization and all its problems.  They shouldn’t detach themselves from U.S. efforts to define a new global diplomacy.

Richard Gowan lives in New York.  He is Associate Director for Multilateral Diplomacy at the NYU Center on International Cooperation (http://www.cic.nyu.edu) and UN Policy Fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations (http://www.ecfr.eu). 

By Margot Wallström

Thanks for the invitation to contribute to the debate.

I want to make one thing very clear at the outset:  The decision on how you vote is your decision and yours alone. The Commission’s position on the Treaty is public and published here but as Vice-President of the Commission, you have the right to hold me accountable and I’m happy to set out some facts.

First, why should the Irish vote on the same text they rejected last year?  Well, there is a different deal on the table now.  Your government spent several months analysing the reasons why people voted No and then spent many more months negotiating with the other 26 Member States of the EU to see if Irish concerns could be accommodated or fears assuaged.  The other 26 countries have now agreed to legally binding guarantees which will enter into force at the same time as the Treaty.  And yes, they are legally binding.

One very important change has also taken place:  thanks to the Irish, if the Lisbon Treaty comes into force every country will have a Commissioner. Long before the first referendum I had argued against reducing the size of the Commission. I know we all represent European and not national interests but I believe it is vital when proposing legislation to have someone from each country around the table.  Ironically, a Yes vote this time is the only guarantee that Ireland will retain its Commissioner .

I was slightly taken aback by the level of distrust in some quarters when in Ireland recently.  An interviewer on local radio suggested to me that the 27 Heads of State might unanimously renege on their decision to have one Commissioner per Member State.  Why on earth would they do that?! It’s almost insulting to think a Swedish Prime Minister would do such a thing and for an Irish Taoiseach to do it would surely be political suicide.

And when has the EU ever tried to impose conscription, abortion, euthanasia or a minimum wage on Ireland?  The Lisbon Treaty has nothing to do with any of these things and the very idea that such claims get credence in some quarters disturbs me. I have come to expect it in some parts of the EU but not in Ireland.

Ireland has been an example and a model to all of the countries, including my own, which have joined the European Union after you. You have consistently and successfully shown how smaller countries can punch above their weight and how the EU can benefit small countries.  If Ireland votes No again there will be no legal consequences of course but I can tell you that a lot of Europeans will be asking what’s happening with Ireland.

And on an issue close to my heart: worker’s rights.  As a social democrat who has defended these rights for my whole political life, can I say this: We absolutely have to avoid the kind of race to the bottom that could destroy the European social model. But the new Treaty will help us to do that because the Charter of Fundamental Rights will be a legally binding part of it. John Monks, the Secretary General of the European Trade Unions, agrees with me. Would the trade union movement across Europe support the Treaty if it was a step backwards for social rights?!

National sovereignty was raised in one of the debates I took part in.  So which countries in the EU want to give up their sovereignty?  Certainly not mine. Or any others I can think of.  The Lisbon Treaty has nothing to do with a European Superstate. That is for conspiracy theorists. It is an agreement between 27 sovereign states to pool a little bit of that sovereignty in all our interests.

And that is the whole point of the EU. Together we have to find the best way to recover from the economic crisis, to reach a deal on how to fight climate change, to find the best ways to deal with rising levels of migration, and to play our part in resolving conflicts and crises on our borders. And we will only be able to achieve these things if we work together, as 27 countries with 500 million citizens.

I believe that the new Treaty will help us to achieve this. It is designed to ensure that we can work more effectively, more efficiently and more democratically to deal with the problems that can’t be solved at national level.

Whatever you decide to do on October 2nd, I, for one, will be relieved that the institutional debate will be over, for good or for ill. After eight years(!) of negotiations we have too much on our policy agenda to deal with today and we cannot afford to waste precious energies on moving the institutional furniture around again. The world is changing too fast.

The whole of Europe will be watching your decision on 2 October because it will affect us all.  Use your vote.

For the moment, the position is that if [the second appeal] is referred to the Czech Constitutional Court on 29 September, Klaus has grounds for not signing until that appeal is resolved,” said Ludlow.

On that day, the Constitutional Court would have to decide whether to launch a second appeal procedure, challenging the conformity of the Lisbon Treaty with the Czech constitution, at the request of a group of senators close to Eurosceptic President Václav Klaus.

“The president of the Constitutional Court has indicated that simply on procedural grounds, this process will take at least three months: it could also take six months,” said Ludlow, adding that this would bridge the gap until elections are held in the UK, where Conservative leader David Cameron plans to stage a referendum over the reform treaty and kill it.

With the way things are at the moment, it looks like the Czech’s might be a better hope for UK Eurosceptics like Dan...http://euractiv.com/en/future-eu/break-week-lisbon-treaty/article-185756#

However, there is an opinion out there which suggests that if Ireland bring the bacon home, there will be immense pressure applied to the Czech Eurosceptic President Klaus… Though it’s not clear just what pressure can be brought… And says Marco Incerti a researcher at the Centre for European Policy Studies:

“There is no provision either for setting up an alternative ‘core European Union’, as was suggested recently by Italian Prime Minister [Silvio] Berlusconi, and before him, by more respectable and more serious people,” I

By Jason Walsh

They died for my freedom? One of the key arguments emanating from the No camp in the Lisbon debate is that Ireland’s sovereignty is under threat from the European Union. It sounds like alarmist nonsense ?and it is. Or at least it would be, if it weren’t for the fact that sovereignty is under attack, just not in the way we normally understand these things.

In fact, Ireland’s ?and other countries’ ?sovereignty is under threat from both within and without and you don’t need to invoke the ghosts of Irish republicanism to understand how.

Let’s be clear: Cóir‘s emotive nationalism is a diversion. The armies of the major European powers are not going to colonise Ireland. The threats to sovereignty today are not the same as those of the past and revisiting 1916, 1918, 1919, 1920 or even 1969 will not provide any useful answers.

As David Chandler, professor of international relations at the University of Westminster, has argued at length, national sovereignty is not taken seriously today ?it is, in fact, a two tier system.

The Iraq war was an obvious example ?the United States and its (much-reduced) group of allies clearly violated a sovereign nation. Unfortunately, under the chorus of complaints about American exceptionalism and a return to old-fashioned imperialism, a great many more subtle attacks on sovereignty were ignored. Threats that, truth be told, are a lot more dangerous than any war. After all, the overwhelming force of American military might is not a direct threat to many people in western Europe ?who really thinks that the US would invade France, Denmark or Ireland?

Supra-nation institutions like the International War Crimes Tribunal, the European Court of Human Rights and others exercise powers that overrule decisions made in national parliaments. Yes, these bodies have made decisions that are progressive and easy to agree with. But that is not the point. We are supposed to be democrats and our countries are meant to be composed of thinking, self-governing, sovereign subjects.

Forget the cuddly rhetoric ?it is absurd. People in Europe have been murdered by the marauding armies of Nato in the name of human rights. Similarly, the failed project that is the state-building mission in Kosovo, a pet project of the EU, not only violates Serbian sovereignty, it fails to give the new country of Kosovo meaningful sovereignty at all. Kosovo is, and will remain, an EU protectorate, not a real country.

Worse, though, is Ireland’s willing abdication of its sovereignty. Of course, joining the Euro saw Irish fiscal policy dictated by Germany (which was fine in good times, but could turn out to be a problem now) so there is a clear precedent for abrogating their duties. It also follows the global trend for politicians retreating from economics and instead regulating individual behaviour.

Yes campaigners have made the argument that the EU is responsible for much of the legislation that has brought Ireland into line with the rest of the developed world. Does this not strike anyone as a problem?

Let’s take one simple example in the area of social policy: The fact that homosexuality in Ireland was legalised in an EU court is a disgrace. David Norris did what one man could do ?he sued. But suing is not how social change is brought about. The people of Ireland should be adult enough to make these decisions for itself, to campaign for greater freedoms, to get the state out of its bedrooms and generally behave like a modern nation. And if conservative opposition materialised it should have been fought in the court of public opinion, not by overpaid barristers in the rarefied atmosphere of courtrooms.

Complaining about the graft and cowardice of politicians is easy, but politicians remain our deputies. If we fail to stand up and let our voices be heard what motivation is there for them to serve us? The failure of Ireland’s politicians is our failure and only we can remedy it.

Increasingly we hear the astonishingly illiberal voices of Irish liberals who defer more and more authority to un-elected and unrepresentative bodies, be they the courts, quangos or the EU itself. The not so hidden message is that the Irish are too stupid, too greedy and too much like the clichés of old to be trusted with governing themselves. Conor Cruise O’Brien may have thought the Irish were a nation of hare-brained urbanised peasants but that’s no excuse for the rest of us thinking it.

Voting No to Lisbon won’t fix the problems of either the EU or Ireland ?but it will put down a marker for self-determination. If we really want to modernise Irish politics or democratise the EU, it’s going to take a lot of hard work ?and it’s up to us to do it.