New EU deal faces multiple referendum threats

A recent EUobserver article has highlighted how the 'fiscal compact' deal agreed at last week's EU summit could yet be scuppered by referendums and legal delays in numerous participating countries.

The deal is designed to extend EU control over the tax and spend policies of the elected national governments of its member countries by transferring greater power over national budgets to EU institutions.

Due to David Cameron's veto, the deal will now have to be agreed between the 'euro-plus' group of participating countries outside the institutions of the EU.

But according to EUobserver, "serious obstacles are beginning to materialise in Ireland, the Netherlands, Austria, Romania and Denmark, while Finland, Latvia and the Czech Republic may also present the process with additional hurdles."

Treaty hurdles

In Ireland, aspects of the deal are being put to the country's attorney-general for a verdict on whether a referendum is required, but the Irish Europe minister, Lucinda Creighton, has fed speculation by saying there is a 50/50 chance of a public vote.

Today the Irish government has said that a decision on a referendum will not be made until March, once a final text of the deal is agreed.

In the Netherlands, prime minister Mark Rutte has insisted that a referendum would not be needed. But with a highly EU-critical party as his partner in a coalition government and the opposition Labour party saying that new elections would be required if the deal amounts to a transfer of power to Brussels, Mr Rutte may face problems getting the deal through the Dutch Parliament. The country's Socialist Party and the Greens have also called for a referendum.

In Austria, government officials have also indicated that the creation of a fiscal union would require a referendum and, in Romania, while supporting the deal, President Traian Basescu has said that a new treaty would need a two-thirds majority in the Romanian parliament and approval in a public vote.

In Finland, prime minister Jyrki Katainen has dismissed any talk of problems in ratifying the deal. But the country's constitutional committee has ruled that replacing unanimity by majority voting on the EU's bailout funds would be unconstitutional, since it could result in a loss of parliamentary control over Finland's financial contributions. According to EUobserver, a Finnish official has said that it would be "impossible" for the government to negotiate this problem away.

Denmark’s new prime minister, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, has so far not commented on whether the deal would provoke a Danish referendum, but leaders of the other two parties in her governing coalition have said that a vote might be needed. Crucial to a Danish decision may be the Red-Green Alliance, a key part of the governing coalition, which is a strong opponent of the EU’s "neo-liberal policies".

Denmark rejected euro membership in a referendum back in September 2000, so moves to allow the EU to govern the country's economic policy may be seen as a breach of this settlement.

In Latvia, the government has signed up to the 'fiscal union' deal, but many politicians have voiced a sense of betrayal over the imposition by the EU of strict austerity measures and cuts in EU structural funds. Raising the spectre of a referendum as a bargaining chip to win additional EU aid would only take the votes of 50 of the 100-member Latvian parliament.

Finally, the Czech Republic is of course home to Vaclav Klaus, the national president who caused the EU so much trouble over the Lisbon Treaty. While a referendum would not be automatically required on the changes, President Klaus has the power at least to delay the law-making process by holding back his signature, which must be applied to all new legislation.

Navel-gazing

It looks like the EU could well be in for yet another lengthy period of introspection over their bid to create 'fiscal union' and, even if the hurdles above can all be overcome, the deal still does nothing to address the core underlying problems of the scale of debt and low growth causing problems in several eurozone economies.

It's precisely because the EU seems far more interested in itself than in advancing the measures European countries need in order to prosper in the fast-moving, 21st century world that calls in Britain for an EU referendum - such as are being advanced by groups like the People's Pledge campaign - and support for a new deal with the EU are only likely to grow.

Ireland votes on Lisbon treaty

Ireland has voted to approve the Lisbon Treaty in the re-run of the referendum that led to the treaty's rejection last year.

In a vote tainted by irregularities and illegalities - such as blatant breaches of Irish referendum rules requiring balanced media coverage and no public money to be used for either side - the result this time was a 67% 'Yes' vote.

While it's hard to believe that the Irish people voted 'Yes' based on the idea that the economy would suffer further if they refused to give the EU even more governing powers, that seems to be exactly what a majority has been bullied into doing.

The pro-Lisbon camp promised a 'Yes' vote would mean more jobs and economic recovery - the relevance of either outcome to the Lisbon Treaty having been dismissed by even the Irish Referendum Commission.

If these promises fail to materialize - for example, if Irish unemployment continues to rise after this 'Yes' vote - it will be clear beyond doubt that the 'Yes' camp has misled people.

In all likelihood, the only jobs the Lisbon Treaty will create will be in Brussels for yet more former politicians and more legions of attendant bureaucrats taking up new positions in the various EU agencies and bodies the treaty introduces.

That further needless financial burden on the backs of Europe's taxpayers will only delay economic recovery, not hasten it.

Imbalanced campaign

That the 'Yes' camp ran a fundamentally dishonest campaign appears to be widely accepted.

As ever, their chief strategy was to make a deliberate conflation between the implications of EU membership and those of the Lisbon Treaty, and claiming falsely that a 'No' would put Ireland's economic links to other EU member countries at risk.

The last thing the 'Yes' camp wanted to discuss was the the treaty itself and whether it is really necessary for yet more political decisions to be transferred to Brussels.

Whether, for example, it is necessary for the EU to have a full-time President, Foreign Minister, its own diplomatic service, or for Ireland to give up a large slice of its influence over EU decisions.

'No' outspent

This strategy was particularly potent at the present time, when Ireland's economic troubles have worsened considerably since the last Lisbon Treaty referendum.

The inaccurate representation of what the referendum was about by the 'Yes' camp was then rammed home by outspending the 'No' side more than ten times over.

In particular, serious legal questions must now be asked about the role played by the European Commission - a direct beneficiary of the result - which used millions of pounds of public money to influence the outcome in their favour.

The myth still perpetuated by a few starry-eyed EU luvvies that the Commission is the benign 'civil service' element of the EU structure must now be permanently marked 'busted'.

Wrong path

With this vote, Ireland has stepped into the worst of all worlds.

None of the promises made by the 'Yes' side can or will be delivered.

Millions of potential friends among ordinary people across Europe who would have liked to reject this treaty, had they been given a say, have been lost.

Respect will not even be forthcoming from EU political elites, who will most likely be chuckling behind Ireland's back in amazement that their economic scaremongering and shabby trick of empty declarations has actually worked.

Democracy tag team

The baton of halting the onward march of an illegitimate EU State now falls to the lone figure of Vaclav Klaus - President of the Czech Republic.

But even if it passes his final hurdles, the underhand way in which this treaty has been forced through has served to further erode faith in the EU project among those who uphold democratic principles.

Disquiet about how the EU and its backward-looking supporters amongst Europe's governing class have conspired to deceive people about their intentions and deny people a say on their actions will echo long into the future - long after this particular event is forgotten.

Today, EU elites may well celebrate another step towards this extra level being built on the EU's already lofty powers.

But it has been achieved at the cost of further crumbling the foundations of the EU's legitimacy.

Commission out of control

Is there any more democratically corrupt an idea than a governing institution - which stands to gain considerable extra powers depending on the outcome of a referendum result - splashing millions of pounds of public money trying to influence the result in their favour?

Public bodies using vast sums of taxpayers' money not available to campaigners on the other side of a referendum debate is not just unfair but, more seriously, incompatible with how governing institutions should behave in modern liberal democracy.

Yet this is the situation right now in respect of recent European Commission interventions in the Irish referendum debate on the Lisbon Treaty.

Commission circus

First we had Catherine Day, secretary-general of the European Commission and, if EU-fanatical voices are to be believed, effectively head of the EU’s civil service.

According to the Irish Times, at the beginning of September she "spent the past week in Ireland undertaking a series of media appearances and public-speaking engagements to support the Yes campaign."

Just imagine the outrage if the head of Britain's civil service during a general election campaign spent a week publicly campaigning for victory by one or other political party while still in post.

Leaving aside the political consideration, who paid for Ms Day's trip?

Then along came European Commission President Jose 'dimension of Empire' Barroso, hot footing it to Ireland brandishing the taxpayers' cheque book.

Visiting Limerick last week he pledged just under £13.5m (€14.8m) to 'help former Dell workers find new jobs'.

"I am very glad that the Commission can demonstrate concretely the Union's solidarity with Limerick [...] in this manner," puffed Mr Barroso. Neglecting to mention that the EU had already approved a far more substantial £50m (€55m) grant given to Dell by the Polish government, towards expanding the computer company's operations in Lodz - the place to which the Irish jobs were exported.

Then, as we highlighted here last week, we saw Transport Commissioner (and Commission Vice President) Antonio Tajani joining an invective-strewn 'Yes to Lisbon' flying tour of Ireland organised by Michael O'Leary, chief executive of Ryanair.

Capping it all, yesterday the European Commission paid what has subsequently been confirmed as £139,000 (€150,000) to insert in all Irish Sunday newspapers over 1 million copies of a 16-page pamphlet 'explaining' the Lisbon Treaty.

The pamphlet says "Today, members of the EU enjoy a wealth of benefits: a free market with a currency that makes trade easier and more efficient, the creation of millions of jobs, improved workers' rights, free movement of people and a cleaner environment.

Then claims, even more controversially, "These are major goals. The Lisbon Treaty is designed to give the EU the tools to achieve them", before launching into a rollecoaster ride of serious inaccuracies and major omissions.

This latest wad of public cash spent by the Commission on securing for itself more power was on top of a £1.4m (€1.6m) contract the Commission signed earlier this year with public relations firm Edelman, to conduct a "PR blitz ... aimed at the three groups who voted en masse against the Lisbon first time around."

Action 'illegal'

Reacting to the news of the Commission pamphlet in last Sunday's newspapers, former Green Party MEP and chairwoman of the anti-Lisbon People’s Movement, Patricia McKenna, has sent a legal letter warning the commission she would take out an injunction against any newspapers carrying the guide to Lisbon.

“This clearly breaches Irish law as set down by Supreme Court in the McKenna judgment in 1995 where taxpayers’ money cannot be used to promote one side in a referendum. This guide is advocacy,” she said.

According to Bruno Waterfield in the Daily Telegraph, even the legal services of both the commission and the Council of Ministers expressed reservations the publication of the "citizens summary" of the Lisbon Treaty.

Waterfield quotes an EU official saying: “The lawyers asked if it was right for the commission to produce a summary of Lisbon, before it was ratified and when there was not one for the Constitution."

In addition to Irish law, McKenna also questioned if the commission breached EU law, given that the institution has no treaty-given role advocating the ratification of EU treaties in member countries.

Rules sacrificed

Yet somehow the European Commission is getting away with interfering, using large sums of public money, to its own potential benefit.

The truth is, the EU elite are so desperate to barge their self-aggrandising Lisbon Treaty past this only permitted public verdict that the rules are being flung out of the window.

Vote NO

That the Commission sees its antics during the Irish referendum as acceptable says everything we need to know about the dangerous, pre-Enlightenment era attitude to democracy and the rule of law at the heart of the EU.

Please, Ireland. Today, only you have the power. This is not just a vote about the EU and Ireland, but about Europe and democracy.

For the sake of democracy in Europe. Please stop these people, by voting 'No'.

Ryanair suffers for O'Leary's Lisbon lunacy

UPDATE: Weds 30 September 2009

Michael O'Leary truly gives the game away in a TV interview, saying: “One of the reasons that I am campaigning for a ‘yes’ vote is that our Government is incompetent, yet I need to persuade them to sell me Aer Lingus” - according to The Times.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Daily Telegraph today features a great article on Ryanair chief executive Michael O'Leary's 'Yes to Lisbon' campaign.

The outspoken airline boss - king of surprise extra charges and nemesis of customer service - has pledged to splash half a million euros on a Ryanair campaign in support of a 'Yes' vote in Ireland's looming repeat referendum.

But landing a potent succession of punches against the campaign, the Telegraph first launches into a 'double whammy' attack on the EU's Transport Commissioner for joining in with a pro-Lisbon flying circus orchestrated by O'Leary earlier this week.

The suggestion is that the Commissioner both broke impartiality rules by taking sides in Ireland's debate over the Lisbon Treaty and, by accepting free flights and hospitality, also engaged in a potential conflict of interest given his role in decisions over airline policy.

But even better, the article goes on to humiliate O'Leary himself for his blatant personal hypocrisy over the EU and the last referendum result, pointing out that the Ryanair boss's current view is very different to the one he reportedly held last October, following Ireland's first 'No' vote.

Bias Bellenaise

During six hours of Ryanair flights around Ireland on Tuesday, Commissioner Antonio Tajani reportedly enjoyed on-board chicken Bellenaise and wild rice as his host O'Leary launched into numerous foam-flecked tirades directed at "No to Lisbon" campaigners.

According to the Telegraph, Mr Tajani stood silently by during a succession of press conferences in which Mr O'Leary mocked Lisbon Treaty opponents as "numpties", "numb nuts" and "clowns" (solid arguments to hand more decisions over to Brussels there, Michael!) all the while referring to the attendant eurocrat as "my new friend commissioner Tajani."

Allegations of two serious offences against Commission rules committed by Mr Tajani has sparked a chorus of calls for his resignation, coupled with accusations levelled at O'Leary that he has launched his "Yes" campaign to curry favour with both Brussels and the Irish government that hold such sway over his current business ambitions.

As transport commissioner, Mr Tajani plays a key role in setting the rules governing airline operations and also has influence over competition rulings such as those covering Ryanair's desperate attempts to take over Aer Lingus.

In addition, just as O'Leary leapt aboard the 'Yes to Lisbon' campaign all cosy with the Irish governing elite, this outstanding matter is under consideration by the Irish Aviation Authority.

If approved, looser seating arrangements would likely boost Ryanair's profits by hundreds of millions of pounds.

Giving away an insight into his true motivations, according to the Irish Times O'Leary earlier in the week said of Brussels : "these f***ers have very long memories. They stuck it to us enough times."

"You can never link one with the other, but Ryanair’s offer to Aer Lingus is the only airline merger that’s been turned down by Brussels on competition grounds in 30 years," he said.

Can't link one with the other? Really, who is O'Leary trying to kid?

Flying flip-flop

Besides the business considerations over which O'Leary is clearly prepared to help pawn Ireland's democracy, his sudden conversion to the Lisbon Treaty also flies in the face of his previous remarks on EU issues.

Back in October, after it had become clear that Ireland was going to be forced by the EU to vote again, O'Leary said: "It seems that only in the EU, Ireland and Zimbabwe are you forced to vote twice. The vote should be respected. It is the only democratic thing to do."

During yesterday's Today FM debate on the Lisbon Treaty featuring both O'Leary and Libertas leader Declan Ganley - which the Irish Times describes as quickly turning into the 'Mick and Declan show' - Ganley drove the charge of personal hypocrisy deeper.

To titters from the audience, O’Leary was reminded of his previous criticisms of the European Commission as “Stalinist” and “an evil empire” run by “morons” and “gobshites”.

Symbolic of the level of debate on the issue that the 'Yes to Lisbon' side has to offer, an unrepentant O’Leary reportedly rolled his eyes and retorted “Accept No for an answer Declan and bugger off”.

If only the EU would accept 'No' for an answer, Declan probably would.

Ryanair boycott

During the course of the Lisbon Treaty debate, the embarrassing intervention of Michael O'Leary has only added to the evidently already plentiful supply of bad press Ryanair is clocking up.

Apart from pushing a campaign directly opposed to the democratic decision already made in a referendum by a majority of Irish people, millions across Europe oppose the Lisbon Treaty and the EU's whole current direction.

In addition to three countries having voted against the EU Constitution / Lisbon Treaty, the only independent poll of all 27 member states, taken in 2007, showed that majorities in 16 countries would vote 'no' to a Treaty giving more powers to the EU.

A reality that is all too evident when you look at websites such as that of the Europe Says No campaign.

So for the owner of a Europe-wide airline to plant himself so publicly on the wrong side in a Europe-wide debate smacks from a business point of view of shooting yourself spectacularly in the foot.

O'Leary might think he's sticking it to the 'No' side, but his level of debate is an embarrassment and in reality his interventions are daily putting the boot into the Europe-wide popularity of his business.

'Europe Says No' to the Lisbon Treaty

A new, pan-European campaign called Europe Says No: No to Lisbon, Yes to democracy has been launched.

The campaign is being organised by a wide range of people across Europe, and across the political spectrum, who want to see the Lisbon Treaty rejected.

In advance of Ireland's outrageous repeat referendum on 2nd October, Europe Says No aims to show how many people across Europe would themselves vote 'No' to Lisbon ... if they could.

The initiative has brought together an excellent range of supporters, including Harry van Bommel (Socialist Party MP in the Netherlands); Gustav Fridolin (Swedish journalist, author and former Green Party MP); British Labour MP and former minister Gisela Stuart; Sari Essayah (Christian Democrat MEP for Finland) and many others.

On 2nd October, Ireland will have an historic opportunity to lead Europe to a better, more democratic future by once again voting 'No' to the Lisbon treaty.

Please show your support for a second Irish 'No' by visiting the Europe Says No website and leaving a supportive comment. Make sure your voice is heard!

The campaign also has a group on Facebook, which needs as many members as possible to ensure a strong message is sent in support of a second Irish 'No' - click here to view.

Stage set for repeat Irish referendum

Despite having widely dismissed the idea of a second referendum, Ireland's politicians have gone back on their word.

Perhaps the grim predictability of this situation is the reason that there's barely a whisper from the media about such extraordinary U-turns, threadbare justifications and little interest in confronting politicians with their previous statements.

Such as that of Irish EU Affairs Minister, Dick Roche, when shortly before the last referendum he wrote on his website; "The idea that we can reject this Treaty and have another Referendum as happened with the Nice Treaty is a dilusion. That cannot and will not happen."

As a demonstration of complete lack of respect for public opinion on the part of the political elite, coupled to the media's increasing failure to expose and confront such collapses of integrity, this situation is surely a perfect example of the vicious circle lying at the heart of the steady degradation of public faith in the political system.

Long saga

Last week's EU summit - together with Wednesday's announcement of the 2nd October as the date on which Ireland will hold a repeat referendum - has set the stage for the next big showdown in the saga of the EU Constitution / Lisbon Treaty.

It's worth remembering that this is a saga that goes all the way back to the Laeken Declaration of 2001 which, despite some commendable decentralising recommendations, gave rise to the highly centralising EU Constitution.

That Laeken proved not to be worth the paper it was written on when it came, subsequently, to the legal expression of how the EU would proceed is perhaps a useful example of how influential such 'declarations' by Europe's heads of state or government truly are over the EU's eventual direction.

Having been born, ultimately, of one worthless declaration by European leaders, it would be extraordinary if the Lisbon Treaty were approved by the Irish people on the basis of another.

Since Laeken, in a period when European countries have had many rather more pressing economic and social concerns deserving of their attention, huge amounts of political capital has instead been wasted by European leaders trying to manoeuvre greater power for the EU's institutions past a succession of reluctant peoples.

Before even looking at the tactics used, the potential progress in other economic and social areas that this elite obsession with the EU has cost should be considered a scandal in itself.

This is a saga of a treaty that, if today's political leaders had any respect for democracy, should have died many years ago.

Instead, their bizarre, antiquated obsession with a 1950s European State ideology apparently trumps all. When that seems even to include democracy, we enter very dangerous territory indeed.

Weak declarations

So back it comes again. Having been rejected overwhelmingly by the French and the Dutch, repackaged, rejected again by the only country given a say on the re-named version, now back it comes to Ireland accompanied by some 'declarations'.

Set out in the official conclusions of last week's EU summit, these declarations are aimed at addressing the concerns of just enough 'No' voters on such matters as Ireland's Commissioner, military neutrality, tax and policy on abortion.

Yet, as discussed in a previous posting, the Lisbon Treaty is not needed to ensure that Ireland retain a Commissioner. Not that Commissioners represent their country in any case, the terms of their office requiring that they commit to "acting in the interests of the Union as a whole and not taking instructions from national governments".

The declaration on neutrality is extremely weak, in that it only assures Ireland's right to choose the "nature" of its assistance to another country rather than whether the country wishes to take sides in a military incident at all.

Moves to harmonise business tax rates have long been on the EU agenda even without Lisbon. So the assurance that the Lisbon Treaty makes no change to the "extent or operation of the competence of the European Union in relation to taxation" rings more than a little hollow.

And according to the EU's own Eurobarometer poll, the number of people who voted out of concern over EU intereference in Irish family policy such as on abortion was very small indeed (2%).

That same poll showed that a far larger proportion of 'No' voters did so to "protect Irish identity" (12%), because they're against a unified Europe (5%), are concerned about the influence of big EU member countries versus the small (7%) or because they don't trust their politicians (6%).

But there's little that can be done to ameliorate the Lisbon Treaty's effects and buy off 'No' voters on these fronts, as all EU treaties are in fact specifically designed to steadily reduce the political identity and influence of Europe's nation states and advance in their place a single political structure in Europe for all major decision-making.

Critical or meaningless?

Depending on which country's politicians you listen to, these declarations are either of critical importance, change everything and justify a whole new referendum (Ireland).

Or are effectively meaningless, change nothing and there's no need for the treaty to be re-opened (Britain and other countries who have denied their peoples a say).

While current polls in Ireland show a majority now ready to vote 'Yes', that was also the case in the run up to the vote last time around.

It's also clear that many of the recent poll questions have been framed as to make anything other than a 'Yes' answer utterly unreasonable, designed as a political initiative to build momentum behind that view rather than to accurately measure it.

Legal questions

Currently the declarations have the legal force of an agreement between national leaders under international law. Yet what has been agreed by leaders can, in principle, be unpicked by leaders alone at a later stage. Long after people have voted, and beyond public control.

Declarations on this legal basis alone can offer little reassurance that they will be respected.

So the stated intention is - after the referendum - to give the declarations greater legal weight by attaching them as a protocol to the next accession treaty admitting a new country to the EU.

Croatia is often mentioned as the most likely candidate, but its membership talks are mired in difficulty over a border dispute with Slovenia and deadlines for joining seem to be disappearing ever further into the future.

There's also the matter that such an accession treaty will not appear until after June 2010, from which point the Conservatives may be in government and responsible for its ratification - Lisbon protocol and all. Whether such a treaty will gain majority support in Parliament at that time must remain a doubt.

So in addition to their limited relevance, whether these declarations will ever gain sufficient legal validity to justify the Lisbon Treaty being given advance approval must remain a significant concern when Irish voters once again go to the polls.

New campaign: Not Liberal - Not Democrats!

The Liberal Democrat bid to increase its tally of MEPs at the forthcoming European Parliament election took an early knock yesterday, with the launch of a hard-hitting new attack campaign by the Democracy Movement.

The DM has announced plans to blast the party as "Not Liberal - Not Democrats" in some of its most vulnerable seats, over the actions of leading party figures on the EU's Lisbon Treaty.

In particular, the campaign has been launched in defence of Ireland's democratic 'No' to the Lisbon Treaty. Leading Lib Dem MEP Graham Watson has pledged to use taxpayers' money he and his colleagues will receive from the European Parliament to help the Irish and EU political elite bully the Irish people into reversing a clear 'No' vote to the Lisbon Treaty given in last year's referendum.

Speaking on behalf of all ALDE group MEPs in the European Parliament, Watson recently told the Irish Times that it "would be our great pleasure" to help the Irish government fund a major campaign in favour of the Lisbon Treaty in the repeat referendum that the country is being pressured to stage this autumn.

Ireland's vote was the only referendum any people in Europe have had on the Lisbon Treaty, its "substantially equivalent" predecessor - the EU Constitution - having also been rejected overwhelmingly by the French and Dutch peoples in 2005.

Watson's pledge makes a vote for the Lib Dems on 4th June a vote to disregard the previous referendum result and to bully the Irish people into reversing it.

Succession of affronts

But the campaign on the Lib Dems follows what the DM is calling "a succession of affronts to democracy and civil liberties" by the party, caused by their enthusiasm for handing ever more decision-making to the EU.

They amount to a stark conflict between the party's claimed values and actions that can no longer be allowed to pass largely unnoticed by voters.

Not only did the Lib Dems vote to approve the highly illiberal and anti-democratic Lisbon Treaty, but at every stage of the treaty's progress through Parliament the Lib Dems did what it took - abstaining in the Commons and voting against in the Lords - to prevent us being given the EU referendum they promised us at the last general election.

That's why the campaign has been called Not Liberal - Not Democrats.

'Double whammy' roadshow

A giant mobile poster bearing the Lib Dem logo and the campaign slogan (pictured above) is set to be deployed throughout May and early June. The roadshow will be accompanied by targetted local leafleting, letter-writing campaigns by DM activists and other activities.

The 'double whammy' campaign will rove Graham Watson's South West euro constituency, amongst other places, also visiting the most marginal Westminster seats of Lib Dem MPs who broke their promises and refused to support a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty / EU Constitution.

These will include Chris Huhne - Shadow Home Secretary (Eastleigh, Maj: 568), Jeremy Browne - Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Taunton, Maj: 573), Paul Burstow - Chief Whip (Sutton & Cheam, Maj: 2846) and Julia Goldsworthy - Shadow Communities and Local Government (Falmouth & Camborne, Maj: 1886).

Twenty of the Lib Dem MPs who refused to support a referendum - almost a third of the parliamentary party - are in vulnerable Westminster seats with majorities of under 5,000.

Clegg ambushed

The campaign kicked off yesterday with a leafleting picket of the official Lib Dem Euro-Election campaign launch, forcing Nick Clegg to cancel a planned outdoor TV interview and to dodge our giant poster as he came and went from the venue.

Having ratted on the referendum they promised in their last manifesto, the Lib Dems now say that they support a wider 'In / Out' referendum on Britain's relationship with the EU.

But given the party's recent failure to deliver on an EU referendum promise written in their general election manifesto, it's not clear how they think their alleged support for a different referendum can be believed.

Even if they do now support a wider referendum on Britain's relationship with the EU, and would actually vote in support of one should an opportunity in Parliament arise, there's no reason why that should have precluded people being consulted in the meantime on whether more powers should be passed to the EU or not.

If fact, the logical action if you believe Britain's relationship with the EU is now at a such a stage that it should be reviewed via referendum is to block any further power transfers until that consultation is conducted.

That's what makes this 'new' referendum idea looks like typical politicians' spin, attempting to confuse people and disguise the fact that the Lib Dems do not support people being consulted about the EU's powers at all.

Please use our 'Order leaflets' link (above right) to request some copies of our campaign flyer. A pdf of the leaflet can be seen here. You can keep up with the latest info about the campaign by joining the Not Liberal - Not Democrats group on Facebook, or by signing up for the eBulletin on the DM's main website.

Lib Dem pledge to bully Ireland over Lisbon

A vote for the Liberal Democrats at the European Parliament elections on 4 June is a vote to bully the Irish people into reversing their clear 'No' vote to the Lisbon Treaty.

That's the message being sent today by Graham Watson MEP, according to this article in the Irish Times.

As the leader of the Liberal group in the European Parliament, Watson has pledged "to help fund a major campaign in favour of the Lisbon Treaty" when the Irish government calls a second referendum, which is expected in the autumn.

Expressing his group's support for the Irish government and EU elite plan to ignore the previous referendum result and make the Irish people vote a second time on the same treaty, Mr Watson said "It would be our great pleasure to support Fianna Fáil if they wanted us to, either in the referendum campaign in the autumn or any other campaign".

Watson tops the Liberal Democrat list of candidates for the South-West of England euro-constituency, which covers Bristol, Gloucestershire, Somerset, Dorset, Wiltshire, Devon and Cornwall, and which also includes Gibraltar.

Credibility chasm

In the article, Mr Watson also rehearses the inevitable scare-mongering that a second 'No' vote to the Lisbon Treaty would force Ireland to leave the EU - a line so weak that its lack of credibility is far more likely to be a hindrance to securing a 'Yes' vote in any referendum than a help.

"It is very difficult to see any country being able to stay in if they have had two Nos from the people," he burbles. Not so difficult for anyone who has read the EU treaty, however.

The reality is that if the Lisbon Treaty is not ratified by every single EU member country, it doesn't become law, and the EU continues to exist - and every country continues to be a member of the EU - on the basis of the current, post-Nice, treaty.

That contains no clause under which a member country can be thrown out of the EU.

Any decision as to the extent of Ireland's participation in the European Union after a second 'No' vote will be entirely down to the Irish government.

Unless Watson is revealing that it is the position of Irish Taoiseach, Brian Cowen, that he will take Ireland out of the EU altogether if there is a second 'No' vote, then Watson is either blowing smoke or exposing his ignorance.

Time for change

In truth, a second 'No' to the Lisbon Treaty from Ireland would be a welcome earthquake for the entire EU structure as we know it today. And Ireland would be far from alone in administering that much-needed shake of the foundations.

Not only has the Polish president said that he will not sign the Lisbon Treaty into law until Ireland has settled its position, but the president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, has expressed a similar stance.

The treaty also looks set to remain an outstanding issue in Germany for some months yet, while its impact on the German constitution is studied by that country's constitutional court.

What's more, by May 2010 a Conservative government may be in power in Britain with the policy of rescinding Britain's ratification of the treaty if it has not yet been approved by every other EU member country.

But before the events of the autumn and spring 2010 unfold, Graham Watson perhaps ought to be more concerned about how popular his support for bullying the Irish people into reversing their already clearly expressed view on the Lisbon Treaty is going to be with South West voters, come the elections on 4 June.

Lisbon not necessary for Ireland's commissioner

So there we have it. It's not necessary for Ireland to swallow the entire Lisbon Treaty - and all the power transfers from the elected Irish government to the EU that it entails - in order to retain an Irish Commissioner.

The Irish Times reports today that the Czech EU presidency is preparing a contingency plan for the composition of the Commission in case Ireland rejects Lisbon for a second time later this year.

In the event of a second 'No' vote, the rules of the EU's existing - post Nice - treaty will stand. They state that if the number of EU member states reaches 27, the number of commissioners would then be reduced.

Czech deputy prime minister Alexander Vondra told the Irish Times, "On the composition of the commission we have to be ready for both possible scenarios: One scenario is that the Lisbon Treaty enters force at the end this year or we have to act and co-operate in the EU under Nice."

In order to meet the requirement that the number of commissioners must be 'at least one less' than the number of member states, a solution now being touted is that all member states maintain a commissioner except for the country that holds the position of EU foreign policy chief.

To gain an advantage in one of the most sensitive areas of debate during the first referendum, the Irish government had already secured an agreement from the EU that the clause in Lisbon enabling all member states to retain a commissioner would be invoked - if the treaty is approved.

But in highlighting the reality that changes to the composition of the Commission to the same effect can be made without the Lisbon Treaty being in force, the Czechs have kicked away the foundations of one of the main propaganda points set to be used by the 'Yes' lobby in their attempt to win the second Irish referendum.

October or bust

Ireland being isolated? Quite the opposite. They're being crowded into a corner. Bullied by force of numbers into having to ask the people again, and this time get the 'right' answer.

With various EU leaders repeating the mantras that the treaty "is alive", that there is "no question of revising the treaty" and also that there's "no question of a two-speed Europe", what other option is being left open to Ireland exactly?

What's going on is transparent, and utterly shameful.

Pressure is on

That pressure is being applied, contrary to claims made not least by our own government, was neatly communicated by Irish PM Brian Cowen, speaking at the press conference that followed the European Council meeting.

"There are colleagues who believe there is not as much room for manouevre as many people would like to suggest that there is," he told journalists, courtesy of EUobserver.

Referring to his fellow EU leaders, he said "I made it clear that however frustrating for them, it is simply too early to know how we are going to move forward on this point."

Frustration? Misleading 'suggestions' about how much room to manouevre Ireland is actually being given? From the horse's mouth we're told the predictable anti-democratic reality behind the blizzard of benevolent rhetoric we've seen in the last couple of days.

October deadline

According to the official conclusions of the two day meeting, Mr Cowen has been required to report in more detail on the "way forward" at the next European Council meeting in October, with speculation growing of a second referendum as early as November or, more likely, in Spring 2009.

Unless of course, between now and October, the Irish government decides to stand by earlier sentiments about the impossibility of a second vote on the treaty and explain to their EU 'partners' that it simply wouldn't be winnable.

After all, re-running the referendum would be betting the house, with a credibility-busting second 'No' vote likely to have serious implications not just for the EU as we know it today but the Irish government itself.

Between a rock and a hard place, Mr Cowen could choose to side with the people - not just the majority who have already voted 'No' in Ireland, but also the millions across Europe who oppose yet more political integration but have been deliberately denied a say.

Ratification opt-outs

As a country, Ireland wouldn't be alone. The Czech Republic secured a special footnote in the text of the meeting conclusions, referring to how its own ratification depends on the verdict of its constitutional court.

Perhaps more interestingly, according to that EUobserver article, Poland also insisted on a slight change to the text to the effect that Warsaw cannot be included in the group of those who have ratified the treaty.

As we set out in our ratification 'state of play' posting, President Lech Kaczysnki is yet to sign the document, and was thought to be awaiting the outcome of the Irish referendum.

This latest development would indicate that he still isn't about to sign in a hurry.

Let's hope that, come October, Mr Cowen does Europe a favour, decides to face down this gang of anti-democratic bullies, and tells the EU elite their out-dated treaty is truly dead.

Ireland on the menu

As the EU and Europe's governing elite enjoy a sumptuous dinner at our expense in Brussels this evening, the only thing that could prove a little hard to swallow may be what Irish PM Brian Cowen has to say about his country's recent 'No' vote.

According to Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, the EU is expecting the Irish government to pronounce on whether the vote was "definitive or not".

Apparently there remains some doubt about this in the EU's democratically-challenged upper echelons, despite a significant majority for the 'No' side and a healthy turnout.

Where's the confusion, exactly?

Yet, in an interview yesterday with Le Figaro, Mr Sikorski said "If Dublin does not decide to organise another referendum, it will be difficult to find a solution. We are waiting for the Irish government to tell us whether this decision is definitive or not."

But the bad news for Mr Sikorski and others is that, according to an Irish Independent report, Cowen plans to keep it vague, apparently intending to stress that it's "far too early" to draw conclusions from the referendum result and that the Government would require time to take stock of the outcome.

Testing out his line, Cowen reportedly told the Irish Parliament earlier this week that the referendum result meant “there is a serious political and legal situation that has to be examined”, and that he did not believe a solution would present itself “this week, next week or the week after”.

However, as we reported earlier this week, all around Cowen leading Irish politicians and 'Yes' campaigners already seem to have made up their minds that a second vote is not possible.

Reinforcing the point, Ireland's EU Commissioner Charlie McCreevy is reported in the Irish Independent pointing out that the turnout for the referendum had been very high; the people had spoken; and the treaty as planned could not go ahead.

He told Irish radio, quite rightly, "I somehow suspect that if many other member states of the EU had to put it before their people, the result would be the same", putting to shame the line being rehearsed ad nauseam by Britain's most disingenuous superstate-fanatics such as Denis MacShane MP and Richard Corbett MEP that the 'Irish one can't be allowed to rule the EU many'.

It apparently hasn't crossed the anti-democratic minds of these two and others that the key statistic is not that Ireland's population represents 1% of the EU's but rather 100% of those allowed to vote on the Lisbon treaty, with polls showing people in many other countries would have delivered the same verdict on the treaty, given the chance.

As Commissioner McCreevy later said to the EUobserver news website, "We should remember that Ireland is not alone in being unable to secure a popular endorsement of a European Treaty. As politicians this is something we need to learn from."

On its own initiative, the EU has been quick of the mark to scour the ground for signs that a second referendum would be winnable.

Imagine if our government refused to accept the outcome of an election that went against it, and decided to pick the opposition vote to pieces to find what sections it could buy off with slightly 'clarified' policies before calling a second election.

Welcome to the sad state of democracy today, under our growing new government in Brussels.

EU fumbles for grounds to justify second Irish vote

Update (13:46): Open Europe blogs that the Commission has only given the results of this poll out to selected journalists and have not published full details of questions asked. So the integrity of the poll can't be scrutinised.

As OE concludes, "It's a reminder that the European Commission is not just a civil service, but a campaign group".

-----------------------

The Daily Telegraph's Bruno Waterfield reveals on his blog that the EU is already moving to determine exactly what it will take to buy off a sufficient proportion of 'No' voters to win a second Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

Such a move would completely contradict everything key figures in Ireland have said about the prospect of a second vote. But politicians saying one thing and doing another on the EU treaty issue wouldn't exactly be a shocking development to us here in Britain.

The EU's poll reportedly finds that 75% of 'No' voters "believe the Irish government can renegotiate exceptions", but this is hardly surprising. After all, that's exactly what happened the last time the Irish people said 'No' to an EU treaty, back in 2001.

The key question for the EU is whether any possible exceptions would be enough to gain public approval for Lisbon in a referendum re-run.

Key concerns

Questions around the treaty's influence on family law (abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia) and military neutrality may be easy to deal with through straightforward 'clarifications', in particular about the influence of the European Court of Justice in conjunction with the EU's so-called Charter of Fundamental Rights.

But those who hold concerns on these fronts may not be concerned about the EU's influence over these issues alone, so 'clarifying' these may not necessarily bring everyone who rates these issues into the 'Yes' camp.

Questions around taxation may prove trickier to divert, as France is obviously keen to push forward with 'harmonised' business taxes during its forthcoming 6-month EU presidency - a particular issue for Ireland, with its advantageous low rate of corporation tax.

The French are unlikely to want to give one of the key targets of such legislation a clear exclusion.

Harder still will be evidently strong concerns about the effect on Irish influence of changes to the EU's chief decision-making institutions, such as the loss of an Irish Commissioner and a cut in voting strength in the Council of Ministers.

These were institutional deals reached only after tortuous and complex negotiations, and special treatment for Ireland would be very difficult to secure.

So the EU is unlikely to want to reopen such negotiations. Yet, as we reported on Saturday, and this new poll confirms, questions of power and identity loom large in the reasons people voted 'No'.

Young oppose treaty

A cause of particular alarm for the EU in the poll's findings was obviously that there were many more 'No' voters than 'Yes' voters among young people aged 15-29.

More future-thinking than any age group, it's surely no surprise that few see it as sensible to cling to out-dated centralisation ideas of a century past. "Factor 2 to 1. Very Serious!”, the poll report says.

And of course we get the usual EU focus on those ("40%") who said they 'didn't understand' or 'weren't familiar' with the treaty. As if the massed ranks of Ireland's political, business, media and cultural establishment plus a massive financial advantage for the 'Yes' campaigners wasn't enough to 'inform' people of the treaty's alleged benefits.

Nevertheless, we're used to such findings being trumpeted by the EU simply to justify splashing even more public cash on more pro-EU propaganda.

A second 'No' vote would be utterly devastating for the EU as we know it today, and this poll appears to provide little comfort for the EU that this would not be the outcome of forcing the Irish people to vote again.

Urgent petition: Abandon Lisbon

We have received this message today and would urge everyone to follow the instructions and pass the details of the petition around friends and contacts.

Once you've signed, please remember to confirm your signature when you receive a confirmation request e-mail.

---- Original message ----

Last Friday the people of Ireland voted to reject the Lisbon Treaty. But politicians across Europe are refusing to accept the result.

They arrogantly insist that the Treaty must go ahead anyway.

Despite the no vote, the UK Government is planning to carry on regardless, and ratify the Treaty in the House of Lords on Wednesday.

This is part of an attempt to isolate and bully the people of Ireland.

Please take 30 seconds to send a message to Gordon Brown by signing the petition on the Downing Street website.

Tell Gordon to respect the verdict of the Irish people - and drop the Treaty.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Abandon-Lisbon/

Many thanks

------------------

How politicians are refusing to listen to the no vote:

French Europe Minister Jean-Pierre Jouyet says:
"I don't think you can say the treaty of Lisbon is dead even if the ratification process will be delayed."

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier says:
"We are sticking with our goal for it to come into force. The ratification process must continue."

Spanish Europe Minister Lopez Garrido says:
"The treaty will be applied, albeit a few months late."

European Commission President Jose Barroso says:
"The Treaty is not dead. The Treaty is alive, and we will try to work to find a solution."

British Foreign Minister David Miliband says:
"18 countries have now passed the reform treaty...each country must see the ratification process to a conclusion... there needs to be a British view as well as an Irish view."

Don't let the politicians get away with it.

Sign the petition now and send it to your friends.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Abandon-Lisbon/

Plan C, D or E?

Confusion reigns on how the EU will respond to the outcome of last week's referendum in Ireland, ahead of a European Council meeting of heads of state and government later this week.

On Saturday, French European affairs minister Jean-Pierre Jouyet minister was quoted on AFP saying there is "no other solution" but for Ireland to hold a second referendum.

Particular interest is being paid to the French position, as the country takes over the EU's rotating presidency from next month and will consequently shoulder much of the burden of driving the EU's response to the Irish 'No' vote.

However, several Irish ministers made clear during the referendum campaign that a re-run would not be feasible.

The much higher turnout this time relative to the first Nice Treaty referendum back in 2001, which was re-run a year later, means there is no clear justification not to mention little political apetite for a second vote.

So, on Sunday, Jouyet was quoted in the Observer talking instead of some "specific means of cooperation" that would provide a purpose to continued ratification, lending credence to earlier speculation about 'legal arrangements' that might allow the Lisbon Treaty to be implemented regardless of the Irish vote.

The way would then be open to bring Ireland back fully into the post-Lisbon EU at a later stage, presumably by applying the pressure of every other country having proceeded without them.

Germany is also behind this approach. "We're sticking firmly to our goal of putting this treaty into effect," the German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier has said. "So the process of ratification must continue."

Not surprising, given the German chancellor Angela Merkel devoted most of last year to getting the EU's 27 governments to agree on the Lisbon treaty after the rejection of the EU Constitution by the French and the Dutch in 2005.

Mixed messages

For its part, the European Commission is sending out mixed signals. Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso on Friday quickly retailed the 'carry on regardless' line. But a European Commission official was yesterday quoted in the Observer saying "Unless the treaty is ratified by all, there is no treaty."

Our own government also seems to have a foot in both camps. David Miliband rushed onto TV to say that ratification will continue regardless of the treaty's theoretical demise, and Gordon Brown reportedly telephoned the French president to confirm that Britain would proceed with ratification.

Yet, in the Sunday Times a "Downing Street source" echoes that Commission official, saying: "The legal position on this is very clear: the treaty cannot come into force until all 27 countries have ratified it".

'Two-tier' legal option

There's no doubt that the EU tends to treat the legality of its activities as a minor detail, as exemplified by how they have been steadily implementing aspects of the Lisbon Treaty well before it has been approved in all EU member countries.

But Ireland could be given a protocol with what amounts to an opt-out from every policy transfer and veto removal that Lisbon introduces.

It would mean that the new Irish status would have to be resolved before the future dates that Lisbon's institutional changes - such as the altered structure of the EU Commission and voting weights in the Council of Ministers - are due to come into force.

And it would mean the EU would also have to wait until that time for some other 'constitutional' changes, such as Lisbon's 'self-amending' clause. But this may not be such a burden as treaty changes would not be likely to be needed for at least a few years following ratification.

The political danger for the EU in introducing this 'two-tier' system in respect of entire treaties, however, is that far from becoming the intended suffering pariah, Ireland is actually seen to get along much better without being a 'full member'.

By dodging some looming new EU plans - perhaps on tax harmonisation and militarisation - people in other countries may observe that the semi-detached Irish deal is a more attractive one, and start pressuring their own governments to obtain the same advantageous deal.

Stealthy option

The alternative possibility of many of the changes proposed by Lisbon being introduced under existing EU treaty clauses is talked up in today's Daily Telegraph.

But it begs the question: if that's possible, why didn't they just do that in the first place? Instead of having this extremely damaging near decade-long 'new treaty' wrangle that started with the Laeken Declaration back in 2000.

Clearly there are some integrationist advances within the Lisbon treaty that the EU wants and which cannot be implemented under the current treaty.

But the idea also overlooks one peculiar tendency of the EU; that despite much in the way of greater integration being technically possible under its vaguely-worded treaties, it still always seems to need its 'big projects' to feel it really is advancing.

It's almost as if they consider, were the integration process to appear paused and people allowed to observe the status quo for too long - rather than argue over an element of future integration - too many might just realise that they don't much like the current EU either.

Czech president breaks ranks on treaty

Czech President Vaclav Klaus has broken ranks with the EU governing elite's carefully choreographed response to the Irish rejection of the Lisbon treaty.

In contrast to the 'carry on regardless' position of many other European leaders, including our own government, in a statement on his website Mr Klaus calls the Irish vote a "victory of freedom and reason over artificial elitist projects and European bureaucracy" and says that "ratification cannot continue".

While the Czech presidency is only a ceremonial position, and the country's government is unlikely to take the same view, according to the Daily Telegraph the Czech senate chairman has also rightly said that continuing to ratify the treaty would make "no sense".

The Czech Republic is one of nine countries that have not yet ratified the treaty. In Britain, the final Parliamentary stage of ratification is expected to be concluded on Wednesday next week.

Yet, as Global Vision - the research and campaigning organisation headed by Ruth Lea and Lord (Norman) Blackwell - very pragmatically puts it: "it would be inadvisable for Parliament to rush ahead with completing the passage of the Bill only five days after the Irish result rather than taking advantage of the time now available for further analysis and reflection on the changed circumstances."

For Gordon Brown to proceed with ratification regardless of the Irish 'No' vote would betray a blinkered obsession with pushing forward EU political integration, rather than exhibit the reasonable and rational response to yesterday's events that most people would surely expect from their government.

Respect for democracy

The Irish 'No' vote is an extraordinary result in a country where the vast majority of the political, business, media and cultural establishment is devoted to the EU project.

It demonstrates the considerable opposition to the centralisation of power in Brussels that the EU Constitution / Lisbon treaty has provoked.

Not even the last-minute intervention of the Pope could, in the end, swing a 'Yes' vote.

Open Europe very usefully give us the top reasons people had decided to vote 'No' to the Lisbon treaty, taken from the last Irish Times poll on 3-4 June. They were:

- to keep Ireland’s power and identity (24%)
- to safeguard Ireland’s neutrality (22%)
- don’t like being told what to do/ forced into voting yes (17%)
- bigger countries will have too much power (12%)

So let's have none of this EU elite spin that this result was not a vote about the treaty or the impact of the EU more generally.

The democratic 'No' campaign, hopelessly underfunded compared to the 'Yes' side, fought a spirited and commendable campaign against the odds.

They are to be congratulated and thanked by democrats across Europe.

By any democratic principles, the Lisbon treaty has been blown apart. However, that's predictably not how EU elites are responding. Their reaction can be summed up as 'carry on regardless'.

We'll be cataloguing the response of Europe's arrogant governing elite over the next few days, and laying bare exactly how little regard those driving the European Union have for people's views even when so democratically expressed.

Official: Ireland votes 'No' to Lisbon Treaty

Update: It's official! Ireland has voted to reject the EU's Lisbon Treaty by 53.4% to 46.6%. The result has just been announced live from Dublin Castle.

The outcome of the only opportunity people have been given to express their opinion on the Lisbon treaty is a resounding "NO"! But it follows rejections by France and the Netherlands of the treaty's "substantially equivalent" predecessor - the EU Constitution.

Gordon Brown must now consult his "moral compass" and resolve to respect the democratically expressed views of the Irish people - by halting ratification of the Lisbon treaty through our own Parliament.

The ratification Bill is due for its Third Reading on 18 June. That must not happen. He knows that Britain would also vote 'No' resoundingly, given the chance.

Will Gordon Brown respect democracy or not? That treaty should be dead.

The Democracy Movement is holding a ‘congratulatory picket’ of the Irish Embassy (17 Grosvenor Place, SW1X 7HR - see map) to celebrate the overwhelming rejection of the EU Constitutional Treaty. Please come along to join us - we'll be there from 6pm onwards and will distributing free cans of Guinness (while stocks last!).

-------------------------

Update: With 27 constituency results now in out of 43 total, the result stands at 53.6% 'No' -v- 46.4% 'Yes', but there are still some results due in constituencies that are likely to have strong 'Yes' votes.

Update: The BBC is reporting that the Irish justice minister Dermot Ahern has conceded defeat.

"It looks like this will be a No vote," Mr Ahern said on live television. "At the end of the day, for a myriad of reasons, the people have spoken."

With six official results in the overall result is 55% 'No' against 45% 'Yes'.

Gordon Brown must respect the Irish verdict and immediately halt ratification of the treaty through Parliament. The treaty is due for its Third Reading on 18 June.

Update: RTE is saying "It seems certain that Irish voters have rejected the Lisbon Treaty." Although official results are only just coming in, the strong 'No' vote coming through in early tallies has obviously influenced their prediction.

Update: Official results are starting to come in from constituencies, with first off the mark being Waterford voting 54% 'No' to 46% 'Yes'. See the results come in on the Irish Times results map.

Update: The Irish Times is reporting that the initial tallies indicate an overall 'No' vote, despite a strong showing for the 'Yes' side in some constituencies.

They're saying "A strong Yes vote in County Dublin seems to have been offset by a strong No vote in city constituencies in the capital" with "The No campaign appears to be winning in most constituencies across the State, with significant majorities emerging from rural and urban working class areas."

Update: RTE is reporting that the 'Yes' camp is gaining ground against an early strong 'No' showing. They are citing a 60-40 vote in favour of Lisbon in "middle class constituencies like Dublin South, Dublin South East and Dún Laoghaire".

Official results from the constituencies are expected over the next hour, with full results expected by mid-afternoon.

Update: The Irish Times is reporting that, in Mayo, the vote appears to be 60-40 per cent in favour of the 'No' camp with the majority of boxes counted. There was a 52 per cent turnout.

Initial 'tallies' are starting to come in from other constituencies, many also showing a positive 'No' result.

--------------------

Irish broadcaster RTE is reporting that early returns show a strong 'No' vote, but turnout seems to be higher than many have predicted, perhaps tending to the 50% mark. Not thought to be good news for the 'No' camp.

However, the turnout in rural areas is thought to be low. Speculation is that this is because many farmers who are traditionally supporters of Ireland's governing party and would otherwise be 'Yes' voters were in fact conflicted over the issue of EU Commissioner Peter Mandelson's actions on trade issues.

News from our contact at the count in Dublin is also positive for the 'No' side. The 'Yes' camp were expected to bank a big advantage in Ireland's capital, but there's reportedly amazement at the number of 'No' votes.

It's early days yet - we'll update this post as news comes in. We'd also recommend keeping an eye on EUreferendum for latest news.

Ireland votes

Polls have opened in Ireland in their referendum on adoption of the re-named EU Constitution.

Ireland is the only country to be getting a vote on the Lisbon treaty - the requirements of their Constitution not allowing the Irish government to deny the people a say on further transfers of power to EU institutions, as has happened in every other EU country.

Opinion surveys have shown the 'Yes' and 'No' camp neck and neck, but the feeling is that the shock progress by the treaty's opponents revealed last Friday and over the weekend has spurred the government to re-mobilise the much more considerable resources the 'Yes' side has at its disposal.

Nevertheless, the Daily Telegraph reports that diplomats have already been cooking up an alternative to get around the eventuality of a 'No' vote and ensure the treaty is implemented regardless.

Another example of how the EU refuses to accept the outcome of democratic votes that go against its outdated quest to centralise ever more power. So even a 'No' vote is very unlikely to be the end of the story for the EU's plans.

Turnout is crucial to the outcome, with the weather likely to play a role. The forecast would appear to favour the 'Yes' camp with the Irish weather station predicting a dry day with a few showers.

Polling stations are open until 11pm this evening, and with counting due to start on Friday morning the result is likely to be available on Friday afternoon.

BBC in smear against Irish treaty critics

On Tuesday 15 April, the BBC reported that an "anti-EU gang" had assaulted the prominent Irish MEP Proinsias de Rossa after a debate in Dublin on the Lisbon Treaty.

The article - written, as so often, by an un-named BBC correspondent and apparently taking a spokesman for a leading pro-treaty party as its only source - said that Mr de Rossa had been "confronted" by a group of men who had "screamed abuse at him" before "knocking him over and pinning him down".

Now this all sounds very serious, and not at all the appropriate way to conduct political debate within a democracy.

Or it would have been, if the BBC report was remotely accurate.

Because it has emerged that the hapless MEP in question in fact tripped and fell on his face while running away from a calm on-camera attempt to ask him a question.

Footage exposes story as fake

The entire incident was caught on camera, showing that the description provided by the leader of the Irish Labour Party, and reported unquestioningly by the BBC, is a complete fabrication and blatant attempt to smear treaty-critics ahead of the looming public vote.

The footage clearly shows de Rossa being approached slowly by the cameraman and an activists with the anti-treaty group We Are Change Ireland, who asks, “Why did you do it?” - a reference to the MEP's recent vote in the European Parliament against respecting the outcome of the Irish referendum.

The two begin walking down the street and de Rossa is the first to physically put his hand on the activist as he moves him out of the way to cross the street.

But then it seems it's De Rossa himself who snaps, first lunging at another nearby cameraman and then proceeding to chase him down the street, before quite independently tripping and falling to the ground.

Questions for the BBC

Knowing the sensitivity of the current EU debate in Ireland, with an important vote looming, did the BBC not obtain the confirmation of any other independent sources confirming the pro-treaty camp's "assault" version of events?

Where are the people who "screamed abuse" before he fell down? And who exactly did the "knocking him over"? None of that is evident from the footage.

It seems the Police confirmed there was an incident, but did they confirm it was "assault"? As the BBC's own article towards the end admits, "Police took statements from witnesses but made no arrests". The activists involved claim they themselves flagged down a passing Police van.

Inaccuracy and bias

Beyond problems of inaccuracy in the BBC's article, it also provides a clear example of subtle continued bias that EU-critics have long complained about.

In a passing reference to the Lisbon Treaty, the article says that it has the aim "of making EU institutions more efficient, now that the bloc has 27 member states".

This is not an unequivocal fact, as the BBC seems to accept (given no opposing voice is offered), but a highly controversial assertion made by the treaty's supporters.

Critics claim that the treaty has nothing to do with 'efficiency' but in fact has only the aim of continuing the process of centralising ever-more decision-making in a growing Brussels 'state',

We would point out that both previous EU treaties - Amsterdam and Nice - were also claimed to be necessary for an enlarged EU, and ask how many times exactly are we expected to fall for this supposed justification for passing more power to the EU?

Doubts re-awakened

The BBC's reporting of this incident re-awakens serious questions - following the 2005 Wilson report into BBC bias and the more recent revelation that the Corporation has taken out £141 million in 'soft loans' from the EU - as to the BBC's journalistic authority and integrity when reporting EU issues.

Having today registered a complaint with the BBC and provided them with this information, we'll be watching the article to see if, in the interests of fairness and impartiality, it is removed and a correction is published at least as prominently as the original article was.

If this doesn't happen, it will surely be confirmed either that the BBC ignores complaints or, worse, that the Corporation has sought to help one side of a controversial political debate perpetrate a blatant smear on the other in the context of a hotly contested public debate and vote.

Either way, not exactly the behaviour expected from an allegedly 'impartial' organisation.