Upcoming Events

International | EU

no events match your query!

New Events

International

no events posted in last week

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

Anti-Empire

offsite link The Wholesome Photo of the Month Thu May 09, 2024 11:01 | Anti-Empire

offsite link In 3 War Years Russia Will Have Spent $3... Thu May 09, 2024 02:17 | Anti-Empire

offsite link UK Sending Missiles to Be Fired Into Rus... Tue May 07, 2024 14:17 | Marko Marjanović

offsite link US Gives Weapons to Taiwan for Free, The... Fri May 03, 2024 03:55 | Anti-Empire

offsite link Russia Has 17 Percent More Defense Jobs ... Tue Apr 30, 2024 11:56 | Marko Marjanović

Anti-Empire >>

The Saker
A bird's eye view of the vineyard

offsite link Alternative Copy of thesaker.is site is available Thu May 25, 2023 14:38 | Ice-Saker-V6bKu3nz
Alternative site: https://thesaker.si/saker-a... Site was created using the downloads provided Regards Herb

offsite link The Saker blog is now frozen Tue Feb 28, 2023 23:55 | The Saker
Dear friends As I have previously announced, we are now “freezing” the blog.  We are also making archives of the blog available for free download in various formats (see below). 

offsite link What do you make of the Russia and China Partnership? Tue Feb 28, 2023 16:26 | The Saker
by Mr. Allen for the Saker blog Over the last few years, we hear leaders from both Russia and China pronouncing that they have formed a relationship where there are

offsite link Moveable Feast Cafe 2023/02/27 ? Open Thread Mon Feb 27, 2023 19:00 | cafe-uploader
2023/02/27 19:00:02Welcome to the ‘Moveable Feast Cafe’. The ‘Moveable Feast’ is an open thread where readers can post wide ranging observations, articles, rants, off topic and have animate discussions of

offsite link The stage is set for Hybrid World War III Mon Feb 27, 2023 15:50 | The Saker
Pepe Escobar for the Saker blog A powerful feeling rhythms your skin and drums up your soul as you?re immersed in a long walk under persistent snow flurries, pinpointed by

The Saker >>

Public Inquiry
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005

offsite link RTEs Sarah McInerney ? Fianna Fail supporter? Anthony

offsite link Joe Duffy is dishonest and untrustworthy Anthony

offsite link Robert Watt complaint: Time for decision by SIPO Anthony

offsite link RTE in breach of its own editorial principles Anthony

offsite link Waiting for SIPO Anthony

Public Inquiry >>

Voltaire Network
Voltaire, international edition

offsite link Netanyahu soon to appear before the US Congress? It will be decisive for the suc... Thu Jul 04, 2024 04:44 | en

offsite link Voltaire, International Newsletter N°93 Fri Jun 28, 2024 14:49 | en

offsite link Will Israel succeed in attacking Lebanon and pushing the United States to nuke I... Fri Jun 28, 2024 14:40 | en

offsite link Will Netanyahu launch tactical nuclear bombs (sic) against Hezbollah, with US su... Thu Jun 27, 2024 12:09 | en

offsite link Will Israel provoke a cataclysm?, by Thierry Meyssan Tue Jun 25, 2024 06:59 | en

Voltaire Network >>

Two serious false statements in today's, Friday's. Irish Times re. Eu Constitution

category international | eu | opinion/analysis author Saturday May 28, 2005 13:21author by Anthony Coughlan via imcer - THE NATIONAL PLATFORM EU RESEARCH AND INFORMATION CENTRE Report this post to the editors

by Taoiseach Bertie Ahern and the paper's European Correspondent, Denis Staunton:

Two false statements on the EU Constitution in today's Irish Times -

In his article supporting the EU Constitution in today's Irish Times
(P.16)Taoiseach Bertie Ahern makes one quite inaccurate statement. He says
that the EU Constitution "includes significant new powers for national
parliaments."


The EU Constitution includes nothing of the kind. The Constitution would
remove over 60 further national vetoes on top of those already removed by
previous EC/EU treaties. Half of these would be in new policy areas where
the post-Constitution EU, not National Parliaments, would henceforth make
the laws. The other half would substitute qualified majority voting for
unanimity in making EU laws in relation to policy areas that are already
with the EU. This means that National Parliaments and Governments would
lose their power to decide matters for some 60 policy areas.


The EU Constitution does not give National Parliaments a single new power.
Its Protocol on Subsidiarity provides that National Parliaments must be
informed in advance of proposals for new EU laws, and if one-third of the
25 Parliaments think that a particular proposal goes too far and they
object to it, the proposal must be "reviewed" by the Brussels Commission,
but the Commission and Council of Ministers can still go ahead with it.
Contrary to what Taoiseach Ahern claims, this clearly is not a "significant
new power" for National Parliaments. It is not new, for National
Parliaments can object already. It is not a power, for they can object all
they like and the Commission can go on ignoring them. What National
Parliaments get in this provision of the Constitution is more like a new
right to be ignored.


If the Taoiseach wishes for a proper national debate on the proposed EU
Constitution, as he says he does, he should not himself make such
fundamental misrepresentations regarding what is in the Treaty.


Under the heading "No vote will not kill constitution"(P.11) the same
paper's EU Correspondent, Denis Staunton, makes a seriously inaccurate
statement which could well mislead the Irish public regarding what could or
should be done following a posssible French or Dutch No vote in their
referendums. He writes: "According to the constitution, if at least
four-fifths of the member states ratify it by November next year and the
others are unable to do so, 'the matter will be referred to the European
Council' of EU leaders."


Contrary to what Denis Staunton states, this is NOT "according to the
constitution". The EU Constitution contains no such provision, and even if
it did, how could States be bound by the provisions of a document that is
not yet ratified?


What Mr Staunton misleadingly refers to as "part of the constitution" is a
political Declaration, No.30, which is attached to the Constitution but is
not legally part of it, and which was adopted by the Intergovernmental
Conference that drafted the final Treaty-cum-Constitution. This
Declaration reads as follows: "The Conference notes that if, two years
after the signature of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe,
four fifths of the Member States have ratified it and one or more Member
States have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the
matter will be referred to the European Council."


Note that the Declaration states that "IfSfour fifths of the Member States
have ratified." This is not the same as an obligation on them to proceed
with ratification if one Member State has said No and the others decide to
respect that No. States are free to abandon the ratification process if
they choose. The terms of this Declaration, which is not itself a Treaty
or legally binding, make quite clear that the decision by other EU States
to ignore a possible No vote in France or the Netherlands and to proceed
with their ratifications as if a French or Dutch No could be reversed or
over-ruled, is a purely political matter, but has no legal imperative
behind it. It would be merely an attempt by EU politicians, bureaucrats
and propagandists to bully the people of the country concerned.


This is to contemplate the kind of outrageously undemocratic behaviour that
Ireland's political elite engaged in when Irish voters rejected the Nice
Treaty in June 2001. When that happened Taoiseach Bertie Ahern could have
told his EU partners that he wished the ratification process to stop to
take acount of the Irish people's vote. Instead he went to the EU summit
in Gothenburg the weekend afterwards to apologise to his EU colleagues in
effect for the way the Irish had voted, told them to ignore that vote and
to go ahead with ratifying the Nice Treaty. He promised that he would
re-run the referendum and get a different result by changing the referendum
rules and securing their help in due course to threaten, bully and cajole
the Irish electorate a second time around.


French Prime Minister Raffarin has stated that there will be no second vot
e
in France - thereby showing more respect for his people than Taoiseach
Ahern did for his - and showing also that, unlike Mr Staunton, he is aware
of the legal/political significance attaching to a Treaty Declaration.
The only reason for Taoiseach Ashern proposing to hold a referendum in
Ireland in the event of a French or Dutch No vote would be that he
contemplates us joining in a general EU exercise of bullying or trickery
vis-a-vis French or Dutch voters, just as their politicians helped
Bertie Ahern to bully and cajole us in our Nice Two referendum.


Denis Staunton dredges up some Professor of Politics in Edinburgh -
presumably the holder of some Jean Monnet ideological chair - to state,
quite falsely, that there is an obligation under international law for the
EU Member States to continue trying to ratify this Treaty when one State
has rejected it.


There is no such "obligation". Where could such an obligation come from?
The Declaration referred to is not an international treaty and imposes no
legal obligation whatever. It is a statement of intention in hypothetical
circumstances: namely, that the 25 Governments would discuss the matter if
four-fifths of EU States did not ratifiy the Treaty. But that does not
amount to a requirement that they should go ahead with their own
ratifications while ignoring No votes in some countries, contrary to what
Mr Staunton and his Edinburgh Politics Professor imply. That would be a
political decision, a decision by politicians to ignore a people's vote. It
would be quite typical of the arrogant EU-elite, but let us not pretend
that it would have some mandatory legal force behind it.


It is surprising that such an experienced correspondent as the Irish
Times's Denis Staunton does not seem to know the difference between a
Declaration attached to a Treaty, which is a political statement but not
legally binding, and a Treaty's substantive Articles and Protocols, which
are. If Mr Staunton had enquired a little harder he might have found
someone properly qualified in international law who would have been be able
to tell him what was in the EU Constitution and what was not, and who could
explain the legal/political weight that attaches to political Delarations
annexed to treaties.


One suspects that Mr Staunton is merely echoing and seeking to drum up
support for the policy line now being pushed by the eurocrats of the EU
Commission and by the many eurofanatics and eurobullies across the EU who
want to ignore a possible No vote by the people of either France or Holland
in their referendums, so as to keep their precious EU Constitution project
on the road, from which they stand to gain much personally themselves.


This is playing politics and making EU propaganda, not good journalism.
It us unfortunate that so many European correspondents who "go native" in
Brussels seem unable to tell the difference.


Signed: Anthony Coughlan

 #   Title   Author   Date 
   All polls indicate a NON! vote. & nobody ever went "native in Brussels". don't swallow that.     Antonin Carême    Sat May 28, 2005 14:50 
   Attn: ANTHONY COUGHLAN     martha    Sun May 29, 2005 01:04 
   Attn: ANTHONY COUGHLAN     martha    Sun May 29, 2005 01:22 
   Nice Treaty good - Nice Treaty bad     Heidi Hi    Sun May 29, 2005 03:44 
   Thanks,     Mary Kelly    Sun May 29, 2005 16:35 
   Viva la France.     Viva la France.    Mon May 30, 2005 01:41 


Number of comments per page
  
 
© 2001-2024 Independent Media Centre Ireland. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Independent Media Centre Ireland. Disclaimer | Privacy