Mothers' Alliance statement more relevant now than ever

In the lead up to Ireland's second vote on the Lisbon Treaty Mrs. Nora Bennis, of the Mothers’ Alliance, made a very strong plea – both by way of information leaflets and in a You Tube video – to the people of Ireland that they should reject the Lisbon Treaty by voting NO in the referendum last Friday. In a press release she stated that:

‘Parents and grandparents are particularly horrified that they have been kept in the dark for so long about the deadly consequences of this Treaty for them, for their children and grandchildren. They did not know that ratification of the Lisbon Treaty will enable the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to become legally binding on them. … Lisbon is the first EU treaty to include children’s rights. Article 3 of Lisbon [TEU] and Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights open the door so that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child can become legally binding on ALL children. Article 2 of that Convention makes it quite clear that “States Parties” – NOT PARENTS OR LEGAL GUARDIANS – WILL DECIDE FOR THEIR CHILDREN, and this is totally contrary both to the way Irish parents rear and educate their children.’

Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights is also relevant.
Her warnings are borne out by statements from a number of prominent Irish politicians confirming what she says.

Mrs. Bennis went on to say that parents and legal guardians could be prosecuted for simple disciplinary actions within the home, for example, for ‘interfering’ with the privacy of their children – Article 16 CRC states that:

'No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation. The child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.’

Parents could also be prosecuted if they try to control the information that their children are receiving or imparting to others – Article 13 CRC states:
‘The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child’s choice.

‘The exercise of this right may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) for respect of the rights or reputations of others; or (b) for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals.’

Article 15 CRC could very well be used to prosecute parents if they try to prevent their children from associating with undesirables:
‘States Parties recognize the rights of the child to freedom of association and to freedom of peaceful assembly.

‘No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of these rights other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safely, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.’

Mrs. Bennis rightly refers to various Articles of Bunreacht na hÉireann (the Constitution of Ireland) that emphasise the unique place the Family – the natural primary fundamental unit group of society – including the children, holds in Society. Article 42.5 of the Constitution provides for the interference of the State only in the case of obvious neglect of the children on the part of parents, but with due regard to the natural and imprescriptable rights of the child. However, under the Lisbon Treaty, the Charter of Fundamental Rights will allow for the legally binding enforcement of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the ensuing usurping of the rights of parents over their children. Article 2.2 CRC states:

'States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child’s parents, legal guardians, or family members.

’

Please see www.spuc-director.blogspot.com (4 October 2009) for further comment on the dangers to which children can very well be exposed by forces outside the family.

Lisbon 2 Referendum result; Ireland votes yes but Lisbon ratification not yet assured

In what has to be a pyrrhic victory for the Irish Government and for Europe, Ireland has voted to accept the Lisbon Treaty. The overall result was a massive yes but one county Donegal voted against it.

Fear seems to have been a major factor in the resounding vote in favour of the treaty, fear generated by the economic crisis of the past year, and fear for the future. Now that the vote has taken place however one must accept the result, and that this is now the choice of the Irish people irrespective of the undemocratic way the first vote was not respected, either by the Irish Government or by Europe.

Sadly our Government were not strong enough to accept the first verdict given by the Irish people in voting NO and gave in to European demands to ‘do it all over again and make sure you get the right answer this time’. European democracy has suffered a significant setback and the will of the Irish electorate has been disgracefully manipulated.

This unacceptable Treaty which, together with its Charter of Fundamental Rights, started life as a new constitution for Europe, instead of being consigned to the pages of History following rejection, first by France and Holland and subsequently by the first Irish rejection, has risen once again like the phoenix from its own ashes and Europe is now one step closer to becoming a superstate.

The ratification of the treaty however is still not assured, the Czech Republic also held out and while the Czech government want it ratified President Klaus refuses to sign it. (Sunday Business Post article) Klaus was initially waiting for the Irish verdict, however a group of Czech senators have recently taken a legal challenge against ratification of the treaty and President Klaus now says that he cannot sign until the constitutional court makes its decision. Meanwhile UK Conservative leader David Cameron has promised UK voters a referendum on the treaty, if his party win the general election next year and if Lisbon has not been ratified by that time. It is expected that the result of a UK referendum would be a massive rejection of the treaty.

GANLEY WELCOMES VATICAN STATEMENT

Libertas Leader Declan Ganley in a TV3 interview told the show host Vincent Browne and viewers that Cardinal Bertone head of the Holy See Secretariat of State and the most senior Cardinal in the Vatican had issued a statement stressing the importance of European countries “keeping their own identity”, and in which he refers to Ireland’s resistance to centralisation as “logical”.

The text of a press statement issued by Libertas leader Declan Ganly is reproduced below.

Libertas Leader Declan Ganley has tonight welcomed comments by the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Bertone, in which the Pope’s chief diplomat stresses the importance of European countries “keeping their own identity”, and refers to Ireland’s resistance to centralisation as “logical”.

Speaking this afternoon to a Czech newspaper, Cardinal Bertone said:

"Individual European countries have their own identity. The European Union prescribes its laws or views to them and they must comply with their traditions and history. Some countries are logically resisting this - for example, Ireland... The Church wants to encourage the states in this."

Commenting, Mr. Ganley said:

“This statement should end the debate about how the church interprets this Treaty. The campaign to resist the centralisation of power in Brussels is described by the Pope’s official spokesperson as “logical”, and the Holy Father’s office has said that the church wants to “encourage” states to take this stand.

I welcome these comments by Cardinal Bertone, and encourage all practising catholics to take them on board before they cast their ballots”

Ends

Slovak MEP Anna Záborská: Statement on the upcoming Irish referendum

Does the EU Lisbon Treaty really respect fundamental and non negotiable values?

Having served since 2004 as a Member of the European Parliament for a very small EU Member State (Slovakia), I am persuaded that negotiating "national guarantees" is part of the political strategy. Those guarantees do not have any legal effect in EU law, which always has primacy over national legislation. If the Lisbon Treaty is passed the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which is part of the Treaty will become legally binding, will have primacy and will confer extensive rights to the European Court of Justice. Whenever there will be a discord between the Lisbon Treaty and national laws or constitutions, the EU Court in Luxemburg will decide. Recent rulings show that the EU Court of Justice is more likely to take a stand in favour of the EU legislation. Who will protect the national legislation?

In 2005, my own Slovak government was under attack because we wanted to sign an additional protocol on objection of conscience related to our Concordat. The EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights (which at this time belongs to the EU Commission) declared that any provisions on objection of conscience would not be compatible with EU legislation!

In January 2009, the European Parliament urged Member states to recognise abortion rights among other ‘rights’, based on the provisions of EU Fundamental Rights Charter. The existing EU legislation on non discrimination would force Ireland and all the other Member States to change their national family policy to make them compatible with the so-called EU standards.

Just three weeks ago, Lithuania was been threatened by the EU Parliament because of the protection of minors in its national school law. The EU Parliament supposed that this provision could harm the principle of non discrimination on the ground of "sexual orientation". But nobody was interested in arguments in favour of the protection of the child and the rights of the parents to educate them. There was no respect for the principle of subsidiarity.

The next Member State could be Ireland or anybody else. Can the Irish government guarantee that the EU will not attack the Irish Constiution or the guarantees when the upcoming Council directive on non discrimination needs to be implemented in national law? Can the Irish Government guarantee that Ireland will not be similarly threatened on their pro-life and pro-family legislation?

I am almost certain that an Irish No to the Lisbon Treaty would not cause the collapse of the EU, as the every day experience in the institutions clearly shows.

I would invite the Irish voters to carefully consider also my arguments which intend to defend an EU society based on values which are fundamental and non negotiable, and which the Lisbon Treaty does not respect enough.

ENDS

Contact:
MEP Anna Záborská
European Parliament
ASP 3 F 357
B 1047 Brussels
Email : anna.zaborska@europarl.europa.eu

DON'T BE AFRAID TO VOTE NO Says DANA

I am not afraid to vote No to Lisbon, said Dana Rosemary Scallon today. The people must know the truth, that the guarantees are worthless and that the EU will have primacy over Irelands Constitution. Lisbon is not about tidying up the democratic process - it is about tying up the democratic process.

As former French president Valery Giscard d'Estaing stated, when he welcomed the Lisbon Treaty wording:

'Public opinion will be led - without knowing it - to adopt the policies we would never present to them directly. All the earlier proposals will be in the new text - but will be hidden or disguised in some way.

'

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

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

A simple name change will not change the fact that adopting the Lisbon Treaty will undermine our sovereignty and political independence and profoundly weaken Ireland's position in Europe and is the path to a European Constitution, having primacy over Irelands Constitution.

Former Irish Taoiseach, Dr Garett Fitzgerald also stated on June 30, 2007,that proposed changes to the Constitutional Treaty, "had no practical effect. They have simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum.' Chancellor Merkel of Germany and Jose Zapatero, Prime minister of Spain confirmed that, 'The substance of the constitution is preserved' and that 'not a single substantial point' of the constitutional Treaty' has been let go. Even former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, noted that there had been 'no dramatic change to the substance of what had been agreed in 2004'.

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

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

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

This is no longer about the politics of right and left it is about right and wrong. I can no longer stay silent about the wilful betrayal of Ireland's Constitution.
Just as in Article 12.8 of Ireland's Constitution the President states "In the presence of Almighty God I do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will maintain the Constitution of Ireland and uphold its laws that I will fulfil my duties faithfully and conscientiously in accordance with the Constitution...." ; Article 9.2 calls upon everyone stating; "Fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the state are fundamental political duties of all citizens".

People should not be afraid to vote no, proclaim loyalty to the State and fidelity to the nation. Our Constitution should be upheld not diluted for political and personal gain.

“GUARANTEES WORTHLESS” SAYS IRELAND FOR LIFE

Ireland for Life have issued the following statement on the effect of the so called guarantees on the Lisbon Treaty

“No to Lisbon is the only means of ensuring the continued protection of the right to life of the child embryo, in Ireland. On the same day as the referendum, the other EU institution, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will vote on a pro-abortion report (‘Document 11992’) ,” said the organisation’s spokesperson, Mrs. Mary Thornton.

The “guarantees” are not part of the Lisbon Treaty nor any other treaty and they have no legal effect in EU law. Declaration 17 on Primacy in the Lisbon Treaty clearly states that

“the treaties and the law adopted by the EU on the basis of the treaties have primacy over the law of the member states.”

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘The Charter’), which is attached to the Treaty, confers extensive rights upon the ECJ. The Charter, which Lisbon makes legally binding on all member countries under Article 6 of the Treaty, will have primacy.

Last June, the European Centre for Law and Justice in a written opinion stated the following;

“If the European Court of Justice were to decide that abortion is a right in interpreting The Charter of Fundamental Rights, it would appear that this decision would be binding on Ireland”

. Abortion could be claimed to be a fundamental human right.

On January 14th, 2009, the European Parliament including Irish MEPs approved a resolution urging states to recognise abortion rights among other so-called ‘rights’. The Catania Resolution was based on the provisions of The Charter.

The fact is that the ECJ would not recognise any protocol which had not already been attached to the Lisbon Treaty. Most seriously of all; what would happen in the intervening period between the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and the possible ratification of an accession treaty sometime, perhaps, in the distant future?

On this basis, Ireland For Life is calling for a ‘No’ vote in this week’s Lisbon referendum

Lisbon Treaty

On Friday next, 2 October, as most of Europe, and large parts of the world are aware, the people of Ireland have to vote for the second time within the space of eighteen months to allow the Irish Government to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon. Why do the Irish people have to vote again? Well, because the answer they gave on the last occasion, rejecting the Treaty, was not the result that the Government and the EU Powers wanted.

The Charter of Fundament Rights, which is part of the Treaty of Lisbon, was described in 2000 by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) as a ‘Godless’ document that would cause ‘moral and social harm’.

Every so often, quotations from the words of Pope Benedict are used to show his approval of the Lisbon Treaty document. So I have decided, therefore, to present some further quotations from the Pope’s addresses on a number of occasions, and hopefully these may give a somewhat more balanced record of what he actually does say on the subject of Europe.. (Certain passages are highlighted to emphasise their content)

‘The “European home”, as we readily refer to the community of this continent, will be a good place to live for everyone only if it is built on a solid cultural and moral foundation of common values drawn from our history and our traditions. Europe cannot and must not deny her Christian roots. …
‘It was in Europe that the notion of human rights was first formulated. The fundamental human right, the presupposition of every other right, is the right to life itself. This is true of life from the moment of conception until its natural end. Abortion, consequently, cannot be a human right – it is the very opposite. It is “a deep wound in society”, as the late Cardinal Franz Konig never tired of repeating.
‘ … I appeal to political leaders not to allow children to be considered as a form of illness, nor to abolish in practice your legal system’s acknowledgment that abortion is wrong. I say this out of a concern for humanity. But that is only one side of this disturbing problem. The other is the need to do everything possible to make European countries once again open to welcoming children. …
‘Another great concern of mine is the debate on what has been termed “actively assisted death”. It is to be feared that at some point the gravely ill or elderly will be subjected to tacit or even explicit pressure to request death or to administer it to themselves. The proper response to end-of-life suffering is loving care and accompaniment on the journey towards death – especially with the help of palliative care – and not “actively assisted death”. …
‘Given the uniqueness of its calling. Europe also has a unique responsibility in the world. First of all, it must not give up on itself. The continent which, demographically, is rapidly aging, must not become old in spirit. …’

[From Address to the Authorities and the Diplomatic Corps, Hofburg, Vienna, September 2007]

and

‘Unfortunately, from a demographic point of view, one must note that Europe seems to be following a path that could lead to its departure from history. …
‘If, for the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, the Governments of the Union wish to “get nearer” to their citizens, how can they exclude an element essential to European identity such as Christianity, with which a vast majority of citizens continue to identify? Is it not surprising that today’s Europe, while aspiring to be regarded as a community of values, seems ever more often to deny the very existence of universal and absolute values? Does not this unique form of “apostasy” from itself, even more than its apostasy from God, lead Europe to doubt its own identity? And so the opinion prevails that an “evaluation of the benefits” is the only way to moral discernment and that the common good is synonymous with compromise. In reality, if compromise can constitute a legitimate balance between different particular interests, it becomes a common evil whenever it involves agreements that dishonour human nature. …
‘A community built without respect for the true dignity of the human being, disregarding the fact that every person is created in the image of God ends up doing no good to anyone. For this reason it seems ever more important that Europe be on guard against the pragmatic attitude, widespread today, which systematically justifies compromise on essential human values, as if it were the inevitable acceptance of a lesser evil. … the right to conscientious objection should be protected, every time fundamental human rights are violated.’
‘I know how difficult it is for Christians to defend this truth of the human person. Nevertheless do not give in to fatigue or discouragement! You know that it is your duty, with God’s help, to contribute to the consolidation of a new Europe which will be realistic but not cynical, rich in ideals and free from naïve illusions, inspired by the perennial and the life-giving truth of the Gospel. Therefore, be actively present in the public debate on a European level, knowing that this discussion is now an integral part of the national debate. And to this commitment add effective cultural action. Do not bend to the logic of power as an end in itself! May Christ’s admonition be a constant stimulus and support for you: “If the salt loses its flavour it is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.” (cf. Mt. 5:13). May the Lord make all your efforts fruitful and help you to recognize and use properly what is positive in today’s civilization, while denouncing with courage all that is contrary to human dignity.
‘I am certain that God will bless the generous efforts of all who, in a spirit of service, work to build a common European home where every cultural, social and political contribution is directed towards the common good. To you, already involved in different ways in this important human and evangelical undertaking, I express my support and my most fervent encouragement. …’

[From Address of Pope Benedict XVI to participants in the Convention on 50 years of the Treaty of Rome, organised by COMECE, March 2007]


Had Pope Benedict’s warnings and advice been listened to perhaps the Lisbon Treaty might have been an acceptable document – but, as it stands today, it is not acceptable,

SHOCK AS OPINION POLL SHOWS IRELAND ON COURSE FOR SECOND LISBON REJECTION

A new opinion poll shows that there has been a massive surge in the number of Irish voters who say they will vote against the Lisbon Treaty second time around which, if it holds till voting day would result in the Lisbon Treaty being heavily defeated by a margin of 59% NO ‘V’ 41% YES. Should this poll prove to be correct on polling day this would represent almost a 6% rise in the NO vote

The results will came as a shock to the Government and business groups who have poured over €10 Million Euros+ campaigning for a yes vote.

In one of the largest polls of its kind ever carried out: Gael Poll polled 1,500 respondents in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Kilkenny, Galway, Athlone, Tralee, Dundalk and Letterkenny over the course of six days last week.

The respondents were asked one single question: How do you intend to vote in the Lisbon Treaty Referendum?

A substantial 723 (59 %) said they intended voting No as opposed to 502 (41%) who indicated that they would vote Yes. The survey also showed that 15% percent of voters were still undecided.

When pollsters discounted the don't knows: an overwhelming 59% of people would vote No in the referendum as opposed to 41% who indicated that they would vote Yes.

The last Gael Poll which was published in the Irish Sun (June 4th 2008) accurately predicted that the Lisbon Treaty would be defeated by a margin of 54 % for the No side versus 46% for Yes campaigners. On the day of the count -which took place nine days later- the actual result was 53.4% No and 46.6 % Yes. The uncanny poll prediction which was out by only a half a percent was the most accurate poll in the country.

Pollsters at Gael Poll which is a non-profit social affairs research organization are quietly confident that they will be accurate for a second year in a row:

“Our Poll was carried out over an extended six day period and we used the exact same methodology as we used last year. In our experience the vote is not half as fluid as one might believe. People tend to have very definite ideas about which way they intend to vote, and those who don’t know tend not to vote at all,” explains Pollster Paul Murphy.

One interesting insight that the pollsters gleaned were the variety of ‘off the radar’ reasons why people intend to vote No:

“Frankly a lot of the personalities who are fronting the Yes campaign don’t appear to be very popular and a lot of people have commented upon this.”

“Apart from the obvious well known issues, we found that people were very concernd about the curtailment of alternative medicines and the banning of turf cutting to the over preponderance of EU flags and emblems. If you were to boil it down to core emotions, No voters tend to be enraged and up for a fight whereas Yes voters tend to be motivated by economic fears,”

explained Paul Murphy.

New attempt to create a so called right to abortion

On 2 October next, on the very day when the people of Ireland are being bullied into voting – again, for the second time – on the ratification of the EU Treaty of Lisbon, the other european institution the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will vote on a pro-abortion report (‘Document 11992’) entitled ‘Fifteen years since the International Conference on Population and Development Programme of Action’. The Committee of Ministers are being encouraged to start the development of a European Convention ‘to achieve universal access to sexual and reproductive health and rights by 2015’. (Please see more about this on www.spuc-director.blogspot.com, 19 September 2009)

Now, we all know that it is acknowledged that ‘reproductive health and rights’ is the culture of death code word for ‘abortion’. It doesn’t sound as bad as saying ‘abortion’, but that’s what it is. Abortion is not about health, it is not a human right and never can be. On the contrary it is a human wrong, it is the slaughter of the innocent

Here is yet another example of the ‘creeping agenda’ of the pro-abortion/anti-life/anti-family agencies in the European Institutions, be it the Council of Europe or the European Union. Recently, I outlined the situation in Lithuania, when an EU Parliament motion censuring that country for daring to incorporate into their national laws a prohibition on the promotion of pornography, homosexuality, etc., for young people, and in schools, was carried by a majority of 349 to 218 votes by European parliamentarians, with 46 abstentions.
And, at the beginning of this year, the Catania Report (promoting abortion, and homosexual unions, etc. throughout the European Union) was comfortably passed in the European Parliament.

Back to Ireland, and the Treaty of Lisbon – of what worth are the so-called guarantees on the right to life (of the unborn?), the family, taxation, etc. These guarantees, promised by the Heads of State of the EU, are supposed to come into effect sometime in 2010, or 2011 maybe, when they will be attached as a Protocol to some future accession treaty – perhaps that of Croatia. But the guarantees are not binding in EU law, and they don’t change one jot of the Treaty of Lisbon. It’s the same Treaty that was rejected by the Irish people last year, and virtually the same document as the Constitution for Europe that was rejected by the French and Dutch people in 2005.

Something to think seriously about.

Misleading article on effects of the Lisbon Treaty

The Irish Catholic newspaper in an article quoting the new President of the European Parliament Jerzy Buzek misrepresents a number of critical aspects of the Lisbon Treaty. The article, quotes Mr Buzek as saying “it is not possible for the EU to change any member – state’s abortion law […]”, yet this is precisely what happened when Slovakia attempted to protect the conscience rights of medical personnel in respect to abortion and other life issues

In 2004 the European Commission obtained an opinion from a Network of so-called fundamental rights “experts”, it had appointed, concerning a Concordat then under negotiation between the Holy See and Slovakia which would have guaranteed freedom of conscience to all medical practitioners to decline, without sanction, to participate in abortions, euthanasia, cloning, IVF etc. The Legal Opinion came to the astonishing conclusion that there is a presumed ‘right to abortion’, which obliges a State to guarantee access to abortion where national law provides that it is legal and where such access meets obstacles, these must be removed. The opinion rejected a right to conscientious objection for medical practitioners in respect of abortion. The interference of the Commission in the internal affairs of the Slovakia caused a national crisis which resulted in the fall of the Government and the Concordat was not ratified.

The article also quotes Mr Buzek as saying that “the Lisbon Treaty cannot affect our laws in other so called ‘socio-ethical’ areas for example family law”,
Once again this is misleading, Article 9 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights : Right to marry and right to found a family says:

“The right to marry and the right to found a family shall be guaranteed in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of these rights”.

Firstly this article has been subdivided into two separate rights and expressed in a way that implies that the founding of a family need not be contingent on marriage.
Secondly according to the legal preamble to the Charter, this Article is based on Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) -

men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right

– but as is clearly evident the Article in the Charter excludes the first part of the ECHR article which limits marriage to men and women of marriageable age. The legal preamble also explains that the wording has been modernised to cover cases where national legislation recognises arrangements other than marriage for founding a family. According to the explanation, the Article does not prohibit same sex marriage.

The article also refers to the so called guarantees given to Ireland with regard to abortion and family law. The Lisbon Treaty has not been altered in any way, it is he same Treaty the Irish people rejected last year, not one comma has been changed. There are certainly promises of future guarantees, but currently there are no guarantees. We are told that the so called guarantees will be part of a later accession treaty but this is completely unacceptable. The minimum requirement in this regard is that guarantees of this nature should become actual protocols to the Lisbon Treaty and without them the Treaty should once again be rejected.

Officially the EU has no competence in the area of family which is the prerogative of the Member States. Indirectly, however, EU policies - especially as articulated in resolutions of the European Parliament and some co-decision procedures - impact negatively upon critical national issues, and slowly erode, as “soft law measures, on many areas of national sovereignty, including the traditional family by what has been described as “competence creep”.

Competence creep can happen in a number of ways - through EU directives such as those on equality and non-discrimination, the free movement of services and in other critical areas such as, sex education and protection of minors, to name a few.
One critical issue is the future interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, when and if, it comes into effect through ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. The history of previous approaches to sensitive questions by the European Commission such as the Slovakian Concordat causes grave concern as to how the Charter may be interpreted.

The mandate of the previously mentioned network of experts ended in 2006 but a similar group - which includes many of the same individuals - has reappeared under the name of FRALEX (Fundamental Rights Agency Legal Experts). FRALEX has been appointed as the exclusive provider of so-called expertise on fundamental rights to the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) based in Vienna. This places FRALEX, in an exclusive and very powerful monopoly position - to feed its ideology into the law-making process of the EU and, indirectly, of the Member States.

The FRA is also empowered, to provide advice to the EU institutions, not only when it is specifically asked to do so, but also on its own initiative. In this way, it is possible for FRA to set the agenda for the political institutions of the EU (i.e., the Commission, the Council, and the Parliament) by issuing reports in which in which ‘concern’ over specific human rights issues is expressed, and recommendations are given.

One of the first actions of FRALEX consisted of a direct attack on the traditional family based on marriage by supporting the rights of same-sex pairings, when it came to the astonishing conclusion that EU Member States had a legal duty to recognise same-sex ‘marriage’.

To sum up, irrespective of the view that the EU has no competence in critical areas such as the abortion issue and the traditional family based on the marriage of a man and a woman, the EU has found ways through competence creep to change national laws, in particular through equality and non discrimination legislation and in the area of the free movement of services. It has also done this through the so called ‘network of experts’ which, in its original form in 2004 concluded that there is a presumed right to abortion, and now as the newly constituted FRALEX, says that EU Member States have a legal duty to recognise same-sex ‘marriage’

I completely concur with the comments made by Fr Brendan Purcell in the same article and share his misgivings.

Bearing in mind the foregoing the Irish people should once again reject the Lisbon Treaty and vote NO to protect life and family values.

German Court decision was a fundamental rejection of the Lisbon Treaty

The German Constitutional Court in what has become known as the Karlsruhe judgement issued a remarkable verdict on 30 June and while the international media presented it as approval of the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, careful reading of the judgement shows that it is a fundamental rejection of the core constitutional content of the Treaty. So writes former MEP Jens Peter Bonde in a hard hitting article in euobserver.com

The Karlsruhe Court according to Bonde;

“effectively finds that the Lisbon Treaty would increase the EU's widely acknowledged democratic deficit if its ratification is not linked to the adoption of internal procedures at Member State level such as to safeguard the involvement of the National Parliaments and voters in each Member State. The verdict applies only to Germany, of course. But it has significant implications for all Member States, including those which have already approved and ratified the Lisbon Treaty”.

“If Germany's ratification of the Lisbon Treaty is found to be illegal and in contravention of basic democratic principles, in the absence of such parliamentary controls, should not the same principle apply in all other Member States that claim to be democracies”?

According to Bonde, "The Karlsruhe judgement should inspire people to call for similar constitutional and parliamentary challenges in other EU countries. This may establish strengthened procedures for national parliamentary control and safeguard areas where national parliamentary democracies can decide things on their own without interference from, for example, the EU Court of Justice."

ELN Comment
The Irish Government, in opposition to the decision of the Irish people who rejected Lisbon precisely for some of the reasons presented in the Karlsruhe judgement, is forging ahead with a new Referendum. The new Referendum has been arranged despite the fact that not one comma of the Treaty has been changed.

The Karlsruhe decision has established an important legal principle maybe it will take a similar legal challenge in the Irish Courts to bring the Irish Government to its senses.

Irish guarantees "do not change the Lisbon Treaty" and are not legally-binding: Glenys Kinnock

The Irish Government have hailed, as an important victory, the agreement of the EU heads of state to give Ireland special guarantees in respect of the Lisbon Treaty however, according to British Europe Minister Glenys Kinnock the so called guarantees are not legally binding.

In a debate in the Lords yesterday, Glenys Kinnock confirmed that Ireland will be voting on exactly the same text of the Lisbon Treaty a second time around. She said: "Those guarantees do not change the Lisbon treaty; the European Council conclusions are very clear on them. The Lisbon treaty, as debated and decided by our Parliament, will not be changed and, on the basis of these guarantees, Ireland will proceed to have a second referendum in October." She added: "Nothing in the treaty will change and nothing in the guarantees will change the treaty as your Lordships agreed it."

When asked about the legal status of the 'guarantees', she confirmed that they will not be legally-binding until they are written into the EU treaties as a protocol, which will happen after the Irish referendum. She said: "My Lords, what we have in the guarantees will become binding in international law when the guarantees are translated into a protocol at the time of the next accession, which presumably will be when Croatia or Iceland comes in. Before that protocol can be ratified by the UK, Parliament must pass a Bill. As I said, Parliament will rightly have the final say."

During questions at the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee this morning,Foreign Secretary David Miliband confirmed that "Every head of state agrees that these guarantees do not change the Treaty."

The Irish Government has betrayed its people

This press statement was released by Declan Ganley and Jens-Peter Bonde last week. The Irish Government's failure to respect the wishes of the electorate is not just a betrayal of those who rejected the Lisbon Treaty but a betrayal of Ireland's hard-won democracy.

DECLAN GANLEY AND JENS-PETER BONDE
Thursday 11 December 2008 @ 09:13 CET


EUOBSERVER / COMMENT - The French president yesterday told the group leaders of the European parliament that he has made a deal with the Irish government to hold a second referendum in Ireland to ratify the Lisbon treaty first rejected on 12 June by 53 percent of Irish voters.

None of the representatives of the Irish people who voted No to the Lisbon Treaty were consulted by the Irish government before they struck a deal with the French Presidency. The Irish government has simply ignored the result of the referendum and betrayed those people who voted No in the majority. Government ministers, including the prime minister, have been urging other countries to "isolate" Ireland by ratifying the treaties so the Irish could sweat it out and then change their mind.

And what do they deliver as concessions to the Irish voters? Not one single word to be changed in the treaty that was also rejected by the French and Dutch voters in referendums in 2005 when it went under the name of "Constitution".

Not one word or legal obligation will be changed. The same content will simply be put in a new envelope, just as Valery Giscard d'Estaing said about the change from the Constitution to the Lisbon Treaty. But this time, not even the headline or the wording will be changed. It is the same text that was rejected.

It is legally doubtful if it is possible to repeat a binding referendum on the same text in the same parliamentary period.

In the new envelope, there will be a lot of nice words in Declarations. They have not the slightest legal value. They will neither change anything in the treaties nor hinder the court in Luxembourg from deciding directly against whatever the Declarations say.

Then, they will have the promise of a commissioner from each member state. Fine. But the Irish commissioner will be picked by a majority of prime ministers and presidents in the EU. The Irish government can come up with "suggestions", but other member states decide.

It would indeed be a concession if they were change the treaty and allow every member state to elect its own commissioner, and it would be democratic progress if we could elect our commissioner in direct elections together with the elections to the European Parliament.


The Irish government has simply given in and will not even insist on the right of Ireland to nominate its own commissioner.

Declan Ganley is president of Libertas and Jens-Peter Bonde is president of the EU Democrats and a member of the European Parliament from 1979-2008

Thoughts of an EU reformist

A detailed and disturbing account at Orwell's Picnic of Kathy Sinnot's recent lecture given at the MaterCare conference. She describes the essentially anti-democratic nature of the European Union and the promotion of the culture of death with devastating clarity.

Describing the way the European Court of Justice works, she stated:

Judges slip very easily into law-making and judicial activism and this is particularly true in the European Court of Justice for a particularly interesting reason. Most of our High Courts or Supreme Courts or whatever you call them in your own countries – the job of most of those courts is to uphold your constitutions. But the actual stated job of the European Court of Justice – the EU’s court is to promote the European project. So, it takes whatever document or whatever treatise, and it decides what interpretation at this point in time will best promote the European project; not what do those words truly mean and what do case law tell us about them. And this is a particularly worrying thing in terms, again, of the Lisbon Treaty because for the first time, we had a Charter of Rights included – called the Fundamental Charter of Rights and those rights had very interesting things like ‘Everyone has a right to life.’ But, of course, the only country fighting that statement was Ireland because we wanted to retain our Right to Life – and we knew that a statement like “Everyone has a right to life” – actually did not apply to such things as abortion and euthanasia. It actually meant the opposite and it would mean the opposite because it was the European Court in Luxemburg that would decide what it meant and that was why countries that are very invested in things like abortion – even countries that are invested in policies of euthanasia – had no problem ratifying the Lisbon Treaty and even welcoming this fundamental charter because, in fact, it would reinforce their policy not counter-act it.

Reading this post made me all too aware of the vital work MEPs like Kathy are doing in the European Parliament, against appalling odds. It should be noted that Kathy describes herself as an EU-reformist, not a Eurosceptic. This is, I think, an important clarification to make, as it is quite common for people to assume that anyone who dares question the functioning of the EU is against it per se. Just as a true patriot should regard it as a duty to stand up to unjust laws in his own country, a good European should regard it as a duty to stand up to the injustices currently being carried out in the name of the European project.

Call for Europe-wide Referendum

Declan Ganley, leader of the Irish NO campaign, has called again for a Europe-wide referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. As he said during a debate in the European Parliament:

"I can tell you as a citizen having read the Treaty and campaigned on it, it is undemocratic and unacceptable to the majority of my country. Nor do I believe it is acceptable to the majority of the citizens in other countries."

Both the president of the European Parliament Hans-Gert Poettering and French president Nicolas Sarkozy have used the outbreak of the Georgia war to argue for a speedy ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, prompting criticisms that a humanitarian crisis is being used to force through a treaty the majority of Irish people have already rejected.

Cardinal Sean Brady intervenes in Lisbon debate

In an important intervention in the debate on the Lisbon Treaty Cardinal Sean Brady Speaking at the Humbert Summer School in Co Mayo on Sunday (24 August), told the gathering, the EU's prevailing culture and social agenda seems to be driven by the secular tradition "rather than by the Christian memory and heritage of the vast majority of member states,".
Cardinal Brady continued by pointing out that there is "a fairly widespread culture in European affairs which relegates manifestations of one's own religious convictions to the private and subjective sphere."
The Cardinal warned that "Successive decisions which have undermined the family based on marriage, the right to life from the moment of conception to natural death, the sacredness of the Sabbath, the right of Christian institutions to maintain and promote their ethos, including schools - these and other decisions have made it more difficult for committed Christians to maintain their instinctive commitment to the European project."
The Cardinal stressed that in his view the difficulties would most likely continue, "Without respect for its Christian memory and soul, I believe it is possible to anticipate continuing difficulties for the European project," and also warned that "dangerous individualism that does not care about God or about what the future might have in store" would most likely continue to cause unease and difficulty in the EU's economic and social policies.

Sarkozy in Dublin

EU President Nikolas Sarkozy has taken a rather more moderate tone on Ireland's 'No' vote during his visit to Dublin than expected, promising not to try to force Irish voters into anything. Whilst this approach is more acceptable to the Irish people than thinly veiled threats, it does not alter the fact that the Lisbon Treaty is dead and President Sarkozy simply cannot accept this.

To continue the ratification process when the treaty has been rejected in a fair referendum is an unacceptable insult to democracy and can only add to the disillusionment and fear felt by so many voters across Europe. It will take more than a charm offensive by the European President to reassure people. We need to know that our concerns are being heard.

Kathy Sinnott's Speech on Lisbon

Kathy Sinnott gave an excellent speech earlier in the week entitled Why Ireland voted NO to Lisbon.

She focused on two major issues. The first was the well-founded fear of many Irish voters about the eroding of Ireland’s hard won democracy, an all too reasonable fear it seemed, when certain voices within Europe started trying to influence the outcome of the referendum by threatening the electorate.

The second issue was that of Ireland’s Christian values and the danger of Europe imposing unethical legislation regarding abortion, euthanasia and embryo research.

She warns that Ireland will vote NO a second time if their concerns are not heard – I wonder if anyone in the European Commission is listening?

Polish President refuses to sign Lisbon Treaty

The Polish President, Lech Kaczynski has said that it would be ‘pointless’ to sign the Lisbon Treaty after Ireland voted against ratification last month. The German President, Horst Koehler, has delayed ratification until legal challenges have been concluded in the country’s high court. In the apt words of Nikolas Sarkozy: “Something isn’t right. Something isn’t right at all.’ In his capacity as new European President, Mr Sarkozy will be coming to Dublin, giving Irish voters another valuable opportunity to voice their concerns over Lisbon and the future of Europe.

The Problem with Democracy

The President of the Czech Republic has described Ireland’s rejection of the Lisbon Treaty as a “victory of freedom and reason over artificial elitist projects and European bureaucracy” which should stop the process of ratification.

However, a somewhat bizarre joint statement by Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor and Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President stated: “We took note of the democratic decision of the Irish people with all due respect even though we regret it very much.” The statement then went on to claim: "We are convinced that the agreed reforms included in the Lisbon Treaty are necessary to make EU more democratic and more efficient and that they will enable Europe to meet the challenges confronting the European citizens."

I am probably not alone in thinking it a little disingenuous to claim to respect the decision of the Irish people then claim that it will make the EU ‘more democratic’ to ratify a treaty that has been resoundingly rejected by the one people who were given a say on the matter.