The Spire

FG internal poll predicts 82 seats

2011-02-24T15:03:00.000-08:00

With the moratorium on election-reporting only applying to broadcasters, the Irish Daily Mail is today reporting the findings of internal polling by FG. The predicted seats for each party are: FG 82, Labour 30, SF 14, ULA 4, Greens 2 and Independents 12.

Constituencies of interest:

- Laois-Offaly to be only 2-seat FF constituency. But second seat “shaky”
- To lose seats: Sean Haughey, Pat Carey, JOD, Dick Roche, Barry Andrews, Billy Kelleher, Bobby Aylward, Brendan Smith, Michael Mulcahy, Michael Moynihan,
- Brian Lenihan “hanging on by fingertips” in Dublin West).
- Mary Hanafin and Mary Coughlan “fighting for their political-lives”.
- Sargent and Ryan to hold seats.
- With CC, 82 would be sufficient for a working-majority. FG-Greens would have majority of 4.

Hard to call constituencies:
- Wexford hard to card because of Mick Wallace candidacy (Ind).
- Carlow-Kilkenny hard to call because of “potential for geographical-voting across party lines”.
- “Hard to know” if Aine Brady will hold on in Kildare North.
- DL. “Fine Gael now believe their second candidate, Mary Mitchell O’Connor, will take the final seat at the expense of the ULA’s Richard Boyd Barrett”.

On the credibility of the research:

“But analysts from other parties have always acknowledged the accuracy of the tallies, which are based on national and local opinion polls, bookies’ odds, private local tracking polls and reactions on the doorstep.”

Sinn Féin to win Donegal by-election - Poll

2010-11-17T09:19:00.000-08:00

The latest by-election poll from Red C (conducted for Paddy Power) in the Donegal South-West by-election campaign confirms SF on target to take the seat. The trends below are comparisons with General Election 2007. The candidate support figures are: Pearse Doherty (SF) 40%, Brian O’Domhnaill (FF) 19%, Barry O'Neill (FG) 15%, Frank McBrearty (Lab) 14%, Thomas Pringle (Independent) 8%, and Anne Sweeney (Independent) 2%. In transfer-terms, the numbers are: Pearse Doherty (SF) 19%, Brian O'Domhnaill (FF) 10%, Barry O'Neill (FG) 14%, Frank McBrearty (Labour) 20%, Thomas Pringle (Independent) 9% and Anne Sweeney (Independent) 7%. As a result, Paddy Power have shortened the odds on Doherty taking the seat from 1/5 to 1/8. The poll shows Fianna Fail candidate Brian O’Domhnaill fares poorly from Sinn Féin transfers. Barry O’Neill, Fine Gael and Frank McBrearty Junior, Labour; both secure a similar share of first preference vote in the constituency at 15% and 14% respectively, but initial analysis of transfers puts McBrearty ahead. Asked for General Election voting-intentions, Sinn Féin take 31% of the first preference vote - 10 points ahead of their impressive performance just over 3 years ago. The Labour vote in Donegal SW has risen by 15 percentage-points to 18%. 46% in the constituency prefer Eamon Gilmore as Taoiseach, compared to 18% for Enda Kenny, 13% for Brian Cowen, with 13% favouring none of these and 10% undecided. Fianna Fáil score just 19% in General Election voting-intentions.

The Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2010

2010-10-22T12:59:00.000-07:00

The Government has published the revised wording of the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2010. The original wording was withdrawn earlier in the year following hundreds of wrecking-amendments in Committee by the Opposition (especially Labour with its absurd demand that illegal immigrants who claim to have been trafficked should be allowed a 6-month visa automatically even if they refuse to cooperate in prosecutions of traffickers). The bill would:

- Remove the requirement to give failed asylum-seekers 14 days to appeal their deportation-orders, by repealing section 3 of the Immigration-Act 1999. This is necessary because 6,000 failed asylum-seekers have gone on the run to evade deportation and more would follow unless notice of date of deportation is abolished.

- Requires immigrants to enter via "approved ports" and present themselves to an Immigration-Officer. This could reduce the incentive to enter via NI, from where 90% of our asylum-seekers enter the state (according to the govt).

- Require the presentation of travel-documents at the frontiers of the State except for Irish/UK nationals.[quote]26.—(1) A person (other than a national of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland who has travelled directly from Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man or an Irish citizen) arriving or attempting to arrive from outside the State or entering or attempting to enter the State shall be in possession of a valid travel document.

"(2) A person (including an Irish citizen) arriving or attempting to arrive from outside the State or entering or attempting to enter the State shall—

(a) comply with such reasonable instructions as an immigration officer may give for those purposes, and

(b) furnish to an immigration officer such information in such manner as the immigration officer may reasonably require for the purposes of the performance of his or her functions, and where the immigration officer requires a person other than a foreign national to provide biometric information—

(i) the biometric information need only be furnished to the extent necessary to enable the immigration officer to compare it with any biometric information in a travel document furnished by the person, to establish that that travel document relates to him or her and to establish the validity of that travel document, and

(ii) the biometric information is not otherwise authorised to be retained, stored or compared to any other biometric information.

(3) A person who contravenes this section is guilty of an offence.

(4) For the purposes of this Part, a person coming from outside the State who arrives at any place in the State shall be deemed to have arrived at a frontier of the State.

.—(1) A person (other than a person to whom a waiver has been granted under section 24(4), a national of the United Kingdom ."

- introduces new offences (Section 149) of knowingly facilitating the entry of illegal-immigrants into the State.

This is a welcome and much overdue piece of legislation and it is imperative that on this occasion, the Government govern instead of pandering to an Opposition without (in 2010) a mandate to govern. Cosy-consensus is harmful to the democratic-process because it allows a minority to dictate to a majority. It is imperative that on this occasion, the Government pass the Bill. Write to Brian Cowen, Dermot Ahern and John Gormley to push for its enactment this year. In a recession charity must begin at home. We cannot afford the annual asylum-bill of €300 million, wasted on property-moguls and free legal-aid. We must send a message that another PAMA-style asylum-scam will not be tolerated still less rewarded.

As ever, the dogooders in the Immigrant Council of Ireland are not to be outdone in the bleeding-heart stakes:

" ...Council chief executive Denise Charlton said the redrafted Bill would perpetuate an immigration system that was unfair, inefficient and costly. She said the introduction of “summary deportation” would enable the State to remove people without appeal and could lead to serious injustices.

Under the current system, people have 15 days to appeal a deportation order. She said the legislation made no allowance for people in exceptional circumstances in relation to summary deportation, whereby lawfully resident migrants – or even vulnerable Irish people suffering from mental health problems – could be removed from the country without a right of appeal.

“The council is deeply concerned that the introduction of summary deportations could even result in the deportation of vulnerable Irish citizens or lawfully resident migrants who are unable to prove they have a legal right to be in Ireland,” said Ms Charlton.

She said the provisions in the redrafted Bill on summary deportation run contrary to recent Supreme Court decisions and a recommendation from the UN human rights committee."

This organisation also campaigned vociferously against the Citizenship Referendum in 2004 and as such lacks credibility as a barometer of public-opinion. Those considering voting Labour for the first time would do well to take note of Michael D's opposition to the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill's introduction of summary-deportations for failed asylum-seekers. It underlines once more what a disaster a Labour Justice/Immigration Minister would be for Irish immigration-policy and the control of our borders. Do-gooders like the Migrant Rights Centre insist on keeping the discredited 14 days to appeal deportation, in spite of the fact that this has led 6,000 failed asylum-seekers going on the run:

"...Siobhán O’Donoghue of the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland said the new Bill in its current form would end up a bonanza for lawyers and cost taxpayers money needlessly by provoking court challenges.
“Even a criminal facing extradition gets 14 days to make an appeal whereas this Bill removes this right for people who have committed no crime,” she said.
Labour TD Michael D Higgins said summary deportation broke basic human rights. He said the new version of the Bill was a step backwards when compared with a previous version of the Bill, which TDs spent hundreds of hours poring over in the Oireachtas... "

We can't trust Labour on immigration. The new FG Justice Spokesman also continues to manifest a bleeding-heart approach to the issue:

"Fine Gael justice spokesman Alan Shatter said the Bill failed to adequately address the human rights of immigrants and their families and the rights of Irish citizens to a full family life in circumstances in which their spouse was neither a citizen of the State nor of any other EU country.
Labour’s Pat Rabbitte said that, within certain conditions, his party would seek to amend the Bill to address the central issue of the right of family reunification."

Granting "family-reunification" would have the consequence of doubling, tripling or quadrupling the number of immigrants relative to the numbers already claiming asylum. This is grossly unfair to the 450,000 unemployed. If provision is made for family-reunification, they ought to include paternity-tests and - where adoption is claimed - verifiable certification of adoption. The claims by anti-deportation campaigners and the Opposition parties that the Bill would mean "summary-deportation" is ludicrous in the context of one of the most generous asylum-appeals systems in Europe. As explained by Justice Minister Dermot Ahern in the Dail on 06/10/10:

"The Bill effects a radical restructuring of the State’s asylum determination processes. It has been apparent for some time that the principal question that most protection claimants want answered is not “Will you recognise me as a refugee?” but “Can I stay?”. That question is currently answered in a multi-stage process whereby the first aspect examined, by the independent Refugee Applications Commissioner, is whether the applicant is a refugee. Most negative determinations of that aspect are appealed to the independent Refugee Appeals Tribunal. Following a negative determination on appeal, there is a lengthy process whereby the Minister must determine whether the person is eligible for subsidiary protection and if there are other reasons why the person should be let stay. This sequential process is cumbersome, ineffective and inefficient and causes inevitable delays in the final decision; and delay itself can affect what the final decision is to be."

That is why the IRP will require asylum seekers to give all their reasons for applying for asylum at the beginning of the process rather than later on:

"The Bill introduces a single procedure wherein the protection applicant will be required to set out all of the grounds, including protection grounds under the Geneva Convention and the EU asylum qualification directive on which he or she wishes to remain in the State. Those grounds will be investigated by the Minister and the outcome of the investigation could be that the person is either allowed to remain in the State on refugee grounds or subsidiary protection grounds and is granted a protection declaration or is not granted protection but allowed to remain in the State on other discretionary grounds and is granted a residence permit on that basis, or is not allowed to remain in the State and is thus required to leave or be removed.
The introduction of the single procedure will bring the State into line with processes in many other European states. Under the Bill, the functions currently carried out by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner will be subsumed into the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service, INIS, the administrative agency of my Department. The present statutory provisions for UNHCR to have access to information about cases and to be present if it wishes at individual interviews are restated, and it is my intention to continue the co-operation that has existed with UNHCR, in particular in regard to that body’s signal contribution so far to training of staff in the refugee decision-making process. The UNHCR has stated at many meetings with me that it wishes to see the expeditious passage of this Bill."

A question for the ICI, FG, the Labour Party etc.: how can the bill be racist if it has the support of the UNHCR? More from the Dail debate on the Bill can be found here.

EU clampdown on immigration-debate

2010-10-18T15:34:00.000-07:00

In another case of the erosion of democracy in Europe, the PASDE (Party of Socialists and Democrats in Europe) - the second largest party in the European Parliament - has demanded so-called 'Far Right' parties be excluded from cooperation, coalition or 'implicit support' by all other political parties. This flies in the face of democracy and the right of Europeans to self-determination. It also reflects the Left's frustration at their rejection by European citizens as millions of Europeans reject their open-door attitudes to immigration and the failed ideology of multiculturalism.

"Throwing down the gauntlet to Europe's conservative and liberal parties, some of which have in recent years become less reticent to join coalitions or alliances with nationalist and populist parties, the continent's Socialists have called for a 'cordon sanitaire' around the far-right by the mainstream. The leadership of the Party of European Socialists, the pan-European political party that brings together all European social democratic outfits, on Friday (15 October) adopted new five-point code of conduct on how to act around extreme right parties, which have seen a sharp rise in support in many countries in the wake of the economic crisis. "Regarding this threat ... all European parties should sign up to our plan to refuse to work with the extreme-right," the party's president and former Danish prime minister Poul Nyrup Rasmussen. Specifically, the party is calling on mainstream left, right and centre parties to reject any ruling coalitions, electoral alliances or any "implicit support" with far-right parties and to isolate members who break the cordon sanitaire. In the Netherlands, the new minority government of the conservative-liberal People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) and the centre-right Christian Democrats enjoys backing from the anti-Islam and anti-immigrant Freedom Party that in the Netherlands in a similar formulation to the parliamentary support the nationalist Danish People's Party provides to the governing minority of the Conservative People's Party and centrist Venstre. Europe's centre-right, the European People's Party, is currently considering how to react to the call.

"Unfortunately we have seen some mixed signals in recent months," Mr Rasmussen said of the new Dutch coalition's dependence on the far right. Earlier this month, the PES condemned the centre-right's silence over the development, with the group's general secretary, Philip Cordery, accusing the EPP of "power whatever the cost." "The European People's Party's reaction to the new Dutch government has shown the true intellectual weakness of the Conservatives in Europe," he said on 4 October in the wake of the Dutch parliamentary pact. The PES also criticised Wilfred Martens, the president of the EPP, for saying that his party would not work with the far right at the European level while leaving the door open for member parties to do so nationally. EUobserver was unable to reach Europe's liberals in the European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party for their reaction to the call.

But on Thursday, the group's president, Belgian MEP Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck issued her concern at the new Dutch government while not condemning the move. "What worries me is that this government is depending on the support of a radical right party, to put it mildly. I hope this is not going to push it in a direction I would not like it to go," she told EUobserver. Socialists themselves have in parts of Europe been known to embrace the far right in order to cobble together a parliamentary majority. In 2006, the Slovak centre-left, Smer, entered into a coalition with the nationalist Slovak National Party (SNS) and as a result was suspended from membership of the PES and only readmitted in 2008. The PES also called on all parties to not "take up [the extreme right's] ideas into its political principles or policies." On Monday, the governor of Bavaria, Horst Seehofer, said Germany should end immigration from Turkey and Arab countries because citizens of these lands allegedly do not "integrate" into German society as well as others. "It's clear that immigrants from other cultures such as Turkey and Arabic countries have more difficulties. From that I draw the conclusion that we don't need additional immigration from other cultures," Mr Seehofer, of the Christian Social Union, the more conservative sister party of German Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union, told Focus magazine. The comments, condemned as "shocking" by Ms Merkel's integration commissioner, Maria Böhmer, come after Bundesbank board member Thilo Sarrazin claimed in a book published in August that German Muslim immigrants were not integrating, that they were less intelligent and that they use more social services than other citizens.

Mr Sarrazin, a member of Germany's centre-left Social Democratic Party (SPD) also said that with their high birth rate, they threatened to overwhelm the ‘native' German population within a few generations. The SPD has since announced it is considering revoking Mr Sarrazin's party membership. According to the Berliner Morgenposten, some 18 percent of Germans would vote for his party if he started one. The country so far has been one of the few European states not to witness a sharp growth in support for far-right parties".

PASDE's demands represent a gross insult to the millions of voters of immigration-control parties and the denial of their rights to political-representation. It also represents a brazen attempt at censorship and interference in the internal-affairs of member states. The Left can't handle rejection and consequently, are lashing out at their opponents. These demands also recall the failed diplomatic-sanctions against Austria in 2000 after the entry of the Freedom Party into a Coalition-government with the People's Party. The consequence of those sanctions was to increase Euroscepticism in Austria and support for the new government. The ball is now in the Centre-Right EPP and ALDE's court. They should reject the PES demands for a "cordon-sanitaire" around so-called 'Far Right parties'. In any case, the term is in the eye of the beholder. For example, how can:

- A party that is pro gay-marriage and pro-Israel. (Dutch Freedom Party).
- A party that supports a cradle to grave welfare state (Danish People's Party) and the repeal of blasphemy-laws, and is pro-Israel.

Be "Far Right" organisations? My point on them being pro-Israel is to demonstrate that it proves they are not anti-semitic - which removes one element in traditional fascism and so-called 'Far Right' ideology. (I am a staunch critic of Israel and opponent of anti-semitism but my point is that being staunchly pro-Israel and anti-semitism are hardly compatible). Clearly this farce is an arbitrary ploy by the Left to seize power by denying Coalition partners to their Conservative and Libertarian opponents by depriving them of their democratic-rights to represent their supporters in government if necessary. Write to Irish MEPs to demand they oppose this measure.
These outbursts have to be seen in the context of the rejection of the Left in:

- The Swedish General Election on 19th September 2010 in which the Sweden Democrats entered Parliament for the first time. The Social Democrats had their worst showing since 1914 at just over 30%.
- The Viennese local elections on 11th October where the Social Democrats lost their overall majority (falling from 49% to 44%) and the Freedom Party gained 28% of the vote and more than doubled their seats from 13 to 28.
- The victory of the CDU-FPD Coalition in German on 27th September 2009 where the SPD fell from 34% to 23% - its worst losses in its history.
- The fall of the UK Labour Government in the British General Election on 6th May 2010, following the 'Bigotgate' affair where Brown was recorded calling an elderly lady concerned about immigration a "bigoted old woman".

Labour back in third place - Poll

2010-09-25T09:59:00.000-07:00

Labour are back in third place behind FG and FF according to tomorrow's Red C poll in the Sunday Business Post. Credits to Jacko from Politics.ie for this information.

FG 31% (-2)
FF 24% (nc)
Labour 23% (-4)
SF 10% (+2)
Green 3% (+2)
Ind 9% (+3)

FG-Labour: Let asylum-seekers work

2010-07-10T17:21:00.000-07:00

In a week when the use of forged documentation in the asylum-system was highlighted with the rejection by the Supreme Court of the appeal of Nigerian asylum-seeker Pamela Izevbekhai against her deportation, FG and Labour are proposing the allow asylum-seekers to work. Despite 13% unemployment and mass-emigration - Alan Shatter and Pat Rabbitte are now arguing for the right of asylum-seekers to employment to be restored.

"Mr Shatter said in circumstances where there are 450,000 unemployed people in Ireland providing access to employment for asylum seekers was a difficult issue. But he said condemning people to a situation where they cannot work for four or five years was wrong. He said access to the jobs market should be considered in a way that would be appropriate in the current economic climate. Labour justice spokesman Pat Rabbitte said that incarcerating people in direct provision with nothing to do for years was a disgrace. He said the correct thing to do was to enable quicker decisions to be taken on people’s asylum cases and change the situation with regard to the right to work for asylum seekers."

However, Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern has already cited a tripling in average monthly asylum-claims in 1999 as justification for rejecting such measures.

"Extending the right to work to asylum seekers would almost certainly have a profoundly negative impact on application numbers, as was experienced in the aftermath of the July 1999 decision to do so. The immediate effect of that measure was a threefold increase in the average number of applications per month leading to a figure of 1,217 applications in December 1999 compared with an average of 364 per month for the period January to July 1999."

Fine Gael and Labour would do well in the current economic environment to reconsider such an ill-considered proposal, coming as it does when 60,000 people have been forced to emigrate in search of work due to the incapacity of the Irish economy to provide them with employment. That is especially so given that granting asylum-seekers the right to work would also entitle them to job-seekers' allowance. The experience from 1999 is instructive in that regard. Not so according to the Irish Times:

"Recognising that reality by legalising their right to work after a year would hardly act as an incentive to travel to Ireland, and could save money by reducing dependence on State aid."

This stance flies in the face of what transpired when that policy was provided for in before 2000. There exists in the Left-Liberal Irish media an unfortunate tendency to regard asylum-seekers as victims, in spite of the failure rate of 90% in their applications. This reflects what I regard as a tendency by the Left-Liberals towards Cultural-Marxism and the equation of minority-status with victimhood. That theme feeds into the rest of the editorial on themes including direct-provision, reception-centres and especially the high rates of refusal of asylum-applications. For example:

"The Department of Justice makes the remarkable claim that “the Irish asylum determination system compares with the best in the world in terms of fairness, decision-making, determination structures and support services for asylum seekers including access to legal advice.” Would any of its clients concur? But this State certainly excels in one notable regard, its remarkable rate of asylum rejections. Of 6,560 decisions last year only 395 or 6 per cent were positive, less than a quarter of both the EU average or that of the UK."

What is conveniently left out of the editorial is that a mere 25% of deportation-orders are implemented (2008).

Concern at Saudi school plan

2009-12-09T21:00:00.000-08:00

Concerns have been raised at plans by the Government of Saudi Arabia to establish a school with an Islamic ethos in Dublin, according to the Irish Times. The plans have been announced in Arabic on the website of the Saudi embassy in Dublin which opened in September. From the Irish Times on Wednesday:

"According to the notice, the decision to set up a school was taken at a meeting in Dublin late last month. The meeting was attended by members of the education committee of the Saudi Shura Council, an unelected body whose members advise the Kingdom’s government, and Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to Ireland, Abdulaziz Aldriss.

“It was decided in the meeting to establish a Saudi school to teach the children of Saudi citizens and students residing in Ireland,” the website says.

The Saudi embassy insists the plans are at a very early stage, and a spokesperson yesterday declined to give further details. In a statement, the Department of Education said the Saudi government had not been in contact with the department regarding the matter.

Speculation has mounted within Ireland’s 40,000-strong Muslim community over how big the school might be, and whether it will cater for non-Saudi Muslims.

According to the embassy, less than 15 Saudi families live and work in Ireland, and more than 400 Saudi nationals study here, though the latter number is expected to rise in coming years following the Saudi ministry for education’s recognition of more Irish third-level institutions.

Ali Selim, a theologian based at the Islamic Cultural Centre in Clonskeagh, Dublin, welcomed the plans. Asked about speculation within the Muslim community that the school may incorporate secondary education, he said that if this proved correct it would “achieve a long cherished Muslim ambition” in Ireland.

The plans were welcomed by the parents of Shekinah Egan, the teenage girl whose request to wear the hijab at her school in Gorey, Co Wexford, last year prompted the principal to call for official guidelines to be issued on the wearing of the hijab in State schools. Ms Egan’s father, Liam, who lived with his family for several years in Saudi Arabia, praised what he described as the Kingdom’s “strong commitment” to education both domestically and overseas.“An Islamic secondary school is vital and should be a priority for the community,” he said".

The news will raise concern on a number of fronts. Following 911, the Saudi government came under pressure from the Bush administration to remove alleged incitement to hatred against Jews and Christians from school textbooks. A 2004 Saudi royal study group found that the kingdom's religious studies curriculum "encourages violence toward others, and misguides the pupils into believing that in order to safeguard their own religion, they must violently repress and even physically eliminate the 'other.' " Since then, the Saudi government has claimed repeatedly that it has revised its educational texts. The former Saudi Ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal, lauded the supposed moderation of the revised textbooks/ But as the Washington Post reported in 2006, Saudi textbooks continue to villify non-Muslims - even referring to Christians and Jews as "apes" and "swine". The quotes below are derived from a 74-page review of the supposedly sanitised Saudi curriculum distributed by the Saudi Embassy in Washington:

FIRST GRADE

" Every religion other than Islam is false."

"Fill in the blanks with the appropriate words (Islam, hellfire): Every religion other than ______________ is false. Whoever dies outside of Islam enters ____________."

FOURTH GRADE

"True belief means . . . that you hate the polytheists and infidels but do not treat them unjustly."

FIFTH GRADE

"Whoever obeys the Prophet and accepts the oneness of God cannot maintain a loyal friendship with those who oppose God and His Prophet, even if they are his closest relatives."

"It is forbidden for a Muslim to be a loyal friend to someone who does not believe in God and His Prophet, or someone who fights the religion of Islam."

"A Muslim, even if he lives far away, is your brother in religion. Someone who opposes God, even if he is your brother by family tie, is your enemy in religion."

SIXTH GRADE

"Just as Muslims were successful in the past when they came together in a sincere endeavor to evict the Christian crusaders from Palestine, so will the Arabs and Muslims emerge victorious, God willing, against the Jews and their allies if they stand together and fight a true jihad for God, for this is within God's power."

EIGHTH GRADE

"As cited in Ibn Abbas: The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus."

"God told His Prophet, Muhammad, about the Jews, who learned from parts of God's book [the Torah and the Gospels] that God alone is worthy of worship. Despite this, they espouse falsehood through idol-worship, soothsaying, and sorcery. In doing so, they obey the devil. They prefer the people of falsehood to the people of the truth out of envy and hostility. This earns them condemnation and is a warning to us not to do as they did."
"They are the Jews, whom God has cursed and with whom He is so angry that He will never again be satisfied [with them]."
"Some of the people of the Sabbath were punished by being turned into apes and swine. Some of them were made to worship the devil, and not God, through consecration, sacrifice, prayer, appeals for help, and other types of worship. Some of the Jews worship the devil. Likewise, some members of this nation worship the devil, and not God."
"Activity: The student writes a composition on the danger of imitating the infidels."

NINTH GRADE
"The clash between this [Muslim] community (umma) and the Jews and Christians has endured, and it will continue as long as God wills."
"It is part of God's wisdom that the struggle between the Muslim and the Jews should continue until the hour [of judgment]."

"Muslims will triumph because they are right. He who is right is always victorious, even if most people are against him."

TENTH GRADE
The 10th-grade text on jurisprudence teaches that life for non-Muslims (as well as women, and, by implication, slaves) is worth a fraction of that of a "free Muslim male." Blood money is retribution paid to the victim or the victim's heirs for murder or injury:
"Blood money for a free infidel. [Its quantity] is half of the blood money for a male Muslim, whether or not he is 'of the book' or not 'of the book' (such as a pagan, Zoroastrian, etc.).
"Blood money for a woman: Half of the blood money for a man, in accordance with his religion. The blood money for a Muslim woman is half of the blood money for a male Muslim, and the blood money for an infidel woman is half of the blood money for a male infidel."

ELEVENTH GRADE
"The greeting 'Peace be upon you' is specifically for believers. It cannot be said to others."
"If one comes to a place where there is a mixture of Muslims and infidels, one should offer a greeting intended for the Muslims."
"Do not yield to them [Christians and Jews] on a narrow road out of honor and respect."

TWELFTH GRADE
"Jihad in the path of God -- which consists of battling against unbelief, oppression, injustice, and those who perpetrate it -- is the summit of Islam. This religion arose through jihad and through jihad was its banner raised high. It is one of the noblest acts, which brings one closer to God, and one of the most magnificent acts of obedience to God."

We must ask - as a society - if we are prepared to allow the promotion of hatred of non-Muslims (referred to as Dhimmis in Sharia law), women and homosexuals into our education system ? We cannot have two-standards - one for Catholicism's role in our education-system and another for that of Islam. If - as Fintan O'Toole claims in the Irish Times - "agents of foreign state should not control our schools" - then that equally ought to apply with respect to the Kingdom's attempts to export its borderline interpretation of Islam into our Repubic. Taking account of the horrors of the Ryan and Murphy reports exposing decades of rampant abuse of Irish children at the hands of the Catholic Church, as well as the rampant incitement to hatred promoted in the Saudi education-system, it is difficult for an objective person to come to any other conclusion than that it is time for the dangerous-liason between religion and education to come to an end. In the context of an increasingly multi-ethnic and multi-faith Ireland, the continued segregation of children on the basis of religion - which increasingly constitutes a de-facto segregation on the basis of nationality - must come to an end. The taxpayer and the State have no stake in perpetuating division, , anti-semitism and anti-Westernism in this Western, Christian country. I speak as an atheist - but one who recognises the comparative tolerance of Christian culture relative to much of the Muslim world - notably with respect to the rights of women and homosexuals. Tolerance is a two-way street.

In particular, this issue is another moment of truth for the Irish Left, many of whom have campaigned tirelessly for the rights of persons historically disenfranchised or downtrodden in Irish society - such as women and gay people. They face an inherent contradiction between their belief in "multiculturalism" (which promotes diversity for its own sake) on the one hand - and the rights of those who would lose those rights if the Saudi system of Sharia Law were to be introduced into this country. It is impossible to separate an education system from the culture it supports. If we allow the seed of Saudi Wahhabism to be sown in our schools, we can wave goodbye to women's rights, gay rights, and freedom of religion as the political system of Saudi Arabia shows. That country outlaws homosexuality and conversion of Muslims to another faith on punishment of death. Premarital-sex is punishable by up to 100 lashes, with adultery punishable by stoning to death. If the Irish Left mean what they say when they call for a more pluralist Ireland, then here is their opportunity to prove it. They should oppose the establishment of this school - and all schools which undermine the cohesion and mutual respect upon which pluralism and tolerance depends.

Czech President: I won't sign Lisbon

2009-10-12T16:06:00.000-07:00

The Czech PM, Jan Fischer, appears to have backed down in his struggle with President Vaclav Klaus over ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. President Klaus has refused to sign the Treaty since it was ratified by both houses of the Czech Parliament last May. Asked during a walkabout on Sunday not to put his name to the treaty, Mr Klaus replied: “Don’t worry, I won’t.” The Treaty must be ratified in all EU member states in order to come into force. After a crisis Cabinet meeting yesterday, Jan Fischer, the Czech Prime Minister, avoided a direct confrontation with Mr Klaus, bowing to his demand (last Friday) to reopen negotiations with the EU on an eleventh-hour opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights.Klaus argues that the Charter could be used by ethnic-Germans to regain their property lost in the expulsions following the Benes Decrees after World War Two, which expelled 2.6 million ethnic-Germans from former Czechoslovakia:

"After a crisis Cabinet meeting yesterday, Jan Fischer, the Czech Prime Minister, avoided a direct confrontation with Mr Klaus, bowing to his demand to reopen negotiations with the EU on an eleventh-hour opt-out. However, he called on the unpredictable President to guarantee his signature if EU leaders agreed to his conditions and if the Czech Constitutional Court raised no new objections.Mr Klaus is demanding an opt-out for the Czech Republic that would prevent German families expelled after the Second World War from lodging property claims at the European Court of Justice.He raised the stakes on Friday, putting a dampener on EU celebrations over the Irish referendum decision to back the treaty. The President argued that the charter could whip up an avalanche of property claims from German families expelled from Czech territory after the war".

The Irish option of ‘guarantees’ outside of the Treaty appears insufficient for Klaus:

"Mr Klaus appears to have rejected the easier path of negotiating guarantees on interpretation of the charter, in a syle similar to the guarantees secured by the Irish government on an interpretation of the treaty in politically sensitive areas.
Ladislav Jakl, the Czech president’s spokesperson told the Irish Times that “this [Irish way] seems to me as an absolutely impossible way forward”. “The president will not be satisfied by any declaration, but only guarantees for every citizen. For him, this condition is fundamental, necessary, unbreachable”.

Bulgaria and France have today reacted angrily to the delay:

"Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borisov said here Monday after talks with French President Nicolas Sarkozy that a refusal by the Czech Republic’s leader to ratify the EU Lisbon Treaty would not be tolerated, AFP informed.
“It must not be allowed, it must not be tolerated. President Sarkozy is of the same opinion,” Borisov said when asked about the Czechs being the last holdout in ratifying the European Union’s reform treaty.
According to the office of the French president, during their talks Sarkozy noted that the 27-nation bloc had targeted for the Lisbon Treaty to take effect by the end of this year.
“Therefore, we cannot imagine that a member state would be responsible for trampling on its commitment,” it said.
The Czech Republic also runs the risk of not having a commissioner on the next European Commission, the EU executive arm, it added".

EU leaders are anxious to secure Czech ratification to prevent an incoming Tory Government in the UK reversing British ratification and putting Lisbon to a referendum, where polls indicate the Treaty would almost certainly be rejected. The UK General Election must take place by June 2010 at the latest. Conservative Party leader David Cameron has promised a referendum if elected prior to the coming into force of the Lisbon Treaty by ratification in every member state. However, asked what his course of action would be if it is already in force by that date, he has only stated he would “not let matters rest there”.

Why there won't be an Election

2009-10-07T19:51:00.000-07:00

With the impending Green conference on the Programme for Government on Saturday, much speculation surrounds the fate of the Government and the possibility of an early General Election perhaps within weeks. Such speculation is ill-informed, and smacks either of wishful thinking, ignorance of the Constitution, or both. I predict with near-certainty that there will be no General Election, on the basis of Article 13.2.2, which states:

"The President may in his absolute discretion refuse to dissolve Dáil Éireann on the advice of a Taoiseach who has ceased to retain the support of a majority in Dáil Éireann".

In that context, Cowen could lose a confidence-motion in Dail Eireann and Enda Kenny could be elected Taoiseach by virtue of the Greens crossing the floor and support from Sinn Féin. But Green support would surely depend on Enda Kenny agreeing not to seek a dissolution of Dail (and in practice a General Election) from the President. This is at the heart of the ignorance about the prospect of an early election – the role of the President and An Taoiseach. To start the train running, An Taoiseach must request a dissolution of Dail Eireann from the President of Ireland. Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas and consequently, Cowen certainly won’t request it. Likewise, neither will the Greens allow Kenny to. And even if Kenny requested a dissolution of Dail Eireann, the Greens would deprive him of his hypothetical majority, allowing President McAleese to refuse a dissolution. After all, she is a Fianna Fáiler at heart.

Lisbon: Germans bully Czech Court

2009-10-01T14:32:00.000-07:00

The German Ambassador to the Czech Republic exerted pressure on the Czech Chief Justice on ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, according to Czech Newspaper "Euro". Two weeks before 17 Senators filed a new complaint against the constitutionality of the Treaty before the court, the German Ambassador to the Czech Republic, Johannes Haindl reportedly pressed Czech Constitutional Court Chairman Pavel Rychetsky to dismiss the challenge so that Czech ratification of the Lisbon treaty can proceed. The newspaper reports that he got what he wanted:

"Rychetský had reportedly promised the German ambassador rapid settlement of the contract".

Czech Senators involved in the challenge reacted angrily to the revelations, accusing Germany of outside-interference and of undermining the independence of the judiciary.:

(Senator Petr Pakosta)

"If it be true, it's scandalous. Would mean that Mr. Rychetský our promise to reject a complaint when he did not know how the new complaint looks. Also considers it strange that the Czech Constitutional Court refers to the German ambassador about our ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. It too does not indicate the independence of our Constitutional Court and non-interference in our affairs abroad."

(Senator George Oberfalzer):

"Yes, I heard about it...The President of the Constitutional Court informed the ambassador about the current hot topics Czech constitutional jurisprudence, and exchanged remarks on the review under the Lisbon Treaty with the constitutional order in both countries. Accentuated was the inspiration of the German Constitutional Court decisions, and differences relating to the review of international agreements in the Czech Republic".

If true, the report underlines the democratic-deficit at the heart of Europe. The separation of politics from the judiciary is a cornerstone of Western democracy, which is under attack from the European Union with respect to the Lisbon Treaty. In recent days, UK Conservative leader David Cameron restated his intention to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty if it remains unratified by all 27 EU member states if and when the Tories come to power next year:

(David Cameron, Tory leader)

"If this treaty is still alive, if it is still being discussed and debated anywhere in Europe, then we will give you that referendum, we will name the date during the election campaign, we'll hold that referendum straight away and I will lead the campaign for a no,"

Were Ireland to ratify the Treaty, Cameron's hopes of preventing it coming into force would rest on the non-completion of the Czech ratification-process.

Odey: I'm not funding Irish "No" campaign

2009-09-30T08:46:00.000-07:00

The UK hedge-fund manager Crispin Odey, who an Irish Independent article claimed had “bankrolled” “Declan Ganley’s ‘No to Lisbon Campaign’, has rejected claims by Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan that he is funding the Libertas “no” campaign. In a fax to RTE and TV3 dated 30th September 2009 and seen by me, Mr Odey demanded that the broadcasters issue clarifications to this effect by 12 noon today. The faxes state that:

"1. I have never contributed to to any political campaigns in Ireland conducted by Mr Declan Ganley or any other group.

2. I contributed a sum of money in May this year to the campaign of a British citizen who was standing as a candidate for Pro-Democracy Libertas UK in the European elections because she is a personal friend of mine.

Please confirm by fax by 12 noon today that you have published a clarification of any inaccuracies that may have arisen by reason of any broadcast or publication by yourselves."

The faxes are reproduced below:

Reject Lisbon 2 next Friday

2009-09-27T12:43:00.000-07:00

Seven days from now the fate of the Irish nation will have been determined. This generation will determine whether the independence won because of the sacrifice of the men and women of 1916 will have been but an interlude in Irish history, or whether 1916's vision of a small nation, cooperating with its European and international partners, will endure. Is Ireland to be returned to the colonial domination generations fought to end? Are we to betray not only the men and women of 1916-21 and the dead generations - but also the courageous peoples of France and the Netherlands - who themselves have experienced the oppression that comes with foreign rule - who stood shoulder to shoulder with us in rejecting the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty blueprint? That is the fundamental question facing the Irish people on Friday 2nd October. Here are my reasons for voting no:

1. Worker's Rights: Lisbon exacerbates the race to the bottom and promotes the exploitation of migrant labour - with all that implies for workers in host societies - to drive down pay and conditions. Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union as amended by Lisbon enshrines the Charter of Fundamental Rights into EU law on a level-footing with the Treaties. Furthermore, under the proposed Article 29.4.6 of the Irish Constitution (Paragraph 6 of the 28th Amendment to the Constitution Bill), EU law overrides national law and even the Irish Constitution. This means that the Charter will override the Irish Constitution and Irish law. The argument that Article 29.4.10 of the Constitution already makes EU law supreme over national law misses the point - namely, that as the scope of EU law increases with successive treaties, the effective meaning of such terminology changes, as the Irish Constitution is further eroded as ever more decisions can be taken in new areas that render the Constitution null and void, to all intents and purposes.

28th Amendment to the Constitution Bill Paragraph 6:

No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State, before, on or after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, that are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 5° of this section or of the European Atomic Energy Community, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by—
i the said European Union or the European Atomic Energy Community, or by institutions thereof,
ii the European Communities or European Union existing immediately before the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, or by institutions thereof, or
iii bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State.

For the first time we are being asked to make the Charter of Fundamental Rights part of EU law, meaning that it will override the Irish Constitution. Article 15(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights appears to force Ireland to allow asylum-seekers to work. The fact that the UK has an optout from the Charter creates the prospect of Ireland and Malta being the only English-speaking EU countries to allow asylum seekers to work. That can only result in another large influx of cheap labour, and their exploitation at the hands of unscrupulous employers - themselves often the benefactors of politicians:

Article 6 TEU:

The Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, as adapted at Strasbourg, on 12 December 2007, which shall have the same legal value as the Treaties.

Article 15(1) -Charter of Fundamental Rights:

Everyone has the right to engage in work and to pursue a freely chosen or accepted occupation.

Furthermore, Article's 18 and 19 of the Charter appear to give the ECJ jurisdiction over asylum and immigration policy, notably the ban on "collective expulsions" in the latter:

Article 18 (Charter of Fundamental Rights):

The right to asylum shall be guaranteed with due respect for the rules of the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees and in accordance with the Treaty establishing the European Community.

Article 19 (Charter of Fundamental Rights):

1. Collective expulsions are prohibited.

2. No one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

The political-elites argue that we have an optout from the common immigration policy by virtue of Protocol 21 on the Position of the UK and Ireland with respect to the European Area of Justice and Freedom. This ignores the fact that Paragraph 7 of the referendum-wording (proposed Article 29.4.7. of the Irish Constitution) clearly authorises the Government and the Oireachtas to abolish that optout Protocol:

28th Amendment to the Constitution Bill 2009, Paragraph 7:

The State may exercise the options or discretions—
i to which Article 20 of the Treaty on European Union relating to enhanced cooperation applies,
ii under Protocol No. 19 on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the European Union annexed to that treaty and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly known as the Treaty establishing the European Community), and
iii under Protocol No. 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, so annexed, including the option that the said Protocol No. 21 shall, in whole or in part, cease to apply to the State, but any such exercise shall be subject to the prior approval of both
Houses of the Oireachtas.

We already have JHA optouts stemming from the Amsterdam Treaty. What is changing is that by voting "yes", we will be authorising the Oireachtas and the Government to abolish it. Indeed both FF and FG have indicated a desire to do so. Then Foreign Affairs Minister Dermot Ahern announced last year that the Government would "review" the optout within three years, and optin in unspecified areas. On her blog on April 1st 2009, FG Deputy European Affairs spokesperson Lucinda Creighton called for the Protocol to be abolished:

Dermot Ahern, former Minister for Foreign Affairs:

The Reform Treaty will also give full legal status to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Government has definitively resolved not to associate ourselves with a British Protocol on the Charter of Fundamental Rights. We see the Charter as an important statement of the Union’s values and are completely committed to it...We intend, in particular, to opt into future police cooperation measures. The aim is to retain our strong commitment to EU cooperation while giving ourselves options whenever our particular legal traditions may be called into question in an EU context. This in no way undermines our determination to press for effective EU action against serious cross border crime.

Lucinda Creighton (01 April 2009):

I urge the Taoiseach to reconsider the matter of justice and home affairs. This is too important for Ireland to opt out of and we must acknowledge that a mistake was made with that Cabinet decision. I hope it will be reconsidered in the context of the forthcoming Lisbon treaty referendum.

The Government's own commissioned research by Millward-Browne revealed workers-rights to be the biggest factor in the "No" vote. They have not been adequately addressed. All the Government has to show in this respect after almost a year-and-a-half of shuttle-diplomacy are two, non-binding statements from the European Council and the Irish Government stating that both attach "high importance" to workers' rights. That will come as news to the workers in the Laval/Viking cases, whose side the ECJ chose not to take with respect to the displacement of workers in Finland and Sweden by Latvian workers. In the Viking judgement, the ECJ referenced Article 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, noting how it limits to the right to collective-bargaining. This provides us with a reality-check in contrast to the "Yes" side's tall-tales of the Charter as the pill for every ill in terms of workers' rights. In reality, it is a Charter of Bosses Rights, to facilitate the race to the bottom. It is, to put it simply, a Trojan Horse by political and corporate elites intent on undermining pay and conditions:Article 28 - Charter of Fundamental Rights:

Workers and employers, or their respective organisations, have, in accordance with Union law and national laws and practices, the right to negotiate and conclude collective agreements at the appropriate levels and, in cases of conflicts of interest, to take collective action to defend their interests, including strike action.

2. Democracy: Then there is the question of democracy. The French and Dutch peoples have already rejected 95% of these provisions by rejecting the discredited EU Constitution. A succession of pro-Lisbon elites have acknowledged publicly that the Constitution and the Treaty are basically the same in institutional terms. The removal of references to flag/anthem cannot erase that reality:

President Sarkozy of France, The Daily Telegraph, 14th November 2007:

A referendum now would bring Europe into danger. There will be no treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK.

Dr Garret FitzGerald, former Taoiseach, Irish Times, 30 June 2007:

As for the changes now proposed to be made to the constitutional treaty, most are presentational changes that have 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.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Prime Minister of Denmark, in Jyllands-Posten, 25th June 2007:

The good thing is that all the symbolic elements are gone, and that which really matters - the core - is left.

Bertie Ahern, former Taoiseach, Irish Independent, 24th June 2007:

They haven't changed the substance - 90 per cent of it is still there.

Angela Merkel, German Chancellor, speech to the European Parliament, 27th June 2007:

The substance of the constitution is preserved. That is a fact.

On those grounds alone, the Treaty could be condemned as anti-democratic. The French and Dutch peoples have not been asked a second time for their verdict on the Lisbon Treaty. Some on the yes side have sought to portray the election of President Sarkozy in 2007 as a vote for Lisbon. Yet Sarkozy only proposed a "mini-treaty". He never told his people it would be 95% the same as the rejected EU Constitution, or 10,000 words longer. A mini-treaty? Dutch polls continue to reject Lisbon by over 60% of the vote. If we vote for Lisbon, we are effectively consigning the self-determination of those nations to history. In doing so, we would be betraying not only those 2 nations, but also our own history of fighting for 700 years for self-determination. How can we deny to others what we sought for so long for ourselves?

The much-vaunted 'powers for national parliaments' and the Citizens' Initiative are also something of a joke. Under the Protocol on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality, each national parliament will have 2 votes in a sort of electoral-college. If one-third (25% in the case of certain aspects of Justice and Home Affairs) of all the votes of national parliaments (9 parliaments at present) agrees, they can object to draft EU legislation on the basis that it fails to meet the requirement of subsidiarity. The Commission is not obliged to review the draft legislation - though it "may" do so (bless 'em). If a majority of national parliaments makes such an objection, only then is the Commission obliged to review the legislation - but they are not bound to amend or withdraw the proposal. The so-called 'red-card' is that 55% of the Council or a majority of the European Parliament can force the proposal to be withdrawn by the Commission. But this too is worthless because, were opposition to the legislation so widespread, it would stand no chance of passing into EU law in any case. A blocking-minority under Qualified Majority Voting is 4 states including over 35% of the EU's population. Similarly, the Citizens Initiative (Article 11 TEU) can only propose legislation - it cannot force the EU to so legislate. A poor compensation for the removal of 50 areas of national sovereignty to Brussels through the loss of the veto:

Article 11 TEU:

4. Not less than one million citizens who are nationals of a significant number of Member States may take the initiative of inviting the European Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties.

3. Bogus 'guarantees': At a pro-Lisbon rally last Thursday night, European Affairs Minister Dick Roche attempted to compare the status of the 'guarantees' to that of the Good Friday Agreement saying:"The European Council in June last took a legally binding Decision addressing the Concerns of the Irish People on the Treaty of Lisbon. That Decision and the guarantees will be lodged with the United Nations under Article 102 of the UN Charter...In 1998, the Good Friday Agreement was also lodged with the UN under Article 102 of the UN Charter."

This argument conveniently ignores the fact that the Good Friday Agreement was immaterial to the constitutional structures of the European Union, unlike the Lisbon 'guarantees'. Furthermore, in what might be regarded as a test case for the 'international-agreement' thesis, the ECJ last year effectively declared that EU law superseded international law where a conflict arose:

an international agreement cannot affect the allocation of powers fixed by the Treaties or, consequently, the autonomy of the Community legal system.

While that ruling related to the annulment of EU regulations concerning the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1267 on freezing the assets of the AL-Qaida linked Al Barakaat International Foundation, it has clear implications for the Irish ‘guarantees’ because on September 3rd 2008, the ECJ effectively declared that EU law supersedes the UN. Remember – if the ECJ won’t even respect UNSC Resolutions – the highest instrument of international-law – then what chance they will respect the infinitely weaker contents of the ‘guarantees’, which we are told in any case is going to be an “international agreement” – and the ECJ – as quoted above – has made clear what it thinks of those. Comparisons with the Good Friday Agreement are bogus because it does not claim to “clarify” any aspect of the EU treaties. It is not material to the EU, and therefore not material to the Lisbon debate, despite erroneous attempts by figures like Dick Roche and Pat Cox to claim the contrary.

In any case, the Swedish Prime Minister let the cat out of the bag with an Irish Times interview with Jamie Smyth on 5th September 2009 where he acknowledged that in effect, all countries could retain a Commissioner without Lisbon via a "26+1" arrangement. This would see the 27th country receiving the position of High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, effectively replacing the External Relations Commissioner post.

Mr Reinfeldt said a “26 plus one option” was probably the best solution, whereby 26 states retain their commissioner and the 27th state is offered the post of high representative for foreign affairs instead. This would give all 27 countries a top EU job, while complying with the legal condition for an EU executive of less than 27 members, which is stipulated in the Nice treaty.

4. Loss of sovereignty:The Lisbon Treaty also transfers 50 areas of national sovereignty to Brussels via the expansion of Qualified Majority Voting to those areas. Those not subject to Irish optouts include: Freedom of movement for workers, social security benefits, Agreement for the withdrawal of a Member State, Energy, Arrangements for the implementation by the Union of the solidarity clause in case of terrorist attack or natural disaster, Implementing measures for the system of own resource. But that is only part of the story. By far the most disturbing element of the erosion of the veto are the implications for Irish sovereignty of the surrender of the Justice and Home Affairs. What is changing with this referendum is that - for the first time - we are being asked to insert into our Constitution wording that would allow the Government and Oireachtas to abolish those vetoes, by abolishing the optout Protocol contained in the Lisbon Treaty. There is something terribly ironic about being told there is an optout while being asked to vote to allow the Government to abolish it. Some will argue that the invocation of those provisions depends on the configuration of parties in office at the time. But as explained above, Dermot Ahern announced a review of the optout within 3 years, while on April 1st 2009, Lucinda Creighton called for the Protocol's outright abolition. Should the Protocol be abolished, that would mean sensitive areas of Justice Policy, including Border checks, Asylum and Immigration, Incentive measures in the field of crime prevention, the powers of Europol and Eurojust, Judicial cooperation in criminal matters and harmonisation of legislation on criminal matters, offences and sanctions. If it is not the Government's intention to remove the optout, then why include in the referendum wording a specific power for the Oireachtas and Government to do just that?

As far as I am concerned there is no smoke without fire. It should be noted that under the Amsterdam Treaty (which came into force in 1999), Ireland already has the right to optout/in of common policies in the areas of asylum and immigration, civil-law and border-controls. What is changing is that we are being asked to entrust the politicians with the power to abolish even the right to optout on Justice and Home Affairs in future by surrendering Protocol 21. One way or another, if you approve the amendment before us next Friday, Ireland will find itself reduced to having a pathetic 0.8% say in policies on Justice and Home Affairs, and the ECJ will become a Federal Supreme Court with the full range of provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in this area as its window to interfere in our affairs with respect to Justice policy, especially in the areas of asylum and immigration.

Disturbingly for the Irish economy, Article 207 of the TFEU as amended by Lisbon clearly abolishes the veto on commercial-policy, and it becomes an exclusive competence of the EU. That will endanger efforts by the IDA to attract investment to Ireland - a particular cause of concern in the light of the fact that the European Commission has just approved €55 million in state-aid for the relocation of Dell jobs from Ireland to Poland. We cannot - particularly in these recessionary times - afford to risk FDI in Ireland. Despite the economic downturn, FDI has held up well in the recession.

Article 207 TFEU

1. The common commercial policy shall be based on uniform principles, particularly with regard to changes in tariff rates, the conclusion of tariff and trade agreements relating to trade in goods and services, and the commercial aspects of intellectual property, foreign direct investment, the achievement of uniformity in measures of liberalisation, export policy and measures to protect trade such as those to be taken in the event of dumping or subsidies. The common commercial policy shall be conducted in the context of the principles and objectives of the Union's external action.
2.The European Parliament and the Council, acting by means of regulations in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall adopt the measures defining the framework for implementing the common commercial policy.
3. Where agreements with one or more third countries or international organisations need to be negotiated and concluded, Article 218 shall apply, subject to the special provisions of this Article.
The Commission shall make recommendations to the Council, which shall authorise it to open the necessary negotiations. The Council and the Commission shall be responsible for ensuring that the agreements negotiated are compatible with internal Union policies and rules. The Commission shall conduct these negotiations in consultation with a special committee appointed by the Council to assist the Commission in this task and within the framework of such directives as the Council may issue to it. The Commission shall report regularly to the special committee and to the European Parliament on the progress of negotiations.
4. For the negotiation and conclusion of the agreements referred to in paragraph 3, the Council shall act by a qualified majority.For the negotiation and conclusion of agreements in the fields of trade in services and the commercial aspects of intellectual property, as well as foreign direct investment, the Council shall act unanimously where such agreements include provisions for which unanimity is required for the adoption of internal rules.
The Council shall also act unanimously for the negotiation and conclusion of agreements:
(a) in the field of trade in cultural and audiovisual services, where these agreements risk prejudicing the Union's cultural and linguistic diversity;
(b) in the field of trade in social, education and health services, where these agreements risk seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of Member States to deliver them.
5. The negotiation and conclusion of international agreements in the field of transport shall be subject to Title VI of Part Three and to Article 218.
6. The exercise of the competences conferred by this Article in the field of the common commercial policy shall not affect the delimitation of competences between the Union and the Member States, and shall not lead to harmonisation of legislative or regulatory provisions of the Member States in so far as the Treaties exclude such harmonisation

This means that the veto on WTO agreements is gone, except where agreements on FDI "include provisions for which unanimity is required for the adoption of internal rules or where agreements "would threathen the EU's "cultural and linguistic diversity", or where agreements in the areas of social, health and education policy would "risk seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of Member States to deliver them.", Such criteria are subjective. Article 207 endangers the livelihood Irish farmers with respect to competition from cheap imports, notably of Brazilian beef, despite concerns about its safety. The latest EU commission Food and Veterinary Office Report found that half of all holdings inspected failed to meet EU requirements on the important issues of registration, traceability and movement controls.

5. Taxation:Article 311 of the TFEU as amended by Lisbon authorises the European Council to establish a "system of own resources of the Union", and to "abolish an existing category" and create new ones. This sounds to me suspiciously like empowering the Council to impose Europe-wide taxation:

Article 311 TFEU (as amended):

The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies.
Without prejudice to other revenue, the budget shall be financed wholly from own resources.
The Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, shall unanimously and after consulting the European Parliament adopt a decision laying down the provisions relating to the system of own resources of the Union. In this context it may establish new categories of own resources or abolish an existing category. That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. The Council, acting by means of regulations in accordance with a special legislative procedure, shall lay down implementing measures for the Union's own resources system in so far as this is provided for in the decision adopted on the basis of the third paragraph. The Council shall act after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

Article 113 of the TFEU as amended by Lisbon also contains measures for the harmonisation of taxation, to "avoid distortions of competition". While theoretically, Ireland has a veto, in practice this new objective could be used by the European Commission to take Ireland to the ECJ for a breach of internal-market rules outlawing Ireland's 12.5% corporate-tax as such a "distortion of competition. I would also contend that Tax Commissioner Laslo Kovacs plan for CCCTB (destination-taxes on exports payable to the country of destination) would be on firmer legal-ground if challenged by Ireland in the ECJ, as he could argue it is needed to combat the "distortion of competition" created by our corporate-tax rate.

Article 113 TFEU:

The Council shall, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, adopt provisions for the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortion of competition.

Commissioner Kovacs has claimed he has enough support to invoke Enhanced-Cooperation (requiring the support of 8 countries and the consent of the Commission) to push CCCTB through without unanimity. This is not a time to be endangering the tax-sovereignty of this troubled country.

At the end of the day, it is the 28th Amendment to the Constitution that we are voting on, and a longterm perspective is needed. The elites that pushed the Act of Union through the Irish Parliament promised, among other things, Catholic Emancipation. That we waited 29 years afterwards before it was granted, and that we endured a catastrophic famine, ought to act as a warning of what can become of small nations that relinquish their sovereignty. It is a lesson we should have learned by now. For 20 years after joining what is now the European Union, this country continued to export its people and suffer mass-unemployment. Most no voters favour EU membership, but are sufficiently clued-in to recognise it is not a panacea (as the Swiss economy demonstrates) and that Boston contributed at least as much to our eventual prosperity as Berlin. I call on the Irish people to reject the Lisbon Treaty. Do not cede longterm sovereignty, won at an enormous cost by the dead of 1916 and seven centuries before, because of phantom myths and fairy-godmothers of economic recovery concoted by the our political, media and in some cases union-elites. Remember Adam Smith's old adage:

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.

Ganley returns to fight Lisbon 2

2009-09-10T16:22:00.001-07:00

In a dramatic development, Declan Ganley has announced he is to campaign against Lisbon 2. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Ganley argues that the second referendum not only insults the Irish people, but also the French and Dutch who rejected the controversial treaty’s predecessor, the EU Constitution: "It’s profoundly undemocratic to walk all over democracy. . . The Irish people had a vote on the Lisbon Treaty. They voted no. A higher percentage of the electorate voted no than voted for Barack Obama in the United States of America. No one’s suggesting he should run for re-election next month. But—hey, presto!—15 months later we’re being told to vote again on exactly the same treaty.” He taps the table for emphasis: “Not one comma has changed in the document". Asked for evidence the two treaties are the same, he again cites the architect of the EU Constitution, former President of the Convention on the Future of Europe Valery Giscard d’Estaing: "Well, first of all, the people who drafted the European Constitution say it is. Like [former French President Valéry] Giscard d’Estaing. He called it the same document in a different envelope. And having chaired the presidium that drafted the Constitution, he would know…He also said in respect of the Lisbon Treaty that public opinion would be led to adopt, without knowing it, policies that we would never dare to present to them directly. All of the earlier proposals for the new Constitution will be in the new text, the Lisbon Treaty, but will be hidden or disguised in some way. That’s what he said. And he’s absolutely right. There is no law that could be made under the European Constitution that cannot be made under the Lisbon Treaty. None".

Asked by the interviewer why should 1.5 million Irish voters get the opportunity to hold back the progress of 500 million citizens of Europe? Ganley argues that rather than thwarting the will of hundreds of millions of fellow Europeans, Ireland has a duty to them to uphold the results of those earlier votes. Approving the treaty would be a betrayal of those in France and the Netherlands—not to mention the millions of others who were never offered a vote on the Constitution or Lisbon. "Millions of people in France, a majority, voted No to this European Constitution. In the Netherlands, millions of people did exactly the same thing. When the Irish were asked the same question, they voted no also. Those three times that it was presented to an electorate, the people voted no…Why..when the French voted no, the Dutch voted no and the Irish voted no, are we still being force-fed the same formula? You don’t have to scratch your head and wonder about democracy in some intellectualized, distant way and wonder, is there some obscure threat to it". Inevitably, the discussion turned the economy. Was Ganley putting his country at risk by calling for a No vote? He responds that that the only people threatened by a no vote are: "these elites in Brussels, The only people we risk annoying are a bunch of unelected bureaucrats and what I call this tyranny of mediocrity that we have across Europe…the Irish have never been afraid throughout history of asking the tough questions and standing up for freedom and what was right against much, much bigger opponents. In fact, we seem to revel in it". With the no campaign derided in the press as an alliance of Far Left and Far Right, the re-emergence of Libertas as a force in the Lisbon potentially puts the middle-classes, which voted pro-Lisbon last time back in play for the no-camp, and will come as an unwelcome distraction in the wake of a large falloff in support in the latest TNS-MRBI Lisbon poll. The battle is joined, and the outcome is all to play for.

Lisbon: Dismantling our immigration-controls

2009-09-05T10:13:00.000-07:00

It's the elephant in the room that the elites do not want to discuss. While on the opposite side of the spectrum to Cóir on some moral issues, they are to be commended for bringing the immigration issue into the debate in terms of Lisbon's contribution to the race to the bottom through mass-immigration. It is unfortunate that the rest of the no campaign seem unwilling to do so. The elites won't discuss it in public, but I am firmly of the view that this has the potential to win this contest for the "no's". A string of prominent pro-Lisbon party TD's stated that immigration played a major role in the first no, and I believe it will in the second. So who is it connected to Lisbon? It is connected to Lisbon largely because of the provisions of the referendum-legislation, but also because of those of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Under Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union (Maastricht as amended by Amsterdam and Nice) as amended by the Lisbon Treaty, the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights have "the same legal-value as the Treaties". Under the proposed Article 29.4.6 of the Irish Constitution., that means they will override the Irish Constitution. It states: "6° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State, before, on or after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, that are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 5° of this section or of the European Atomic Energy Community, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures
adopted by—i the said European Union or the European Atomic Energy Community, or institutions thereof, ii the European Communities or European Union existing immediately before the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, or institutions thereof, or iii bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section,from having the force of law in the State." The usual retort to this argument from the pro-Lisbon side is to the effect that an overriding provision for EU legislation and decisions has existed since we joined the then EEC in 1973. While this is true, the context has entirely changed. For the first time, a massive codification of human-rights is coming under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. They - not the Irish Supreme Court - will decide what it means. As the competences of the EU have grown over the last 36 years, the Irish Constitution has become more and more undermined, because new policy areas are subjected to QMV (Qualified Majority Voting) on the Council of Ministers. That inevitably means an increase in the throughput of legislation/decisions from Brussels, which means more opportunities for the Irish Constitution to become null and void. Yet until Lisbon, the basic question of human rights has remained overwhelmingly a matter for the Irish Supreme Court to adjudicate upon. No more with Lisbon and the Charter, which will give the ECJ the final say on those issues. Specifically, Article 15.1 legalises work for asylum seekers, stating: "1. Everyone has the right to engage in work and to pursue a freely chosen or accepted occupation.". The problem is that the UK has an optout Protocol from the Charter, meaning that Ireland and Malta would become the only English-speaking countries in the EU allowing asylum-seekers to work. Likewise, Article 19.1 of the Charter states that "1. Collective expulsions are prohibited". This will inevitably mean that Irish deportation-orders will be challenged in the ECJ, notably where they involve asylum-seekers who arrive in the country with children or have them while they are here. So in effect, if we vote yes, we are voting to create a new baby-tourism loophole for asylum, whereby asylum-seekers - as before the Citizenship Referendum in 2004 - have children here to prevent their deportations. With asylum costing the taxpayer €300 million per annum, and with the average judicial-review prolonging the asylum-appeals process by 21 months, this is the last thing the hard-pressed Irish taxpayer, social-welfare system, health-service, overcrowded schools and 420,000 unemployed need. We are effectively borrowing to pay for bogus asylum seekers as over 90% of asylum-seekers fail in their applications.

Besides the Charter, the Lisbon referendum's process of dismantling our immigration controls also feeds into the text of the constitutional amendment we are voting on next month. The 28th Amendment to the Constitution Bill 2009 contains the wording of the amendment we are being asked to insert into the Constitution. Paragraph 7, which will become Article 29.4.7. if we vote yes, states the following: "7° The State may exercise the options or discretions—i to which Article 20 of the Treaty on European Union relating to enhanced cooperation applies, ii under Protocol No. 19 on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the European Union annexed to that treaty and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly known as the Treaty establishing the European Community), and iii under Protocol No. 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, so annexed, including the option that the said Protocol No. 21 shall, in whole or in part, cease to apply to the State, but any such exercise shall be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.". So Paragraph 7(ii) empowers the Government, with the consent of the Oireachtas (which is a given in any event) to take Ireland into the passport-free travel area known as the Schengen Area. This would abolish passport-checks on travellers into Ireland from the 25 countries party to the Schengen Agreement. Furthermore, Paragraph 7(iii) would allow the Government to abolish -the optout Protocol, present since the 1999 Amsterdam Treaty, that has allowed successive Irish governments to optin/out of common policies in the field of Justice and Home Affairs, including asylum and immigration, policing, and the powers of the pan-European police-body known as Europol. In that context, it was ironic some days ago listening to Fine Gael's deputy spokesman on European Affairs, Lucinda Creighton, claim on RTE's Drivetime radio programme that Lisbon will help in the fight against people-trafficking. The reality is that by legalising employment for illegal-immigrants, the Treaty further incentivises people trafficking, by ensuring that the fatcats who are exploiting illegal migrant-labour can do so legally. Furthermore, the abolition of passport controls and document-checks for immigration into Ireland for travellers through the 25 country Schengen Area will inevitably cause a huge increase in the numbers trafficked into the country. It may be that Schengen membership - as well as opening the floodgates from that area - will force us to establish controls on the border with Northern Ireland. But if one door is to be closed somewhat, it is certain that the establishment of what amounts to a Common Travel Area with 25 other countries will more than cancel out any gains in the fight against people-trafficking consequent on joining Schengen. The reality is that Lisbon is part of the race to the bottom by the rich and powerful elites against the Irish working man and woman. The agenda is clear: to legalise illegal immigrant labour and to make it easier to traffick them into Ireland. That is what Lisbon is about, and is another important reason to vote No on October 2nd.

We must stop the Lisbon Treaty.

2009-08-14T18:08:00.001-07:00

Lisbon 2 and the the fall of the Republic once more threaten. Art is imitating life, but it is a grotesque constitutional form of modern art, devoid of inspiration, and in that respect rather akin to the "light goes on - the light goes off" school of artistic mediocrity. We are once more being forced to choose what we are told is the least worst option, which, according to the elites, is the Lisbon Treaty. Maybe we are about to choose the least worst option. But that is a no vote - rather than a vote to consign the Republic and the freedom so many sacrificed their lives for - to history. The Republic is in danger. Now as never before since 1921 has the call of the patriot dead for its defence rang so loudly in the ears of the Irish people. Freedom is under siege from powerful elites, determined to foist their will upon unwilling nations such as the French and Dutch (who rejected the EU Constitution), and many others who would - had they been offered the opportunity to decide by direct popular vote - have joined the former in throwing out this Treaty. The recent Bastille Day celebrations in Paris are a stirring reminder of what is at stake. The Louis's and Antoinettes of Brussels are determined to imposed unelective government of 27 countries through the Lisbon Treaty project. For the first time in EU history, a document whose provisions have essentially been rejected by 3 nations in referenda is being foisted on 2 of them by elected parliamentarians. And so it is that just as Ireland saved civilisation in the Dark Ages through the spread of learning by our scholars who travelled Europe, so too are we now called to save democracy in Europe through the defiance - as in the past - of powerful, unelected and even elected elites, for some of whom taking the EU shilling is an acceptable inducement for the abandonment of the principles on which this Republic was founded - the principle of national self-determination. The men and women of 1916 would turn in their graves to see such an unholy alliance between the forces of politics, the media, leaders of business-organisations and unions who largely refuse to ballot their own members, no doubt fearful they would not give "the right answer". Is this democracy - the notion that government should be 'of the people, for the people, by the people"? Because it sure doesn't feel like it from where I'm standing.

What is especially frustrating about the Lisbon debate, from the perspective of all true democrats, is the dismissive, condescending and arrogant tone adopted by the elites towards the people who voted no. We are being blamed by them for the recession that they were largely responsible for landing us in. When a Government resorts to such subliminable messages, it has truly ceased to represent the people and instead substituted representation of outside elites, many of them themselves without a mandate, and based outside this country. The Government gives the impression of representing not Ireland in Europe - but Europe in Ireland. But have no illusions as to the kind of "Europe" they are defending. It is not the people of Europe, who do not want this Treaty, which is why Ireland was the sole country to have a referendum on Lisbon, though the French and Dutch peoples rejected the 95% identical EU Constitution. No. The 'Europe' the elites defend is one of vested-interests, including Dickensian employers in search of cheap-labour (as was shown by the aftermath of Nice and EU Enlargement, when assurances on immigration by figures such as Dick Roche, Willie O'Dea and Proinsias de Rossa were proven wildly inaccurate). In an interview with the Irish Catholic at Government Buildings in 2002, Roche stated: "It is the view of the Irish government and a number of other governments that this idea that there is going to be a huge influx of immigrants is just not supported. The evidence is just not there for it. They are not going to flood to the west. The same rules are going to apply in all 15 states. There is no evidence to suggest that the people of the Czech Republic or Poland are less anxious to stay in their home as we are." In a letter to the Irish Times on 20th August 2002, Proinsias de Rossa claimed that a "trickle" would come: "It is a deliberate misrepresentation to suggest that tens of thousands will suddenly descend en masse on Ireland...The expected trickle of immigration to Ireland will on balance benefit the Irish economy...I estimate that fewer than 2,000 will choose our distant shores each year""Bizarrely, some of the elites now try not merely to deny the future as before, but seemingly to deny the present as well. That is apparent from Brian Crowley MEP's contention that Lisbon will aid the fight against drug-trafficking. He obviously is not aware of the proposed Article 29.4.7. of the Irish Constitution as amended by the 28th Amendment to the Constitution Bill 2009, if we vote no. Article 7 would empower the Government, with the support of the Oireachtas, to take Ireland into the Schengen Area, which would abolish passport-controls on immigration into Ireland from this 25 country group. It would also permit the Government, with the consent of the Oireachtas, to abolish the Protocol that allows the Irish Government to optin/out on an ad hoc basis to common policies in the field of Justice and Home Affairs, including asylum and immigration, policing, border controls, the powers of Europol/Eurojust and of the European Public Prosecutor (an office Lisbon allows the European Council to establish by unanimity). It states: "7° The State may exercise the options or discretions— i to which Article 20 of the Treaty on European Union relating to enhanced cooperation applies, ii under Protocol No. 19 on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the European Union annexed to that treaty and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly known as the Treaty establishing the European Community), and iii under Protocol No. 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, so annexed, including the option that the said Protocol No. 21 shall, in whole or in part, cease to apply to the State,but any such exercise shall be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas." .But the relationship between people-trafficking and Lisbon goes beyond this. Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union as amended by Lisbon states that the Charter of Fundamental Rights shall have "the same legal value as the Treaties". The relevance to immigration and asylum is found most directly in Articles 17/18/19 of the Charter, but there are also implied implications in Articles related to the right to work (Article 15), health, education etc. Article 18 states:"The right to asylum shall be guaranteed with due respect for the rules of the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees and in accordance with the Treaty establishing the European Community.". Article 19(1) states: "1. Collective expulsions are prohibited.", while Article 15 states "Everyone has the right to engage in work and to pursue a freely chosen or accepted occupation.". The State, in the midst of a fiscal crisis with a deficit of €21 billion, could find itself hauled before the ECJ and forced to subsidise free healthcare and education for illegal-immigrants, on the basis of the Charter's absolute prohibition on "discrimination" on grounds of nationality. While opposed to racism, I think we need to get real on this question. Nation states have always discriminated on grounds of nationality to some degree, by virtue of restrictions on non-citizens with respect, for example, to voting rights, access to the labour-market and social-welfare. Were it not the case, nation states - especially in Big Government countries in the EU - would rapidly become bankrupt. So the last thing Ireland needs is Big Brother telling us what to do in the fields of asylum and immigration in general, and in terms of entitlements for illegal immigrants in particular. Yet that is where the road to Lisbon takes us. And if the Chen (2004) and Metock (2008) cases are anything to go by, there are no prizes for guessing the likely outcome of such challenges to Irish law in this area on the basis of the Charter. With Chen in 2004, the ECJ required EU member states to grant rights to the mother accuring from the EU citizenship of a Chinese mother whose child had been born in NI (on the basis of advice for her own solicitor). The Metock case in August 2008 struck down Irish law in the area of marriages-of-convenience. Prior to this ruling, Irish law had denied automatic residency to non-EU spouses without prior residency in another EU member state. In this respect, Ireland was supported by other member states, including the UK and Germany, but the ECJ had other ideas, with respect to a highly questionable interpretation on the latter's part of the Freedom of Movement Directive, which calls into question what we are told as to the certainty of the pro-Lisbon camp with respect to future interpretations of the Charter by the ECJ in this area. The ECJ is an activist court, and has been exposed as such by its own hand, and those of critics such as former German President Roman Herzog. Herzog recently produced a paper outlining the phenomenon of "competence creep" by the ECJ, referring in particular to the Mangold case in which a German law intended to assist those aged 58 and over to find work was struck down as discriminatory by the ECJ. This was in spite of the fact that the deadline for the implementation of the relevant EU directive cited by the court had not yet been reached. In the ruling, the ECJ included in the basis for its ruling what it called "constitutional traditions common to member states". Yet the Herzog paper demonstrates that such traditions do not exist in all member states. So this is not a court that can be trusted to confine itself to the letter of the law when interpreting the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

German court in blow to Lisbon

2009-06-21T15:47:00.000-07:00

The German Constitutional Court has ruled that ratification of the Lisbon Treaty must cease pending additional legislation to strengthen the role of the national parliament in EU decisionmaking. The treaty's compatibility with the German Constitution was challenged by Conservative lawmaker Peter Gauweiller of the Christian Social Union, Bavaria's ruling party (and sister party to Mrs Merkel's CDU). It was also challenged by members of Die Linke, the far left party that evolved from the former East German Communist Party. Among the objections was the claim that provisions of the treaty meant the German Parliament could be bypassed by the German government, which could then collaborate with other governments to use powers without being subject of national parliamentary control or consent Other objections included the claim that the Lisbon Treaty gives the EU the form of a federal government without democratic control, and that its common foreign and security policy would lead to the militarisation of German foreign policy. The Court rejected these arguments. It found the Lisbon Treaty was in conformity with the German Constitution, and that the act of parliament ratifying the treaty was also constitutional. The problem that caused the court to pause the German ratification process is in the accompanying legislation on the role of the German parliament in EU decision making. 'The Act extending and strengthening the rights of the Bundestag and the Bundesrat in European Union matters' was found to be unconstitutional because it does not give the two chambers of parliament enough say on EU affairs. Specifically the problem lies with the procedures the Lisbon Treaty proposes for making changes to the EU treaties in the future. Lisbon has what is known as the 'general bridging clause' which allows the European Council to decide, unanimously, to move a competence from unanimity to Qualified Majority Voting. While all national parliaments most get six months notice of an intention to make such a change, and any one of them can veto the move, Germany's constitutional court said this was an insufficient role for the parliament. It insists that Germany's parliament must legislate to enable the German government to agree to this. A similar legislative safeguard is required for the 'Flexibility Clause', where EU leaders can (acting unanimously, and with the prior consent of the European Parliament) give themselves power to attain one of the objectives of the EU as set out in the treaties, but where the treaties themselves have not provided the necessary powers. National parliaments must be notified by the Commission. But Germany's court ruling goes further, insisting that the Federal parliament must pass an act giving consent to the German government. The court also listed some other areas where the parliament's role has to be defined in law before Lisbon can be ratified - notably in the fields of criminal law and the definition of cross border crimes (an extension of the list will now require a German act of parliament), the so called 'emergency brake' procedure in Judicial co-operation, which the court says requires parliamentary approval before use.The ruling underlines "no" campaign concerns about the impact of the Treaty on the democratic-deficit in the European Union, not least with respect to the role (or lack of it) of national parliaments. Lisbon will allow the Government to further erode the national-veto and to do so without the consent of the Irish people in a referendum. Article 48 of the Treaty on the European Union as amended by Lisbon allows for a "simplified revision process", whereby the text of the Treaties can be amended by the Council of the European Union (heads of government) without recourse to national parliaments or electorates. And while the Protocol on the Role of National Parliaments does afford them 8 weeks notice of new legislation initiated by the European Commission, they are not empowered from obstruct EU legislation itself.

The ruling comes amidst growing controversy over the status of the 'legal guarantees' offered to Ireland to help the Government win a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. UK Europe Minister Baroness Kinnock (wife of former Labour leader Neil Kinnock) has told the House of Lords that they will not have the force of EU law until added as a Protocol to a future Accession Treaty. 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....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." But Foreign Secretary David Milliband appeared to contradict her during questions at the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee yesterday, stating: "Every head of state agrees that these guarantees do not change the Treaty...the guarantees are legally-binding in international law... It does not require ratification in order to have legal affect." This lead the Chairman of the Committee to ask, "If this is a legally-binding decision and doesn't need ratification, why does it need to be put in a protocol?" He asked, "Is it a stitch-up to get around Irish peoples' concerns? I can see why people would be suspicious." To confuse things further, Liberal Democrat MEP and self-described "militant federalist" Andrew Duff has claimed that an Irish Protocol appended to an Accession Treaty would be challenged in the courts as it would violate EU law, saying: "Adding this protocol to the Croatian accession treaty would leave the treaty wide open to attack in the courts...".According to the Irish Times, "he added that rules in the EU treaties governing accession treaties only allow issues pertaining to a state's accession to be dealt with." Clearly, the credibility of the Government's 'guarantee's is not something they can take for granted. I, for one, am far from convinced of their veracity.

Brussels resisting Irish guarantees

2009-06-12T08:24:00.000-07:00

EU foreign ministers are resisting providing the legal guarantees being sought by the Irish government on the Lisbon Treaty. The Irish government is keen that the 'assurances' in the areas of taxation, neutrality and social affairs be attached as protocols to the next available treaty (possibly Croatia's accession treaty) and then ratified by all member states, enshrining the guarantees into European law. But member states – such as the UK and the Czech Republic – fear this could reopen their respective national debates on the Lisbon Treaty. They are instead pushing for a legal declaration from EU leaders at a European Council later this week (18-19 June). Czech European Affairs Minister Stefan Fule said on Monday that the "legal form" of the assurances required further discussion in order to: "ensure a smooth passage for the required guarantees during the European council,", adding: "Very good progress has been made and we are well on track to reach agreement at this week's European Council," he said. "Reaching consensus this week is important not only for Ireland but for the whole of Europe." Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheal Martin claimed the response to the draft texts "has been very positive so far" and that he was "quietly confident" that Ireland would secure the legally binding guarantees it was seeking. The Irish government is eager to return from this week's meeting of EU leaders with enough to convince Irish voters to back the treaty in a second referendum likely to take place in September or October. The Government wants to have them added to the next treaty following Lisbon in response to critics who said they could otherwise be superseded by the European Court of Justice. On RTE's Questions and Answers last Monday, constitutional-law expert Paul Anthony McDermott warned: "It's not clear they have any legal status...They are mumbo-jumbo. These legal guarantees - they're meaningless. The rest of Europe will sign up to anything if it gets them off the hook on Europe. But if you were ever to go to a court in Europe and try to rely on one of these pieces of paper you would be told "what article of the Treaty are you suing on and the answer would be I'm not suing on the Treaty, I'm suing on a piece of paper Ireland passed around the Council of Ministers and everyone signed up to it" so I'm certainly not a big fan of having another referendum.".

Amidst the gloating of the Lisbon-elites as to the fate of some anti-Lisbon candidates in the Irish euro elections lies a simply truth: this election was not fought on European issues, but on national ones. It also cannot be separated from the broader European context. For to do so, would represent hypocrisy on the part of those on the other side who sought to demonise Libertas on the basis of controversial comments on issues ranging from torture, to false accusations of anti-semitism and neo-Nazism with respect to its candidates in other EU countries. The Irish elite are trying to portray the defeat of Libertas across Europe as a humiliating defeat and a victory for the pro-Lisbon cause. Yet it is not so simple. Traditionally, the constitutional-architecture of the European Union has demanded unanimous treaty-ratification by the member states. It is abundantly clear from these elections in the 27 member states that where Lisbon is concerned, such a mandate does not exist - at least at popular level. The most glaring example of this can be found in the UK elections, where Labour - pushing through the deeply unpopular Lisbon Treaty without a referendum in the teeth of opposition from their own Eurosceptic population - was pushed to a humilating fourth-place behind the Tories, Liberal Democrats and even the UK Independence party. On 15.7% of the vote, they are now weaker than they have been since the 19th century. Were the results replicated in a General Election, the BBC estimates the Tories would return to power after 12 years with a majority of 28. The size of that majority should evoke memories of the last Tory govt, which was constantly at the mercy of its Eurosceptic backbenchers, particularly after the strong leadership contest in the party by John Redwood in 1995. In any case, party leader David Cameron is, if anything, far more of a Eurosceptic than his predecessor, promising - if Lisbon has not yet come into force across Europe - to withdraw the articles of ratification from Vienna and put the Treaty to a referendum that would certainly end in the rejection of the Treaty. And the Irish have allies further afield too. The Treaty remains under consideration by the German Constitutional Court, and further challenges are pending in the Czech Constitutional Court by Senators opposed to it. The Czech and Polish Presidents themselves continue to refusal to put their signature to it unless and until the Irish first vote no. And even then, it is far from clear that President Klaus will sign it. He is not obliged to by the Czech Constitution. Some in the leftist Opposition and a former Green minister in the deposed Coalition government have called for Klaus to be impeached, but the Constitution is clear on this: the Constitutional Court would make the final decision, and it appears that short of being incapacitated or having committed and act of treason, the President will remain in Prague Castle for the remainder of his four year term. It seems probable then, that if the Irish people and Klaus hold out until the next UK General Election, the Lisbon Treaty will be consigned to the dustbin of European history where it belongs. In that context, it is imperative that we stand our ground, that (in Lincoln's words) "government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth".

Ganley surges in final days - Red C poll

2009-05-30T12:52:00.000-07:00

Reports reached us last night that the Sunday Business Post's regional breakdowns of tomorrow's Red C election poll would not be released, but that their findings would show a surge for anti-Lisbon candidates Declan Ganley (Libertas) and Toireasa Ferris (SF). According to the source, on politics.ie, the newspaper would acknowledge a swing to Ganley: "but won't give the numbers, but I'm told 16% with a massive MOE of about 6% because of the sample size. Ganley's own people have been trying to push some internal research showing him on 23% and heading the poll with massive support in Galway, but no newsdesk has bitten yet because nobody (me included) thinks its credible. Mind you, the SBP figures make it just a little bit more possible". Meanwhile, in South, a compelling three-way contest is brewing between sitting anti-Lisbon Independent and disability-rights campaigner Kathy Sinnott, Labour's Senator Alan Kelly, and the dark horse who came from nowhere - Sinn Féin Mayor of Kerry Toireasa Ferris. However, the claims also raise ethical questions as to whether or not the newspaper, which - as a major player in the Irish newspaper-industry - owes it to its readership and the electorate to release the regional-breakdowns in full. This angle is alluded to by the source, who references the fact that when Ganley was on 5% in Northwest in the previous Red C poll, this was published by the newspaper. From my own personal perspective I believe they should publish, or have their impartiality called into question. While by no means the most serious offender, I am of the view that on balance, the Business Post has tended towards support for the Lisbon Treaty and by extension, the pro-Lisbon cause - a matter obviously relevant to these elections. As the only member state holding a referendum on the controversial Treaty (which as the EU Constitution was rejected by France and the Netherlands), the outcome of these elections will set the stage for the Autumn referendum in Ireland, and play a role in influencing the credibility of either side in the campaign. In that context, and in view of the enormous implications for Irish sovereignty of a decision to ratify or otherwise, I therefore call on the Business Post to release - as it has done in the past - the regional-breakdowns of tomorrow's Red C poll on the euro-elections.

Asked how the Business Post will portray the swing to Ganley, he adds they will "sit on the fence. He'll want to be able to say that the SBP picked up the swing if Ganley wins, but won't want to be seen as giving Ganley too much momentum", adding they are "writing a piece on Ganley's position on neutrality also, which I imagine won't be pleasant for Libertas supporters. Then again, all papers have discredited themselves on Ganley to the extent that I don't think smears work any more". I was concerned by this, in particular the question of whether the publication had a political-motivation in concealing its hard-data on Ganley's performance in Northwest. However, the source adds "they have picked up what some are calling a "big swing" to Ganley in the North West, with him picking up about 10% on where he was previously. Most party sources believe Ganley is on about 16% and rising and the RED C poll seems to confirm this. The key for Ganley will be momentum in the final week - if he can finish in the top 3 with 17-18% most observers agree that he will be safe enough. However, the Irish Times poll showing him stalling cannot be discounted, and we will have to wait and see on this one. In South, I'm told the increase in the Ferris vote makes up for much of the overall 3% national swing to Sinn Fein, and that she has moved into the "top tier" of candidates alongside Sinnott and Kelly. This is good news for Sinnott if she can stay ahead of Ferris, and curtains for Kelly as it is generally assumed that Ferris will benefit Sinnott when she goes out. As for Eoin Ryan in Dublin,"Fianna Failers are now certain that Ryan is a gonner. As in dead and buried. They are also worried about East, and feel that polls in NW are vastly overstating their vote. I know one FFstaffer who has put €500 on the party returning ony one MEP. Still too early to say, but Euro polls are notoriously unreliable. In NW, the relentless attacks on Ganley should be seen as a real indicator of how worried the parties are about him. Notice how none of them have attacked McLochlainn - they don't fear him, but they do think Ganley is a threat for a seat".

These expectations seem borne out by the actual results of the poll, which - as predicted - did not include the usual regional breakdown. For the Euro elections, the results are: FF: 20%,FG: 34%, Labour: 14%, SF: 9%, Greens: 4%, Libertas: 4% and Independents 15%. Without such a breakdown, all we have to go on is commentary by Richard Colwell (Red C) and Pat Leahy - and I have no beef with either of them. But it means we have to take their word for it when it comes to the likely apportionment of seats, which Colwell does as follows: "Liam Aylward is still in with a fighting chance for the third seat in the East constituency…Libertas support does appear to be on an upward trend…Almost all of this support is for the party’s founder, Declan Ganley, who, based on the poll’s constituency-figures, could yet be in with a shout to take a seat in the North West. This is a significant gain in two weeks and means he is a real threat to Gallagher, O’Reilly and Independent Marian Harkin…Harkin does remain in the running for a seat in the North West constituency, but could suffer at the hands of Libertas.". The national poll, in showing Libertas support at 4%, needs to be seen in the context of them only contesting three constituencies (Dublin, East and Northwest), but the fact that Ganley - written off for months by a hostile media in a manner familiar to the PDs for their 27 years on this earth - now stands on the threshold of ousting Harkin or sending Pat the Cope back to Leinster House despite an existence of barely six months must rank as a considerable acheivement and - on the context of these recessionary - even depressionary times - not an untimely one. Indeed even Jamie Smyth on the Irish Times blog, not exactly known as a friend of Libertas or the no campaign, is gracious enough to acknowledge than a successful election for the party cannot be ruled out, and that: "I think it is too early for yes campaigners to start counting their chickens ahead of the October vote. For one thing the economy is in such a bad state and sentiment towards the government is so poor that a Lisbon II referendum could become a referendum on the government. In other words, people may vote no to Lisbon simply to force Brian Cowen to stand down and prompt an election and a change of government.". We disagree of course, of the reasons for the no vote, but it is nonetheless comforting that the general nastiness of this election cycle can at times be rendered civilised and devoid of the kind of arrogance the Irish people have had to endure from our political, intellectual and media-elites since voting "the wrong way" last year. It is a trait others, like Europe Minister Dick Roche, might do well to learn.

Stop the blasphemy ban

2009-04-29T05:38:00.000-07:00

Alarmingly for those of us who value Western freedoms including speech, the Minister for Justice, Dermot Ahern, has revealed his intention to make "blasphemous libel" a crime, punishable by a fine of €100,000. From the Irish Times:"Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern proposes to insert a new section into the Defamation Bill, stating: “A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €100,000.” “Blasphemous matter” is defined as matter “that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion; and he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.” Where a person is convicted of an offence under this section, the court may issue a warrant authorising the Garda Síochána to enter, if necessary using reasonable force, a premises where the member of the force has reasonable grounds for believing there are copies of the blasphemous statements in order to seize them.What is interesting so far is the relative silence of the Left on the fundamental question of there being a blasphemy-ban. Even Labour Justice spokesman Pat Rabbitte, who wants the fine reduced to €1,000, and to exempt from the definition of blasphemy: "any matter that had any literary, artistic, social or academic merit." does not appear to call into question the wisdom of introducing such an offence into law in the first place.

It has to be asked where the impetus for this legislation is coming from. Is it from the Catholic Right, which has been fighting a losing battle for political-influence since 1992 (when the Irish people voted to legalise travel and information related to abortion), including the defeat of the 2002 Abortion-referendum, or is it from what the Left like to call "the new communities" i.e. particularly foreign-nationals of the Islamic faith in particular? In that respect, we would do well to bear in mind research across Europe on the attitudes of Muslim communities to questions pertaining to traditional Western freedoms, notably freedom of the press and of speech - and in particular, the question of blasphemy. With respect to British Muslims, an ICM opinion poll in 2006 revealed an astonishing 40% of them want Islamic Sharia law to be introduced in Muslim parts of the country. In relation to the Danish cartoons: The full figures on ICM’s website reveal some interesting bits and pieces that weren’t reported in the Sunday Telegraph. British Muslims surveyed by ICM were almost unaminous (97%) in thinking that the publication of the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed was wrong, 77% said they personally were very offended by the cartoons, 9% said they were a little offended and 11% said they were not offended. Moreover: "Regarding reactions to the cartoons, 14% of British Muslims thought it was right for protesters in Muslim countries to attack Danish embassies and 12% thought it was right for “demonstrators to carry placards calling for the killing of those who insult Islam”. 13% said it was right “to exercise violence against those who are deemed by religious leaders to have insulted them”. The Left were at the forefront of dismantling decades of theocracy in this State, notably in the struggle against the bans on divorce and homosexuality. It would surely be ironic then, if in the name of Political-Correctness and a wish to appeal to a minority of newcomers to our shores, they were to take a step backwards from Enlightenment ideals of Western freedom in order to get us to a place at least as bad as where we started in the first place. All true liberals and democrats should oppose this bill, and make their views on it known to the powers that be - particularly on the Green benches in Leinster House. They forced Fianna Fáil's hand on the by-elections - maybe they can do the same with the Defamation Bill. For the email addresses of your TDs. see here.

Pamela Izevbekhai an asylum cheat - Mirror

2009-03-27T01:05:00.000-07:00

Today the Independent and the Mirror are owed a profound debt of gratitude on behalf of the Irish people for their successful expositions of the deceitful way in which Pamela Izevbekhai has sought to remain in Ireland under false pretences. According to Tom Brady, Security Correspondent of the Irish Independent, a Garda Investigation into the Nigerian asylum-seeker who is facing deportation has uncovered evidence she used forged documentation to back up claims that her first child died after being subjected to female genital mutilation. Discrepancies in the case presented by Pamela Izevbekhai to the High Court and Supreme Court in Dublin and to the European Court of Human Rights have been uncovered, including revelations that she personally solicited a doctor to forge a death-certificate for her fictional daughter, 'Elizabeth Izevbekhai'. While Dr Joseph Unokanjo states that he refused the request, he does nonetheless reveal that the supposed death-certificate, "a document, allegedly signed by him, as a forgery. He also rejected Mrs Izevbekhai's claim that she gave birth to a daughter, Elizabeth, in February 1993 and that the girl died on July 16, 1994, following female genital mutilation. The findings represent a potentially serious blow to the prospects of Mrs Izevbekhai overturning a Supreme Court decision supporting her deportation in her appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. In an affidavit lodged with the European Court in Strasbourg, consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist Dr Joseph Unokanjo, who practises at Isioma Hospital, in Lagos, says he can confirm that no baby called Elizabeth Izevbekhai was delivered by him at the hospital and no baby of that name has ever been treated by him for any ailment, including post-circumcision complications. Gardai were also told there is no evidence of Elizabeth's death at the registry of deaths in Lagos, although a death certificate was presented to the Irish courts on behalf of Mrs Izevbekhai. Dr Unokanjo says he did not sign an affidavit purported to have been sworn by him on March 9, 2006, and did not issue a certificate of cause of death, which purported to come from Isioma hospital on July 17, 1994. Confirming the signatures are not his, he also says he is incorrectly described on that affidavit as a surgeon, and that the hospital stamp and hospital address are false. He emphasises the purported affidavit was not made by him and says he believes it is a forgery". In a further damning revelation in this shocking case, he "recalled that Pamela Enitan Izevbekhai telephoned him some years ago requesting him to issue a death certificate in respect of a dead child to enable her to be given asylum in the Republic of Ireland". He told her he did not involve himself in such activities, particularly since he was aware that she neither had a baby before 1999, and nor had she lost a baby. Dr Unokanjo also states the alleged medical certificate of the 'cause of death' is a forgery".

Now I know we have all come to expect gullibility of the most incredible kind from the Leinster House liberals since the onset of large-scale illegal-immigration to this Republic sicne the mid-1990's. In apparent amnesia of their primary responsibility to the people to whom they owe their political-careers in elective office, the Leinster House set have seen fit at almost every opportunity (save the Citizenship referendum regarding former Justice Minister McDowell and a small number of other select cases that are two few to mention) - even now in the face of the rapid collapse of our economy - to support and believe - or at least pretend to believe - the excuses and half-truths of those who wish to abuse our asylum-system for a purpose it was never purported to be designed to serve - namely economic-migration. For I am not opposed to legal economic-migration to this country - quite the contrary. While I have often held that - in the context of a recession, aswell as the necessity for the country to experience a reasonable lead-in time to learn the lessons, and avoid repeating the mistakes of France, Britain and the Netherlands with respect to integrating their new arrivals from overseas - we need to move from a policy of open-borders to a policy of regulation and control of immigration - I have always held firm to the belief that it is morally and politically wrong to scapegoat migrants as a whole for what is - at the end of the day - a failure by the political-class to adequately reconcile the economic and social needs of this country with humanitarian and cultural imperatives including the absorption-capacity of a small country like ourselves when determining immigration and asylum-policy. But that is not the same as not holding to account those who are in clear abuse of the principles upon which international law in the area of asylum, including the 1952 Refugee Convention, is supposed to be based. If indeed it is true - as it seems very much to be - that Pamela Izevbekha has sank so low in terms of morality as to concoct a work of fiction involving a nonexistent daughter who died of FGM, in order to emotionally blackmail the Irish State, to the detriment of the Irish taxpayer that is forced to oppose her application in the courts, into allowing her leave to remain in this country, then she should not only be ashamed, but so too should those who so typically condemned all those who saw through her. In particular I would like to single out for criticism figures such as Labour Lord Mayor of Sligo Veronica Cawley, who organised a civil-reception in her honour, as well as Fine Gael figures such as John Perry TD, who were amongst those calling for her to be allowed leave to remain in the State. Those politicians who have chosen to identify themselves with her case have now been shown to have egg on their faces. The Hard Left will probably stand by her. For them, the issue is an ideological one, rather than a case governed by merits or particular circumstance - they just want open-borders fullstop. I suppose it would be too much to ask Senator David Norris to see reason on this matter and admit the error of his ways in rubbishing correspondance he claimed to have received casting doubt on her story of how she arrived in Ireland. But one can always hope. She has outstayed her welcome in our country, and betrayed the noble cause of fighting the scourge of FGM in our world. She has also seen fit to manipulate the emotions of the Irish people, many of whom flocked to her cause when it seemed to them to be based on a mother's love for her children and a desire to protect them from a real and present danger - a danger now proven to be nothing but an illusion. This is a wakeup call for the Leinster House liberals. It is now time, in these recessionary times, for them to be true to the old maxim that charity begins at home. No more €1 million cases spent in legal guerilla-war in our courts challenging manifestly bogus asylum-claims. It's time to spend the money where it's really needed and deserved - on helping the old, the sick and the vulnerable, including the few genuine asylum-seekers resident in this State. 100,000 people have lost their jobs since the start of 2008, with up to half a million expected to be on the Live Register by Christmas. In the context of a €20 billion deficit, economies must be made and priorities imposed. Manifestly-unfounded asylum cases should not be among them.

Crack down on work-permits - O'Flynn

2009-02-07T18:21:00.001-08:00

It's about time too. Cork North-central Fianna Fáil TD Noel O'Flynn has called for a crackdown on the issuing of non-EEA work-permits to migrant workers. The call will surely provoke much hand-wringing from the so-called 'anti-racism industry' (which exists to exaggerate the extent of racism in the country in order to silence debate on immigration-controls), which arguably includes the great majority of the folks in Leinster House. But it merits a more enlightened, considered and intelligent response, reflective of the changed times in which we find ourselves. Taoiseach Cowen and prospective-Taoiseach Kenny would do well to recognise that with the Celtic Tiger well and truly buried, the cupboard is bare and the capacity of the State to absorb immigration-flows on the scale we have seen since 2004 in particular is not what it was. With unemployment at 9.2%, it is no longer tenable for politicians to cite labour-shortages to justify the open-door policy. They will argue that in the context of the EU membership of ourselves as the former Accession-States in Eastern Europe, the State is powerless to affect limitations on the numbers allowed to travel here - and that is true. But such constraints do not govern the non-EEA work-permit and student-visa system, which the Government continues - on the basis of official statistics related to the number of PPS no's issued - to hand out like there is no tomorrow. Government figures show that 33,200 people from the Accession stateswere granted PPS numbers between July and December, a decline of 47 per cent on the same period in 2007. Specifically, in the last six months of 2008, the numbers issued to Poles declined by 53 per cent. Despite fewer Poles registered in December than in any month since their country joined the EU they remain the largest national group on the list compiled by the Department of Social and Family Affairs, with 42,554 having been allocated PPS numbers that year, followed by British (12,285), French (7,066) and Lithuanian (6,443) applicants. I suppose it's easy to be generous with other people's jobs. Already in 2009, in the midst of our worst recession since the 1980's, the issuing of PPS numbers remains high. Of the 17,532 issued in January alone, 8,499 were to foreign nationals. Broken down by nationality, 2,821 were issued to nationals of the former Accession-states, After all, noone on the hallowed halls of Leinster House, on either side of the chamber, faces a realistic prospect of displacement with cheap-labour by the remorseless hands of Dickensian employers - do they?

The high-priests of multiculturalism need to be challenged in the context of mature debate on the merits and demerits of this ideology. Too often the elite has uniformly balked at any suggestion that anything other than a liberal, open-door model combining the encouragement by the State of mass-immigration and an ideology that places all cultures on an equal footing should be questioned. In that respect, the stance of 'Official Ireland' is at variance with European trends. The nominally Socialist government of Spain has introduced subsidised voluntary-repatriation. The Italian government is led by a man who has rightly castigated the failings of multiculturalism, and whose Coalition includes the more hardline Northern League of Umberto Bossi. In the recent Austrian General Election, 2 Far-Right parties, the Freedom Party and the Alliance for Austria's Future, repeated their success of 2000 with a combined 29% share of the popular-vote, forcing the Socialists and the conservative Peoples Party into Coalition. In 2007, President Sarkozy of France won at least half of the former Le Pen vote on a platform of tighter immigration-controls, 'integration' of immigrants and opposition of Turkey to the European Union - all positions I would argue are popular with the Irish people but seemingly opposed by the Irish political and intellectual elites. Don't get me wrong: I have nothing against any law-abiding member of any ethnolinguistic group. But I insist that the Western freedoms for which generations of Irish and Europeans have given their lives be maintained, and that newcomers who come to our shores accept that this be so. Assimilation - not multiculturalism - is the way forward in terms of integrating immigrants with host-societies. We have the misfortune in Ireland of continuing to be governed by a postwar political and intellectual generation that sets its face against the reality that we have learned since 911 in general but since the world recession in particular. Now is a time when Irish and western workers are finding themselves forced to choose between competing with cheap-labour at home or emigrating abroad. This is not the fault of the immigrants. As far as I am concerned both the Irish and the foreign-nationals are victims of ill-thoughtout social-engineering by a condescending, PC and largely leftist elite. The French, British, Dutch and Spanish peoples have had a longer lead-time than us with which to experiment with the multicultural-model, and it has damaged both themselves and the newcomers by eroding a sense of cohesion and common-focus. By insisting that the State remain culturally-neutral and that the host-society make concessions to new cultures and regard them as equally valid as the host-culture, the proponents of the ideology have unwittingly or otherwise created fertile ground for Islamic-radicalism. I still recoil in horror at the memory of the "Behead Blair" demos in the UK. If you accept the principle of absolute cultural-equality (which is separate from the equality of the person - something I distinguish from "culture" which is defined a way of life), then you are - whether you like it or not - condoning the spread of Islamic radicalism. According to the British media, 4,000 British-born Muslims were trained in Al Qaida camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In particular, concerns have been raised about the proliferation of schools called madrassas in Pakistan, which historically were supported by that country's intelligence-services (ISI) to provide a fertile ground for recruitment for the Taliban and Al Qaida - something that began during the Soviet-Afghan war in the 1980's. Then as now (though in a very different context), the West made a fools-bargain with radical-Islam, in the name of defeating an abhorrent ideology. Communism was defeated but what was spawned in its place? The Afghan people were sentenced to 12 years of civil-war and tyrannical Taliban-rule, setting up a chain of events that would one day lead to the terror-attacks on the West in New York, Washington, Madrid, London and against largely Australian tourists in Bali, Indonesia. The ideology our elite claim to be fighting is "racism". A noble aim, surely. But the political-class in Ireland have gone into overkill, demonising any and all calls for tighter controls on Muslim immigration in the supposed aim of 'anti-racism'. In particular, note the hysterical and disgraceful villification visited on Leo Varadkar - largely by Labour but also by Fianna Fáil figures such as Minister Mary Hanafin - some months ago for calling for calling for subsidised voluntary-repatriation for migrants. That an Irishman of mixed-race origins could be accused of making racist comments is the height of nonsense - even in a political-class so hopelessly engrossed in PC-thinking as this one.

New smear campaign against Libertas.

2009-01-22T08:47:00.001-08:00

I said this was coming, and it has. Having failed to impune the integrity of Libertas-founder Declan Ganley, the Irish Times are now engaged in efforts at guilt-by-association. In that respect they are at one with the sleazy attempts by RTE - funded by you and me as license-payers - to do likewise - but this time they are casting their nets wider, to the Czech Republic where the Irish Times attempts to throw mud by linking the Irish Libertas by association with its Czech counterpart. Some will question the wisdom of going under a common umbrella which was always going to open a Pandora's box in terms of guilt-by-association on behalf of the Grand Inquisitors of the Irish Times and other malignant organs of the "yes" campaign, but the public know that Fianna Fáil are in no position to lecture others on ethics, not least considering the fallout from 11 years of the Mahon and Moriarty tribunals and the pending trial of a well-known party-figure for bribery (which to his credit he has come clean - you know who I'm talking about). In contrast, there have been no charges of any kind brought against figures in the Irish Libertas-organisation, so the muckrackers have had to cast their nets-wider, and do so in today's IT, with a tabloid-esque headline stating "Businessman Declan Ganley has recruited a Czech MEP and former media mogul, Vladimir Zelezny, to help set up a Libertas branch in the Czech Republic in advance of the European elections. The appointment is the first significant announcement made by Libertas in central and eastern Europe, where Mr Ganley hopes to win scores of seats in the June elections. Mr Zelezny is a colourful and controversial character. He is currently being investigated by the Czech authorities for tax fraud and abuse of creditors.He is co-founder of the state’s first commercial television station, Nova TV, which became the Czech Republic’s most popular channel by broadcasting popular US imports such as Baywatch and featuring naked women reading the weather forecast.". The mischievous halftruths of this article are exposed by the subsequent Libertas press-release, which reveals Irish Libertas or Ganley had no hand, act or part in selecting Mr.Zelezny to lead their Czech counterpart, stating "Libertas Chairman Declan Ganley has this morning strongly rejected as false and untrue a report by the Irish Times suggesting that he has "recruited" Mr. Vladimir Zelezny MEP and "appointed" him to a position in the Czech Republic. Mr. Ganley said that while Mr. Zelezny had registered the name Libertas in the Czech Republic, this action was not done on the request of Libertas in either Dublin or Brussels, and indicated nothing more than the enthusiasm of support for the Libertas project being expressed by people across the continent. He also made clear that Mr. Zelezny had not, as implied in the report, been asked to stand in the European Elections by Libertas, or in fact been the recipient of any specific request from Libertas in relation to its campaign, nor had he been the subject of any announcement made by Libertas, as reported."

Not content with smearing Libertas on it's integrity, the IT continued the usual theme of attempting to tar Mr.Ganley and the Irish organisation with the "Eurosceptic" brush (though even if it were true, what would be wrong with that in a democracy?). 'Mr. Ganley went on to firmly reject attempts made by such reports, and by the Irish Times over the past number of months, to attach his name to a Euro Sceptic agenda: "It is a well established fact that Libertas is not a Euro-sceptic organisation, nor does it espouse any Euro-sceptic policies. If calling for democracy and accountability in European governance makes one a euro-sceptic or anti-European, this raises other more serious questions on the anti-democratic path that Brussels is firmly on at present. The fact that some narrow sections of the media ignore the fact that Libertas is pro-European and not euro-sceptic would suggest that they may be falling susceptible to other agendas. We are delighted with the progress being made on the project we have undertaken, which if successful will see the voters of Europe being given a chance for the first time in Europe's history to vote on a common, reforming platform which would restore democracy, accountability, and economic common sense to the heart of Europe". I am not my brother's keeper. The reality is that even in Ireland, the no vote - like the yes vote - were coalitions of groups with sometimes incompatible opinions but who shared a common stance on the Treaty. The idea that because we don't agree on everything we are not entitled to agree on some issues is an utter nonsense. Were that the case, Charlie and Dessie and Albert and Dick would not have gone into Coalition with one another. The reality of democracy in countries like the Czech and Irish Republics is of coalition-building in common cause despite fundamental political-differences on some matters. If the Irish Times hadn't been asleep for the last 20 years you would be aware of that, and consequently would not be so damning of those who disagree on some issues pertaining to Europe happening to agree that Lisbon is bad.

Opposition should tread carefully on asylum bill.

2008-12-20T02:15:00.000-08:00

Frequentors of the blogosphere and politics.ie will know of my concerns in relation to abuses of the Irish asylum and immigration system that has lead to a derisory 25% of deportation-orders actually leading to the removal of the affected-persons from this country. Sometimes I feel that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are talking out of both sides of their mouths on the issue. The same cannot be said for Labour, whose stance on the Government's Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2008 (now set to drag on into 2009 and a second year since the beginning of its legislative-passage), has leaned consistently towards seeking to have the legislation watered-down. The Bill is currently in Committee Stage and here is what has transpired from the proceedings there. Pat Rabbitte has insisted that provisions in the Bill for the granting of six-month visas to trafficked persons who cooperate with the Gardai in the prosecuting of their traffickers must also apply to persons claiming to have been trafficked who refuse to so cooperate. Indeed he goes as far as to call it 'the only humanitarian position this State can take'. Meanwhile Fine Gael Immigration and Integration Spokesman Dennis Naughten, while far less strident, seemed uncomfortable with the Bill's removal of the requirement of the Gardai to forewarn those issued with deportation-orders of their respective dates of deportation. This is despite the fact that just 43 people were deported from Ireland as of the end of June this year - a staggering five-sixth's reduction in the number of deportations from 599 in 2004. In broad terms, I favour the Government's proposed legislation and call on my readers and all concerned about abuse of our asylum system to contact their local TDs to push for its timely passage through the Houses of the Oireachtas. In these recessionary times, the old adage that charity begins at home has seldom been more apt than at present. With a budget-deficit of €8 billion this year - expected to rise to at least €11 billion next year - the cupboard is simply bare and it makes little sense to make the plain people of Ireland pay for the upkeep of those (in terms of accommodation, education, health and social-welfare) whose safety did not and does not require their presence in Ireland. The case of failed Nigerian asylum-seeker Pamela Izevbekhai has become a cause-celebre in liberal and Opposition circles, with Sligo Lord Mayor Veronica Cawley and the Fine Gael party hosting receptions in support of her wish to remain in Ireland. The European Court of Human Rights was due to rule on her case on 12th December, but has deferred its judgement. Predictable slogans about the spirit of Christmas et al have dominated the liberal media's relentless pressure on Minister Ahern but I now call on him to show leadership with an asylum-system that is fair to the Irish citizens of this country, rather than exclusively to failed asylum-seekers. She has been through the asylum-appeals system for years since her arrival here (she claims via Amsterdam though the Sunday Times reports Dept. of Justice officials believe she arrived on a UK tourist visa), and has been refused asylum. In the light of the absence of direct flights between Ireland and Nigeria, and the Dublin Convention which gives EU member states the legal right to return an asylum-seeker to a previous EU country of entry, the case for allowing her to remain in this country is weak. Don't get me wrong - I am appalled and outraged at the crime of Female Genital Mutilation - but the fact remains that her claims have been investigated and her claim for asylum refused. Even assuming her claims are accurate (and desperate people will say desperate things whether they be true or not for economic motives), she does not have a legal right to remain in Ireland, and in any case, FGM is simply not prevalent in most of the African continent, as this map shows. Had her motives been purely to obtain safe-refuge she could have found it in Africa. The judiciary have played the role of useful idiots in seeking to transfer to the Irish taxpayer the burden that is rightfully that of the former colonial powers in Africa at most, or neighbouring safe African countries at least. Ireland has not been stained with the blood of the native peoples of the former European colonial empires. We ourselves were an empire. And to those who persist in lauding the qualifications of failed asylum-seekers and their potential to contribute to Irish society, might I remind you of the humanitarian case for not exacerbating the terrible scourge of emigration from the Third World, which is greatly contributing to the keeping of Africa in particular in a perpetual state of poverty. Who are the real humanitarians here?

Which returns me to the matter of the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill itself. Despite some reservations on my part on a number of matters (including empowering the Justice Minister to introduce yet another amnesty of illegal-immigrants), I am of the view that in the final analysis, this legislation should be supported. With a staggering 60% of judicial-reviews granted in 2007 (1,100 overall) relating to the asylum and immigration-process (compared to approximately 2% of the population having been in the asylum-process at one time or another since 1994), there is an unanswerable case for streamlining the appeals-process to weed out the antics of what Integration Minister Conor Lenihan described last January as a "voracious group of barristers" in the Law Library who are clogging up the system and who are primarily responsible for the endless delays in the execution of deportation-orders. The Bill would allow for the immediate deportation without notice of failed asylum-seekers, including those in the process of judicial-review applications (unless the judge grants an injunction preventing deportations - a weakness in my view), as well as substantially increasing the powers of immigration-officers to refuse entry to the state at ports-of-entry to the State. The refusal of what is termed "permission-to-land" since former Minister McDowell has been no small part of the reasons for the massive decline in the numbers claiming asylum here since the peak of 2002 it reached when asylum-seekers were granted the right to work in this country (another factor was the removal of that questionable right, which undermined the integrity of the asylum process as a source of refuge rather than of economic-migration). Likewise the end (finally) of the absurd 'fair procedures' that dictated the State had to forewarn would-be deportees of their deportation-dates is eminently sensible to all but the most gullible of observers. The Irish people can - and no doubt will - continue to wonder why on earth the legislation has taken 2 years to get this far - and when it will pass into law. Which is where I return to the questionable role being played by the two Opposition parties in objection to some of its provisions. Fine Gael in particular would do well to remember its notorious tendency to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, while Labour would do well to recall Irish Ferries and where unregulated and unrestricted immigration policies ultimately lead. None of this is intended on my part as a scapegoating of newcomers to our court. On the contrary, I recognise the valuable contribution many legal-migrants to our country have made. But they of all people should - and I believe do - recognise that a system that rewards illegal-immigration to this country with leave to remain and the right to work on par with those who came here through lawful channels and in conformity with the rules is unfair to the latter. True equality demands that all are equally accountable to the law, and that is why this legislation must be passed presently.

Lisbon pressure threatens our democracy.

2008-12-07T13:16:00.000-08:00

With the government telling everyone but us that it intends to call a second referendum on the rejected Lisbon Treaty, the time has come to call the EU and the Irish political, media and other elites to account for the threat to democracy that is inherent in their refusal to comply with the decision of the people last June. The referendum turnout, at 53%, was higher than that of Nice 2, when the number of no voters remained largely the same numerically but the "yes" vote rose by 400,000. After the first Nice treaty referendum, the Government and the Eurocrats argued that the low turnout of just 34% justified holding a second referendum, and it was held, resulting in a turnout that had risen by 17% to 51%. However in the Lisbon referendum, the no vote soared from 534,000 to 840,000 - a huge rise of over 300,000 - compared to the second Nice treaty referendum. As such, the elite find their arguments for a second vote confined to baseless scaremongering - including in the recent report of the Oireachtas Committee on Ireland's Future in Europe - such as attempting to create imagined links between the recession and the no vote (a marked insult to the people), implying that a no vote would mean expulsion from the European Union ('effectively voting ourselves out of Europe' as Gerald Barry put it on RTE's "This Week" radio show), or other vague contentions that we are 'isolated' in Europe, invoking (as Foreign Affairs Minister Micheál Martin did today on that latter programme) the history of European integration since 1957 as if to imply that European integration has always benefitted Ireland (a view that displaced Irish workers have reason to question). However, the more we hear from these people, the more deja vu it seems. It is likely a second referendum would mean in practice a rehash of the failed arguments of the Lisbon I campaign, but with a dose of McCarthyism added in with respect to anti-Treaty thinktank Libertas and particularly its founder Declan Ganley. As usual these consist largely of European Affairs Minister Dick Roche appearing on Prime Time and the weekend current affairs shows digging for dirt about Ganley's business dealings in the States, while finding - as usual - no evidence of illegality. And even if it were otherwise (which it wasn't), what suddenly makes Fianna Fáil the paragons of virtue in terms of political and corporate-ethics? Has Minister Roche forgotten the circumstances surrounding the departure of his former leader already? Can't he remember the 11 years of Tribunal revelations from Dublin Castle that has rightly caused masses of the Irish people - including up to 40% of Fianna Fáil voters - to take Fianna Fáil's promises and claims with a grain of salt? That is why none of this stuck in the first campaign and in all likelihood, will backfire in the second campaign.

But we shouldn't even be having a second campaign without substantial changes to the text of this Treaty. It is by far the most dangerous document ever to be presented to an Irish electorate or parliament since the Act of Union, and represents the funeral march of democracy within the European Union. A Union founded on democracy would become one founded on dictatorship of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and Luxembourg (the seat of the European Court of Justice), and one in which Ireland and other small member states revert to the colonial status they spent centuries fighting and shedding blood to extract themselves from. What would De Valera think of placing a document like the Charter of Fundamental Rights supersede the Constitution he founded and passed in 1937? Or about a voting system that weighted the vote of Ireland on the Council of Ministers according to population by removing the overepresentation of small countries, as if we were a mere constituency of a superstate like in when we were part of the British Empire (except we had 20% of the MPs in the House of Commons compared to 2% in the European Parliament). As the architect of Irish neutrality, what would he think of our participation in the EU Battlegroups and the European Defence Agency, as well as the requirement in the Lisbon treaty that we "progressively increase" our military-capability? Of of the prospect, plain to see in the Referendum Bill 2008 that the Government may cede its veto on Justice and Home Affairs without recourse to a referendum? This is just my opinion but I firmly believe he would turn in his grave. The answer is still no, and will remain so until the elite comes back with a document that respects not only our no vote to the substantive issue last June, but also those of France and the Netherlands, whose democratic-voices are being trampled upon by the jackboots of Brussels and its faceless bureaucrats.

For 20 years 30-54% of voters turning out have been voting no and no publication has been representing them in the press. In that context the entry of the Sunday Times, Irish Mail/MoS and the Irish Sun has been a breath of fresh air and it isn't simply a case of being inducted into some purely British-ideology. Most Irish eurocritics are, unlike the UK Eurosceptics, pro-EU membership and even the Euro currency but oppose this Treaty. We differ from the pro-Lisbon folks in that we don't confuse being a good European with being a compliant one. Ultimately, we are the real pro-Europeans because we are standing up for Europe's traditional democratic foundations upon which the EU was built. Lisbon is an attempt by Brussels at sabotaging those foundations (unwitting or intentional) and if it succeeds will collapse the project in the longterm. The French and Dutch voted no, and their wishes are not being respected either by their own parliaments/govts or by ours. I believe that there is more to Europe than the politicians and their grand-designs. The 500 million EU citizens are the real Europe, and the cowardly way that their politicians ran away from promises of referenda when the French and Dutch voted no in 2005 demonstrates a fear of and resistance to allowing the peoples of Europe a direct say by referenda in matters concerning institutional reform in and transfer of sovereignty to the EU institutions. I am pro-EU, but I don't think this Treaty is consistent with maintaining popular support for the European project in the longterm. The EU will only survive with popular consent, and steamrolling something through against the democratically-expressed wishes of its nations (at citizen-level not just the elite) will only bring a Bastille moment closer. I don't want that to happen, and welcome a no vote as an opportunity for the EU to undergo the exercise in soulsearching and democratic-reforms that it failed to engage in following the French and Dutch no votes. Voting no is a positive, pro-EU step - not an anti-EU one.

Obama victory brings hope and fear

2008-11-15T19:56:00.000-08:00

One would have to have had a heart of stone to have not been inspired by the historic milestone America and the West has reached in America electing Senator Barack Obama its first African-American president and head of state. In chronological-terms it is not long since such a landmark event would have seemed implausible if not impossible - and all the more so Obama's victory in 3 former states of the Confederate South (Virginia, North Carolina and Florida). It was personally moving to see tears rolling down the faces of icons of the Civil Rights movement such as Rev.Jesse Jackson and African-American celebrities like the talkshow-queen Oprah Winfrey. As a formerly oppressed nation ourselves, the Irish people are well aware of what it is like to be discriminated against because of the ethnic-group or religion we are born into. We endured it for 400 years under a litany of repressive legislation that began with the Statutes of Kilkenny barring the native Irish from adoption and intermarriage, and then progressed to wholesale confiscation of land under the Plantations and later on the Penal Laws. We eventually righted those wrongs, culminating in the independence of 85% of our island, and likewise the African-American community were eventually able - with the support of Progressive and tolerant Whites and Hispanics - to right the wrongs done to them. In the process they have encouraged other beleaguered minorities such as the international gay-community to press on for their rights in terms of gay rights, including marriage, and the fight against hate-crimes and discrimination in the workplace and in terms of access to goods and services. This is especially relevant as the Irish gay community await the fulfillment of the Programme for Government with respect to same-sex civil-partnerships. It is just as essential that the Government and Opposition are as vociferous in standing up to the Irish Catholic hierarchy in pressing for this measure as it was for the overcoming of the glass-ceiling on ethnic-minorities aspiring to high office in the United States.

But there are broader implications for this country beyond what I have outlined above. As the economy teeters on the brink of a recession becoming a depression, the maintenance of American Foreign Direct Investment in this country becomes all the more critical to our eventual emergence from this dark economic-tunnel into which Fianna Fáil incompetence has forced us. The Obama manifesto sets out policies that would make it much more difficult for US corporations to shelter their overseas income from the US tax authorities while incentivising them to create more jobs at home. Faced with a budget deficit that could yet reach $1 trillion, the intent is obviously to increase government revenues while stimulating economic activity on the ground. This is in keeping with policies designed to reverse the downside in the US from globalisation, where many multinationals have outsourced operations to cheaper locations overseas at a cost of millions of jobs.With US stock markets in dire condition and many companies struggling for survival, Obama will have to measure the desirability of a higher tax take against the risk of endangering company viability or competitiveness in the global market. After all, his most urgent immediate task in the White House will to be to arrest the rapid decline of the US economy, which is in the maw of a crisis comparable with the Great Depression of the 1930s.Tax policy - a fundamental economic lever for any government - will be crucial to that effort. Obama was co-sponsor of a Senate bill last year that aimed to bring some $30 billion of business profits into the US tax net by curtailing the use of secretive offshore tax havens.Such jurisdictions offer zero or very low tax rates, a lack of transparency and the absence of any requirement to carry out real business. While Ireland was not specifically named, his manifesto includes a pledge to significantly modify the rules on the "deferral" of US taxation on business profits earned overseas. Deferral means means corporations don't pay US tax on foreign profit from active business until the money in question is returned to the US. A reform of the rule could see a greater portion of foreign profits taxed in the year they are booked, increasing a corporation's upfront tax bill and potentially acting as a disincentive to foreign direct investment unless there is a compelling reason to be in a market. In theory at least, an outright elimination of the system could seriously threaten US investment in Ireland."Unless you have a real reason to be in that market you probably might think twice about investing," said Leonard Levin, a tax attorney at New York accounting firm Weiser.

All of this underlines the fallacy of the government's growing obsession with the rejected ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. Mary Harney was right in 2000 to describe Ireland as "closer to Boston than Berlin", and the no vote was in part a reflection of that. Since the birth of the Celtic Tiger (which was conceived by the reforms of 1987 and 1989-92), our political elite in the cocoon on Kildare St has been feeding us a false narrative that seeks to attribute the boom to the European Union. This is a false narrative and now more than ever deserves to be challenged. Where was Brussels when we needed them over the Government's deposit-account guarantee scheme? The reality is that at a time when their judgement is being tested more than ever over the economy, Fianna Fáil and the Greens need a distraction, and their 'jihad' to foist Lisbon on the Irish people looks as good as any in terms of attempting to keep the recession (or as increasingly looks likely a Depression) off the frontpages. In this, they have been unsuccessful, but with Fianna Fáil on 25% in the latest TNS-MRBI Irish Times opinion-poll, a kitchen-sink strategy has obviously been decided upon. The incessant smear-campaign against Libertas founder and anti-Lisbon campaigner Declan Ganley has been the hallmark of a Government campaign against the wishes of its own people. Devoid of understanding and in some cases even of readership of the contents of the Treaty, they have resorted to playing the man and not the ball. As the recent visit to Ireland by the Czech President has shown, they are prepared to stretch legality to its very limits by restricting access for the Irish media to the dinner attended with members of the Government. The Czech media, on the other hand, were allowed in. Is this the kind of freedom the media and the Irish people can expect under the Charter of Fundamental Rights which would be enshrined into European law under the Lisbon Treaty, should it be ratified? Was it for this our forefathers died in 1916 and the War of Independence? Did they die so that a foreign-dominated European Court of Justice could overrule the Irish Supreme Court on all matters of fundamental human-rights (through the Charter) ranging from capital-punishment for rebellion against the EU, free-legal aid to illegal-immigrants appealing against their deportations (Article 47), the right to remain illegally in a member state (Article 21), the potential reopening of the Irish-born child loophole closed in the 2004 Citizenship referendum (Article 24), the prevention of criminals being tried again after acquittal even if new evidence as to their guilt comes to light (Article 50), the right to strike (Article 28)? I think not. Keep Ireland free and in control of its destiny. Welcome those - like President Klaus, who would stand with the Irish people against imperial encroachments by the Big States, and stand up to those, like Sarkozy and Merkel, who want us to 'vote again' until we give them the 'right answer' that even President Sarkozy's own people wouldn't give him in the 2005 referendum on the EU Constitution. The answer is still no.