Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Irish Free State Constitution of 1922 provided for the establishment of a second parliamentary
chamber Seanad ireann (Senate) consisting of 60 members. The Constitution provided that the
Seanad should be composed of citizens who had done honour to the nation by reason of useful
public service or who, because of special qualifications or attainments, represented important aspects
of the nations life. While the Seanad was to be directly elected by the people, as a transitional
measure one-half of the first Seanad was nominated by the President of the Executive Council and
the other half was elected by the Dil.
The General Election was held on 7 December 1922, and the Seanad of the Irish Free State met for
the first time on 11 December 1922.
The functions and powers of the first Seanad were modelled on those of the British House of Lords.
Substantial changes were made to these in subsequent years and the election process was also
amended. The first, and last, direct election took place in 1925, as provided for in the constitution.
The choice of the electorate was limited to a panel of candidates nominated by the Dil and Seanad.
Following the recommendations of the Joint Committee on the Constitution of Seanad ireann in
1928, the electoral system was changed with the electorate now consisting of the members of the
Dil and the outgoing senators. The Triennial Periods commenced on 6 December 1922, 6
December 1925, and so on. Triennial elections were held in 1922, 1925, 1928, 1931 and 1934.
Having rejected later Bills, the Seanad, as it then existed, was abolished on 29 May 1936 under the
Constitution (Amendment No. 24) Act 1936. The final sitting was held on 19 May 1936.
Article 15 states that "The National Parliament shall be called and known, and is in this Constitution
generally referred to, as the Oireachtas." and that "The Oireachtas shall consist of the President and
two Houses, viz.: a House of Representatives to be called Dil ireann and a Senate to be called
Seanad ireann ... The sole and exclusive power of making laws for the State is hereby vested in the
Oireachtas: no other legislative authority has power to make laws for the State."
Article 28 5 states that "The head of the Government, or Prime Minister, shall be called, and is in
this Constitution referred to as, the Taoiseach."
The question therefore is whether the State in attempting to ratify this Treaty is endeavoring
to act free from the restraints of the Constitution.
Walsh J (Supreme Court Judge)
Now, twenty five years later, Thomas Pringle has challenged the ratification of the European
Stability Mechanism (ESM), in the Supreme Court. Though this case has received very little
publicity here, the importance of it was underlined by the media scrum surrounding the hearing at
the EU Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg which considered three questions referred to it by
the Irish Supreme Court on foot of the challenge. This is an opportunity to hear an outline of the
basis for and the importance of the case first hand from the man himself.
There is a principle within the EU that if an issue is before the ECJ that could affect
everyone else then implementation [of the ESM] should be held off until it is
resolved, Mr Pringle told the Financial Times. If the ECJ agrees with me then the ESM
is not compatible with EU treaties and cannot come into force. Financial
Times 13.08.12
*****
On 3rd August 2012 the EU Court of Justice (CJEU) received three questions sent to it
by the Supreme Court of Ireland which go to the heart of the proposed European Stability
Mechanism (ESM). These questions arose from an Irish Court action brought by
Thomas Pringle TD, independent member of the Irish parliament. The case has been
given exceptional priority by the CJEU which has invited Mr Pringle, all Member States
and EU institutions to make observations by 14 September.
At stake is the extent of the power of the European Council: are the EU Heads of
Government in effect above the law and entitled to rule the EU as they see fit? Or are
they subject to the restraints set out in the EU Treaties?
The ESM Treaty would establish a new international financial institution outside the
EU. Mr Pringle asserts that the ESM Treaty will breach the no bail-out rule contained in
Article 125 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In place since the
1992 Maastricht Treaty, this rule expressly prohibits Member States from taking on
liability for the financial commitments of other Member States. Mr Pringle asked the Irish
court to examine the compatibility of the ESM Treaty with the EU Treaties on this basis,
among others. That question has now been placed before the CJEU,
ESM is Anti-Union
Mr Pringle is concerned that the ESM Treaty will divide the Member States of the EU
whose currency is the euro, from the others. The ESM Treaty will drive a wedge
between the 17 and the 10. The establishment of the ESM will be an anti-Union
step. The European Union was intended to promote an ever closer union of its
peoples. By contrast, the ESMs priority will be the preservation of a currency.
Mr Pringle states that for these reasons the ESM Treaty is incompatible with the EU
Treaties. The crisis facing the eurozone does not justify discarding the agreed rule book
and departing from the Rule of Law which is a fundamental principle of the Union.
The Questions
The Irish Supreme Court took the view that Mr Pringle had raised questions which it
could not answer on its own. Therefore it used an EU Treaty procedure under which
difficult questions of EU Treaty interpretation may be referred to the ECJ for
guidance. Three questions were filed with the Court in Luxembourg on August 3rd. In
brief:
The Irish Supreme Court accepted a solemn assurance from the Irish Government that if
the CJEU finds the ESM Treaty to be incompatible with the EU Treaties, then the ESM
will cease operations and will be wound up. The Government asserted that this was so
because all EU Member States would be obliged to respect the ruling of the CJEU
Relying on the Governments assurance, the Supreme Court decided that it would not
forbid Irish ratification of the ESM Treaty. Ireland has now ratified the ESM Treaty. In
all, 14 of the 17 Eurozone states have ratified the Treaty. Germany, Italy and Estonia
have not yet done so. The Treaty has not yet come into effect. Under the terms of the
Treaty, ratification by both Germany and Italy is essential for it to come into force.
A more wide ranging series of challenges to the ESM Treaty and the Fiscal Treaty is
before the German Federal Constitutional Court awaiting decision. The Court has
indicated that it will give its preliminary decision on September 12th. Recently the Court
was also asked to refer the legitimacy of the ESM under EU law to the CJEU.
On 19 June 2012, the German Court delivered a lengthy judgement analysing the nature
of the relationship between the ESM Treaty and the EU Treaties, and tracing the
evolution of the ESM Treaty. The Court upheld the complaints made by members of the
German Parliament that the Government of Germany had breached its constitutional duty
to involve and inform the German Parliament properly in the matter.
Media Interest
The [Governments] contention is that the European Council may in certain
circumstances unilaterally amend the EU treaties even in profound ways. The issues
raised are of enormous significance to the EU and to Ireland Sunday Business
Post, July 8.
The seriousness of the referral to the European Court of Justice cannot be overstated.
this changes fundamentally the architecture of the EU. Irish Independent, July 30.
There is a law against monetary financing of sovereign debt. [] A legal dispute,
especially in Germany, could endanger the credibility of the operation. Financial
Times, August 26.
Now that the case has moved to the European Court, it has been the subject of ongoing
comment in international media including Reuters, Bloomberg, Handelsbatt, Financial
Times, Wall Street Journal, Corriere della Sera, Die Welt, and Die Zeit. There has also
been intense online media interest in the case including among financial bloggers in the
US, in Europe and in Asia.
http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/e44922
f2b6dbed2f80257a4c00570284?OpenDocument
Heres Enda Kennys Other Plan, it was in Reuters News Article a little over2 weeks ago,
The Irish Convention Constitutional Law! Flawed
by Rita Cahull on Sunday, 9 September 2012 at 21:16
Irish Convention Constitutional Law!
Crotty v. An Taoiseach (2012)
Single European Act. Courts cannot interfere in foreign policy due to Arts 1 and 5.
But can interfere unconstitutional in breach of law ESM , Germany Said NO To ESM to protect our
Banks in Ireland
Lying to the people of Ireland, promises broken, this government renegade on every words in their
promises, worms their way into government, and now they want to fit us with Judicial abbeylara
Kangaroo Courts with The Judges of Corruption in it no I dont think so!
3 things that were Criminal BY FF and FG and LB.
1. We voted on the Lisbon treaty and we said no, but we were forced into a second round,
2. ESM article 126 which is unconstitutional, German Courts Said No To ESM.
3. We had another referendum this year in May 31st 2012, all through we were tnreatened By FG and
LB that if we didnt say yes, we would suffer much more Severe budgets, but still even though they put a
gun to our heads alot of People out of Fear said yes but then they still put an impact Budget this Year
which will really effect every one, so they broke another promise just to make you say yes, but i said no,
4. Recently we found out that in November 2010, Minister Brian Lenihan received a letter and phone call
from Jean Claude Trchet Threatened Irelands Economy and our banks if we do not accept to provide
EU bailout ECB, and warned Brian lenihan and used abusive Formal Words By Letter, that Germany
and France neede their help and other EU Countries, so the Irish were Forced through Backmail and
Threats to Bailout Other Banks By Borrowing 85 billion Euros which Britain were Delighted to Help out
With, as they were involved asplanned 2 along with EU, IMF, Troika who are Now Holding The
budgetary Tight Rope on us.
5. This Was A Breach Under Article 123 of Ireland Constitutional this Government can sue and take
them to Court which they have refuse to Do.
Trichet Tells CNN: Dont Publish the ECBs Secret Letter
9/05/2012 @ 5:59AM |333 views
Readers may recall that Ive been writing in recent weeks about the secret letter the ECB sent to Ireland
that apparently hastened that country into an EU-IMF bailout. A sign that some progress has been made
in getting the letter released was the agreement of Irish finance minister, Michael Noonan, that the letter
should be published, though apparently not until some point in the future.
Jean-Claude Trichet
Now, the author of the secret letter, former ECB president, Jean-Claude Trichet, has been asked
directly by CNN about this issue. Trichet responded that the letters should not be released on the
grounds that These were messages that were confidential at the time.
This strikes me as inadequate grounds to prevent publication of the letter. It may have been the case
that the letter contained sensitive material about the state of the Irish banks in November 2010 but these
historical problems are now well known.
While there is a need for public officials to be able to communicate with each other during crises in ways
that dont destabilize financial markets, this does not give them carte blanche to say and do as they wish
without their actions ever being explained to the public. At this point, there is a strong public interest in
the letters being released.
Hopefully, other journalists will continue to ask questions about this issue (perhaps it could be raised
with Mario Draghi at his press conference on Thursday?) If so, I would encourage them to also ask
about the mysterious discrepancy that I discussed here between the November 12 date on which former
Irish finance minister Lenihan recalls receiving a crucial letter from the ECB and the November 19 date
associated with the letter that the ECB refuses to release.
The ECBs Secret Letter to Ireland: Some Questions
By announcing it is only willing to purchase Spanish and Italian government bonds if these governments
apply for funding from the EFSF bailout fund, the ECB is now exerting pressure on these countries to
sign full bailout agreements. Officially, Mario Draghis position on how the ECB engages with
governments (as explained at his June press conference) is
I do not view it as the ECBs task to push governments into doing something. It is really their own
decision as to whether they want to access the EFSF or not.
In reality, the record of the ECBs role in Irelands bailout application (admittedly at the time under the
leadership of Draghis predecessor) suggests it is an organization that is not at all averse to pushing
governments into bailout funds. As the facts below illustrate, this record also doesnt provide
encouragement that the ECB will act in an open and transparent manner when doing so.
Germany wants EU convention to forge new treaty: paper
BERLIN (Reuters) German Chancellor Angela Merkel wants an EU convention to draw up a new
treaty for closer European political unification to help overcome the blocs sovereign debt crisis, weekly
Der Spiegel said on Sunday.
Germany, the European Unions biggest economy, has long argued for more national competences,
including over budgets, to be transferred to European institutions but faces strong resistance from other
member states.
Merkel hopes a summit of EU leaders in December can agree a concrete date for the start of the
convention on a new treaty, Spiegel said.
The idea, which Spiegel said Merkels European affairs adviser floated at meetings in Brussels, recalls
the 100-plus strong convention of EU lawmakers set up in 2001 inspired by the Philadelphia
Convention that led to the adoption of the U.S. federal constitution charged with the task of preparing
a European constitution.
The charter that finally emerged was rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005 and it became
instead the basis of the EUs Lisbon Treaty which is still in force today.
Many member states, recalling the lengthy disputes and setbacks that preceded the Lisbon treatys
entry into force, are reluctant to embark on another prolonged process of institutional reform.
Some countries such as Ireland would have to hold a referendum on any new treaty and the process
would increase pressure in Britain where opposition to closer EU political union runs high for a
complete withdrawal from the EU.
However, Germany believes a much closer fiscal and political union with EU oversight of national
budgets is needed to ensure that member states get their public finances fully in order and to restore
stability to the euro currency.
(Reporting by Gareth Jones; editing by Patrick Graham)
Germany wants EU convention to forge new treaty: paper
Reuters Sun, Aug 26, 2012
BERLIN (Reuters) German Chancellor Angela Merkel wants an EU convention to draw up a new
treaty for closer European political unification to help overcome the blocs sovereign debt crisis, weekly
Der Spiegel said on Sunday.
Germany, the European Unions biggest economy, has long argued for more national competences,
including over budgets, to be transferred to European institutions but faces strong resistance from other
member states.
Merkel hopes a summit of EU leaders in December can agree a concrete date for the start of the
convention on a new treaty, Spiegel said.
The idea, which Spiegel said Merkels European affairs adviser floated at meetings in Brussels, recalls
the 100-plus strong convention of EU lawmakers set up in 2001 inspired by the Philadelphia
Convention that led to the adoption of the U.S. federal constitution charged with the task of preparing
a European constitution.
The charter that finally emerged was rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005 and it became
instead the basis of the EUs Lisbon Treaty which is still in force today.
Many member states, recalling the lengthy disputes and setbacks that preceded the Lisbon treatys
entry into force, are reluctant to embark on another prolonged process of institutional reform.
Some countries such as Ireland would have to hold a referendum on any new treaty and the process
would increase pressure in Britain where opposition to closer EU political union runs high for a
complete withdrawal from the EU.
However, Germany believes a much closer fiscal and political union with EU oversight of national
budgets is needed to ensure that member states get their public finances fully in order and to restore
stability to the euro currency.
(Reporting by Gareth Jones; editing by Patrick Graham)
EU Morning Report ECB and BoE to shake the markets
By Easy-Forex
September 6, 2012 2:52 AM EDT
The euro (EUR) strengthened against most of its major counterparts, ahead of a day that may prove to
be one of the most pivotal in the eurozones history. The European Central Bank (ECB) will announce
its lending rate and as that is expected to remain unchanged, worldwide attention will turn to the press
conference that will follow at 12:30 GMT. ECB President Draghi is expected to reveal details on how the
central bank will act, within its mandate, and proceed into bond buying. We believe it is these details or
the lack thereof, which will move the euro (EUR) violently either way. The US dollar (USD) will also
experience heightened volatility, as the ADP employment report due at 12:15 GMT is considered a good
indicator of the Non-Farm payrolls release due tomorrow.
Gold (XAU) has pierced through the 1700 area against the US dollar (USD), early in the European
session and higher highs should be expected.
Buckley v AG (1950) IR 67
HC was seized of an action re Sinn Fein funds. Oireachtas then passed the Sinn Fein Funds Act 1947,
s10, which required the court on app. by the AG to dismiss the action. State would gain control of the
funds. Breach of Sep of powers. Also right to property case.
Art 34.1
Justice shall be administered in courts established by law by judges appointed in the manner provided
by this Constitution, and, save in such special and limited cases as may be prescribed by law, shall be
administered in public.
The State (Divito) v. Arklow UDC (1986) ILRM 123
Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956 said slot machines had to be in an appropriate area. Council reduced
area before applicant applied to the DC for licence. Different to Buckley as there was no case before the
courts.
The State (ORourke) v. Kelly (1983) IR 38
s62 of the Housing Act 1966 stated that a DC judge had to issue a warrant for possession of a local
authority housing dwelling once certain facts had been established. Not a breach of sep of powers.
The State (McEldowney) v. Kelleher (1983) 1 IR 289
s13(4) of the Street and House to House Collection Act 1962 allowed a Garda to judge whether the
moneys were being used for unlawful purposes. Breach of sep of powers.
OReilly & Judge v DPP & AG (1984) ILRM 224
s48 OASA 1939 stated that a person would be automatically moved from the CCC to the SCC. P tried to
argue that this infringed the HCs full original jurisdiction. HCs jurisdiction was already challenged by Art
38.3.
Fitzgerald v DPP (2003) 3 IR 247
s4 Summary Jurisdiction Act 1857. Judges could refuse to state a case to the HC, unless the DPP said
so. This was not fettering their discretion.
Maher v AG (1973) IR 140
s44(2)a of the Road Traffic Acts 1968 said that a certificate a persons blood contained a specific
concentration of alcohol was conclusive evidence. This meant the judge had no option to convict.
Contrary to S.O.P. Court would also not sever this section since the legislature had thought to put it in.
Sloan v. SCC (1993) 3 IR 528
s19 OASA 1939 was challenged as it said that a suppression order was conclusive proof an
organisation was unlawful. Costello J said this was not a breach of the SOP as the justifiable
controversy before the court was whether the accused was a member of that organisation.
McDonald v. Bord na gCon (1965) IR 217
Kenny J formulated five criteria to decide whether a power is judicial in nature. a) dispute as to the
existence of legal rights or violation of the law b) determination of rights of a parties or imposition of
liabilities or the infliction of a penalty c) final determination (subject to appeal) of b d) enforcement of b or
the imposition of a penalty by the Court or by the Executive who has been called in by the court to
enforce it e) the making of an order by the court.
Also where legislation had two meanings, and only one of them is constitutional, the court will presume
the provision was supposed to be constitutional.
Keady v. Commissioner Garda Siochana (1992) ILRM 312
Garda disciplinary inquiry resulting in dismissal was not the administration of justice even though there
was infliction of a severe penalty as there had been no contest between the two parties. Members of the
Gardai are a disciplined force under the direction of the Commissioner, who had the ultimate sanction
of dismissal.
Goodman International v. Hamilton (No. 1) (1992) 2 IR 542
Beef Tribunal was not involved in the administration of justice. It did not fulfill the fifth criteria of the
McDonald test. It was not involved in a finding of fact.
this is to Cover up the bailout Threat Letters to Minister Lennihan who forgot to Mention this along with
Brian Cowen, the real truth about the Threat Bailout, in November 21st 2010, the secret letters are Kept
From Us, here is what he said in Irish Times.
HEAVY TALK: Finance Minister Michael Noonan, right, discusses the eurozone crisis with his German
counterpart Wolfgang Schauble, front in picture, as Mario Draghi, head of the ECB, looks on
Sunday August 26 2012
Irelands prospects of regaining national solvency will be undermined unless a serious deal can be
negotiated regarding bank-related debts, a substantial portion of which was unreasonably imposed by
the European Central Bank (not by the troika) in the autumn of 2010. Of course the budget deficit also
needs to be eliminated as quickly as possible.
There should be no premature celebration after a further sale of government bonds by the National
Treasury Management Agency (NTMA) during the week. Selling bonds at unsustainable interest rates
does not bring debt sustainability closer. The NTMA borrowed at just under six per cent. The funds are
now on deposit at undisclosed, but much lower, interest rates. The immediate effect of borrowing at high
rates, adding to cash balances, is to make the deficit worse, not better.
The justification offered by the NTMA is that Ireland faces heavy requirements to repay maturing debt
early in 2014, after the EU/IMF programme ends, and borrowing now, even at high rates, provides some
comfort in that regard. But the longer-term sustainability of the debt is quite unaffected by debt
management manouevres. The inflation rate is likely to be about two per cent in the years ahead and
the rate of economic growth has recently been about zero. Tax revenues are sluggish with low inflation
and low growth, and cannot keep pace with mounting interest bills. Debt sustainability remains
precarious without much lower interest rates or rapid economic growth.
It is widely expected that Greek debt will reach 170 per cent of national income within a few years, and
that this figure will prove unsustainable. Markets expect that there will be a second Greek default. When
Irelands prospective peak debt burden is expressed relative to national income, it comes out at around
150 per cent, not far behind the figure seen as unsustainable for Greece.
The 120 per cent peak figure normally quoted relates to output (GDP), not national income. This matters
because in Ireland national income, which corresponds to the base for taxation, is smaller than output,
measured by GDP, since a substantial slice of Irelands GDP is not part of national income at all. It
corresponds to expatriated profits booked here by multinational corporations and not liable to significant
tax impositions.
It would not be correct to say that debts at 150 per cent of national income are necessarily
unsustainable: there have been (rare) historical examples of countries which managed to service debt at
these levels. But those who are confident of sustainability are making a big bet on an early return to
rapid growth, a sharp fall in interest rates, or both. The rates of interest paid by the NTMA in its recent
borrowings are far higher than those charged, in the same currency, to Germany and other states
deemed to be low-risk. The implication of the rates the NTMA chose to pay is that the lenders perceive
a high risk of sovereign default by Ireland.
One of the reasons the NTMA was able to borrow at all is that the EU summit communique of June 29
last raised the prospect of some relief for Ireland from debts arising from the bank rescue. Every official
action or statement which plays up the prospects for Irish debt sustainability weakens the incentive for
EU partners to make serious concessions. Fridays Irish Times carried an interview with German
Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble, which illustrated the dangers of upbeat spin-doctoring coming out
of Ireland. He downplayed the prospects for a debt-reduction deal in the following terms: We cannot do
anything that generates new uncertainty on the financial markets and lose trust, which Ireland is just on
the point of winning back. We will have to avoid generating a headline like Aid programme for Ireland
topped up because then investors in California or Shanghai might not understand that this top-up is a
reward for Ireland.
Taken at face value, Schaubles statement is simply absurd. Financial markets dealing with a distressed
debtor will become less concerned if their debtor is relieved of some obligations, not more concerned.
Schauble knows this perfectly well and so do the folks in California and Shanghai. But his phrase about
Ireland winning back trust, and by implication not needing additional support, is part of
the price to be paid for trying to have it both ways. The Government cannot maintain that Ireland is
unable to carry its debt burden without a better deal while simultaneously declaring success on re-
entering the bond market. This is an open invitation to our European colleagues to dismiss requests for
debt relief on the grounds that Ireland is doing fine without it.
The rescue deal for Ireland arranged with the EU and IMF in the autumn of 2010 did not include any
condition relating to the repayment at 100 per cent of unsecured and unguaranteed bondholders in bust
banks.
This additional debt was imposed on the Irish Exchequer by the European Central Bank, outside the
terms of the financial programme and against the advice of the IMF, in circumstances which remain
concealed. The legitimacy of this arbitrary action should be at the centre of the negotiations under way
about debt relief for Ireland.
There will be debt relief anyway in whatever eurozone countries are unable to regain market access at
affordable interest rates. They will default. In addition to a second default for Greece, market bond
prices reflect high risks for Portugal, Spain and Italy, as well as Ireland. Until these countries can access
sovereign credit in large quantities at interest rates of four per cent or so, the European sovereign debt
crisis will lumber on. There remain serious doubts in the market about the commitment of European
leaders to do what it takes.
Uniquely in the Irish case, there are grounds for believing that a portion of the sovereign debt arose
through actions beyond its mandate by the ECB. The ECB does not enjoy explicit powers to dictate the
terms on which bust banks are to be resolved. It appears, however, to have assumed such powers,
under the presidency of Jean-Claude Trichet, before and during the negotiation which led to the
November 2010 rescue.
The ECB has refused, as has the Irish Department of Finance, to release the text of a letter from Trichet
to Irelands Finance Minister, the late Brian Lenihan, dating from that period. As recounted by UCD
economist Karl Whelan in his recent report on the matter for the European Parliaments Economic and
Monetary Affairs Committee, an Irish journalist, Gavin Sheridan, requested the ECB to provide a copy of
the letter.
The ECB declined to do so, as did the Department of Finance when requested by the Sunday
Independent. The ECBs justifications for not releasing the letter includes the following: The letter . . . is
a strictly confidential communication between the ECB president and the Irish Minister of Finance and
concerns measures addressing the extraordinarily severe and difficult situation of the Irish financial
sector and their repercussions on the integrity of the euro area monetary policy and the stability of the
Irish financial sector.
The ECB must be in a position to convey pertinent and candid messages to European and national
authorities in the manner judged to be the most effective to serve the public interest as regards the
fulfilment of its mandate.
If required and in the best interest of the public also effective informal and confidential communication
must be possible and should not be undermined by the prospect of publicity.
The reluctance to release this letter doubtless reflects the sensitivity of the contents. It may not deal with
the pay-off to unsecured bondholders at all the ECB was putting pressure on the Irish government to
accept a bailout at the time and encountered some resistance. But the pay-out to bondholders occurred,
and it is clear that this was at the insistence of the ECB.
Should the Irish Government seek judicial review of the legality of the ECBs behaviour at the European
Court of Justice, as is provided for in the ECB statute, all of the relevant records should come into public
view, including not just the undisclosed letter, but also emails and phone records from the period,
covering any contacts between the ECB and European banks and creditor lobby groups. It would also
be important to know whether any influence was brought to bear on the ECB by the finance ministries of
Germany and France.
Wolfgang Schauble is not keen on a reward for Ireland. Perhaps restitution would sound more
acceptable.
McKenna v. An Taoiseach (No. 2) ... as stated by Walsh J. in Crotty ... On 8th November, 2012 the
Court ruled in this case that the above named
http://www.rte.ie/documents/news/mccrystal-v-theminister.pdf
https://www.cvce.eu/content/publication/2013/5/6/187e7d4f-aa3e-43da-
a1e2-bb3fc41d2fbd/publishable_en.pdf
An Taoiseach [1974] IR. 338 and Crotty v. An Taoiseach [1987] IR. 713 applied. Per
Hamilton C.J.: That in expending monies in the manner impugned, the Gov-
http://www.courts.ie/supremecourt/sclibrary3.nsf/(WebFiles)/45DEABD83F4
D6DED8025765D004FF219/$FILE/McKenna%20v%20An%20Taoiseach%20(N
o%202)_1995.pdf
High Court hears TD's action against ESM by Independent TD Thomas Pringle to
prevent the Government ratifying the ESM continued today before Justice Mary ...
breaches the Irish Constitution, Thomas Pringle v Government ... he President of the
Republic may be prosecuted for high treason before
Fianna Fil I welcome the Bill before the House today ... being held against the Governments ... to
prevent the European Court of Justice .
Atairgeadh an cheist: Go lifear an Bille an Dara hUair anois.
Question again proposed: That the Bill be now read a Second Time.
Deputy Sen Fearghal: Information on Sen Fearghal Zoom on Sen Fearghal Is maith an
rud go bhfuil an Tnaiste agus an tAire Stit anseo mar go bhfuil s for-thbhachtach, i
gcomhthacs an fheachtais at os r gcomhair amach, go mbeadh comhoibri, de chinel nach raibh
ann ariamh, idir an Lucht Oibre, Fine Gael agus Fianna Fil i gcomhthacs an reifrinn fhor-
thbhachtach seo. Ba mhaith liom a ghealladh go mbeidh Fianna Fil ag gnomh go fuinniil sa
bhfeachtas at os r gcomhair amach agus timid ag tnth le comhoibri iomln leis an Lucht Oibre
agus le Fine Gael sa bhfeachtas.
On behalf of Fianna Fil I welcome the Bill before the House today. As well as supporting its
passage through the House, we will be campaigning for a Yes vote in the forthcoming referendum.
We do so as the party which brought Ireland into membership of what is now the European Union,
supported the reform and development of the Union through the years and remains absolutely
committed to the idea of nations working together to overcome common problems. As we said
repeatedly before the Government eventually agreed to hold a referendum, if this treaty is a
significant one if it represents a significant step towards resolving the European debt crisis
then it is right that the people be consulted. Ours was the first party to call for a referendum and the
only pro-EU party to do so before the Attorney General told her colleagues there was no alternative.
While we are strongly supportive of this Bill, we are not uncritical of the treatys limitations and the
poor way in which it is being handled.
People are rightly suspicious of arguments for treaties which are based solely on past achievements
rather than future prospects. However, understanding the need for this treaty requires an appreciation
of why helping the European Union to address key failings is in our national interest. Equally, it is
necessary to counteract the arguments of those who try to dismiss and demonise the Union, failing
ever to acknowledge its profoundly positive record in this country. Even at this moment of deep
crisis, the Unions record remains one of having enabled relative prosperity and peace that would
have been impossible otherwise. No other economic, social or political model could have come close
to enabling Europe to conquer the types of poverty and violence which previously defined its
history. Only five years before the European Coal and Steel Community was established, thus
launching the European project, the Continent experienced a deep and severe subsistence crisis, with
widespread grinding poverty and simmering conflict. Ours is a pro-EU party because we recognise
this record of profound progress and because the Union provides the only credible context in which
a small, peripheral country such as Ireland can succeed.
Many people are suffering today because of the impact of the recession. Unemployment is far too
high and living standards are under pressure. However, we must remember the simple fact that both
living standards and employment rates remain significantly higher than they [478]would be if
Ireland were outside the Union or the euro. Membership gives security to those seeking to invest and
opportunity to those who want to export. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are in this country because
of our membership of and record in the European Union. Let us not forget that the Union remains an
immense force for good in areas such as equality, education and working conditions. People can
summon up all of their ideological fury to condemn the Union as some elite conspiracy to do down
ordinary people, but the reality is that it has done more for the people of Ireland and Europe than any
left or right-wing ideology. We have not seen our people conscripted into a European army. We
have not become a nuclear state. We have remained in control of key national policies. The rights of
ordinary people have been dramatically strengthened. Not one credible piece of evidence has been
produced to suggest that Ireland could have achieved current living standards and employment levels
outside the EU. The Unions relentless opponents have spent 40 years failing to acknowledge the
clear and unambiguous progress it has enabled. Until they are willing to present a more balanced
picture they will continue to be more interested in promoting only their own interests. All of the
evidence is that it is in Irelands vital national interest that the Union be strong and successful. This
is the core sentiment we must bear in mind in this debate.
The treaty cannot be separated from the context in which it was proposed, namely, the deepest
recession experienced in Europe since the Second World War. The mounting crisis in 2008 to 2010
saw the Union completely failing to engage. It continued to seek to work within pre-crisis policies
and the idea developed that the troubles being faced by individual countries were fully their own
responsibility. This is the approach which led to unreasonable requirements on Ireland concerning
bank debts. It also was the approach which caused the Irish and Portuguese bailouts to be required.
The insistence that existing rules would remain unchanged undermined confidence and led to the
situation nearly spiralling out of control last year. It is increasingly clear that the Irish bailout would
not have been required had the policies in place today been there in 2009 and 2010. The ECBs
support of the financial system would have directly countered the panic which forced the taking on
of unreasonable levels and types of bank debt. A more secure financial system and the existence of
bailout funding would have directly reduced pressures and the dramatic increases in borrowing
costs. The narrative that all problems have had as their cause the failures of individual countries was
deeply wrong and it is long past time for it to be corrected.
Last years series of emergency summits and last-minute deals escalated the sense of crisis and
directly damaged economic confidence. The mid-year deal for Greece, which was extended
automatically to all current and potential countries accessing bailout funding, was only ever a stop-
gap solution. While the Government was busy praising itself for getting a deal which it did not
negotiate and was four times what it had asked for, others began to discuss longer-term measures.
The Tnaiste will recall that in August, it became clear there would be flexibility on providing
additional funding for support programmes but only if the legal basis for fiscal control was
strengthened significantly. The process by which this treaty was developed was easily the worst for
any treaty between European states in the last 50 years. It was rushed, there was a lack of proper
debate and no effort was made to achieve unanimity, even though the final text is overwhelmingly
based on already agreed policies. Through this process, the only stated negotiating objective of the
Irish Government was for something good to come out and that treaty changes should be avoided if
at all possible. As a result of this flawed process, the treaty Members are debating today is important
but not nearly comprehensive or ambitious enough. It is part of the answer to Europes crisis but
nowhere near the full answer, as the Tnaiste indicated in his contribution.
[479]This is the first time any Government has brought a proposal for a European treaty to the Dil
without first publishing a White Paper. Past White Papers have served as a definitive statement of
each treatys implications in an Irish context. While they may have been read by relatively few
people even some politicians may not have read them they have provided an essential
foundation for debate. As far as Fianna Fil has been able to ascertain, during the five months since
leaders agreed the main provisions of this treaty, the Government has neither sought nor published a
single piece of analysis of its understanding of the detailed provisions of the treaty. The ridiculous
situation obtains in which the Government states it has been advised that a constitutional amendment
is required to ratify the treaty but has not explained the reasoning for this requirement. No detail has
been provided to the Dil or to the public as to what is perceived as so significant in this treaty that a
vote is being held against the Governments clearly and repeatedly expressed earlier views. The
Bills explanatory memorandum is a one-page effort, which simply states a referendum is required
for ratification but nothing else. This is a very bad start to a serious debate about a measure that is an
important part of the wider agenda of restoring growth and job creation to Ireland and Europe. In
effect the Government has ignored its duty under Standing Orders and precedent to provide
Members of the Oireachtas with briefing sufficient to ensure a fully informed debate.
I acknowledge the ongoing and valuable hearings of the Sub-Committee of the Joint Committee on
European Affairs on the Referendum on the Intergovernmental Treaty to which Members have
alluded. However, given that Members are holding this debate before it has finished taking evidence
or even begun drafting a report, the Government clearly is not overly concerned with paying more
than lip service to its work. Thankfully, the gap left by the Government has been filled by
independent experts, who have been active in providing detailed analyses of the economic and legal
implications of the treaty. Their work, most of which has been published, provides a solid
independent basis for considering the treaty and reaching an opinion on it. As I stated previously,
Fianna Fils position from last year has been that any European treaty should be brought to a
referendum, irrespective of whether a legal loophole to avoid a vote could be found. The effort to
avoid one would have been legally risky and would cause lasting damage to pro-Europe sentiment. It
would have made it close to impossible to go back to the people with the more significant changes
which are desperately needed and which will come in time.
After the final text emerged, Fianna Fil sought independent legal advice as to the exact significance
of what had been agreed. Although it is a lengthy piece of advice, it can be summarised. While the
treaty involves little that is new in policy terms, it does have significant implication in terms of the
legal standing of fiscal rules. The treaty significantly strengthens rules which for the most part
already are part of European law and ratified by this and other countries. This is, of course, its
primary purpose in terms of the restoration of confidence in fiscal management within the eurozone.
In terms of the form of ratification, the relationship between national and international law is not the
same in every country. The only way in which the Oireachtas could safely ratify certain of the
commitments in this treaty is through a constitutional amendment. This is particularly true of the
requirement that the fiscal rules not be open to easy amendment within national parliaments. The
fact that this is an intergovernmental treaty between EU member states rather than a full EU treaty is
legally extremely significant. It clearly deprives certain elements of the treaty of the protection from
challenge afforded by previous amendments. At an EU level, there remains a question as to whether
the institutions can play all of the roles ascribed to them in the treaty but this is not a matter
Members can discuss at this point. While the comments last December by British Prime Minister
Cameron to the effect that the other member states could meet but could not use those institutions
may not have been helpful, there is little doubt that someone will take a case on this issue. It has
[480]been reported that a Member of this House is to take a legal challenge to the European Stability
Mechanism, ESM, treaty. Fianna Fil does not believe this will succeed and the people of this
country should earnestly hope it does not. It manifestly does not come within the terms of the Crotty
judgment, as it imposes no limitations on the free exercise of the powers ascribed to different
institutions by the Constitution. Instead, it provides a mechanism in which others are willing to give
countries much needed funding. The willingness of governments to stretch the competencies of the
Union to include providing loans to member states has been an extremely welcome development.
The ESM treaty is one that Ireland should wish to ratify and see operational as soon as possible,
hopefully with a much larger amount of money available to it.
Over the last 12 months, Fianna Fil has repeatedly raised European issues in this House. Its concern
has been to push for actions which are ambitious enough to tackle the crisis. Fianna Fils leader has
set out a detailed position on the specific measures which the party believes should be promoted. Its
basic position is it will support any measures which can genuinely contribute to achieving two
overriding objectives, namely, saving the euro while returning the eurozone to the path of growth
and stability and protecting the democratic legitimacy of the European Union. Fianna Fil believes
the future relationship between Ireland and the European Union must be fundamentally based on
supporting measures to achieve these objectives and the party has assessed its position on the fiscal
treaty in the context of these objectives. As for the euro, it is important to state it is under pressure
but is worth saving. The positive case for Ireland is that it has directly enabled incredible growth in
employment in many areas. It has aided increased exports of between 30% and 60% to different
global regions. Moreover, these jobs have actually been the most secure in the recession and form
part of the strongest parts of our economy. The negative case is the adjustment which would be
required were Ireland to leave the euro would be much more dramatic and severe than even the
tough adjustments under way at present. Ireland would face higher borrowing costs, a much worse
business climate and a direct danger to employment in major parts of the economy.
In respect of democratic legitimacy, while the holding of a referendum is vital, so too is the fact that
nothing is being proposed that undermines the accountability of the Union and its member states to
their citizens. In fact, the co-operation and transparency provisions of the treaty enhance
accountability. Fundamentally the eurozone actually is economically strong. The problem is it has
failed to address three core design flaws in monetary union. First, the mandate and powers of the
European Central Bank, ECB, are too narrow. Second, it needs a unified system of bank regulation
and a single resolution regime. Third, it needs a more substantial fiscal union, particularly strong
fiscal rules and increased funding for investment and I note this treaty delivers an important part of
this third point.
Sharing a single currency directly limits each participants ability to act by itself. Co-ordination and
agreed controls are an absolutely essential part of not only a currency union but also of long-term
shared growth. The fiscal rules authorised in the Maastricht treaty and finalised by the Council
during Irelands 1996 Presidency, lack all credibility. These were repeatedly flouted when it was not
necessary to do so and a convincing case developed that a much stronger legal basis was required in
order to regain confidence that they will be implemented. The six pack measures, which were agreed
in 2010 and which are now in operation, give much greater depth and substance to the fiscal rules.
They have introduced a new level of transparency and oversight, which makes the type of
manipulation of debt and deficit figures practised by some countries in the past almost impossible.
They have also helped restore some confidence among investors. The most pressing need is to
ensure these measures cannot [481]be undermined for short-term reasons. This is the core of the
treaty. It is a reasonable and proportionate demand, particularly in light of the experience of the past
decade and a half.
In respect of how the fiscal rules are presented, the Government needs to watch its tendency to over-
spin and over-politicise everything. It is simply wrong to claim that Ireland would have avoided a
profound recession if these rules had been in place. The details of the Government parties economic
analyses and projections in 2002 and 2007 show that they believed Ireland had a strong structural
surplus and a secure growth rate of 5% per annum.
The main attack on the treaty is that it somehow entrenches permanent austerity here and throughout
Europe. No matter how much the slogan austerity treaty is trotted out, it will still not be true. For
this attack to be credible, we would have to see an alternative whereby there would be more money
available to be spent on public services and to avoid tax increases. No such scenario has been
provided. In fact, the accumulating evidence is that this treaty represents the road of the least
austerity. That is a point which must be emphasised. The treaty will reduce the interest rate we are
obliged to pay to borrow money in order to fund the deficit and refinance debt. If it does so to a
comparatively modest rate of 1% over the medium term, this will represent a net saving to the State
of over 1 billion per year.
The challenge to the opponents of the treaty is that they should put aside their sloganeering and show
the people some basic respect by setting out the detail of their alternative. In other words, they
should show us the beef. From where do they propose we should borrow money and how can the
reduced interest rates which will emanate from the treaty be matched elsewhere?
It is also being argued that the treaty ends the ability of the State to invest in growth. This is also not
true. There are many routes to funding growth available. The only thing that is ruled out is the use of
a structural deficit to do so other than in times of deep recession. The latter is no more than common
sense. Is there anyone who can credibly claim that Ireland needs the power to run unsustainable
levels of borrowing during good times? That is effectively all that is being prohibited in the treaty.
The treaty will have one specific and immediate benefit in that ratification will qualify Ireland for
future access to the European Stability Mechanism, ESM. In the absence of a central bank which
acts as the lender of last resort, the ESM is now the essential enabler of market access at affordable
interest rates. The ESM is the most important development of the past year and a half and its absence
in the early stages of the crisis caused real difficulties. Opponents have been stating that this is
effectively a blackmail clause. In reality, what it involves is a demand that countries respect common
rules if they want access to common funds. It would be at best arrogant for any country to turn to the
rest of Europe and say We want your money but we will set our own rules. We believe the official
German position on treaty changes is too rigid and is causing significant damage. However, the
demand that the fiscal treaty be ratified before accessing ESM funding is perfectly reasonable and
proportionate.
The treaty includes a number of provisions relating to the co-ordination of policy and greater
oversight. Few of these are novel and all are reasonable. They in no way challenge the basic
construction of powers between states and the Union. There is a serious issue with regard to the
manner in which the special council for eurozone leaders has been developing. Its dynamic is poor
and its agenda is far too selective. The failure of countries such as Ireland to speak out against the
highly destructive and insulting behaviour of some leaders is a very bad start to what will now be a
regular series of intergovernmental meetings.
After Decembers summit, the Taoiseach announced that there had been no discussion of corporate
tax issues even though the communiqu explicitly stated that it had been agreed to proceed to
harmonisation through enhanced co-operation. Others have begun sabre-rattling [482]with regard to
the introduction of a financial transactions tax within the eurozone. These are red-line issues in
respect of which this country can never succumb and no one should be in doubt that this referendum
confers no legitimacy on the harmonisation agenda.
My party will continue to support actively the ratification of the treaty. We have held our position on
the treaty despite the Governments behaviour last year in the context of bringing a new level of
petty political partisanship into European matters. This was most clearly shown by the failure to
respect the tradition of consultation among the pro-European mainstream until the referendum
became inevitable. The almost 400,000 people who voted for Fianna Fil in the most recent general
election are an essential part of the potential majority that will be required to pass the referendum.
As matters stand, opinion polls show that over 75% of Fianna Fil voters are in favour of the treaty.
That is a level of support which is far higher than that which exists among Labour voters.
We will campaign on a positive message which emphasises the importance of the treaty as part of a
wider agenda. We will continue to push actively for Ireland to be more active in calling for vital
measures such as the fundamental reform of the mandate and policies of the ECB. At a time of great
difficulty, we believe the people of Ireland and Europe are dissatisfied with the timidity and failures
of Europes leaders but that the Union remains a focus of their hopes for the future. They understand
that a return to growth and job creation requires a central role for a more active and powerful
European Union and this is what lies behind the high levels of support currently being seen in the
opinion polls. Regardless of how the Tnaiste tries to spins matters, it is obvious that the campaign is
being rushed because of these polls. This may not affect the outcome hopefully that will prove to
be the case but it undeniably increases the risks involved. It goes directly against the
recommendations of researchers and the Referendum Commission and breaks another promise of
the Government, namely, that more time would be provided in respect of preparation for the holding
of referenda.
The date that has been chosen for the referendum also gives rise to a substantial risk that the future
of the treaty will be in doubt as a result of developments elsewhere. The Tnaiste is wrong when he
says there is a growth agenda which can satisfy Franois Hollandes demands. We know where the
latter stands in the opinion polls in his country at present. Mr. Hollande has clearly stated he will not
ratify the treaty until growth issues, such as the ECB mandate, are addressed. His election to power
if it happens may not overturn our vote but it would introduce unnecessary risk.
The treaty cannot be the end of reforms to address the economic crisis. It must be a starting point, a
foundation for forcing more important measures onto the agenda. It is a necessary and reasonable
mechanism which will reduce the costs of borrowing to fund public services in this State. It is not a
major innovation but is rather a confidence-building measure at a time when such confidence is
urgently required. My party strongly supports the Bill before the House, particularly because it will
enable a referendum to be held. We will be campaigning for a Yes vote, based on positive
arguments and a belief that working with a stronger Europe is the best route back to growth and job
creation.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Joanna Tuffy): Information on Joanna Tuffy Zoom on Joanna Tuffy The
next speaker is Deputy McDonald and I understand she is sharing time.
Deputy Mary Lou McDonald: Information on Mary Lou McDonald Zoom on Mary Lou McDonald
I am sharing time with Deputy Tibn. If he is watching proceedings on the monitor in his office, I
urge him to come to the Chamber tout de suite.
It is important to state at the outset that Ireland is a member of the European Union. More than that,
Ireland is an ancient European nation, and we must be very clear in debating this [483]treaty like
any other and not go off on some tangent and imagine we are having some kind of existentialist
crisis about who or what we are. We are Europeans and part of this project called the European
Union. As a small nation we should be a dynamic and positive in the development of that political
project.
It is important to say that those of us who have been critical of EU institutions, policy and treaties
are not, therefore, anti-European. We have a strongly held view of what this European project must
be, how it should be governed and the policy direction it must take if it is to deliver fully for citizens
and what could truly be described as a project based on the fundamentals of democracy and the rule
of law. I welcome that there will be a referendum on this treaty and as Government Members know,
we argued very strongly for it. We did so because we believe the citizen ultimately has the
fundamental right and responsibility to oversee any significant changes to the Constitution and any
major shifts in respect of public policy. Our people value the right to scrutinise, consider, accept or
reject propositions in respect of the governance of the EU and Irelands place within it.
I am very disappointed that the referendum will be held on a Thursday. If I recall correctly,
Members now in government railed very correctly against holding referendums on a Thursday for
the simple reason that it caused a difficulty for students in particular who may wish to return home to
cast a vote. I register this with a note of disappointment. It is clear that the initial intention was for
the treaty to be ratified without a referendum. In February, the German Minister for European
Affairs, Mr. Michael Link, let the cat out of the bag when he said that European Union negotiators
were seeking to design the treaty in a way that it could get past the Attorney General and not
necessitate a referendum vote. It was clear that the Labour Party and Fine Gael were working hand
in glove with those negotiators to try to meet that objective but I am thankful they failed, and the
Attorney Generals advice was correct. A referendum would not just be democratically desirable and
necessary but it would also be a legal requirement.
The people must have their say and the decision must be respected. It is necessary to say at this
juncture that the re-running of referendums on the basis of voters arriving at what would was
deemed the wrong decision by the political establishment has been a shameful attack on
democratic values in the State. The attack was often spearheaded by Fianna Fil with the full
connivance and support of Fine Gael and the Labour Party. We need a commitment at this juncture
that there will not be a repeat performance of that. When the people have their say in accepting or
rejecting this proposition, all of us, as democrats, are duty bound to accept it.
I note that Fianna Fil has called for comh-oibri and extolled the merits of what Deputy
Fearghal called pro-European parties working together in respect of this treaty. He made this
statement as if it were a novel advance but it is a matter of public record that Fianna Fil, Fine Gael
and the Labour Party have always spoken with one voice not just with EU treaty changes but on the
thrust, direction and dynamic of European policy. There is nothing new in that. We need an honest
and robust debate and there is no room for scare tactics, auction politics or empty promises of jobs
for all. We all recall the campaign for the Lisbon treaty when the slogan was Yes for Jobs; that has
been thoroughly discredited and I hope it will not be run again in the course of this campaign.
If we take this treaty on its merits and separate it from other strands of European policy and our
respective positions on them, the problem is that it is essentially a misdiagnosis of the dilemma we
face. It is just wrong to say that this State is in an economic catastrophe because of runaway public
spending. We are in our current dire circumstances because private banking debt became public
debt.
Deputy Eamon Gilmore: Information on Eamon Gilmore Zoom on Eamon Gilmore The Deputys
party voted for that.
[484]Deputy Mary Lou McDonald: Information on Mary Lou McDonald Zoom on Mary Lou
McDonald Danish Prime Minister Thorning-Schmidt shared a platform with the Taoiseach in Davos
not so long ago. At the time, the Taoiseach informed the world at large that Ireland was in difficulty
because we had all gone mad borrowing. On that occasion the Danish Premier was much more
insightful and she best encapsulated what had happened when she argued that we were in a position
where banks were too big to fail and citizens were too small to matter. The sub-committee of the
Oireachtas European affairs committee has been commended in this House and it has heard evidence
from a great range of opinion, including a wide range of economists from across the spectrum,
including those who would be deemed centrists, left or right in their thinking. What they all have in
common is that they have said very clearly that if the treaty had been in place a number of years ago,
it would not have seen off the economic catastrophe and it would not have been the panacea for the
problems we now have. Even in the Chamber I have yet to hear any Government proposition
extolling the value in concrete terms of this treaty, except with regard to link between the treaty and
the European stability mechanism, and our capacity to access funding through that mechanism. It
strikes me that it is the only concrete argument being advanced.
Deputy Eamon Gilmore: Information on Eamon Gilmore Zoom on Eamon Gilmore Has the Deputy
heard of the euro?
Deputy Mary Lou McDonald: Information on Mary Lou McDonald Zoom on Mary Lou McDonald
We have called that clause linking those two issues a blackmail clause, as that is precisely what it is.
The Government is inviting citizens to set in stone a set of economic policies in a binding
international agreement that will, by definition, place serious restrictions on our capacity to borrow,
with penalties if we fail to measure up. Not alone must we take this austerity but the Government is
threatening that if we do not, access to the stability mechanism and emergency funding will be ruled
out. By any definition, that is political blackmail.
We have noted in this Chamber and I will repeat that it is a matter of disgrace that whoever
negotiated these matters on our behalf allowed that position to emerge. It should never have been
permitted to proceed. There is a real chance that the Irish people will consider this austerity treaty
and the implications of billions of euro of further cuts before saying No, thank you. They have
seen what austerity has done not just to the economy but society. In those circumstances, the
Government would be very foolish and irresponsible to have agreed that as a precondition for access
to emergency funding. I am pleased the Government decided to postpone bringing legislation on the
European Stability Mechanism through the House until after the referendum. That was a wise
decision because it does not have any option other than to seek at European level to have the
blackmail clause removed. The Tnaiste may ask how this will be achieved. The Government knows
the State has a veto in respect of amending Article 136 of the European treaties. As matters stand,
bailouts are expressly prohibited at European level. Germany, specifically its courts and legal
system, was anxious about this issue. For the European Stability Mechanism to be built on a solid
legal foundation requires a change to the European treaties, specifically a change to Article 136, on
which the State has a veto. As a matter of protecting the national interest and citizens, it is incumbent
on the Government to make clear that neither it nor the citizens of this country will be blackmailed.
Let us have a debate and let people consider whether they wish to enshrine austerity in an
international and legally binding document. Let us also be clear that it is the responsibility of the
Government to separate the debate from the ability of the State, on behalf of its citizens, to access
emergency funding. I do not share the view of the Fianna Fil Party that it is fair and proportionate
that we sign up to austerity in perpetuity as a quid pro quo for accessing funding. It is neither fair nor
proportionate. Moreover, it is not sensible because even if the stability treaty, as the Tnaiste
describes it, or austerity treaty, as I see it, had been in place, it would not have seen off the economic
catastrophe in which we are immersed.
[485]The Tnaiste stated he does not want the debate on the treaty to be about tangential issues or to
be used by people to sound a note of discontent with the Government. As the leader of the Labour
Party, he should note that his party has taken a confused and inconsistent position on these matters in
recent times. I probably should not have to remind him that a number of Members of the European
Parliament from his party correctly voted against the so-called six pack modifications to the Stability
and Growth Pact on the basis that the proposed measures were economically misguided and the Irish
and European economies did not need more austerity and cutbacks. They also stated that what was
needed was growth. Austerity and growth do not go hand in hand. The Tnaiste is wrong to claim
one can pursue an aggressive strategy of cutbacks and other austerity measures and expect economic
growth. If he examines the recent past, he will see evidence that austerity damages prospects for
growth and has a deep and damaging effect on the domestic economy.
Sinn Fin believes the treaty, as with much of the policy that preceded it, is bad for Ireland and the
European Union
Deputy Eamon Gilmore: Information on Eamon Gilmore Zoom on Eamon Gilmore Sinn Fin said
that about every treaty.
Deputy Mary Lou McDonald: Information on Mary Lou McDonald Zoom on Mary Lou McDonald
and will institutionalise endless austerity because so-called core member states, Germany and
France in particular, want to impose harsh fiscal rules on a European Union economy that is already
struggling desperately. One rarely hears mentioned that Ireland adhered to the rules in place prior to
the crisis, unlike France and Germany, which were serial breachers of the Stability and Growth Pact.
The most basic text on the European Union informs us that the raison dtre of the modern European
Union is growth and employment. While this is taken as a truism, the treaty will impose greater
levels of austerity on citizens for an indefinite period and require an estimated minimum of 6
billion in cuts and tax hikes in this jurisdiction post-2015. Placing these measures in an
intergovernmental treaty turns interim measures into permanent rules, which is a crazy approach.
The treaty will mean deeper cuts in education and health and to a raft of community services. We
will see continued unjust stealth taxes increasing which will punish struggling families and the
vulnerable. The Oireachtas will be undermined and even greater decision making powers in
economic and fiscal policy will be handed over to unelected officials. We should have learned from
economic and monetary union that a one-size-fits-all approach to monetary policy was a mistake for
the European Union. Equally, any notion of a one-size-fits-all fiscal approach, particularly one that is
embedded in the concept of austerity, would be a major mistake for the State and European Union
and one which would have longstanding consequences.
Deputy Peadar Tibn: Information on Peadar Tibn Zoom on Peadar Tibn Ba mhaith liom
buochas a ghabhil leis an Teachta Mary Lou McDonald for the overview of the austerity treaty.
We are told the treaty is about being at the heart of the European Union, yet it is not an EU treaty.
We are told it is about preventing the recurrence of the economic catastrophe that is engulfing the
eurozone because it will enforce rules previously adhered to by countries such as Spain which now
find themselves at the centre of the current economic turmoil and crisis. We are told the treaty is
about confidence and stability but it continues a policy of austerity that has resulted in a double dip
recession, unemployment rates of nearly 25% in Spain and youth unemployment rates of almost
50% in Greece. We are told the treaty will create jobs by continuing a policy that has resulted in an
unemployment figure of 440,000 in this country and led to 76,000 people being forced to emigrate
since this date last year. I hope I am not pointing out the obvious when I note that unemployment,
austerity and being unable to provide food for ones children are not the ingredients of stability.
[486]I echo Deputy McDonald in cautioning the Fianna Fil Party and the Government against
peddling lies about jobs again. The previous campaign in favour of the Lisbon treaty was built
around the issue of jobs. Since then, 170,000 jobs have been lost and the 440,000 people who are
unemployed have little tolerance for lies about jobs.
People have experienced the true meaning of austerity and come to understand it through job losses,
the imposition of VAT increases, the universal social charge and bin, septic tank, household and
water charges. Ghost estates have been joined by ghost main streets. Some 190,000 businesses went
bust last year. In the past five years, 50,000 retail jobs have been lost and a further 30,000 jobs in the
sector are in jeopardy. People are all too aware of what exactly the austerity treaty means. It means a
treaty for unemployment, emigration and the closure of schools, hospital beds and Garda stations.
Deputy Eamon Gilmore: Information on Eamon Gilmore Zoom on Eamon Gilmore Is it also a treaty
for bad weather?
Deputy Peadar Tibn: Information on Peadar Tibn Zoom on Peadar Tibn People are not stupid
and can join the dots between the policies being delivered by this Government, which are inherent in
the treaty, and the circumstances of their lives. They are asking why this has happened. As Deputy
McDonald noted, this Government and its predecessor decided to socialise a massive growth in
private debt.
Deputy Eamon Gilmore: Information on Eamon Gilmore Zoom on Eamon Gilmore Sinn Fin
supported that decision.
Deputy Peadar Tibn: Information on Peadar Tibn Zoom on Peadar Tibn People are asking
whether this approach will work. The austerity treaty will not fix the economy or solve the private
debt issue. On the contrary, it will make the problem worse because the policy inherent in it has
already resulted in a double dip recession in Europe. The current European recession bodes ill for the
Irish economy given the Governments decision to put all its eggs in one basket, namely, exports
which are highly dependent on the health of the European economy.
The fundamentals of the treaty are based on the six pack modifications. Labour MEP Proinsias De
Rossa said that the six pack...legislative package will enforce the EU austerity programme, driving
us into recession. He added that four of the so-called six pack...are economically misguided... and
will ...kill growth, destroy jobs and derail the economic recovery. That was the position of the
Labour Party six months ago. What has changed?
Article 3 of the treaty basically seeks a structural deficit target and makes it permanent and binding.
It puts the nail in the coffin of Keynesian counter cyclical economic policy. Article 3 includes a
provision for a new structural deficit of 0.5%, while there is also a restatement of the 3% deficit
target and the debt target of 60% of GDP. There is a requirement for the states that breach these
targets to return rapidly by reducing the excess portion of their debt ratio by one twentieth a year.
This will inflict budget cuts for years after this Government has left office, and could mean fines of
up to 155 million on this State, as has been alluded to previously. If the US had signed up to this
treaty during the Great Depression, Roosevelts New Deal would not have seen the light of day and
the US would not have been lifted out of depression.
We obviously have to live within our means and levels of debt and spending are very unsustainable,
but let us not rewrite history. The unsustainable debts that face this State arose through the
nationalising of banking debt, which is a process continued by the Government. The Labour Party
Members may wish to catcall on this issue. They may stand over their position in opposition, but in
government they have delivered more money to the banks and more money to the bondholders.
Some commentators have sought to liken the national economy to the household economy. The
analogy is not true. No householders finding it difficult to feed, clothe or house their families will
not seek a loan. People have also said that keeping [487]budgets correct is like running a business.
The reality is that most businesses go through a period of debt in order to make a profit.
Householders and businesses basically need flexibility to pay down debt when the going is good and
to borrow and invest when required.
This treaty is a major attack on sovereignty and if we want to see what the loss of economic
sovereignty means, we have to look 100 miles north to Belfast. Many on the Government benches
have raised the policy decisions of the Executive. The reality is that the Executive lacks the power to
manage its economy fully and has to look to London in regard to what it can and cannot spend. It is
frustrating, it is wrong, it is undemocratic and it fails the people of the North of Ireland. That is why
Sinn Fin is about bringing those economic policies back to Ireland. If this Government is
comfortable with the idea of becoming a provincial administrator, then it should be honest. It is not
the vision of Sinn Fin, nor is it the vision of Collins, Pearse or Connolly.
Partnership within the EU should be based on independent sovereign states working for mutual
benefit. Our relationship with the EU should be engaged, confident, proactive and critical when
necessary. It should be intellectually independent. Our Government should unashamedly be able to
put Irish interests at the heart of its engagement. Instead, we have Irish Governments that are
intellectually deferential, docile and passive in the face of other member states self interest. The
culture that simply accepts what is being handed down to us is not good for Ireland and is not good
for Europe. Seeking favour by being the best yes man in the class and failing to contribute robustly
to the debate weakens the quality of that debate, which is necessary to halt the economic slide within
the EU.
The EU is not the community organisation that people think we joined. Treaty by treaty, power is
being centralised to the French and German core, to the democratic detriment of the periphery. Self
determination and independence are at the core of Sinn Fins policies. It was the reason we were
founded in 1905 and we still struggle today for full Irish independence. I believe that self-
determination and independence are central to the wishes of the vast majority of Irish people; not for
some fluffy, romantic reason, but because Ireland unfree will never receive the economic
prioritisation nor focus that it deserves. The economic policies, designed for the needs of the German
and French economic cycle, are more often than not damaging to the Irish economic cycle.
One of the major weaknesses inherent in the single currency is the lack of a correcting mechanism to
offset German and French centred monetary policy. Given that Ireland represents 1% of the EU
economy, monetary policy is seldom if ever designed for Irish needs. As a result, we have a situation
where we need a flexible fiscal policy to offset the dangers of that negative monetary policy. This
treaty seeks to tie the hands of future governments behind their backs on fiscal policy, while the
hands of monetary policy are already tied. We need investment in jobs in this State. EU banks need
to be cleansed of toxic debt. Debt needs to be written down and we need a central bank in Europe
that will be the lender of last resort. It is only through those processes that we will be able to re-enter
the markets and reclaim our independence.
Deputy Thomas Pringle: Information on Thomas Pringle Zoom on Thomas Pringle I wish to share
time with Deputy Higgins and Deputy Catherine Murphy.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Joanna Tuffy): Information on Joanna Tuffy Zoom on Joanna Tuffy Is
that agreed? Agreed.
Deputy Thomas Pringle: Information on Thomas Pringle Zoom on Thomas Pringle I welcome the
opportunity to speak on this Bill. The Bill gives the Dil the power to ratify the treaty on the
stability, co-ordination and governance of the European Union. I previously welcomed the decision
to have a referendum on the treaty, and I think it is vitally important. The treaty, appropriately better
known as the austerity treaty, [488]contains a number of blackmail clauses and this is the way the
Irish people will refer to the treaty when they decide to vote for or against it on 31 May. The treaty
contains a number of provisions and it has been said they simply restate what is already there under
European law. It provides for balanced budget rules to ensure that no state can run a deficit in excess
of 0.5% and ensure that states must run a surplus if possible. It will also require Ireland to reduce our
national debt over 20 years, which could mean 4 billion to 5 billion reductions in our national debt
every year after 2015. This is to come on top of any of the austerity that the Government proposes to
bring in. We will have to find this 4 billion to 5 billion. The treaty enshrines austerity for the
future of Ireland and enshrines austerity for those people who have already suffered under four years
of punishing austerity. The treaty contains automatic penalties, where cases can be brought to the
ECJ against member states that breach these rules, which can impose fines should they be found to
be in breach. This could have significant implications for us.
1 oclock
When Government Deputies spoke this morning about the Bill and the provisions contained in the
treaty, they mentioned the three aspects of the treaty that I have just outlined. It is most telling to list
some of the things they did not mention. The treaty contains a provision where if action is initiated
against countries for breaching the rules, a reverse majority vote can be used by those countries to
prevent the European Court of Justice, ECJ, taking action. This means, in effect, that France and
Germany, along with one or two smaller countries, would have the power to block the ECJ taking
action against the State. This is interesting because we know that rules in the Maastricht treaty on
government deficits and the Stability and Growth Pact were first breached by France and Germany
in 2001. They ignored those rules and the fact that they were in breach of the treaties. I imagine that
in future, the first countries to breach these new rules will probably be France and Germany because
we have seen in recent years that they have the power and the might and that they are taking the
power unto themselves.
They will be able to block the European Court of Justice in future from investigating their breaches
of the rules.
The Government failed to mention that article 10 of the stability, co-ordination and governance,
SCG, treaty, specifically references the stability mechanism to be established within the Union and
the ability of countries to access the stability mechanism. This is also mentioned in the preamble to
the treaty where a state which fails to ratify the stability and co-ordination treaty will be unable to
access the stability mechanism when it is established under that treaty. This shows that this treaty
and the treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism are intrinsically linked and these
treaties are complementary to each other. You cannot have one without the other. Both treaties are
designed to operate in a complementary manner and are independent and each treaty acknowledges
this to be the case.
The Government duly obtained the advice of the Attorney General on the SCG treaty. Having
received it and having considered it at Cabinet, the Dil was informed on 28 February that because
the treaty was outside the EU architecture it would be necessary to put it to the people by way of a
referendum. I respectfully agree with the tenor of the Attorney Generals advice. The SCG treaty is
clearly outside the ambit of Article 29.4.3 to 29.4.8 of the Constitution. Therefore, it must be
assessed by reference to the provisions of the Constitution governing domestic competence and
decision making, fiscal and budgetary matters and for that reason it will be put before the people.
We need to examine the European Stability Mechanism treaty as well. On 9 March I wrote to the
Taoiseach outlining my concerns in regard to the linked nature of the two treaties in regard to the
European Stability Mechanism and to date I have not received a response other [489]than an
automated e-mail reply acknowledging receipt of the letter. On foot of that, I lodged a plenary
summons with the High Court last Friday seeking a number of remedies from the court and for it to
consider a number of question in regard to this. These questions are relevant to both treaties.
Under the ESM treaty a new permanent 700 billion bailout fund, called the European Stability
Mechanism, will be set up with the power to call on Ireland, at any time of that institutions
choosing, to make capital contributions of up to 11.1 billion in various forms of capital, including
cash. This is equivalent to approximately one third of Government tax revenue for 2011. This figure
can be increased at the sole behest of the ESM at any time in the future with no limits set in the
treaty as to what may be sought from member states in the future. In effect, the ESM can direct the
State to raise sovereign debt, give the money it raises to it and then it can decide where, when,
whether and how it is spent. Therefore, Ireland will not be in a position to control decisions
regarding the use of sovereign debt raised by it. What are the implications of this? What if a majority
of voters in the May referendum on the fiscal compact treaty vote in favour of imposing permanent
austerity rules on the country in order to get access to a proposed permanent eurozone loan fund only
to discover that the treaty to establish the fund is possibly illegal under EU law and unconstitutional
in Ireland and may never come into force?
I have asked the court to examine the legality of the amendment of Article 136 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union before any further action is taken by Government to approve
that amendment. That amendment is being adopted under a so-called simplified revision procedure
which I believe is legally wrong. The changes being proposed are so fundamental they should go
through the ordinary revision procedure of the EU to ensure proper democratic scrutiny. They should
also require the approval of the Irish people.
I have asked the court to consider whether the ESM treaty is in breach of existing EU treaty
principles which have been approved by the Irish people in previous referenda and which are now
therefore part of our law. In addition, I have asked the court to decide whether the State can ratify the
treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism without first having the approval of the people
in a referendum. The Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and
Monetary Union signed on 2 March 2012 is intertwined with the ESM treaty. Each is dependent on
the other. If I am right in my belief that the ESM treaty is unlawful then there is a question over the
validity of the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary
Union.
I call on the Government today not to announce a date for the referendum on the treaty on stability,
coordination and governance of the Union until the court can examine the legality of the amendment
proposed and give its decision. I have asked the court to consider that question. I have asked the
Taoiseach to respond to the summons and I have not received a response but I hope he will respond
in the coming days. It is vital we do not ask the people to vote on the treaty on the proposed date of
31 May until after these questions have been decided. In effect, we are asking the people to ratify a
treaty that contains provisions that may well be illegal under our Constitution and under EU law.
That is a very important question that needs to be decided. I urge the Government not to announce a
date to allow these questions to be considered and then, if necessary, to put these questions in total to
the Irish people so they can have their say. I urge that the people should not be blackmailed in the
run up to the vote on the stability, co-ordination and governance treaty by the use of the blackmail
clause and the inherent threat although the Government may not mention it during the campaign
that if we do not ratify this treaty, we will be unable to access funds in future.
[490]Deputy Joe Higgins: Information on Joe Higgins Zoom on Joe Higgins The treaty on stability,
coordination and government, otherwise known as the fiscal treaty, will do nothing to address the
appalling effects of the current crisis in capitalism, whether that is in Ireland or throughout the
European Union. On the contrary, if the further savage cuts and austerity that would inevitably
follow adherence to this treatys fiscal diktats were implemented across Europe as a whole it would
result in a disastrous deepening of the economic crisis against a background where unfortunately 25
million citizens of the European Union are already unemployed. This treaty does nothing but dictate
a straitjacket of austerity for the working class and the poor of Europe when what is needed is the
opposite, namely, a massive public investment programme to regenerate the EU economies and
create millions of jobs throughout Europe. The fiscal treaty is a treaty of despair whereas the
unemployed of Europe, the working class, the poor, the pensioners, the hard put upon people of
Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland need hope. It is an austerity treaty and that is how we on the left
will refer to it from now on.
Article 1 of the fiscal treaty sets out the EUs objectives as sustainable growth, employment
competitiveness and social cohesion. The second paragraph of the preamble to the treaty states
DESIRING to promote conditions for stronger economic growth in the European Union. The
preamble states that achieving these objectives requires the introduction of specific rules to address
this need, including a balanced budget rule and an automatic mechanism to take corrective action.
Article 3 as we know concretises these requirements by demanding structural deficits of 0.5% or 1%
of gross domestic product, it demands rapid convergence and a correction mechanism that shall be
triggered automatically and it demands that member states enshrine in national law provisions of
binding force in this regard in permanent character, preferably constitutional, to be adhered to
throughout the national budgetary process. That is Article 3 of the treaty. Article 4 demands an
automatic reduction of general government debt by 5% per year of the amount over 60% of gross
domestic product. Our contention on the left is that three of the four objectives in Article 1,
sustainable growth, employment and social cohesion, far from being progressed through the fiscal
measures proposed in Articles 3 and 4, will be irretrievably damaged across swathes of the European
Union, with dreadful consequences for ordinary citizens if the treaty is implemented.
I draw attention to an article that appeared in yesterdays edition of The Irish Times, written by Paul
Krugman, not a socialist for sure but an internationally renowned economist and professor at
Princeton and Nobel laureate for economy theory. His article was headed European leaders seem
determined to ruin their economy. He stated that what we are seeing from the leaders of the
European Union is complete inflexibility.
In March, European leaders signed a fiscal pact that, in effect, locks in fiscal austerity as a response
to any and all problems [...]
So its hard to avoid a sense of despair. Rather than admit they have been wrong, European leaders
seem determined to drive their economy and their society off a cliff.
Many other economists and commentators have made similar points. Even right wing economists in
this country, like Professor McCarthy and Dr. Karl Whelan, have severely criticised this treaty as
offering nothing positive with regard to bringing about recovery in the European Union.
Other commentators go on to suggest that even this being the case, because of the possibility of
Ireland being locked out of the European Stability Mechanism fund, there is no choice but to vote
for the treaty, vindicating the blackmail clause we have spoken about, the clause that [491]was first
explained as blackmail by my colleague and Member of the European Parliament, Paul Murphy. The
diktat that member states that do not ratify the austerity treaty would not be able to access the
European Stability Mechanism is outrageous blackmail, and it is disingenuous of the Tnaiste in his
introduction to repeat this blackmail clause as a given reality. It is not. The Irish Government could
still block the introduction of this blackmail clause. The treaty establishing the European Stability
Mechanism had the blackmail clause inserted in February of this year and it is shameful the Irish
Government supported that very quietly at the time. Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of
the European Union must be amended to give legal standing to the treaty establishing the European
Stability Mechanism and the Government could veto this amendment unless the blackmail clause is
removed. Dil ireann must vote on these issues so the situation can be reversed.
The budgetary strictures in the fiscal treaty, the automatic correction mechanism and the powers
given to the European Commission would mean savage cuts and further austerity in this State and
across the European Union. The Department of Finance estimates that the structural budget deficit in
the State could be 3.7% in 2015. That would require 5.7 billion in extra cuts that year or spread
over a number of years and it would be similar with the cuts under the automatic debt reduction
diktat.
Across the European Union, 18 countries out of 25 that want to ratify the fiscal compact have
structural deficits greater than the targets. If the treaty were to be put in place this year, in 2013, it
would mean 166 billion of cuts across the European Union. This would have devastating effects,
adding to the crisis and suffering in so many countries across the EU at present. The IMF itself has
related in a report how, when austerity is applied simultaneously in trading partners, its effects are
enhanced hugely. This is just a treaty for the financial markets and bondholders to make sure they
get back even more than their pound of flesh. It is a disaster for the real economies across Europe.
The treaty will involve further austerity cuts and tax hikes to rescue casino capitalism and allow it to
continue. People who oppose austerity, therefore, must oppose this treaty. The significance of the
fact that 50% of households in this country are boycotting registration for the household tax is not
properly understood. That is a massive revolt, not just against this new intolerable burden of taxation
but against austerity. People who oppose that, including those who were coerced into registering, see
the baleful effects of austerity. If those people correctly make the link between that austerity and the
further austerity measures in this treaty, they will vote against it and they will be right to do so.
These commentators who say people should not vote on other measures the Government is
implementing know that the household tax, the water tax and all the other taxes are involved in this
further austerity. They will be and should be included in peoples reasoning for how they vote and
why they should vote against it.
This is not a European Union treaty, however, it is an intergovernmental treaty, and we have been
told that was why the Attorney General stated that we require a referendum. The treaty has been
generated using a different set of values from those of the European Union. I do not what the values
of this intergovernmental entity are but I know they are nothing to do with democracy and solidarity.
The values seem to be completely at odds with those of the European [492]Union and undermine
those shared values, which is very dangerous. The former Minister for Justice in Germany is
currently challenging the treaty in the courts, saying it has crossed a line because it cedes fiscal
powers to an entity, granting decision-making power to political elites rather than devolving
democracy to the people of Europe.
The Bills explanatory memorandum states that with a view to securing economic recovery and
sustainable growth, the key provisions of the stability treaty relate to the strengthening of rules
underpinning the Stability and Growth Pact agreed by EU member states for the euro. At face value,
the document is relatively simple and a purely literal interpretation shows that several provisions will
certainly achieve increased co-ordination in governance, although I am uncertain as to the level of
stability it can create in the absence of debt write-down. Not all countries are starting from the same
point in this regard. Some countries are starting from a very unequal position. Having considered the
background to how this treaty came about and particularly the adoption of the intergovernmental
approach, I believe it is about putting an insurance policy in place for the core euro states for loans
provided mainly to the peripheral states. There was plenty of cheap money put about to secure a
return on it and the states are now putting an insurance policy in place to guarantee that it happens.
If this treaty is passed it will have profound implications for everybody in this country, but those on
low to middle incomes and those most dependent on the State will feel its impact the most. It
reduces the prospect of a debt write-down and will be a stick with which to beat us. It imposes a set
of rules which include financial penalties for not adhering to the formula. Essentially, it puts a gun to
the head of a state that might need to borrow from the ESM because that mechanism will not be
available to a state if it does not ratify the treaty. Germany, in particular, wanted these rules applied
at constitutional level to ensure they were copperfastened and could not be watered down. One
market analyst has said on several occasions that the markets have already dismissed this as a
political sop to Germany. However, if we make the treaty part of our Constitution, all future
legislation will have to be in conformity with it. One cannot adopt legislation that is repugnant to the
Constitution. The Minister for Finance, therefore, will frame future budgets with this treaty as the
core. The other issue is that there is no time limit on this treaty; it is open ended.
With that in mind, I wish to refer to some legal issues that concern me. I have concerns about the
wording in that it elevates this intergovernmental treaty to a level equal to European treaties. These
treaties have been inserted differently into the Constitution. The treaties ceded power from the State,
whereby we shared our sovereignty with an entity that had a judicial and democratic elements. The
current treaty contains no democratic oversight. This is particularly worrying given that the treaty
seeks to impose direct financial and fiscal obligations on the State. The 1972 accession treaty had the
same wording. The Maastricht treaty, which was a consolidating treaty and dealt with governance
issues, also contained that wording, as did the Lisbon treaty. The Amsterdam treaty did not contain
that wording. The referendum on this treaty, by using the same wording, is putting this treaty on the
same level as the accession treaty to the European Union. That is incredibly dangerous. This is not a
democratic entity, but an intergovernmental one. I have proposed an amendment to delete much of
the proposed wording, and this will be dealt with on Friday. What would be sufficient to achieve
what the Government is seeking would be to insert something on a par with what was contained in
the case of the Amsterdam treaty.
I oppose the treaty and will vote against it. Nevertheless, I query why the wording in this amendment
contains such an explicit clause to elevate this treaty to a level that is superior to all other sections of
the Constitution. Our Constitution is meant to be harmonious but if one elevates certain treaties, how
can they be harmonious when they are in conflict with one [493]another? I believe this
intergovernmental treaty is potentially in conflict with the European treaties.
Let us consider what the treaty means in practical terms. The current Government deficit is close to
10% of GDP and we must get it to 3% by 2015. The Government has decided to achieve that
through a roughly two thirds to one third ratio of spending cuts to new taxation. The Tnaiste,
Deputy Eamon Gilmore, told the Labour Party conference at the weekend that there are two tough
budgets ahead. If there were only two tough budgets ahead, we would have some hope. However, if
we adopt this treaty and interpret it literally, we will take away all hope because we will be in a very
difficult financial bind in the medium to long term.
Over the next three or four budgets we must reduce our current budget deficit by 13 billion. If we
exit the programme, we must reduce the deficit to 0.5% of GDP. One can see the implications for the
country of being so constrained financially. Indeed, jobs were to be at the heart of this Governments
policies, but the jobs budget was watered down to a jobs initiative because there was no capacity to
invest in job creating measures in the economy. While exports obviously remain a natural means of
growing the economy, and I acknowledge the efforts being made in that respect, we cannot rely on
them exclusively. International markets remain weak. Spains Finance Minister indicated a few days
ago that Spain has gone back into recession. An export-led recovery, therefore, will not happen
quickly and will not deliver the number of jobs we need.
While undoubtedly trade should be an important element in Irelands return to solvency, it should
not be the only element of the strategy.Currently, we are locked into a fiscal adjustment plan that
strips the Government of any means of stimulating the domestic economy and ratifying this treaty
will continue that. If we are to reach the 3% deficit target and we do not have the capacity to grow
the domestic economy, there will be only two options cuts in services, which we have already
seen, and new and increased taxes, which we have also seen. On the overall level of Government
debt, under the terms of this treaty we will be signing up to reducing our debt to GDP ratio to below
60% by making debt service payments of one-twentieth of the excess each year. Irelands debt to
GDP ratio will be 120% by the end of next year, so at a conservative estimate we will be obliged to
pay back between 3 billion and 4.5 billion per annum for the next 20 years. There is also the
prospect of incurring fines.
This treaty is primarily an insurance policy for the core euro states to ensure they are repaid what
they loaned. There was a great deal of reckless lending just as there was reckless borrowing. It
appears that the member states have become hostages to the money markets. They have lost sight of
the purpose and vision that underpinned the European Union. There has been an absence of a
common vision, an absence of leadership and an absence of a common, workable solution.
[494]Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m
http://www.thejournal.ie/esm
-treaty-irish-language-
mistakes-translation-michael-
noonan-dail-496299-
Jun2012/
Dil approves Ireland's
ratification of new Eurozone
bailout fund
TDs vote by 114 to 22 to have Ireland participate, a move which will
require 1.27bn in cash payments before 2014.
Jun 20th 2012,
http://aei.pitt.edu/52709/1/Did_the_German_court_do_Europe_a_favour
%2D_(English).pdf
After the OMT Case: The Supremacy of EU Law as the Guarantee of the
Equality of the Member States
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56330ad3e4b0733dcc0c8495/t/56c8d18b20c647f079d08d89/145
6001420856/GLJ_Vol_16_No_04_Fabbrini.pdf
ECJ confirms validity of ESM ... 1 Case C-370/12 (Pringle ), ... 10 Thomas Pringle v The Government
of Ireland,
http://renesmits.eu/ECJ%20confirms%20validity%20of%20ESM.PDF
DRAFT REPORT - European Parliament
DRAFT REPORT on budgetary ... of 23 March 2011 on the draft European Council decision ...
judgment of the European Court of Justice in Case C-370/12 Pringle v Ireland .
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-
%2f%2fEP%2f%2fNONSGML%2bCOMPARL%2bPE-
582.210%2b01%2bDOC%2bPDF%2bV0%2f%2fEN
http://www.mjilonline.org/wordpress/wp-
content/uploads/2013/07/FaheyBardutzky.pdf
Troika with ... and the International ... confirmed in its ruling in the Pringle v Ireland case (Case C-
370/12)
http://www.uniglobalunion.org/sites/default/files/files/news/20140313_troik
aep2owninireports.pdf
Recent EU Treaty Amendments and UK Ratification
International Affairs and Defence Section . ... See Case C-370/12, HJudgment of the CourtH, 27
November 2012: Thomas Pringle v Government of Ireland,
What did Michael Noonan get in return for an
agreement which may leave this country stranded
without practical funding options from 2013?
March 9, 2012 by namawinelake
Irelands finances are shaky and have been for four years since the
collapse of the banking and property sectors left the country with a
dangerous deficit between what is collected in taxation and what is
spent on state services and social welfare. Were gradually closing
the gap, and with a fair wind we will only need to borrow 100m
per week in 2015 when we officially project our deficit will be 2.9%
of GDP, or 5bn.
Between now and the end of 2013, we have relatively cheap
funding from our Troika benefactors the IMF, the EU and the ECB.
And although some think the country will need a second bailout at
the end of 2013 because we will not be able to economically borrow
from the traditional sovereign bond market, thats by no means a
certainty. If our finances stabilise, if our export markets recover and
domestic growth comes about, we may well be able to convince the
bond markets to lend us money at affordable rates until we have
eliminated our annual deficit entirely which will be sometime after
2016.
But what happens if those traditional sovereign bond sources of
funding werent willing to lend us money at affordable rates next
year after the Troika bailout ends? Thats ludicrous according to
Minister Noonan, but lets indulge the question. We could go to the
IMF with the begging bowl, but traditionally that organisation will
lend a specific country a maximum of a certain multiple of its
contribution to the IMF, and the IMF has already exceeded those
limits in Bailout Number One. Another option would be to cut the
deficit immediately but that would mean a 6bn annual adjustment
in 2014, on top a 3.8bn adjustment in 2012 and a 3.5bn
adjustment in 2013 in other words compared to 2011 we would
need cut 13.3bn from the annual budget in 2014. Or we could go
to the European bailout fund which is now known as the European
Stabilility Mechanism. We signed the Treaty for the creation and
management of this fund on 11th July 2011 theres a blogpost on
the signing of the Treaty here, together with an amusing
photograph of Minister for Finance, Michael Noonan looking a little
unsure of himself at the signing ceremony.
But almost unbelievably, one month ago, Minister Noonan snatched
the ESM away from Irelandand signed a codicil to the ESM Treaty
which stipulated that in order to access ESM funding, Irelandhad to
sign the Fiscal Compact thats the Compact on which we will
shortly have a referendum, the outcome of which looks finely
balanced. No seriously, thats what he did. The old copy of the ESM
Treaty from 11th July 2011 is here. A copy of the new version
incorporating the new stipulation signed on 2nd February 2012 has
been requested from the European Council, as oddly, it does not
appear to be available from the Councils website.
And what did Minister Noonan get in return for this almost
unbelievable concession? Did he get a reduction to the burden
ofIrelands bank bailout burden, a burden borne in no small part so
that other banks acrossEuropecan be repaid their incautious lending
during the heady noughties? Did he get a commitment to an
economic stimulus? Did he get an undertaking that financial
transaction taxes would not be imposed on Ireland unless the same
taxes applied in competing centres, particularly London and the UK?
Did he at least get the French off our backs in their obsessive
attempts to get Ireland to increase its corporate tax rates or makes
concessions on the corporate tax base? Incredibly, it appears as if
the concession was signed by Minister Noonan, without regard to
the fact that Ireland will be practically deprived of funding from the
end of 2013 unless it can regain access to traditional bond markets,
and without any consideration provided in return.
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ecofin/
127788.pdf
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/us-treaties/bevans/m-ust000002-0043.pdf
treaty between the united states of america and the russian federation on measures for the further
reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms
https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/140035.pdf
UCD, The Irish Constitution: Past, Present and ... The impact of the Constitution on
the referendum ... to the origins of the current Irish Constitution.
https://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/Constitution%20Conference%20Schedule.pdf
Results received at the Central Count Centre for the Referendum on The Lisbon Treaty
% Poll
53.13%
Yes/T
46.6%
No/Nl
53.4%
Result Summary
Electorate: 3,051,278
Total Poll: 1,621,037
Percentage Poll: 53.13%
Invalid Papers: 6,171
Valid Poll: 1,614,866
Votes in favour: 752,451
Votes against: 862,415
Constituency Electorate Total Poll Percentage Poll Votes in favour Votes against Invalid Votes
Carlow-Kilkenny 103,397 52,644 50.91 26,210 26,206 228
Cavan-Monaghan 92,920 49,649 53.43 22,346 27,113 190
Clare 77,398 40,617 52.48 20,982 19,490 145
Cork East 83,850 42,398 50.56 18,177 24,052 169
Cork North-Central 65,738 35,120 53.42 12,440 22,546 134
Cork North-West 63,574 35,358 55.62 16,253 18,991 114
Cork South-Central 89,844 49,455 55.05 22,112 27,166 177
Cork South-West 58,225 32,184 55.28 14,235 17,806 143
Donegal North-East 56,195 25,654 45.65 9,006 16,504 144
Donegal South-West 60,079 27,946 46.52 10,174 17,659 113
Dublin Central 57,864 28,265 48.85 12,328 15,816 121
Dublin Mid-West 61,622 31,833 51.66 12,577 19,182 74
Dublin North 81,550 45,077 55.28 22,696 22,194 187
Dublin North-Central 51,156 31,245 61.08 15,772 15,396 77
Dublin North-East 52,432 29,991 57.2 12,917 16,973 101
Dublin North-West 49,893 26,394 52.9 9,576 16,749 69
Dublin South 87,855 51,342 58.44 32,190 19,005 147
Dublin South-Central 81,743 42,170 51.59 16,410 25,624 136
Dublin South-East 56,202 27,871 49.59 17,111 10,644 116
Dublin South-West 67,499 36,181 53.6 12,601 23,456 124
Dublin West 52,173 28,421 54.47 13,573 14,754 94
Dun Laoghaire 84,710 49,810 58.8 31,524 18,149 137
Galway East 80,569 40,124 49.8 18,728 21,230 166
Galway West 85,642 42,844 50.03 19,643 23,011 190
Kerry North 54,787 28,120 51.33 11,306 16,702 112
Kerry South 51,338 27,257 53.09 11,569 15,571 117
Kildare North 71,429 36,815 51.54 20,045 16,653 117
Kildare South 57,145 27,858 48.75 13,470 14,308 80
Laois-Offaly 105,053 56,992 54.25 31,786 24,963 243
Limerick East 76,735 39,444 51.4 18,085 21,191 168
Limerick West 57,847 29,958 51.79 13,318 16,511 129
Longford-Westmeath 81,834 42,065 51.4 19,371 22,502 192
Louth 83,458 44,565 53.4 18,586 25,811 168
Mayo 95,250 48,822 51.26 18,624 30,001 197
Meath East 67,415 34,148 50.65 17,340 16,703 105
Meath West 62,816 32,589 51.88 14,442 18,028 119
Roscommon-South Leitrim 59,728 33,962 56.86 15,429 18,402 131
Sligo-North Leitrim 55,591 29,228 52.58 12,602 16,496 130
Tipperary North 55,941 32,750 58.54 16,235 16,367 148
Tipperary South 53,687 29,756 55.42 13,853 15,755 148
Waterford 72,052 38,474 53.4 17,502 20,812 160
Wexford 101,124 53,369 52.78 23,371 29,793 205
Wicklow 85,918 52,272 60.84 25,936 26,130 206
Total 3,051,278 1,621,037 53.13 752,451 862,415 6,171
https://web.archive.org/web/20080619215420/http://www.referendum.ie/current/index.asp?ballotid=78
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/june-12-pencilled-in-as-date-for-lisbon-treaty-vote-355850.html
(DUBLIN) - Ireland would vote two-to-one to back the EU's Lisbon Treaty if a re-run of the
referendum was held this year, according to an opinion poll on Sunday.
When the undecideds are excluded the pollsters said the results mean 67 percent would
back the poll and 33 would vote against.
"In analysing the results it is apparent that 20-25 percent of those who voted No to the
treaty last year now state that they are unlikely to vote in a second referendum," the
newspaper said.
"Those who voted Yes last time are much more likely to turn out and vote against.
"A further 20 percent of those who voted No last time now suggest that they have changed
their mind and will vote Yes when the referendum if held again."
It says the poll suggests the treaty will be ratified by recession-hit Ireland as long as the
government does not become complacent and it receives assurances from EU partners on
issues which concerned the Irish in the first vote.
On Friday another pollster, Lansdowne Market Research, said there had been a "seismic
change" in attitudes in the ailing former "Celtic Tiger" and 58 percent either agreed or
strongly agreed voters would now back the treaty.
Irish voters sparked a major crisis in the European bloc last June by rejecting the treaty --
the successor to the defunct EU constitution -- by 53 percent.
Ireland's rejection slowed integration efforts just as EU backers say the bloc needs to show
it can take quick, coordinated action to tackle the financial crisis.
Prime Minister Brian Cowen said he is prepared to hold another vote on the treaty --
probably later this year -- on the basis of concessions that have still to be finalised with EU
partners.
Ireland has changed its mind before. In 2001 voters rejected the EU's Nice Treaty, but the
result was overturned the following year in a second referendum when clarifying
declarations were given by other member states.
Results received at the Central Count Centre for the Referendum on Treaty of Lisbon 2009
% Poll
59%
Yes/T
67.13%
No/Nl
32.87%
Result Summary
Electorate: 3,078,032
Total Poll: 1,816,098
Percentage Poll: 59.00%
Invalid Papers: 7,224
Valid Poll: 1,808,874
Votes in favour: 1,214,268
Votes against: 594,606
https://web.archive.org/web/20091004235315/http://www.referendum.ie/referendum/current/index.asp
?ballotid=79
Just too late to be added before the Irish referendum of last weekend, we received a letter
from Danish reader which warned against politicians that claim that all kinds of trouble
will happen if Ireland votes NO going on to explain that when the Danes voted about the
Euro we were first promised all kind of things if we would say yes, but when the polls
still said it would be NO to the euro, they started to threaten us very bad.
Unfortunately, the familiar combination of lies, threats, pie-in-the-sky promises and total
nonsense which characterises most federalist propaganda won the day. Anthony Coughlan
of Irelands EU-critical National Platform, explains what happened.
"Now that the Irish have voted for jobs and growth, for EU enlargement, and for
neutrality, can they have another vote on the Nice Treaty?"
***
On a dark day for democracy in Ireland and in Europe, Irish voters have succumbed to
threats, pressure and bamboozlement by their political class and agreed by 63% to 37% of
those voting to ratify the identical Nice Treaty that they rejected last year by 54% to 46%.
The voter turnout was 48% of the electorate, as compared with 35 % last year.
The Republic's Yes voters have thereby shown that in Ireland at this time, it is the
Government, not the people, who are the masters. Variously pressurised and deceived, the
Republic's Yes-side majority has agreed to reduce Irish democracy further, surrender more
of their country's political independence, abolish their national veto in 35 policy areas,
open the way to the division of the EU into two classes or two tiers, and turn the EU
Commission and Commission President into something like an EU Government and Prime
Minister, under the effective political control of the Big Member States - as provided for in
the Nice Treaty.
Many of Ireland's Yes-voters have done this unknowingly or with doubts in their minds,
deceived by the mendacious referendum campaign of the Government and its allies into
thinking that they were voting for "jobs and growth" or for EU enlargement, or for
neutrality, when none of these desirable things depends on the Nice Treaty. All of Ireland's
No-side parties and groups were either in favour of EU enlargement or not against it, if the
10 Applicant countries agreed to it in their individual Accession Treaties, and these proved
acceptable to their peoples in fair and free referendums.
The solid vote for Ireland's No-side campaigners is quite an achievement in face of the 20
to 1 imbalance of campaign expenditure in favour of Yes, in face of a trick referendum
question that required one answer to two different joined propositions, and in face of the
gutting by the Government of the statutory Referendum Commission as compared with
Nice One, which meant that the Nice Treaty Re-run was conducted under radically different
campaign rules from Nice One.
The lessons and experience of Nice One and Nice Two put Ireland's No-side campaigners in
a strong position to defeat the European Union State Constitution Treaty that is now being
prepared for 2004. Ironically, on Thursday last the Praesidium of the EU Convention
discussed whether this treaty should include a proposal that Member States that refused to
ratify it should be required to leave the EU, something that is legally impossible at present,
but which Ireland's Yes-side voters have now permitted in principle to happen by
approving Nice's "enhanced cooperation" provisions.
Yesterday's referendum was the David of Irish democracy against the Goliath of the Irish
and EU elites, second time around. David slew Goliath in Nice One. He did not expect to
have to face a second bout. In Nice Two Goliath was forewarned against David, was much
better armed, and had several other Goliaths to help out from amongst Goliath's brothers
and friends: Ireland's
business, trade union and farming elites, who decided to back the overthrow of last year's
referendum result with minimal or no consultation with their own members; East European
Prime Ministers, ambassadors, Vaclav Havel and Lech Walensa, orchestrated by Iveagh
House into pleading for a Yes; the EU Commission and Commissioners intervening on the
Yes-side, in almost certain breach of EU and Irish constitutional law; a print media leaning
heavily to the Yes side etc. For the No side on Nice to get the vote they did get in the
circumstances was very good.
The single most important factor in the success of the Irish Government and its allies in
overturning last year's democratic vote of the Irish people on the Nice Treaty, has been
the change in function of the formerly neutral, statutory Referendum Commission. In the
Nice One referendum the Commission had the job of informing citizens on a fair and equal
basis what the Yes-side and No-side arguments were. It was given substantial public
money for that purpose. The Government deprived the Commission of this function on 14
December last in a Bill that was put through all its parliamentary readings in one day, with
one day's notice to the Opposition, on the eve of the Dail (the Irish Parliament ed.) rising
for the Christmas holidays, when media and public attention was elsewhere.
With the Referendum Commission's function of setting out the Pros and Cons of the
constitutional amendment removed, its remaining function of informing citizens what the
referendum was about in a manner that complied with the 1998 Referendum Act
requirement to be "fair to all interests concerned," became all the more important.
Scandalously, in the Nice Re-run, in contrast to last year, Mr Justice T.A. Finlay and his
colleagues failed signally to carry out their statutory duty. By any objective standard their
information function, for which the Government gave them 4,000,000 euros to spend, lent
heavily to the Yes side. By this dereliction of duty the Referendum Commissioners have
rendered an ill service to the
Irish people, Irish democracy and the peoples of Europe. This stemmed from their
disastrous decision to give the advertising contract to the McConnell Advertising Agency
and their failure to ensure that the character of the two booklets that were sent to every
household was objective and impartial, and that their radio and TV advertising was so also.
The National Platform will issue a detailed criticism shortly of the contribution of the
Referendum Commisssion to the subversion of Irish democracy in this Nice Re-run
referendum, to substantiate these judgements more fully. Suffice to mention two points
here. Images convey messages. The two brochures the Commission sent to every Irish
household contained neutral and non-neutral images. A chair with four legs to it, each
labelled with the name of one of the EU institutions, helps explain to people how the EU
works. An image of the EU as an ample mother clutching the existing Member States,
represented as little flag-waving children, to her bosom, and some other flag-waving
children - the Applicant countries - gathered around her on the floor waiting to be similarly
cuddled, is about as loaded an image of a benevolent EU as one could get. Many will think
of other images that might be less benevolent but more appropriate. That kind of thing
was not remotely objective or fair. The Commission's statement, which conditioned their
whole presentation of a key issue of the referendum, that, "legally, it is not clear if more
than five States could join" the EU without the Treaty of Nice, is quite incorrect. Legally,
there is nothing that sets limits to the enlargement of the EU, apart from the condition of
being a European State.
In the Nice Treaty Re-run referendum the Irish political class, with honourable exceptions,
has acted foolishly and shamefully. It is only a matter of time before there is a political
reaction amongst the Irish people at the way in which they have been codded, lied to and
bullied to overthrow last year's referendum result.
Nice One and the Nice Re-run have further exposed the hollow character of Ireland's
mainstream political parties - quarrelling fiercely over trivia, while united on fundamentals.
New political forces, which surely have the future with them, have advanced further as a
result of Nice One and Nice Two.
As for the EU, the No-side people on Nice were neither opportunistic nor mendacious in
claiming to be the "good Europeans" on this occasion, attempting to hold the EU together
as a partnership and to prevent an institutional coup d'etat by the Big States. Now that the
Nice Treaty is on the way to being ratified, it will aggravate further the contradictions and
problems of the EU, its democratic deficit, the lack of identification of citizens everywhere
with an essentially elitist project, the tensions between the Big States and Small, the
erosion of the EU's legitimacy and authority that is moving it at an accelerating rate
towards the most profound crisis, which must lead eventually to the restoration of
Europe's national democracies.
Last Saturday was a dark day for democracy in Ireland and for Europe, but it also has its
bright side.
http://spectrezine.org/europe/Ireland2.htm
S
h
a
r
e
r
e
d
di
t
U
p
v
o
t
e
D
o
w
n
v
o
t
e
s
u
b
m
it
S
in
h
a
r
e
1 print
Emmanuel Dunand, AFP | EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini
(c) with foreign and defence ministers after signing the PESCO
notification in Brussels on November 13.
Text by NEWS WIRES
European Union countries on Monday
officially launched a new era in defense
cooperation with a program of joint military
investment and project development aimed
at helping the EU confront its security
challenges.
: 2017-11-13
Federica Mogherini
@FedericaMog
PESCO
http://www.france24.com/en/20171113-eu-defence-defense-joint-military-
development-cooperation-pesco
HAVING REGARD TO Article 42(6) and Article 46 of the Treaty on European Union,
RECALLING that the Union is pursuing a common foreign and security policy based on the
achievement of growing convergence of action by Member States;
RECALLING that the common security and defence policy is an integral part of the common
foreign and security policy; that it provides the Union with operational capacity drawing on civil and
military assets; that the Union may use such assets in the tasks referred to in Article 43 of the Treaty
on European Union outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening
international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter; that the
performance of these tasks is to be undertaken using capabilities provided by the Member States in
accordance with the principle of a single set of forces;
RECALLING that the common security and defence policy of the Union does not prejudice the
specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States;
RECALLING that the common security and defence policy of the Union respects the obligations
under the North Atlantic Treaty of those Member States which see their common defence realised in
the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which remains the foundation of the collective defence of its
members, and is compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that
framework;
CONVINCED that a more assertive Union role in security and defence matters will contribute to the
vitality of a renewed Atlantic Alliance, in accordance with the Berlin Plus arrangements;
DETERMINED to ensure that the Union is capable of fully assuming its responsibilities within the
international community;
RECOGNISING that the United Nations Organisation may request the Unions assistance for the
urgent implementation of missions undertaken under Chapters VI and VII of the United Nations
Charter;
RECOGNISING that the strengthening of the security and defence policy will require efforts by
Member States in the area of capabilities;
CONSCIOUS that embarking on a new stage in the development of the European security and
defence policy involves a determined effort by the Member States concerned;
RECALLING the importance of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and
Security Policy being fully involved in proceedings relating to permanent structured cooperation,
HAVE AGREED UPON the following provisions, which shall be annexed to the Treaty on
European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:
Article 1
The permanent structured cooperation referred to in Article 42(6) of the Treaty on European Union
shall be open to any Member State which undertakes, from the date of entry into force of the Treaty
of Lisbon, to:
(a) proceed more intensively to develop its defence capacities through the development of its
national contributions and participation, where appropriate, in multinational forces, in the main
European equipment programmes, and in the activity of the Agency in the field of defence
capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments (European Defence Agency), and
(b) have the capacity to supply by 2010 at the latest, either at national level or as a component of
multinational force groups, targeted combat units for the missions planned, structured at a tactical
level as a battle group, with support elements including transport and logistics, capable of carrying
out the tasks referred to in Article 43 of the Treaty on European Union, within a period of 5 to 30
days, in particular in response to requests from the United Nations Organisation, and which can be
sustained for an initial period of 30 days and be extended up to at least 120 days.
Article 2
To achieve the objectives laid down in Article 1, Member States participating in permanent
structured cooperation shall undertake to:
(a) cooperate, as from the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, with a view to achieving approved
objectives concerning the level of investment expenditure on defence equipment, and regularly
review these objectives, in the light of the security environment and of the Unions international
responsibilities;
(b) bring their defence apparatus into line with each other as far as possible, particularly by
harmonising the identification of their military needs, by pooling and, where appropriate,
specialising their defence means and capabilities, and by encouraging cooperation in the fields of
training and logistics;
(c) take concrete measures to enhance the availability, interoperability, flexibility and deployability
of their forces, in particular by identifying common objectives regarding the commitment of forces,
including possibly reviewing their national decision-making procedures;
(d) work together to ensure that they take the necessary measures to make good, including through
multinational approaches, and without prejudice to undertakings in this regard within the North
Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the shortfalls perceived in the framework of the Capability
Development Mechanism;
(e) take part, where appropriate, in the development of major joint or European equipment
programmes in the framework of the European Defence Agency.
Article 3
The European Defence Agency shall contribute to the regular assessment of participating Member
States contributions with regard to capabilities, in particular contributions made in accordance with
the criteria to be established, inter alia, on the basis of Article 2, and shall report thereon at least once
a year. The assessment may serve as a basis for Council recommendations and decisions adopted in
accordance with Article 46 of the Treaty on European Union.
The Irish Government is considering joining PESCO. This will be one of the most important
decisions this FG/Independeny Alliance will ever make. There needs at the very least a
serious debate on the issue, and in any genuine debate form all sides in the corporate
media. On the evidence so far this is highly improbable, as is their total lack of coverage of
the use of Shannon Airport by US troops.
http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/protocols-annexed-to-the-
treaties/673-protocol-on-permanent-structured-cooperation-established-by-article-42-of-
the-treaty-on-european.html
He raised concern that Ireland's neutral status is already "on a pretty shaky
footing" and raised fears it could be the final nail in the coffin of this policy.
Taoiseach Leo Varadkar insisted that the government will defend Ireland's
neutrality and said the country would be joining Pesco on an opt-in, opt-out
basis.
Labour TD Brendan Ryan had asked for a halt to the vote on Pesco
membership arguing that there hadn't been enough national debate on the
matter.
Fine Gael TD Martin Heydon last night said joining Pesco will be good for the
Irish Defence Forces pointing to a plan to build a peace and leadership
institute at the Curragh Camp.
"I hope that our joining Pesco will lead to the advancement of that proposal,"
he said.
https://www.independent.ie/ir
ish-news/politics/dil-votes-to-
join-eu-defence-group-
pesco-36388722.html
I don't recall being handed a Referendum on handing over our Constitutional right to Neutrality to Europe.
When will this referendum take place?
I know it is not in the Constitution itself, but there have been many political moves to have it enshrined threin, and
those attempts (based on opinion polls) were supported by the overwhelming majority of the People.
This, once again, is denying the People their very firm wish in favour of the European Cult.
https://www.eda.europa.eu/info-hub/press-centre/latest-
news/2017/12/06/new-proposals-for-eu-nato-cooperation
http://www.defence.ie/website.nsf/Strategy2016aE
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/12/05/defence-
cooperation-council-adopts-conclusions-on-eu-nato-cooperation-endorsing-common-set-
of-new-proposals-for-further-joint-work/pdf
An article about the recent signing up to
Pesco: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/11/13/defence-
cooperation-23-member-states-sign-joint-notification-on-pesco/#
"EU officials insist this is not just bureaucratic cooperation, but real investment
that will help develop Europe's defense industry and spur research and
development in military capabilities that the bloc needs most.
Mogherini said the move would complement NATO's security aims. The EU,
she said, has tools to fight hybrid warfare - the use of conventional weapons mixed
with things like propaganda and cyber-attacks - that the military alliance does not
have at its disposal."
http://www.defence.ie/WebSite.nsf/report1
The exercise will involve over 500 Defence Forces personnel, including the elite Army
Ranger Wing, exercising with our colleagues in An Garda Sochna.
Members of the public can expect to see military vehicles, armoured vehicles, helicopters
and armed personnel involved in the exercise.
Earlier today, the Defence Forces conducted a major exercise in a number of locations
around Dublin, including Dublin Port and Airport.
The exercise involved over 500 Defence Forces personnel, including the elite Army Ranger
Wing, the Naval Service and Air Corps. An Garda Sochna were also involved.
The exercise centred on how the Defence Forces would respond to a possible request from
An Garda Sochna following a major on-island terrorist incident. In undertaking this
exercise, the Defence Forces practiced various operational and tactical procedures.
Speaking about the exercise the Minister with Responsibility for Defence Mr. Paul Kehoe
T.D. stated:
It is vital to ensure that the men and women of the Defence Forces are prepared to
support An Garda Sochana in the event of a major terrorist incident. This exercise allows
the Defence Forces to build on their capabilities and preparedness and develop their
procedures with An Garda Sochna.
The primary purpose of today was to exercise our plans and our ability to provide the
military capability to support An Garda Sochna in the event of a major terrorist incident.
The exercise was a success, we have identified lessons from it and we will continue to
build on them in future exercises.
The Defence Forces constantly prepare on an on-going basis to support the Civil
Authorities in the event of a national security incident and will continue to enhance our
response capability with exercises such as this in the future.
Read more about The ARW
The Defence Forces have deployed 33 personnel and five 4x4 trucks to assist with flood
relief works in Mountmellick and Portarlington this morning.The troops deployed following a
request from Laois Co Co and left the Defence Forces Training Centre in the Curragh at
8am this morning.The Defence Forces personnel will bring speciialist equipment to assist
in flood defence, mobility and clean up taskings
http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15283-2016-INIT/en/pdf
Defence cooperation: 23
member states sign joint
notification on the Permanent
Structured Cooperation
(PESCO)
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/31511/171113-pesco-notification.pdf
23 EU member states signed a joint notification
for deepening #defence cooperation. Press
release:
Christopher McGimpsey and
Michael McGimpsey
Plaintiffs
And
Defendants
FINLAY CJ:
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the dismissal on the 25th July, 1998, by order of the
High Court made by Barrington J. of their claim for a declaration that the "Agreement between the
Government of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom" made on the l5th November,
1985 (the Anglo-Irish Agreement) is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution.
The parties
2. The plaintiffs are two brothers, each of whom was born in Northern Ireland, and each of whom
now resides in Northern Ireland.
3. In the course of his judgment Barrington J. described the political ambitions and activities of both
the plaintiffs in the following words:-
"Both plaintiffs are members of the Official Unionist party of Northern Ireland. Both are deeply
concerned about the present state of Northern Ireland and of all Ireland. Both reject any form of
sectarianism and both have been involved in peace movements working to accommodate people of
various traditions who live on the island of Ireland. Both gave evidence before the New Ireland
Forum and, in oral and written submissions, attempted to explain to the Forum how the problem
appeared to men fully committed to unionism but interested in finding a peaceful solution to the
problem of Northern Ireland and of Ireland.
Both believe that the Anglo-Irish Agreement has aggravated the problem and instead of solving the
problem, has become part of it."
4. The learned trial judge, having heard the plaintiffs in evidence, was satisfied that in the expression
of these opinions and in their attitude to the problems with which the case is concerned, they were
both sincere. Against these findings by the learned trial judge there is no form of appeal, nor is there
any suggestion that they are otherwise than justified by the evidence which he heard.
5. The plaintiffs' claim for a declaration that the provisions of the Anglo-Irish Agreement are
contrary to the provisions of the Constitution was directed in particular to Articles 1, 2, 4 and 5 of
the Agreement, and the inconsistency alleged was with Articles 2, 3, 29 and 40 of the Constitution.
The defence
6. The defendants in their defence, apart from joining issue on the claims of the plaintiffs, raised a
special defence denying the locus standi of the plaintiffs in the following terms:-
"The plaintiffs do not have the locus standi necessary to seek the reliefs sought in the statement of
claim on the grounds that neither of them has any interest or right which has or will suffer any injury
or prejudice by reason of any of the matters alleged in the statement of claim or by reason of the
coming into force of the said Agreement or at all, nor has either a common interest with any other
person who could claim to be or to be likely to be adversely affected thereby."
7. Amongst the submissions made on behalf of the defendants in the court below on foot of this plea
of an absence of locus standi was that the plaintiffs should not be permitted to invoke Article 2 of the
Constitution because they themselves do not believe that "the national territory consists of the whole
island of Ireland" and are only invoking the Article in a tactical manoeuvre.
"Both plaintiffs were born in Ireland and are therefore, in contemplation of Irish law, citizens of
Ireland."
9. The statement of claim contains no claim that either plaintiff is a citizen of Ireland, although it is
stated that the first plaintiff is the holder of an Irish passport. No evidence was given by either
plaintiff that either he or either of his parents had made the prescribed declaration pursuant to s. 7,
sub-s. 1, of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956, or of any facts which would indicate that
he was "otherwise an Irish citizen".
10. It may well be that the plaintiffs are Irish citizens under s. 6, sub-s. 1 of the Act of 1956 because
either or both of their parents were Irish citizens at the respective dates of their births, though this
was not proved.
11. Since the defendants made no submissions to this Court on this issue and have not sought to vary
the finding of the learned trial judge to which I have referred, I will assume without deciding that
each of the plaintiffs is an Irish citizen.
12. The learned trial judge decided this issue of locus standi in favour of the plaintiffs in the
following passage contained in his judgment:-
"The present case is, to say the least, unusual and there is no exact precedent governing it. But it
appears to me that the plaintiffs are patently sincere and serious people who have raised an important
constitutional issue which affects them and thousands of others on both sides of the border. Having
regard to these factors and having regard to the wording of the preamble to the Constitution and of
Articles 2 and 3, it appears to me that it would be inappropriate for this court to refuse to listen to
their complaints."
13. Against this finding the defendants did not enter any cross-appeal or notice to vary. This Court,
as it would be bound to do, raised the query as to the locus standi of the plaintiffs and the consequent
jurisdiction of this Court to determine the issues raised on the appeal. Counsel for the defendants,
upon that being raised, did not seek by any special submission or argument to vary the decision
which had been reached by the learned trial judge.
14. As a general proposition it would appear to me that one would have to entertain considerable
doubt as to whether any citizen would have the locus standi to challenge the constitutional validity of
an act of the executive or of a statute of the Oireachtas for the specific and sole purpose of achieving
an objective directly contrary to the purpose of the constitutional provision invoked. However,
having regard to the evidence in this case, to the findings of fact made by the learned trial judge, and
to the absence of any cross-appeal brought on behalf of the defendants, I am satisfied that the
plaintiffs' claim in this case and their appeal against the dismissal of it by the High Court should be
entertained on its merits.
Article 2
The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas.
Article 3
"Pending the re-integration of the national territory, and without prejudice to the right of the
Parliament and Government established by this Constitution to exercise jurisdiction over the whole
of that territory, the laws enacted by that Parliament shall have the like area and extent of application
as the laws of Saorstt ireann and the like extra-territorial effect."
Article 29
"1. Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co- operation amongst nations
founded on international justice and morality.
2. Ireland affirms its adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by
international arbitration or judicial determination.
3. Ireland accepts the generally recognised principles of international law as its rule of conduct in its
relations with other States.
4. 1 The executive power of the State in or in connection with its external relations shall in
accordance with Article 28 of this Constitution be exercised by or on the authority of the
Government."
Article 40
"1. All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.
Article 40
"3. 1 The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and
vindicate the personal rights of the citizen."
ARTICLE 1
(a) affirm that any change in the status of Northern Ireland would only come about with the consent
of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland;
(b) recognise that the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland is for no change in
the status of Northern Ireland;
(c) declare that, if in the future a majority of the people of Northern Ireland clearly wish for and
formally consent to the establishment of a united Ireland, they will introduce and support in the
respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish.
ARTICLE 2
(a) There is hereby established within the framework of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council
set up after the meeting between the two Heads of Government on the 6 November 1981, an
Intergovernmental Conference (hereinafter referred to as "the Conference"), concerned with
Northern Ireland and with relations between the two parts of the island of Ireland, to deal, as set out
in this Agreement, on a regular basis with
(i) political matters;
(ii) security and related matters;
(iii) legal matters, including the administration of justice;
(iv) the promotion of cross-border co-operation.
(b) The United Kingdom Government accepts that the Irish Government will put forward views and
proposals on matters relating to Northern Ireland within the field of activity of the Conference in so
far as those matters are not the responsibility of a devolved administration in Northern Ireland. In the
interests of promoting peace and stability, determined efforts shall be made through the Conference
to resolve any differences. The Conference will be mainly concerned with Northern Ireland; but
some of the matters under consideration will involve co-operative action in both parts of the island
of Ireland, and possibly also in Great Britain. Some of the proposals considered in respect of
Northern Ireland may also be found to have application by the Irish Government. There is no
derogation from the sovereignty of either the Irish Government or the United Kingdom Government,
and each retains responsibility for the decisions and administration of government within its own
jurisdiction.
ARTICLE 4
(a) In relation to matters coming within its field of activity, the conference shall be a framework
within which the Irish Government and the United Kingdom Government work together
(i) for the accommodation of the rights and identities of the two traditions which exist in Northern
Ireland; and
(ii) for peace, stability and prosperity throughout the island of Ireland by promoting reconciliation,
respect for human rights, co-operation against terrorism and the development of economic, social
and cultural co-operation.
(b) It is the declared policy of the United Kingdom Government that responsibility in respect of
certain matters within the powers of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should be devolved
within Northern Ireland on a basis which would secure widespread acceptance throughout the
community. The Irish Government support that policy.
(c) Both Governments recognise that devolution can be achieved only with the co-operation of
constitutional representatives within Northern Ireland of both traditions there. The Conference shall
be a framework within which the Irish Government may put forward views and proposals on the
modalities of bringing about devolution in Northern Ireland, in so far as they relate to the interests of
the minority community.
ARTICLE 5
(a) The Conference shall concern itself with measures to recognise and accommodate the rights and
identities of the two traditions in Northern Ireland, to protect human rights and to prevent
discrimination. Matters to be considered in this area include measures to foster the cultural heritage
of both traditions, changes in electoral arrangements, the use of flags and emblems, the avoidance of
economic and social discrimination and the advantages and disadvantages of a Bill of Rights in some
form in Northern Ireland.
(b) The discussion of these matters shall be mainly concerned with Northern Ireland, but the possible
application of any measures pursuant to this Article by the Irish Government in their jurisdiction
shall not be excluded.
(c) If it should prove impossible to achieve and sustain devolution on a basis which secures
widespread acceptance in Northern Ireland, the Conference shall be a framework within which the
Irish Government may, where the interests of the minority community are significantly or especially
affected, put forward views on proposals for major legislation and on major policy issues, which are
within the purview of the Northern Ireland Departments and which remain the responsibility of the
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
17. Barrington J. in the course of his judgment identified from previous decisions what appeared to
him to be two conflicting interpretations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution. He concluded that
the impugned provisions of the Agreement were not contrary to either of these interpretations, and
that accordingly it was not necessary for him to decide between them.
18. The first interpretation mentioned by the learned trial judge was derived by him from the
decision of this Court on the reference of the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Bill, 1975 [1977] I.R. 129,
and he quotes from that decision the following paragraph at p. 584:-
"One of the theories held in 1937 by a substantial number of citizens was that a nation, as distinct
from a State, had rights: that the Irish people living in what is now called the Republic of Ireland and
in Northern Ireland together form the Irish nation: that a nation has a right to unity of territory in
some form be it as a unitary or federal state; and that the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, though
legally binding was a violation of that national right to unity which was superior to positive law.
This national claim to unity exists not in the legal but in the political order and is one of the rights
which are envisaged in Article 2; it is expressly saved by Article 3 which states that the area to
which the laws enacted by the parliament established by the Constitution apply."
19. From that decision he concluded that the interpretation of the Articles was as follows: Article 2
contained a claim to the national territory of the whole of the island of Ireland, its islands and the
territorial seas as a claim in the political order and not as a claim of legal right. Article 3 provided
that, pending the re-integration of the national territory, the Parliament established by the
Constitution could only enact laws with a like area and extent of application as the laws of Saorstt
ireann and the like extraterritorial effect, and therefore could not enact laws with an area of
application in the counties of Northern Ireland.
20. Counsel for both parties submitted in the High Court, and repeated those submissions in this
Court, that Article 2 constituted a claim of a legal right, but that, pursuant to Article 3, the
Parliament established by the Constitution was entitled at any time it wished to enact laws applicable
in the counties of Northern Ireland, though pending the re-integration of the national territory, laws
enacted which did not otherwise provide are deemed to have the restricted area and extent mentioned
in the article.
21. In support of this submission they relied on the dictum of O'Keeffe P. in Boland v. An Taoiseach
[1974] I.R. 338, and on the decision of O'Byrne J. in The People v. Ruttledge decided in 1947 but
reported at [1978] I.R. 376.
22. I am not satisfied that the statement that "this national claim to unity exists not in the legal but
the political order and is one of the rights which are envisaged in Article 2", necessarily means that
the claim to the entire national territory is not a claim of legal right.
23. The phrase occurs in a decision tracing the historical, political and social background to the
Constitution, and seems more appropriately understood as a reference to the origin of the claim than
to its nature. If, however, it is so construed, I would after careful consideration feel obliged to
decline to follow it. I do not accept the contention that Article 3 is to be construed as permitting,
during the period pending the re-integration of the national territory, the enactment of laws
applicable in the counties of Northern Ireland.
24. With Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution should be read the preamble, and I am satisfied that the
true interpretation of these constitutional provisions is as follows:-
25. The provision in Article 3 of the Constitution contained in the words "and without prejudice to
the right of the Parliament and Government established by this Constitution to exercise jurisdiction
over the whole of that territory" is an express denial and disclaimer made to the community of
nations of acquiescence to any claim that, pending the re-integration of the national territory, the
frontier at present existing between the State and Northern Ireland is or can be accepted as
conclusive of the matter or that there can be any prescriptive title thereby created and an assertion
that there can be no estoppel created by the restriction in Article 3 on the application of the laws of
the State in Northern Ireland. This is of course quite distinct from the extra-territorial effect of the
laws of the State in respect of matters occurring outside the State for which persons are made
answerable in the courts of the State.
26. Barrington J. has correctly identified the three main submissions on which the plaintiffs' claim
rested in the High Court and they remain the same on the appeal to this Court.
"1. That the Agreement recognising the legitimacy of the present constitutional arrangements in
respect of Northern Ireland, violates Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution;
2. that, in as much as the Agreement establishes an intergovernmental conference and secretariat, it
fetters the power of the Government to conduct the external affairs and powers of the state under
Articles 28 and 29 of the Constitution.
3. that the State may not enter into a treaty whereby it commits itself to have regard to one section of
the Irish nation (i.e. the "minority" population of Northern Ireland) and to disregard the interests of a
section of the Irish people, namely, the "majority" community in Northern Ireland."
27. In regard to the first of these grounds the plaintiffs relied, in addition to the terms of the
Agreement and of the Constitution, upon submissions that the terms of the Agreement could in
international law constitute an estoppel preventing a subsequent assertion of right to the re-
integration of the national territory and also on a submission that the fact that the Agreement did not
contain a fixed time for its duration added to the alleged constitutional inconsistency.
The decision
28. With regard to these three main grounds of appeal I have come to the following conclusions.
29. The main source of this submission was article 1 of the Anglo- Irish Agreement. In the course of
his judgment Barrington J., after considering the details of that and other provisions of the
Agreement, reached the following conclusion:-
"It appears to me that in article 1 of the agreement the two Governments merely recognise the
situation on the ground in Northern Ireland, (paragraph (b)), form a political judgment about the
likely course of future events, (paragraph (a)), and state what their policy will be should events
evolve in a particular way (paragraph (c))."
30. I find myself in agreement with this economical but precise analysis of the provisions of article
1. The learned trial judge then concluded that on any interpretation of the provisions of Articles 2
and 3 of the Constitution, these provisions of the Anglo-Irish Agreement were not in any way
inconsistent with either of those two Articles. With that conclusion I am in complete agreement.
There can be no doubt but that the only reasonable interpretation of article 1, taken in conjunction
with the denial of derogation from sovereignty contained in article 2, para. (b), of the Anglo-Irish
Agreement is that it constitutes a recognition of the de facto situation in Northern Ireland but does so
expressly without abandoning the claim to the re-integration of the national territory. These are
essential ingredients of the constitutional provisions in Articles 2 and 3.
31. This interpretation is not affected by the provisions of article 4, para. (c) or article 5, para. (c) nor
are either of these two articles capable of any separate inconsistent interpretation. In so far as they
accept the concept of change in the de facto status of Northern Ireland as being something that
would require the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland these articles of the
Agreement seem to me to be compatible with the obligations undertaken by the State in Article 29,
ss. 1 and 2 of the Constitution, whereby Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly
co-operation and its adherence to the principles of the pacific settlement of international disputes.
32. The conclusion that these articles of the Anglo-Irish Agreement do not constitute any form of
abandonment of the claim of right to the re-integration of the national territory but constitute instead
a realistic recognition of the de facto situation in Northern Ireland leads to the consequential
conclusion that the Anglo-Irish Agreement cannot be impugned on the basis of any supposed
estoppel arising to defeat the constitutional claim to re-integration, nor on the basis of any indefinite
duration in the Agreement.
2. Fettering of the power of Government to conduct external relations in breach of Article 29 of the
Constitution
33. The submission made on this issue was that the terms of the Anglo-Irish Agreement were of
similar character to the terms of the Single European Act which the decision of this Court in Crotty
v. An Taoiseach [1987] IR 713 held to be inconsistent with the provisions of Article 29 of the
Constitution.
34. I am satisfied that this analogy is quite false. The Anglo-Irish Agreement is an agreement
reached between two governments, both of whom have an acknowledged concern in relation to the
affairs of Northern Ireland. It acknowledges that the Government of Ireland may make
representations, put forward proposals, and try to influence the evolution of peace and order in
Northern Ireland.
35. The frameworks contained in the Agreement and structures created by it provide methods of
carrying out these activities, it can be argued, in the manner most likely to make them effective and
acceptable, namely, constant mutual discussion. The Government of Ireland at any time carrying out
the functions which have been agreed under the Anglo-Irish Agreement is entirely free to do so in
the manner in which it, and it alone, thinks most conducive to the achieving of the aims to which it is
committed. A procedure which is likely to lead to peaceable and friendly co-operation at any given
time must surely be consistent with the constitutional position of a state that affirms its devotion not
only to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation but to that ideal founded on international justice
and morality.
36. The basis of the decision of this Court in Crotty v. An Taoiseach [1987] IR 713 was that the
terms of the Single European Act could oblige the Government in carrying out the foreign policy of
the State to make the national interests of the State, to a greater or lesser extent, subservient to the
national interests of other member states. I have no doubt that there is a vast and determining
difference between the provisions of this Agreement and the provisions of the Single European Act
as interpreted by this Court in Crotty v. An Taoiseach [1987] IR 713.
37. The submission made on the appeal in regard to this matter was that the provisions of the Anglo-
Irish Agreement contained in article 4, para. (c) and article 5, para. (c) which expressly recognised
the conference as a framework within which the Irish Government might put forward views and
proposals on bringing about devolution in Northern Ireland, in so far as they relate to the interests of
the minority community, constituted a breach of Article 40, s. 1 of the Constitution. The Anglo-Irish
Agreement is not "a law" within the meaning of that term contained in Article 40, s. 1 of the
Constitution. A provision for the capacity of the Irish Government in regard to possible devolution in
Northern Ireland to put forward views and proposals as to the modalities of bringing that about could
not be the holding of any person equal or unequal before the "law".
38. In the alternative, the submission was made that the provisions of this subclause of the
Agreement were inconsistent with Article 40, s. 3, sub-s. 1 of the Constitution. I am satisfied that
they are not. The mere fact that there is an express acknowledgment in the event of discussions
leading or intended to lead to devolution in Northern Ireland of the right of the Irish Government to
bring forward views and proposals in so far as they relate to the interests of the minority community
in Northern Ireland is in no way an abandonment of concern by the Irish Government for the
majority community in Northern Ireland.
39. It does not seem to me that there are any grounds for suggesting that there has been an invidious
or any discrimination between the two communities in Northern Ireland by virtue of the terms of the
Anglo-Irish Agreement.
40. I am satisfied, therefore, that all the grounds of the appeal brought by the plaintiffs must fail. I
come to that conclusion from an analysis of each of the submissions that have been made, both in the
High Court and in this Court. I would also point out, however, that there is, looking at the Anglo-
Irish Agreement in its totality and looking at the entire scheme and thrust of the Constitution of
Ireland a high improbability that a clear attempt to resolve the position with regard to the re-
integration of the national territory and the position of Northern Ireland by a process of consultation,
discussion and reasoned argument structured by constant communication between servants of each
of the two states concerned could ever be inconsistent with a Constitution devoted to the ideals of
ordered, peaceful international relations. I would dismiss this appeal.
Walsh J.
I agree.
Griffin J.
I agree.
Hederman J.
I agree.
McCarthy J.
Locus standi
41. The trial judge concluded that each of the plaintiffs was a citizen of Ireland. As citizens they are
bound by the provisions of Article 9, s. 2 of the Constitution which prescribes that fidelity to the
nation and loyalty to the State are fundamental political duties of all citizens. Such fidelity and
loyalty do not prohibit or restrict disagreement with the content of the Constitution nor with the
actions of government. There are few citizens who have made a public declaration to uphold the
Constitution which contains the constitutional imperative in its preamble that the unity of our
country be restored and Article 2 which defines the national territory as the whole island of Ireland,
its islands and the territorial seas. The plaintiffs uphold the union of Northern Ireland with Britain,
they reject Article 2 but claim that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is in conflict with it, is therefore
invalid having regard to the provisions of the Constitution and thereby call it in aid to achieve their
objective which is the maintenance of partition and of the union with Britain. They approbate and
reprobate.
42. There is a distinction between an objective and the means of achieving it. One does not look to
the objective of a particular legal submission; one looks to the submission itself. One does not
determine locus standi by motive but rather by objective assessment of rights and the means of
protecting them. In Cahill v. Sutton [1980] I.R. 269 the plaintiff who invoked constitutional
protection was denied the right to do so because the type of protection invoked would not, on the
facts, have done her any good. It would have done her a great deal of good if the result was to
condemn the section of the statute which defeated her claim, but the argument of constitutional
injustice did not apply to her situation. Here the argument advanced by the plaintiffs does apply to
the facts of their case, as Irish and as British citizens living in Northern Ireland, and in such case,
their motive is irrelevant. It is commonplace for litigants to invoke the law for the worst of motives;
many pleas of statutory defence may have a most venal purpose but that does not affect the validity
of any such defence. The plaintiffs appear to be contending that, being made Irish citizens by this
State, disapproving of the constitutional claim in Article 2, being concerned as to the effect of the
Anglo-Irish Agreement on them as residents of Northern Ireland, they are entitled to demand of this
State that, as the People make the rules, they must abide by them, whatever be the plaintiffs' motive
or objective.
43. Does this right, however, extend to a challenge to the making of a treaty by the Government
pursuant to Article 29? In Kostan v. Ireland [1978] I.L.R.M. 12 a foreign captain of a fishery vessel
successfully challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Fisheries (Consolidation)
Act, 1959, under which he was prosecuted for unlawful fishing. In Crotty v. An Taoiseach [1987] IR
713 a successful challenge was made by an undoubted citizen against the ratification of part of the
Single European Act. It seems unlikely that a non-citizen would have been allowed to maintain such
proceedings. The citizens of the United Kingdom in Britain have a very real interest in the Anglo-
Irish Agreement; is each one of them to be heard to challenge its validity as being repugnant to the
Constitution of Ireland? I think not. Might such a claim be sustained at the suit of a person living in
Northern Ireland but born outside of Ireland? I think not. The .plaintiffs' right to sue, if right there be,
must depend upon citizenship. In The State (Nicolaou) v. An Bord Uchtla [1966] I.R. 567 Teevan
J., said at p. 600:-
"Circumstances may exist by reason of which it would be no more than impertinent for a non-citizen
to attack the constitutionality of one of our statutes, or by reason of which it would otherwise be
necessary or prudent to take the point."
"This Court expressly reserves for another and more appropriate case consideration of the effect of
non-citizenship upon the interpretation of the Articles in question and also the right of a non-citizen
to challenge the validity of an Act of the Oireachtas having regard to the provisions of the
constitution."
45. In a case such as the present, in my judgment, a non-citizen does not have the locus standi to
maintain a challenge of the kind propounded here against the constitutional validity of the Anglo-
Irish Agreement. The issue of locus standi was raised in the defence and contested at the trial. The
statement of claim does not allege that either plaintiff is a citizen of Ireland and neither plaintiff
testified as to being a citizen or having made the prescribed declaration pursuant to s. 7, sub- s. 1 of
the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956. In my view, the plaintiffs were not shown to be Irish
citizens although Barrington J., in his judgment, stated that both plaintiffs were born in Ireland and
"are therefore in contemplation of Irish law citizens of Ireland." No appeal or notice to vary was
brought in respect of this finding. Because of this and the importance of the issue raised, whilst I am
not satisfied that the plaintiffs have locus standi to maintain this action, I think it right to determine
the main issue in the case.
46. I have read the judgment delivered by the Chief Justice and I wholly agree with the conclusion
that the plaintiffs have failed in their challenge to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I would wish to state
my firm opinion that, whatever the political background to the wording of Article 2 of the
Constitution, it is an unequivocal claim as of legal right that the national territory consists of the
whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas (see O'Keeffe P. in Boland v. An
Taoiseach [1974] I.R. 338 at p. 363).
http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/1990/3.html
Say No To PESCO
Dec 6, 2017
SUBSCRIBE 135
In the midst of the ongoing controversy regarding Brexit and the fate of the Irish border, a very
significant move by the Cabinet has gone almost unnoticed. This is the decision to give the go-ahead
for Ireland to take part in EU plans for closer cooperation on security and defence matters, which the
government expects the Dil to ratify on the basis of limited information and after a disgracefully short
debate on Thursday afternoon. This plan, known as PESCO, is justified under the catch-all excuse of
combating the growing threat of terrorism, and comes with the ritual assurance that this poses no threat
to our traditional and highly-regarded policy of neutrality. One of the consequences of our joining
PESCO is that we would be asked to increase spending on weapons and military affairs, requiring a
leap in defence spending from the currently planned 946 million for 2018 to an estimated 3 billion+
annually by 2020, constituting a further abandonment of our traditional non-aggressive foreign policy.
The single greatest action that Ireland can take to combat terrorism is to withdraw the facilities of
Shannon airport from the US military for use in their wars of aggression, wars which have played a
major part in increasing the global terrorist threat in the first place. Rather than joining military
structures which proclaim the efficacy of military solutions to complex political problems we should
be using the experience of our own history to offer solutions to such problems through dialogue and
negotiation. With the ever-increasing numbers of homeless people on our streets and unprecedented
numbers of refugees seeking safety on European shores, many forced from shattered homes as a result
of Western-backed wars and weaponry it is scandalous that the government plans to spend more
money on militarism, further destabilising an already impoverished and war-weary world.
In the midst of the ongoing controversy regarding Brexit and the fate of
the Irish border, a very significant move by the Cabinet has gone almost
unnoticed. This is the decision to give the go-ahead for Ireland to take
part in EU plans for closer cooperation on security and defence
matters, which the government expects the Dil to ratify on the basis of
limited information and after a disgracefully short debate on Thursday
afternoon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNHycdRCB6A&feature=share
If we ain't feeding billions into the military, then where is the money going? Why am I and
thousands more on the street homeless? It can't be going to unemployment benefits is
it's supposed to by 4% unemployment in ROI at the moment. This country is a disgrace.
Brexit: Impact of Irish Impasse
Dec 6, 2017
SUBSCRIBE 632
Dec 6, 2017: Paul Hollingsworth of Capital Economics explains the market implications of Northern
Ireland's DUP vetoing the UK and EU's draft agreement over Ireland's border.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ81ZTH4GAg
EU Army: The 5 countries that REFUSED to sign up to
France and Germanys defence force
Nov 14, 2017
SUBSCRIBE
AS Brussels hails its historic march towards an EU Army, five nations are holding fire on
committing to an alliance which could lead to a two-speed defence union in competition with NATO.
So far 23 EU nations have agreed to join forces as part of a defence cooperation pact, driven by France
and Germany whose leaders have long-campaigned for greater integration amongst member states. The
agreement will add yet another convoluted deal to the bloc, with some nations taking part while others
do not. The Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) pact includes commitments to integrate armed
forces, a boost in defence spending and the establishment of a joint HQ. And EU bosses have set aside
4.9bn (5.5bn) to fund research and development into new military hardware and the joint purchase of
new equipment. But so far the UK, Ireland, Denmark, Portugal and Malta have yet to sign up to the
deal, which is seen by some as the next step towards a fully fledged EU Army. After it is formally
launched next month, PESCO will be another in a series of already complex relationship between some
EU Member States and NATO. British defence chiefs have previously vowed to veto any creation of
an EU Army, with Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon saying in 2016 such a force would serve as a
rival to NATO. But the UKs impending departure from the bloc has given France and Germany the
opportunity to march forward with their plans. The PESCO agreement features a commitment to
regularly increase defence budgets in real times. And it also includes a pledge to increase the share
of expenditure allocated to defence research and technology with a view to nearing the two percent of
total defence spending. The vast majority of EU members do not currently meet NATOs defence
spending target of two per cent of GDP. Currently, only the UK, the United States, Poland, Greece and
Estonia are making good on the commitment. Denmark has an opt out of all EU defence policies,
however Politico has reported Portugal and Ireland are expected to have signed up to PESCO by the
time it is formally launched next month. Ahead of the approval of the plan in Brussels yesterday, EU
foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said: Its going to be quite a historic day for European
defence. Asked why an EU Army is required in addition to NATO, Ms Mogherini said the proposed
new defence union offered more flexibility. She said: Think of Africa, think of security in Africa. The
European Union is more present there than NATO when it comes to training of security forces, when it
comes to the delicate link between development and security. We are better equipped to act in areas
where there is not a purely military action that is needed, but we can also develop more our military
capabilities to act to reinforce our strategic autonomy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3KhPi1R328
Maybe this will be the thing that gets Ireland out of the EU? We voted against this, the
Lisbon Treaty, I think few if any Irish people want our country to participate in an EU
army. This should be our wake up call.
GERMAN JACKBOOTS ACROSS OUR BEAUTIFUL CONTINENT YET AGAIN! THE
FIRST COUNTRY THEY WILL TAKE DOWN,? WATCH OUT POLAND! WE HAVE
BEEN HERE BEFORE!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3KhPi1R328
Brilliant! The Irish people will decide whether or not they remain in Europe! Genuine & Real Democracy.
Peace, peacemaking and peacekeeping not mentioned once in #PESCO notification document.
I am deeply opposed to Ireland joining this ramping up of EU militarisation.
Military spending "will jump from 900m a year today to between 3-4 billion a year" as a result
of #PESCO, say the socialists. Previously, the Govt says there'll be no extra cost on the
estimates of around 1bn a year between 2018-2020. Govt hasn't debunked the 3-4bn.
No. It is not.
TO An Taoiseach, Leo
Varadkar
No To An EU
Army
AA
Campaign created by
Afri Action
#PESCO
Be warned. It's only a matter of time before the Blueshirts start
conscripting the unemployed into the EU army. Doherty and the
Department of Social Protection already conscript jobseekers into
JobPath to provide cheap labour for multinationals. PESCO will require
Ireland to put boots on the ground when the EU armies invade foreign
countries. Seetec and Turas Nua are going to be busy ...
I recommend that everyone in the dole go & burn their local office to the ground if that happens, then move
onto the poxy Oireachtas where none of them bastards families will be conscripted
There were queues outside recruiting offices today as hundreds of Young Fine Gael
members signed up to join the EU army. Not.
There were queues outside recruiting offices today as hundreds of Young Fine Gael
members signed up to join the EU army. Not.
Today is International Human Rights Day....
"December 10 is Human Rights Day, marking the day in 1948 when the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights officially proclaimed that "all human beings are born free and
equal in dignity and rights."
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Information on Pat the Cope Gallagher Zoom on Pat the Cope
Gallagher The Minister of State will have to try to incorporate the rest of his response into later
comments. I gave him five minutes.
Deputy Sen Crowe: Information on Sen Crowe Zoom on Sen Crowe It is an understatement to
say that I am disappointed. The Minister of State says that he is happy to announce this. I do not
know if the Government had any plan to announce it at all. Ireland's deeper integration into the EU's
military system is completely unacceptable and unwanted by the vast majority of Irish people.
Does the Minister of State accept that there are many people working within the EU structure who
wish to build a military structure to complement NATO and clean up its mess under the guise of
peace building? This is what PESCO is about. We are told there are no spare funds to go to positive
social and economic programmes in areas such as youth unemployment projects, community
regeneration, and improving public services such as health care, but it has already been announced
that 1.5 billion will be spent annually on aggressive military projects which ultimately will facilitate
a standing EU army. Any EU policy which aims to increase EU militarisation is a potential threat to
Irish neutrality and the Government should veto these plans. Today's announcement is hugely
disappointing. There has been no conversation or discussion in the House on the matter, just an off-
the-cuff remark. It is lucky that we put this question down for the Topical Issue debate or the
Minister of State would have barrelled ahead without any debate in the Dil whatever, just as he
usually does.
Deputy Aengus Snodaigh: Information on Aengus Snodaigh Zoom on Aengus Snodaigh This
is an absolute scandal. So much for the supposed support of the Ministers of State, Deputies Finian
McGrath and Halligan, and the Minister, Deputy Ross, for Ireland's neutrality. It will be interesting
to see how their supporters react to this and how they can justify such a move. The Minister of State
has just said that the Government accepts this and that ties these three Ministers or Ministers of
State, who have given their support for neutrality in this Chamber, to this move. This is a scandal.
The aim of PESCO is to develop defence capabilities jointly and make them available for EU
military operations. That is at odds with Irish neutrality. Our capabilities should be available to the
UN and the UN only. The Minister of State should bear in mind that it also allows for the EU to act
alone. It is not obliged to act with UN support. It can also be used to support NATO operations.
When we raised this during the debate on the Lisbon treaty, we were told that we were
scaremongering. Here we are a few years later and we have been proven right. Ultimately, the
Minister of State is talking about going to war.
Deputy Paul Kehoe: Information on Paul Kehoe Zoom on Paul Kehoe I want to tell this House, as I
told the Seanad earlier today, that there is no possibility of our position on neutrality being
questioned in any way as a consequence of PESCO. Contrary to Deputy Crowe's statement, this has
not been hidden away. It has been discussed in the open at EU level for years at every-----
Deputy Sen Crowe: Information on Sen Crowe Zoom on Sen Crowe Why did the Minister of
State not discuss it in the House?
Deputy Paul Kehoe: Information on Paul Kehoe Zoom on Paul Kehoe I have spoken about it here in
recent months in response to parliamentary questions and at committees. I have hidden nothing. I do
not want Deputies to leave the Chamber saying that our neutrality has been brought into question.
The situation could not be further from the truth. The final PESCO document reflects the position of
neutral countries, of which we are not the only one. Other neutral countries have already signed up
to PESCO.
Deputy Aengus Snodaigh: Information on Aengus Snodaigh Zoom on Aengus Snodaigh The
Minister of State has to ask this neutral country.
Deputy Paul Kehoe: Information on Paul Kehoe Zoom on Paul Kehoe Yes, because I respect the
triple lock. I respect what I have to do here. I could have signed up to this last Monday without a
problem but I have respect for the Government and the need to have it passed by the Cabinet and
then the Dil.
Deputy Aengus Snodaigh: Information on Aengus Snodaigh Zoom on Aengus Snodaigh The
Minister of State has no choice but to come here. He has no choice.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Information on Pat the Cope Gallagher Zoom on Pat the Cope
Gallagher Deputy Snodaigh, please.
Deputy Paul Kehoe: Information on Paul Kehoe Zoom on Paul Kehoe Only then, if it is passed by
the Dil, will I sign up. I will sign up when it is the wish of the Parliament. This passed at Cabinet
earlier. I will bring it before the Oireachtas next week or the week after. If I secure a majority of this
House to vote for PESCO, I will sign up to it. If I do not get a majority of the Parliament to vote for
it, then I will not. It is the right thing to do.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Information on Pat the Cope Gallagher Zoom on Pat the Cope
Gallagher The Minister of State will conclude his remarks.
Deputy Paul Kehoe: Information on Paul Kehoe Zoom on Paul Kehoe Projects such as this are
something our military people want to partake in. They see it as the right thing to do.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Information on Pat the Cope Gallagher Zoom on Pat the Cope
Gallagher The Minister of State will conclude his remarks. I have been very lenient on time.
Deputy Paul Kehoe: Information on Paul Kehoe Zoom on Paul Kehoe I will bring it to the House
within the next two weeks to seek its approval.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Information on Pat the Cope Gallagher Zoom on Pat the Cope
Gallagher A message will be sent to the Seanad acquainting it accordingly.
3. The Minister shall, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, bring a report on the cost and
implications of abolishing the Universal Social Charge for everyone earning less than 90,000 per
annum..
This amendment seeks a report on abolishing the universal social charge for everyone earning less
than 90,000 annually. It is a policy which was in the Solidarity-People Before Profit pre-budget
proposal. It is coupled with amendment No. 3 which we will discuss in a moment which is to pay for
the abolition of the USC by imposing new tax bands on the highest incomes. There is often a debate
over whether, as the Government suggested, there ought to be some reductions in the tax burden on
those who earn low and middle incomes or more generally.
France is the fifth biggest arms manufacturer in the world. Many of the
guns and bombs killing human beings on this planet every single day
originate in France. Macron wants to sell arms, so he pretends to be
Leo's best pal. Varadkar has promised to massively increase spending
on military hardware in line with his plans to get us involved with the EU
army...
France's export of arms was 5.6% of the worlds total exports between
2011 and 2015. It sold $18 billion worth of defense equipment in 2015,
an increase from $9.1 billion in 2014. The French government has shares
in top companies such as Airbus and Thales group. These companies
have the advantage of diversity in capabilities. They can manufacture
weapons for use in air, sea, and land. This fact has established France as
a manufacturer of highly specialized equipment. The main destinations
for its exports are Saudi Arabia, UAE, Singapore, and Australia.
Other top countries claiming a market share of the global arms exports
are Germany (4.7%), UK (4.5%), Spain (3.50%) and Italy (2.7%).
All these countries want Ireland involved in pesco/EU army. Do you
think France ... Germany ... Spain ... Italy care about homelessness in
Ireland?
There was great excitement in Dublin today when Taoiseach Leo
Varadkar officially launched the PESCO war train. Monsieur Varadkar
was accompanied by Colonel Paschal Donohue and Field Marshall Lord
Stepaside and he told a small crowd "one small step for PESCO, one
giant step for the new EU army". Asked if he was personally signing up
for the African front Monsieur Varadkar sain "non - ze fighting will be for
ze common people". Herr Donohue said "Heil Berlin - let's invade
Crimea". Lord Stepaside told the crowd "I am hoping Stepaside garda
station will open soon - we need this area protected from the Russians,
they could come over the Wicklow mountains at any time"
The Question of Palestine & the United Nations. United Nations Department of Public
Information. East Jerusalem has been considered, by both the General Assembly and the Security
Council, as part of the occupied Palestinian territory
https://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/palestine/ch12.pdf
JOINT DECLARATION
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION, AND
THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY
ORGANIZATION
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/21481/nato-eu-declaration-8-july-en-final.pdf
https://www.politico.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NATO-joint-
declaration.pdf?utm_source=POLITICO.EU&utm_campaign=0966ff998f-
EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_12_06&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_10959edeb5
-0966ff998f-188946033
EU defence vote
triggers Dil anger
Niamh Lyons
December 6 2017, 12:01am,
The Times
Moreover, he said, there was a constitutional commitment under Article 29 to the ideal of peace and friendly co-
operation amongst nations and to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes. 2 years
later.....FG prove themselves hypocritical yet again. #
As the UK and the Czech Republic did not ratify the Treaty, it initially was an intergovernmental one between 26 of
the 28 EU States but its preamble stated that it was the objective of the Eurozone States and others to incorporate it as
soon as possible into the EU treaties so that it would bind everyone. This is the process that is now underway. Has
anyone heard any mention of this further encroachment on our rights and freedoms in the media? Ireland was the only
State that required a referendum before it could ratify the Treaty in 2012. An Italian MEP accurately summarized the
proposed legislation as institutionalization of the troika, referring to the infamous coalition of debt collectors that
ravaged Greece; without national fiscal flexibility the possibility of advancing credible progressive policies is no more
than a pipedream. Surely the matter at least warrants a Dail debate?
Is there an implication in the above article that the Fiscal Compact austerity regime is to be incorporated
into national constitutions across the EU? Then that will mean a national referendum here as well and what
if the people vote NO and vote NO again!
Reuters knew Irish Fiscal Treaty referendum result before
the count
How could Reuters have reported the exact result of the irish Referendum on Euro News
before the count even started ?? something stinks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3DLYJS1fFU&feat
ure=share
Aine Lawlor Nut, The Week In Politics 'we haven't got time to cover PESCO!'
Somebody needs to pull Mick Wallace aside! 'Coveney & Varadkar looked good re Brexit,
like Statesmen.' Leo Thatchar called press conference which had to be cancelled! Cocky
Idiot didn't know what was going on between Theresa Margaret Thatchar & Arlene
Fraudster! Mick's other hero, Simple Simon was previous Minister for Homelessness!
Never praise a Scum of FG, FF, Liebour, Endapendents!
President Gerry Adams correctly criticised Looney Leo months ago re Brexit! The small bit
where he praised Looney was played by biased RTE! Comprendez?
Demo for our Homeless, Dil, tues, 12pm+! Speeches & music! Not necessarily peaceful.
Be with your people!
The deal would see EU states pool their defence forces and raises issues
surrounding Ireland's neutral stance.
The Peace and Neutrality Alliance says the extra military costs involved
will hamper the housing recovery.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/concerns-government-
will-have-to-commit-to-annual-3bn-defence-bill-if-they-join-pesco-817557.html
Dil votes to join EU's defence organisation
Thursday, December 07, 2017
The Dil has voted by 75 votes to 42 to join a new EU defence network.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/dail-votes-to-join-
eus-defence-organisation-817682.html
Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union 2015
http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-6655-2008-REV-8/en/pdf
THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION (NATO) AND THE ...
www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...amp;doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
the lisbon treaty and its implications for the common security defense policy in the light of the
emerging strategic partnership between nato and the eu
The Lisbon Treaty Key elements After six years of discussions on institutional ways and means to
make the EU of now ... Lisbon Treaty brief
The Lisbon Treaty and ESDP:
Transformation and integration.
Egmont Papers No. 24, June
2008
Biscop, Sven, and Algieri, Franco. (2008) The Lisbon Treaty and ESDP: Transformation and
integration. Egmont Papers No. 24, June 2008
http://aei.pitt.edu/8966/1/ep24.pdf
Europe after the Lisbon Treaty: are EU member states still sovereign? The European Union in 2013
https://www.iwp.edu/docLib/20131211_EuropeaftertheLisbonTreaty.pdf
The EU's mutual assistance clause First ever activation of Article 42(7) TEU The
EU's mutual assistance clause ... Included in EU primary law in 2009 by the
Lisbon Treaty, ... As concerns relations with NATO, the EU Treaty's mutual
assistance . 2015
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2015/572799/EPRS_B
RI(2015)572799_EN.pdf
On 17 November 2015, Article 42(7), or the mutual assistance clause of the Treaty
on European Union (TEU), was invoked for the first time, when France asked for aid
and assistance from the other European Union (EU) Member States in the aftermath
of the deadly terrorist attacks in Paris on 13 November 2015.
Included in EU primary law in 2009 by the Lisbon Treaty, under the specific
provisions on the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), the EU mutual
assistance clause (or the EU mutual defence clause as it is called by many), had never
previously been used. As there is no precedent, many questions have arisen with
regard to its scope, implementation and the role of the EU institutions, as well as to
the relationship with other provisions in EU law which refer to the expression of
solidarity between EU Member States, in particular the EU solidarity clause
contained in Article 222 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU).
France's decision to request assistance from the other Member States under Article
42(7) TEU, rather than following other possible approaches, has been explained in
various ways, not least through the preference of dealing bilaterally with the other
EU governments, without involving the EU institutions. All EU Member States have
unanimously promised their full aid and support for France, but the process of
defining the substance of their commitments is still ongoing.
In this briefing:
The EUs mutual assistance clause: the provisions of Article 42(7) TEU
Member States' bilateral commitments
The EU solidarity clause and its
EN
EPRS
The EUs mutual assistance clause: the provisions of Article 42(7) TEU
Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) part of the Treaty's specific
provisions on the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) contains the mutual
assistance clause of the EU (also considered as the EUs mutual defence clause).
Inspired by Article V of the 1954 modified Brussels Treaty establishing the Western
1
framework by the Lisbon Treaty in 2009. Until then, no such provision had been
agreed to complement the EU's crisis management powers in the context of defence
cooperation under the CSDP.
Origins
Unlike the 'civilian' solidarity clause of Article 222 TFEU (see below), the mutual
assistance provision covered by Article 42(7) TEU clearly has defence implications
covering collective defence, as suggested by the reference to Article 51 of the UN
5
of
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States
shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in
accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific
character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States. Commitments and
cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty
Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their
collective defence and the forum for its implementation.
Procedure
Article 42(7) TEU does not set out any formal procedure. No Council decision or
conclusion is needed to implement Article 42(7) TEU, only the existence of the
facts/situation constituting the reason for invoking the article. If the Member State
affected makes a request for assistance, it ensues from Article 42(7) TEU there is a
legal obligation to assist incumbent on all the other Member States, through civilian
or military means. As concerns the provision of military assistance, most agree there
is at least a political obligation to assist. Subsequently, the other Member States
must define in concrete terms the scope of their support and the means they intend
to put at the requesting state's disposal.
As the article had never been triggered since 2009 there is no precedent. France has already
engaged in bilateral talks with the other Member States in order to specify their aid and
assistance. The bilateral nature of the support means that it will not be a uniform
contribution from the Member States, and will reflect the individual deals agreed between
Paris and its counterparts. It also does not mean that EU Member States are obliged to
provide any military assets to the campaign against ISIL/Da'esh.
In the particular case of Article 42(7) TEU, the implementing obligations deriving
from it belong rather to the Member States acting collectively or within NATO. As
mentioned, the CSDP framework does not currently allow for EU self-defence
operations. Also the invocation by France of the mutual assistance clause in the
formal setting of the Council has been considered purely incidental. Nevertheless,
choosing the Council as the venue can be interpreted as having political, institutional
and practical implications, in particular expressing solidarity and readiness to provide
assistance according to the EU Treaties.
The EP adopted, in November 2012, a resolution on the EUs mutual defence and solidarity
clauses. With regard to the mutual defence clause, the EP underlined the necessity to be
prepared for situations 'involving non-NATO EU Member States or EU Member States
territories that are outside the North Atlantic area and are therefore not covered by the
Washington Treaty, or situations where no agreement on collective action has been reached
within NATO' and expressed the view that the clause could even cover non-armed attacks,
such as cyber-attacks against critical infrastructure, 'if the Member States security is
significantly threatened by its consequences.' Furthermore, the EP invited the VP/HR to
'propose practical arrangements and guidelines' and an analysis of the role of the EU
institutions in the event the mutual defence clause was invoked. Finally, the EP made a plea
for using the EU's crisis management structures in this context, in particular activating the
EU Operational Headquarters.
EPRS
In the context of its request for assistance, France has been pointing out the need
for assistance in meeting some of its foreign military commitments, including its
participation in UN peacekeeping operations in Africa and in EU CSDP missions and
operations. France currently contributes 939 uniformed personnel (military and
police) to UN peacekeeping missions, of which 845 are serving in UNIFIL, the UN
peacekeeping mission in Lebanon. In 2014, almost 8 000 French troops were
engaged in French and multinational (EU and UN) deployments outside France's
territory. According to Europe Diplomacy and Defence, the external operations of
the French army could mean costs of 1.128 billion in 2015 (similar to 2014), of
which a large part was dedicated to France's operations in the Sahel (Barkhane), in
Iraq/Syria (Chammal) and in the Central African Republic (Sangaris). France also
called on the other Member States to take part in air strikes in Syria. It is considered
that another priority will be greater sharing of intelligence between EU Member
States and the reinforcement of the EU's borders.
The bilateral consultations are ongoing, but some commitments have already been
made public. The UK has offered France the use of its Akrotiri airbase in Cyprus for
French aviation and also given additional in-flight refuelling support. The UK
government is currently preparing to ask the UK Parliament for backing for air strikes
in Syria.
Many have wondered why France chose to invoke the mutual assistance clause of
Article 42(7) instead of the solidarity clause contained in Article 222 TFEU, which
specifically provides for assistance from the Union and its Member States for an EU
Member State victim of a terrorist attack, a natural or man-made disaster.
Article 222 TFEU, or the solidarity clause, provides for two levels of assistance:
by the EU jointly with its Member States to the Member State the object
of a terrorist attack or victim of a natural or man-made disaster (Article
222(1) TFEU);
by Member States, which have an obligation to assist the requesting
Member State in the abovementioned situations, in which case the Council
becomes the locus for coordination (Article 222(2)TFEU). Implementation by
Member States should be seen against the provisions of Declaration No 37
annexed to the Treaties, whereby a Member State can choose the most
appropriate means to
comply with its own solidarity obligation towards another Member State.
The EU solidarity clause (Article 222 TFEU) and its relationship with
CSDP
and Article 42(7) TEU
Members' Research Service Page 6 of 9
EPRS
Although the EEAS and CSDP structures are involved under Article 222 TFEU the
Union will mobilise all instruments at its disposal such as police and judicial
cooperation, the EU civil protection mechanism, the structures developed in the
framework of the CSDP this role is defined by the abovementioned Council
Decision and cannot be understood as a CFSP/CSDP role. Both the primary law
(Article 222(3) TEU) and the Council Decision specifically mention that decisions with
defence implications should be taken in accordance with the specific procedures on
CFSP/CSDP unanimity under Article 31(1) TEU and the other relevant provisions of
the Treaties.
It must also be pointed out that the implementation by the Union of the solidarity
clause is restricted to the Member State's 'territory', in line with Article 222(1) TFEU,
as regards the prevention of the terrorist threat and assistance in the event of a
terrorist attack (although the notion of territory as used in the Council Decision
might be better replaced by 'jurisdiction' according to some experts.) EU operational
action under CSDP as mentioned above cannot mean self-defence action on the
Union's territory. Also Article 42(7) does not have this territorial limitation when it
comes to implementation, except with regard to the armed aggression that must
have happened on the Member States territory.
Although the added value of the solidarity clause has been called into question, as
there are already established cooperation and coordination mechanisms at EU level,
experts still consider it an important tool that must be viewed in a broader context,
including other Treaty provisions that pursue similar aims such as Article 42(7) TEU.
Some interpretations point to the existence of a certain overlap or grey areas
between the two clauses, which reaffirms the political discretion of the EU and its
Member States as to the means employed (political, military or other means) to fight
old and new security
Neither the EU mutual defence clause nor the solidarity clause had been invoked so
far, therefore France's decision is a first. When asked why France invoked Article
42(7) TEU and not Article 222 TFEU, the French Defence Minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian,
(as well as Mogherini) emphasised this was mainly a 'political act' that the French
hope to see translated into 'capability collaboration for French interventions in Syria
and Iraq, either by relief to or support of France in other operations.' Both Mogherini
and Le Drian seemed to downplay the operational significance of France's request
under Article 42(7) TEU putting the emphasis on the political nature of the act. They
also underlined that it needs to be seen as separate from NATO's similar Article 5
clause.
The Council in its Conclusions of 17 November 2015 specifies that 'offers may consist
of material assistance and of support in theatres of operation where France is
engaged'. Thus, some view France's invocation of Article 42(7) being not necessarily
related to the substance of the article, but as a lever to use during the bilateral
consultations in order to get something for which France has been asking for some
time now: that other Member States make a contribution to French efforts, either in
Mali or CAR or in the Middle East. This has been a longstanding French criticism of
other EU Member States as it had the perception of being left to deal alone with the
situation in various crisis theatres. In this context, it was also assessed that, as the
EU's solidarity clause is restricted to EU territory and France was actually trying to
get support outside its territory, opting for the mutual assistance clause was logical.
Moreover, it was pointed out that France opted deliberately for 'neither NATO nor
supranational assistance'. In the case of NATO, France's choice not to invoke Article
5 may be related to France's current diplomatic efforts, aimed at Russia and Arab
countries also, to rally a grand coalition to combat ISIL/Da'esh in Iraq and Syria,
which NATO involvement might jeopardise. Also, the limited role for EU institutions
could explain the choice of Article 42(7) by France over other possibilities, thus
clearly expressing a preference for the intergovernmental/bilateral framework.
Other views insist on the political symbolism of invoking the Article 42(7) TEU clause,
seen as a necessary and bold affirmation on the part of France of the need for a
common foreign policy towards the Middle East, therefore a 'common Middle East
strategy and an integrated police and intelligence effort', something NATO cannot
do. Also the choice of the EU's mutual assistance clause could be regarded in the
light of past French efforts to enhance the EU's security and defence policy, as well
as of a 'certain conception of Europe's role in global affairs'.
Main references
The Treaty on European Union (TEU) a commentary, Blanke, H-J., Mangiameli, S.,
Heidelberg, Springer, 2013 , 1813 p.
The 'Solidarity Clause' of the European Union dead letter or enabling act?, Martino, A-M,
SIAK-Journal Zeitschri fu r Polizeiwissenscha und polizeiliche Praxis (2), 2015, pp 65-76.
Endnotes
Article V of the WEU Treaty reads: 'If any of the High Contracting Parties should be the object of an armed
1
attack in Europe, the other High Contracting Parties will, in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the
Charter of the United Nations, afford the Party so attacked all the military and other aid and assistance in their
power.' The
2
EPRS
provision is complemented by Article IV of the modified Brussels Treaty which emphasises NATO's role and gives
it de facto precedence to implement collective defence in case of aggression against one of the ten WEU
members:
'In the execution of the Treaty, the High Contracting Parties and any Organs established by Them under the
Treaty shall work in close co-operation with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
Recognising the undesirability of duplicating the military staffs of NATO, the Council and its Agency will rely on
the appropriate military authorities of NATO for information and advice on military matters.'
The Treaty on European Union (TEU) a commentary, Blanke, H-J., Mangiameli, S., Heidelberg, Springer, 2013, pp.
1201-1235.
3
4
5
(Article 2(4) of the UN Charter) and allows for the right of individual or collective self-defence in the event of an
armed attack against a state Member of the United Nations.
6
them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree
that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence
recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking
forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use
of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all
measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be
terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international
peace and security.'
7
8
9
(that is, allowing for a right to self-defence at a lower threshold than armed attack), others point simply to the
different language versions of the EU Treaties (as well as the French version of the UN Charter) and the fact that
the negotiations for the Lisbon Treaty took place in French, thus the use of the English translation of 'aggression
armee'.
10
11
2014, 1844 p.
12
13
adopted a decision meant to give concrete guarantees to Ireland (but not only) in the field of security and
defence: 'It will be for Member States including Ireland, acting in a spirit of solidarity and without prejudice to
its traditional policy of military neutrality to determine the nature of aid or assistance to be provided to a
Member State which is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of armed aggression on its territory. ... It will
be a matter for Ireland or any other Member State, to decide, in accordance with any domestic legal
requirements, whether or not to participate in any military operation.'
14
The content of this document is the sole responsibility of the author and any opinions expressed
therein do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. It is addressed
to the Members and staff of the EP for their parliamentary work. Reproduction and translation for
non- commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and the European
Parliament is given prior notice and sent a copy.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/596835/IPOL_BR
I(2017)596835_EN.pdf
Resources for the funding of the research fund for coal and steel 15-09-2017
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/603797/IPOL_BR
I(2017)603797_EN.pdf
Statute for Social and Solidarity-based Enterprises 06-12-2017
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/611030/EPRS_S
TU(2017)611030_EN.pdf
https://www.oireachtas.ie/.../2009/4909/B4909D.english.pdf
Positive Neutrality is Irelands best Defence - Oireachtas
PANA submission to government White paper on Defence 00 Positive Neutrality is Irelands bestDefence PANA
submission to government White paper on Defence
http://www.oireachtas.ie/.../PANA-White-Paper-on-Defence.pdf
The Government is attempting to rush through the Dil the most serious instrument with
the most serious implications. This is an insult to the people of Ireland. Hear Catherine's
contribution to the debate on Ireland's participation in Permanent Structured Cooperation
(PESCO) in the Dil this afternoon.
https://www.facebook.com/catherineconnollyTD/videos/1712415438779298/
?hc_ref=ARRnlOd_--
wBbTmyiEiTSFP4rP08cCIP3qk50qIaaovexTRqIG3v758nHf9hKNezwio&fref=nf
Bilderberg, that infamously secretive annual meeting of some of the most influential people in global
politics and commerce, gets underway today and there will be a trio of Irish businessmen behind the
closed doors in Chantilly, Virginia.
While the discussions that go on at the gathering are never divulged, Bilderberg's official website
helpfully lists each year's attendees, as well as the key topics which will be broached top of the list
being "The Trump Administration: A progress report".
Making his third Bilderberg appearance will be Mullingar's own Michael O'Leary. The Ryanair boss
has attended the last two meetings and will be the only figure from the airline industry present.
Joining him will be Gene Murtagh, chief executive of Cavan-based insulation and building materials
giant Kingspan.
The group turned a profit of 341m last year, off the back of revenue leaping 12% and past the 3bn
mark for the first time.
Speaking to Newstalk last August, Murtagh outlined how its strong ties to the global tech sector was
benefitting business:
"We've been working in partnership with companies like Facebook, like Microsoft in other parts of
the world, and they're investing substantial amounts here.
"As, of course, will Apple be in the new data centre in Athenry. So we'd expect to be working with
all of those businesses."
Completing the trio is the youngest of the bunch.
Patrick Collison (pictured below, left), who runs soaring online payments platform Stripe with his
younger brother John, will be one of the few millennials in the conference room at the age of 28.
In March, the Limerick-born, San Francisco-based siblings joined the Forbes Rich List elite for the
first time.
The pair landed in joint 1,795th place out of 2,043 billionaires with an estimated fortune of $1.1bn
(1.02bn) each. The 26-year-old John was the youngest self-made billionaire on the list.
While John won't be accompanying him, Patrick will be able to enjoy the company of perennial
attendee Henry Kissinger, right-wing tech entrepreneur Peter Thiel, IMF head Christine Lagarde and
more than 120 other movers and shakers from 21 countries across Europe and North America.
In previous years, Garret FitzGerald, Michael Noonan, Simon Coveney and Michael McDowell
have all flown the Irish flag (quietly) at the closed summit.
Ireland
The global media narrative is controlled by six corporations with less than 200 executives. Varadkar,
Macron, Merkel and May are the candidates prescribed by the Bilderbergs. The media will
intimidate anyone from exposing what are known as inside jobs."
That's as glaringly obvious as the founder of the EU - Kalergis plan to cut the standard of living for
indigenous Europeans. "Typical sinner confused about everything " smear tactics by the media to
manufacture consent and prevent debate.
Read the founder of the EU KALERGI s proposal for Europe. His plan seems to be advancing
rapidly here in Ireland. In the expected attack on me don't revert to identity politics or smear tactics.
This is fascist behavior.
http://www.newstalk.com/Here-are-the-Irish-attendees-at-Bilderberg-2017
It is important to remind this House that PESCO was comprehensively discussed in the context of
the Lisbon treaty and was approved by the Irish people when they voted for the treaty in October
2009. PESCO was specifically referenced in the Lisbon treaty protocol to address the concerns of
the Irish people and Irelands declaration and that the legislation setting down Irelands approval
process for PESCO was published in advance of that vote and enacted in November 2009.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Information on Pat the Cope Gallagher Zoom on Pat the Cope
Gallagher The Minister of State will have to try to incorporate the rest of his response into later
comments. I gave him five minutes.
Deputy Sen Crowe: Information on Sen Crowe Zoom on Sen Crowe It is an understatement to
say that I am disappointed. The Minister of State says that he is happy to announce this. I do not
know if the Government had any plan to announce it at all. Ireland's deeper integration into the EU's
military system is completely unacceptable and unwanted by the vast majority of Irish people.
Does the Minister of State accept that there are many people working within the EU structure who
wish to build a military structure to complement NATO and clean up its mess under the guise of
peace building? This is what PESCO is about. We are told there are no spare funds to go to positive
social and economic programmes in areas such as youth unemployment projects, community
regeneration, and improving public services such as health care, but it has already been announced
that 1.5 billion will be spent annually on aggressive military projects which ultimately will facilitate
a standing EU army. Any EU policy which aims to increase EU militarisation is a potential threat to
Irish neutrality and the Government should veto these plans. Today's announcement is hugely
disappointing. There has been no conversation or discussion in the House on the matter, just an off-
the-cuff remark. It is lucky that we put this question down for the Topical Issue debate or the
Minister of State would have barrelled ahead without any debate in the Dil whatever, just as he
usually does.
Deputy Aengus Snodaigh: Information on Aengus Snodaigh Zoom on Aengus Snodaigh This
is an absolute scandal. So much for the supposed support of the Ministers of State, Deputies Finian
McGrath and Halligan, and the Minister, Deputy Ross, for Ireland's neutrality. It will be interesting
to see how their supporters react to this and how they can justify such a move. The Minister of State
has just said that the Government accepts this and that ties these three Ministers or Ministers of
State, who have given their support for neutrality in this Chamber, to this move. This is a scandal.
The aim of PESCO is to develop defence capabilities jointly and make them available for EU
military operations. That is at odds with Irish neutrality. Our capabilities should be available to the
UN and the UN only. The Minister of State should bear in mind that it also allows for the EU to act
alone. It is not obliged to act with UN support. It can also be used to support NATO operations.
When we raised this during the debate on the Lisbon treaty, we were told that we were
scaremongering. Here we are a few years later and we have been proven right. Ultimately, the
Minister of State is talking about going to war.
Deputy Paul Kehoe: Information on Paul Kehoe Zoom on Paul Kehoe I want to tell this House, as I
told the Seanad earlier today, that there is no possibility of our position on neutrality being
questioned in any way as a consequence of PESCO. Contrary to Deputy Crowe's statement, this has
not been hidden away. It has been discussed in the open at EU level for years at every-----
Deputy Sen Crowe: Information on Sen Crowe Zoom on Sen Crowe Why did the Minister of
State not discuss it in the House?
Deputy Paul Kehoe: Information on Paul Kehoe Zoom on Paul Kehoe I have spoken about it here in
recent months in response to parliamentary questions and at committees. I have hidden nothing. I do
not want Deputies to leave the Chamber saying that our neutrality has been brought into question.
The situation could not be further from the truth. The final PESCO document reflects the position of
neutral countries, of which we are not the only one. Other neutral countries have already signed up
to PESCO.
Deputy Aengus Snodaigh: Information on Aengus Snodaigh Zoom on Aengus Snodaigh The
Minister of State has to ask this neutral country.
Deputy Paul Kehoe: Information on Paul Kehoe Zoom on Paul Kehoe Yes, because I respect the
triple lock. I respect what I have to do here. I could have signed up to this last Monday without a
problem but I have respect for the Government and the need to have it passed by the Cabinet and
then the Dil.
Deputy Aengus Snodaigh: Information on Aengus Snodaigh Zoom on Aengus Snodaigh The
Minister of State has no choice but to come here. He has no choice.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Information on Pat the Cope Gallagher Zoom on Pat the Cope
Gallagher Deputy Snodaigh, please.
Deputy Paul Kehoe: Information on Paul Kehoe Zoom on Paul Kehoe Only then, if it is passed by
the Dil, will I sign up. I will sign up when it is the wish of the Parliament. This passed at Cabinet
earlier. I will bring it before the Oireachtas next week or the week after. If I secure a majority of this
House to vote for PESCO, I will sign up to it. If I do not get a majority of the Parliament to vote for
it, then I will not. It is the right thing to do.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Information on Pat the Cope Gallagher Zoom on Pat the Cope
Gallagher The Minister of State will conclude his remarks.
Deputy Paul Kehoe: Information on Paul Kehoe Zoom on Paul Kehoe Projects such as this are
something our military people want to partake in. They see it as the right thing to do.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Information on Pat the Cope Gallagher Zoom on Pat the Cope
Gallagher The Minister of State will conclude his remarks. I have been very lenient on time.
Deputy Paul Kehoe: Information on Paul Kehoe Zoom on Paul Kehoe I will bring it to the House
within the next two weeks to seek its approval.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Information on Pat the Cope Gallagher Zoom on Pat the Cope
Gallagher A message will be sent to the Seanad acquainting it accordingly.
Finance Bill 2017: Order for Report Stage
Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Deputy Michael D'Arcy): Information on Michael
D'Arcy Zoom on Michael D'Arcy I move: "That Report Stage be taken now."
Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: Information on Richard Boyd Barrett Zoom on Richard Boyd Barrett
I move amendment No. 2:
3. The Minister shall, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, bring a report on the cost and
implications of abolishing the Universal Social Charge for everyone earning less than 90,000 per
annum..
This amendment seeks a report on abolishing the universal social charge for everyone earning less
than 90,000 annually. It is a policy which was in the Solidarity-People Before Profit pre-budget
proposal. It is coupled with amendment No. 3 which we will discuss in a moment which is to pay for
the abolition of the USC by imposing new tax bands on the highest incomes. There is often a debate
over whether, as the Government suggested, there ought to be some reductions in the tax burden on
those who earn low and middle incomes or more generally.
The second Lisbon Treaty should have had a protocol added to protect our neutrality as of September
2016 it had not been added.
But so far the UK, Ireland, Denmark, Portugal and Malta have yet to sign up to the deal,
which is seen by some as the next step towards a fully fledged EU Army.
After it is formally launched next month, PESCO will be another in a series of already
complex relationship between some EU Member States and NATO.
British defence chiefs have previously vowed to veto any creation of an EU Army, with
Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon saying in 2016 such a force would serve as a rival
to NATO.
But the UKs impending departure from the bloc has given France and Germany the
opportunity to march forward with their plans.
And it also includes a pledge to increase the share of expenditure allocated to defence
research and technology with a view to nearing the two percent of total defence
spending.
The vast majority of EU members do not currently meet NATOs defence spending target
of two per cent of GDP.
Currently, only the UK, the United States, Poland, Greece and Estonia are making good
on the commitment.
Denmark has an opt out of all EU defence policies, however Politico has
reported Portugal and Ireland are expected to have signed up to PESCO by the time it is
formally launched next month.
Ahead of the approval of the plan in Brussels yesterday, EU foreign policy chief Federica
Mogherini said: Its going to be quite a historic day for European defence.
Asked why an EU Army is required in addition to NATO, Ms Mogherini said the proposed
new defence union offered more flexibility.
The European Union is more present there than NATO when it comes to training of
security forces, when it comes to the delicate link between development and security.
We are better equipped to act in areas where there is not a purely military action that is
needed, but we can also develop more our military capabilities to act to reinforce our
strategic autonomy.
Aside from Denmark, which has opted out of all EU defence, only Austria,
Poland, Ireland and Malta have yet to decide whether to join the pact. The UK
Government however have signalled that it wants a close security relationship
with the EU after Brexit.
Its in our mutual interest to work closely with the EU and its member states
to challenge terrorism and extremism, illegal migration, cyber crime, and
conventional state-based military aggression said David Davis, Brexit
secretary.
The UK contributes to several EU military programmes, including those
countering migration from Libya and piracy off Somalia
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/879322/eu-army-latest-5-countries-
refuse-sign-up-france-germany-defence-force
Ireland ... Agreement called for the creation of a local government for ... Irish voters approved
a European Union (EU)
https://www.mesacc.edu/sites/default/files/pages/section/students/study-
abroad/CultureGrams2016_Ireland.pdf
http://www.democraticprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/The-Good-
Friday-Agreement-An-Overview.pdf
LISBON TREATY president of ireland, the president of the italian republic, his
royal highness the grand duke of luxembourg,
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fi
le/228848/7310.pdf
Defence and security after Brexit - RAND Corporation Ireland and Gibraltar ...
Economic Area, Canadas free trade agreement, ... any potential future EU Army,
the relationship
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1700/RR
1786z1/RAND_RR1786z1.pdf
Belfast Agreement (1998). If Ireland ... government of neutral Ireland wants to join this
emerging EU army.
http://www.people.ie/news/PN-176.pdf
Illegitimate Paternity Rules in Germany - U.S. Army Europe Illegitimate Paternity
Rules in Germany ... Agreement provides that the military authorities shall
secure the member's compliance with a . 2011/08/30 3
http://www.eur.army.mil/21TSC/SJA/LegalAssist/Areas-
German%20&%20EU%20Issues/04-11-Paternit.pdf
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 12937 _____ DEFENSE NATO Status of
Forces Agreement
https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/111621.pdf
Army in Europe. Document ... Under the provisions of the German
Supplementary Agreement to the NATO Status
http://www.eur.army.mil/rmv/Documents_PDF/aep190-34.pdf
The EU doesnt have the legal power to act in this area unless
member governments actively give their permission.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:2bf140bf-a3f8-4ab2-b506-
fd71826e6da6.0023.02/DOC_1&format=PDF#page=25
COUNCIL DECISION 2005/395/CFSP
of 10 May 2005
amending Decision 2001/80/CFSP on the establishment of the Military Staff of the European Union
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32005D0395&from=E
N#page=5
EU Operations Centre for the Common Security and Defence Policy missions and operation in
the Horn of Africa
http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:
329:0039:0040:EN:PDF
Permanent Structured Cooperation - PESCO ... and process to deepen defence cooperation
amongst EU Member ... a permanent structured cooperation in the field
https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/
files/pesco_factsheet_19-10-
2017_1.pdf
The Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), ... The defence provisions of the Lisbon Treaty
were another ... in the development of the EUs foreign
https://ec.europa.eu/epsc/sites/epsc/files/strategic_note_issue_4_en.pdf