Lisbon Treaty Illegal on many counts

national | rights, freedoms and repression | news report

Tuesday September 29, 2009 11:09

by Illegal Beagle

Criticism of Mr Justice Frank Clarke's and the Referendum Commission's failure to carry out their statutory duty under the Referendum Acts

The following letter from John Anthony Coughlan is self explanatory. Is it the opening gambit in a legal challenge that could bring the government down? Patricia McKenna is not alone in her legal challenge.

Letter was delivered to Mr Justice Frank Clarke, Chairman of the Referendum Commissionn, from Anthony Coughlan last Thursday, with the most relevant passages highlighted in bold. It has now been released to the media.

Sunday 27 September 2009

_______

TO:
MrJustice Frank Clarke
Chairman,
The Referendum Commission
18 Lower Leeson St.
Dublin 2

FROM:
Anthony Coughlan
The National Platform EU Research and Information Centre
24 Crawford Avenue
Dublin 9
Tel.: 01-8305792

Thursday 24 September 2009

Dear Mr Justice Clarke
May I enclose for your information a copy of the new edition of the Lisbon Treaty: The Readable Version, the first edition of which I sent you and your Referendum Commission colleagues some time ago. I also enclose a document which describes the main changes the Lisbon Treaty would make.

May I take the opportunity of saying that the current Lisbon referendum, as I presume you have noted, has been characterized by monstrous illegality on the part of several key parties, as follows:-
1. The intervention of the European Commission, which is unlawful under European law, as the Commission has no function in relation to the ratification of new Treaties, something that is exclusively a matter for the Member States under their own constitutional procedures;

2. The part-funding of the posters and press advertisements of most of Ireland's Yes-side political parties by their sister parties in the European Parliament, even though it is illegal under Irish law to receive donations from sources outside the country in a referendum and when, under EU law, money provided by the European Parliament to cross-national political parties is supposed to be confined to informational-type material and to avoid direct partisan advocacy. I read that the Green Party has refused such funding from its sister party in the European Parliament on the ground that it is advised that this is illegal under European law (Later comment on this latter point inserted by A.Coughlan:
Presumably this scrupulousness is because Green Party Local Government Minister
John Gormley, as Minister responsible for running the referendum, cannot afford to
have the political party he belongs to flout the law!)

3. The Government's unlawful use of public funds in circulating to voters a postcard with details of the so-called "assurances" from the European Council, followed by a brochure some time later containing a tendentious summary of the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty - both steps being in breach of the Supreme Court's 1995 judgement in McKenna that it is unconstitutional of the Government to use public money to seek to procure a particular result in a referendum;

4. The failure of your own Referendum Commission to carry out its statutory function under the 1998 and 2001 Referendum Acts of preparing for citizens a statement or statements "containing a general explanation of the subject matter of the proposal (viz. the proposal to amend the Constitution) and of the text thereof in the relevant Bill", namely the 28th Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2009.

May I make some points to you and your Referendum Commission colleagues regarding this.

The Lisbon Treaty-Your Guide which you have circulated to voters makes no attempt to inform them about the proposed Constitutional Amendment, despite that being your prime statutory duty and that of your Referendum Commission colleagues under the Referendum Acts.
The leaflet and other material which you have made available do not tell citizen-voters that the new first sentence of the proposed Amendment we shall be voting on provides that the State
"affirms its commitment to the European Union" which would be established by the Lisbon Treaty - a sentence, incidentally, that was not in the Constitutional Amendment in last year's referendum - and you give voters no idea that this is the case or what such a commitment might entail.

You do not inform voters that the second and third sentences of the proposed Amendment make clear that ratifying the Lisbon Treaty would abolish the European Community which Ireland joined in 1973 and would establish in its place a new European Union on the basis of the Lisbon Treaty which would be constitutionally very different from the European Union that we are currently members of, or what that difference might be.
Nowhere in the Referendum Commission's information material that you have sent to voters do you advert to the fact that the Lisbon Treaty would confer on Irish citizens an "additional" citizenship of the post-Lisbon European Union, with associated citizens' rights and duties vis-à-vis that Union, and what the implications of such a change might be.

One would think that there could be be few things more constitutionally important for citizens than being endowed with an additional citizenship. Yet you and your Commission say absolutely nothing about it in the "information" material you have circulated - in violation of the provisions of the Act which gives you your authority. You say nothing about how the rights and duties that we would have as real citizens of the constitutionally new European Union which the Lisbon Treaty would establish would relate to our rights and duties as Irish citizens in the event of any conflicts arising between the two; or how the "additional" citizenship that Lisbon would endow us with differs from our essentially notional and symbolical EU "citizenship" of today.

It is clear that such a dereliction of duty on your part and that of your fellow Commissioners amounts to constitutional delinquency of a high order, as well as being a gross misuse of the ¤4 million of public money that you have been entrusted with. It will be interesting to see how future historians assess your actions.

As for yourself personally, instead of doing the job which the Referendum Acts impose on you, you have arrogated to yourself the task of answering questions on the Lisbon Treaty on the radio and in the press, in which you give your personal opinions and judgements, whereas all statements by the Commission should be collectively agreed by its members, as the Referendum Acts clearly envisage. In no way do the Referendum Acts authorise you to do the "solo runs" on radio and in the press that you have undertaken. Your predecessor, retired Chief Justice TA Finlay, who was an exemplary chairman of the Referendum Commission between 1998 and 2002, would never have permitted this.

Some of the oral statements you have made, moreover, have been either false or misleading. From several l examples I could give, I quote two. A fortnight ago you accepted in response to a question on Morning Ireland that the right of Member State governments to "propose" and decide their National Commissioner would be changed by the Lisbon Treaty into a right to make "suggestions" only, effectively for the incoming Commission President to decide - that key person's appointment being in the gift of the Big States. You added the rider however that you did not think this change was of much consequence. You must be aware from previous private correspondence that I had with the Referendum Commission on behalf of my colleagues in our EU Research and Information Centre that many people on the No-side consider this be a Lisbon Treaty amendment of considerable consequence. One way or another, its consequences are clearly a matter of political judgement which it is not your job as Referendum Commission chairman to make.

Last Friday I heard you state on Morning Ireland that the difference between the "additional" citizenship that we would have of the post-Lisbon European Union and the notional or symbolical "complementary" EU citizenship we are said to have today was "of no great consequence" either, or words to that effect. Yet the most cursory acquaintance with the constitutional changes which the Lisbon Treaty and the Constitutional Amendment to ratify it would bring about, shows that this is just not true. Lisbon is the old Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe after all which the French and Dutch rejected in 2005, even if it implements that Constitution for Europe indirectly rather than directly.

You and your Referendum Commission colleagues still have some time left in which to fulfil your statutory function under the Referendum Acts that set you up. You still have a few days in which to do your duty to the Irish people whom you are profoundly failing at present, as they face their historic decision of next Friday with virtually nothing from you and your Referendum Commission colleagues which might give them "the general explanation of the subject matter" of the Constitutional Amendment "and of its text", on which they will be voting, as the Referendum Act requires.

On behalf of citizens all over the country who are deeply disquieted by the Referendum Commission's failure to provide information on how the Lisbon Treaty would affect the Consitution, may I appeal to you to do that duty still and to carry out your statutory function under the Referendum Acts.

Yours sincerely

Anthony Coughlan

Director
President, Foundation for EU Democracy, Brussels

save preference

Comments (11 of 11)

Time to pee or get off the pot

by Desmond O'Toole - PES activists Dublin

Tue Sep 29, 2009 12:57

The learned Anthony Coughlan claims that the Referendum Commission and Mr Justice Frank Clarke are engaging in what he describes as "monstrous illegality", "dereliction of duty" and "constitutional delinquency" with respect to their informational role in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.

As a person who regularly claims to possess an intimate familiarity with Irish constitutional law, he will be well aware that the opportunity exists for him to directly challenge these "monstrosities" by making an immediate application to the High Court to bring the Referendum Commission to heel. Perhaps, the learned Mr Coughlan can tell us when he will be making this application?

In short, Anthony, either pee or get off the pot.

Regards ... Desmond.

Will you get a response

by At least someone will argue

Tue Sep 29, 2009 12:59

Thank you for highlighting yet another public figure that has been entrusted with our future and which has failed in his public duty. Goebles would be proud. Hitler must be laughing in his grave. At least he had the balls to make a hositle take over as opposed to the sneaky tactics of the european elite. Its disgusting that our grandmothers and grandfathers fought for 800 years to ensure that their children and Grandchildren did not have to listen to a foreign body tell them how to live their lives. how to rule their country.

To think that i was under the impression that only Americans were led by the nose. When is this countyr going to rebel. When will enough be enough, when will the blatent lies be revealed for what they are. Why are our leaders so afraid of the people t(hat the supposedly represent ) of saying no. Does any person have the guts to stand up and say "you got your answer".

Frankly, i would now love to see the Lisbon treaty being voted in and then being brought to its knees by our Judicial system. However, taking a look at hte brandly swirling, cigar smoking, back slapping that goes on, they're afraid, of what i don't know, and the great Irish morals have dissappeared to please the bigger boys.

At 8.00am on 3rd of October, will the country sudddenly have all the jobs back. Will all the banks suddenly be debt free, will the workers of this country, the people holding it together, will they have reassurances that if they're injured at work, they wont have to spend hours on beds in the hall, even though they've had more tax slapped on them. Lets have a fat tax, then all the politicians can fund the country for the next year. Brian, mary, jesus we'd be first out of debt.

Give us our coast back, give us our fresh vegtables, give us proper medical treatments, give us our rights, listen to us. Listen to us, especially the supposedly educated ones. Becasue it seems to be those educated ones that are most afraid of all the scaremongering that has taken place.

How dare you people threaten us. If i keep going i'll get a brain haemorage, i cant even express myself fully im so mad.

GGGGGGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR. DEMOCRACY PLEASE SAVE US

YES is a NO KNOW, NO IS A KNOW NO

by Freeman

Tue Sep 29, 2009 14:03

Patricia McKenna seems to share the views of John Anthony Coughlan and is doing something about it, see
http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1056403
approx 7 1/2 minutes in

Couldn't happen soon enough

by Mary

Tue Sep 29, 2009 14:33

I hope and pray that Mr Coughlan will take his set of legal challenges to the High Court, and the sooner the better.

It seems to me that there is an enormous amount at stake for the Republic of Ireland in connection with the Lisbon Treaty, in terms of core issues such as genuine democracy and sovereignty (for example).

I am firmly convinced that while many on the "yes" side are only all too happy to publically and very stridently pay lip-service in support of the law, democracy, sovereignty, truth, justice, and so on, lip-service unfortunately appears to me to be the absolute outer limit of their commitment to such extremely important matters -- as their actual actions in every-day life all too often prove.

In my view, a High Court challenge is now very badly needed to try and put such two-faced and often extremely arrogant (and indeed ignorant) people back into their rightful place: before they possibly cause irreversible damage to our Nation with all their reckless mouthing.

Money money

by Will you get response

Tue Sep 29, 2009 14:39

High Court applications cost a lot of money. Dont know who this Mr. Coughlan is but who ever he is, he won't be entitled to legal aid, as its not covered, a firm will not take it on if there's no chance of being paid, although im sure the publicity would do well. Whats the point of bringing a high court application is the superior courts are full of biased judges? Shall we bring in impeachment?

Is there any good reason why "Legal Aid" could not be provided (if necessary)?

Tue Sep 29, 2009 17:13

Where core principles such as genuine democracy and National sovereignty are concerned, it is my view that money should not be an obstacle to preventing the use of High Court action for the protection of such basic and fundamental "corner stones" of our society.

The fact that it does, or might do in this extremely important case, is a separate (though very closely related) problem as I see things, and which is in itself an extremely serious issue in need of urgent remedy -- if such a problem actually does in fact exist at the present time.

All reasonable sums of money spent in our courts in the defence and support of our hard won sovereignty, and our democracy (such as it is), would be money very well spent in my view: and of infinitely more value and more benefit to ourselves and the rest of humanity than the billions of Euros which our Government (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial) is apparently entirely happy to spend bailing out bankers with very well proven track-records of self-indulgent recklessness: billions which our Government apparently has no difficulty at all in finding (and spending) on the greed-ridden individuals in question.

Oh no, she's not!

by Desmond O'Toole - PSE activists Dublin

Tue Sep 29, 2009 17:57

Quote: "Patricia McKenna seems to share the views of John Anthony Coughlan and is doing something about it, see
http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1056403 approx 7 1/2 minutes in"

It seems, Freeman, that Pat McKenna is not proposing to make an application to the High Court either. The RTÉ report says that her solicitors will be writing to the European Commission simply asking them not to do it again, i.e. issue a factsheet describing the Lisbon Treaty, something which they don't intend doing anyhow now that the leaflet has already been issued. Pat will not be chancing an application to the High Court, and my guess is that the learned Anthony Coughlan will not be either.

It's very easy to make accusations of illegality directed against the Referendum Commission, the European Commission, the State, and anybody else you don't agree with. It's quite another thing to have the confidence to make an application to the High Court. Anthony Coughlan knows this I'm sure.

Whatever

Tue Sep 29, 2009 19:46

I believe that most people who have studied the whole "Lisbon Treaty" situation in a serious and responsible manner will have been forced to conclude (a long time ago) that it is nothing more (or less) than a third millennium "Trojan Horse" of sorts that has very deliberately been designed to undermine genuine democracy and sovereignty: for the purpose of giving more power -- much more power -- to the "ruling elites" (so called) in Europe, and elsewhere in the world.

In addition, it is being supported by people who know they they can get away with the downright and numerous falsehoods they keep on propagating on the airwaves regarding the real aim and purpose of this treaty, and who apparently have no qualms and no conscience about doing so.

True, there may be some such Government supporters of the Lisbon Treaty who are being driven by genuinely held "good intentions" that have been built of a platform of genuine ignorance. However, that's not (in my view) a good enough excuse for allowing such influential people to continue on misleading voters -- simply because the stakes for all of us are far too high in this particular situation, at this particular time.

Also, the platform of ignorance in question cannot realistically or sensibly be described as "unavoidable ignorance" as far as I can judge; unfortunately, it appears to be the kind of arrogant and wilful ignorance directly connected with a badly flawed and heavily blinkered mindset which seems to say: "Don't bother me with the full facts or the full truth on the Lisbon Treaty issue PLEASE: because I can't allow anything to destabilise the pack of carefully constructed lies I now desperately need to propagate to everybody".

It is for such reasons that I believe clear and truthful statements on the issues raised here are now desperately needed from our courts: because that is the only possible way left to decommission the troublesome mindsets in question (as far as I can see).

I don't think it matters very much who arranges the necessary court action -- as long as somebody does it, and does it before it's too late: i.e. before the "Trojan Horse" actually gets successfully sneaked inside our "gates" as it were. Once inside our legal defence system, it may be extremely difficult -- probably completely impossible in reality -- to ever remedy the particular type of social damage which this particular Trojan Horse has the potential to deliver.

Of course there is another and much simpler solution to the whole problem, and it is one which does not depend on our courts or our judges: and that is for a sufficiently large numbers of our voters to simply vote "NO" on Friday -- and I myself fully intend (God willing) to be one of those who do just that.

Voters Rule.

by Democrat.

Tue Sep 29, 2009 19:50

The Lisbon Treaty will be legal if the Irish people vote for it to be legal.

And thus it is the Irish people who deem if the treaty is to be legal,or not to be legal.

Lawyers are attempting to make even more millions by challenging rules they themselves invented.

For the enrichment of the lawyers.

The lawyer,worldwide, is ruled by his pocket and his greed.
.

hope

by hope

Wed Sep 30, 2009 15:06

“Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly … All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.”
- V.Giscard D’Estaing, Le Monde, 14 June 2007, and Sunday Telegraph, 1 July 2007

I hope: NO
Andreas

Lisbon Viewpint

by Half eye

Thu Oct 01, 2009 16:41

The attached pdf viewpoint on Lisbon from Jens Peter Bonde proves interesting reading, offers a bottle of good wine and belgian chocolates to anyone who can......
well read it for yourself and pass it on and on

the_lisbon_treaty_powerpoint_pdf.pdf 0.06 Mb

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Voltaire Network

Lisbon Treaty Illegal on many counts

Comments (11 of 11)