Lisbon 2?- How Irelands Elites Are Ganging Up Against the Irish People

The tenor of discussion following the rejection by the people of Ireland of the Lisbon Treaty has been one of recrimination and contempt directed by the elites of Dublin and Brussels at the temerity of the people to refuse to sanction their Lisbon Treaty.. It is obvious that the time has well and truly arrived where the quote of Bertolt Brecht used so often as a stick to attack the undemocratic aspects of the leadership of East Germany, can now be aptly applied to the strategy being cooked up between the Irish ruling elite and the EU ..."Would it not be easier, in that case for the government, to dissolve the people, and elect another?"

I am reproducing below in full this pithy and perceptive analysis of the current situation here in Ireland following the 'fall-out' of the Irish people voting decisively to vote No to the Lisbon Treaty, my thanks to Antony Coughlin and the National Platform for this revealing and thought provoking analysis.

* Taoiseach Brian Cowen and Minister Michael Martin give in to Franco-German and EU Commission pressure to permit the remaining Lisbon ratifications to continue, when they could have stopped these by saying that Ireland cannot and will not ratify the Lisbon Treaty, as the Irish people have rejected it.
* The Irish Government lines up with Brussels against the Irish people rather than stands by the people’s democratic decision of last week to defend it vis-a-vis Brussels - so as to bring about a 26/1 situation by year’s end with which to bludgeon Irish voters in a referendum re-run.
* Talk of “respecting” Ireland’s vote turns out in practice to be a cover for setting out to overturn it in a referendum re-run, with Brian Cowen’s, Michael Martin’s and Dick Roche’s full support - and behind a thick barrier of hypocrisy, spoofing and lies.
There are three principal lies Irish Government Ministers and the EU people are telling to hide their first steps towards preparing this Lisbon referendum re-run:
* LIE NO.1: That the nine EU States that have not yet ratified Lishon have a “right” to do so irrespective of the Irish No. There is no such right under either EU law or customary international law. Brian Cowen could stop any further ratifications by saying to his EU partners that he respects the Irish No, that because of that there is no question of trying to overturn it by re-running the referendum, and that therefore Lisbon is dead because Ireland cannot ratify it and there is no point any other ratifications continuing, for Lisbon cannot come into force unless all 27 ratify it. British Foreign Secretary David Milliband underlined this point last weekend when he said that it depended on Brian Cowen whether Lisbon was alive or dead.
* LIE No. 2: Minister Dick Roche was up to this usual spoofery on “Morning Ireland” at the end of last week when he attacked Patricia McKenna for saying that the French and Dutch Governments stopped further ratifications of the EU Constitution in 2005 after their peoples voted No in their referendums. Minister Roche said that Luxembourg held a referendum on this Treaty after the French and Dutch No and in his usual gentlemanly fashion accused Ms McKenna of “telling lies”. In fact, as the Minister is well aware, the Luxembourg referendum was held shortly after the French and Dutch referendums but BEFORE the French and Dutch Governments decided they would not re-run them, and therefore that they could not ratify the Constitutional Treaty - which led the remaining EU States, including Ireland, to abandon further ratifications at that time.
Messrs Cowen, Martin and Roche are spoofing like this, with their EU confreres helping them, to try to cover up the fact that the Irish Government is urging the nine remaining EU States to continue with their ratifications so as to bring about a 26/1 situation which can then be used to pressurise the Irish people to turn their No into a Yes in a second Lisbon referendum.
It is Messrs Cowen, Martin and Roche who are failing to “respect” the Irish people’s No vote by effectively telling the other EU States not to respect it either, but to continue with their ratifications. Why should the other EU States respect last Thursday’s referendum result when the Irish Government does not respect it, but sets out rather to subvert it, as they decided to do even while the voting tallies were being counted on Friday morning last?
Remember Foreign Minister Martin saying at luncthtime on the day of the count that “of course” the remaining ratifications would continue. Remember Commission President Barroso’s at his press conference held before the count was even finished, following a phone chat with Taoiseach Cowen, saying the same thing.
If Messrs Cowen, Martin and Roche had a scintilla of the political courage and statesmanship of the founder of their Party, they would be telling their EU counterparts that they had no alternative but to open up Lisbon and work out a better Treaty for Ireland, for Europe and for a more democratic EU, instead of the supranational EU Federation, with laws made on a population basis, which is what is on offer in Lisbon.
* LIE NO.3: That the other EU States can go ahead with the Lisbon Treaty provisions under the rules for “enhanced cooperation”. The barrack-room lawyers of the Irish media are speaking here. It is the enhanced cooperation rules of the EU Treaties as amended by the Nice Treaty that currently apply. It is nonsense to suggest that the enhanced cooperation provisions of one Treaty, viz. Nice, can be used to bring into force the far wider provisions of another Treaty, viz. Lisbon.
* NB: The number of EU Commissioners must be decided unanimously.Under the current Nice Treaty(Protocol on the enlargement of the EU, Article 4), a reduction in the number of Commissioners to fewer than the number of Member States must be decided unanimously in 2009. Under the Lisbon Treaty(Article 17.5 TEU) the number of Commissioners must be reduced by two-thirds from 2014, “unless the European Council, acting unanimously, decides to alter this number.”

At their next summit meeting in October or December the European Council of Prime Ministers and Presidents will make a “European decision” that when it comes to allocating EU Commissioners in 2014 in the post-Lisbon EU, Ireland and all Member States will be permitted to retain a permanent Commissioner, although in practice there may be senior and junior Commissioners. Because both the Nice and Lisbon Treaties lay down that arrangements for the Commission require unanimity, a commitment on these lines can be given without opening Lisbon.
Taoiseach Cowen will present this as a triumph for Irish diplomacy, while his EU colleagues will smile cynically to themselves. Then various Declarations will be given - to meet Irish concerns on company taxation, human rights, neutrality etc. - which will be tagged on to the Lisbon Treaty, but wll not alter a jot or tittle of its contents.
What threats or implicit threats will be needed to go with these promises? The most obvious one is that Irish voters will be told, as they were not told over the past months - that the Lisbon Treaty aims to establish a constitutionally new Federal Union and that the Irish must decide whether they want to be members of this or not, or do they want to keep the present EU as it stands under the Nice Treaty rules.

The other Member States still cannot ratify Lisbon and establish this new Union without Ireland’s agreement. But the hope will be that this mix of promises and implicit threats will suffice to overturn the Irish people’s No in Lisbon One and turn it into a Yes in Lisbon Two.
A peaceable democratic popular revolt in Ireland and across the EU is needed to prevent this happening and to prevent the anti-democratic Lisbon Treaty-cum EU-Constitution being clamped on most of the peoples of our continent.

Lisbon Vote- A View From Britain

Many thanks for all the messages of support that have been sent to "Unrepentant Communist" both in the comments box and by email , from readers concerning the recent vote by the people of Ireland to reject the neo-liberal agenda and military commitments which this Treaty sought to provide as the foundation stone of the 'New EU' . Since the vote in Ireland , the forces of reaction in the media and political establishment have been having a collective Apoplectic fit of rage and contempt at the people for having the temerity to choose 'NO' when asked if they wanted to amend their own Constitution .

The question which is looming in many peoples minds now, is that if the referendum was a genuine exercise in democracy, why is there such a huge fallout of threat, recrimination, and political craw thumping over the outcome? It seems to me that what is being revealed is that the EU's political elites ably assisted by their counterparts here in Ireland were in fact only going through what they considered to be a rubber stamping exercise, the assent of the people of Ireland being a foregone conclusion, with all their plans and castles in the sky so advanced that in effect it is the people who are being castigated as the 'party poopers'. Sorry, excuse me for being naive, but I thought that government and the unelected bureaucrats of the EU were meant to be the servants of the people, and not vice versa. I am reproducing below a post from a friend in Britain who makes some salient points about this whole issue.

"Well done to the Irish people and most of all to Gabriel & his many colleagues who worked very hard for this magnificent No vote. Sinn Fein in particular fought an excellent campaign. It seems that the party is recovering well from its disappointment in the general election and is able to voice the concerns of the people, especially the working class, about the way that your country- & the EU as a whole- is heading: towards neo-liberalism and, as the developments of the last week have revealed, towards militarism.Millions of other people in Europe have similar concerns, and are very pleased at the referendum result. Now, I want to add this. Thanks to the constitution of the Republic of Ireland, and to the efforts of the late great Raymond Crotty, the people of the 26 Counties were in the privileged position of having the choice to accept or reject the Lisbon Treaty. Having decided to reject, you have elected yourselves into an even more important position, that of potentially being key players in determining what happens next.Sinn Fein, I believe, is taking absolutely the correct stance in arguing that Ireland should seize the initiative and propose lines of renegotiation towards an acceptable EU treaty, one that will safeguard Ireland's voice in Europe, protect its neutrality, and allow the advance of workers' rights and public services.The French & German governments are currently plotting to sideline Ireland and circumvent its democratic decision of June 12th. Gordon Brown has his own problems and the UK is unlikely to be able to take a lead. The Irish government appears to be in a shell-shocked shambles and does not know what to do. I'm a foreigner, though a fellow EU citizen, and it's not for me to tell the Irish what to do. But, for what it's worth, my advice would be this: build on the June 12th victory, prove that it was a constructive statement about the direction of Europe and not an act of vandalism or UK-style euroskepticism, and support Sinn Fein in striving for a better deal- not just IN Europe, but FOR Europe.Best wishes, Noah"

NO LISBON VOTE IN IRELAND....

Early indications suggest that the Lisbon Treaty has been rejected by the people of Ireland. It appears that Sinn Féin have got a huge pro-NO vote out in working class areas. It also appears that despite the about turn by the IFA the rural areas have gone towards the NO vote too. The middle class urban areas are more evenly divided, but there are very few suggestions that where there is a YES that it is enough to counteract the overwhelming tide towards NO. Undoubtedly the unique pincer movement of a strong Sinn Féin campaign, and a strong Libertas campaign picking uip support for a NO vote from the right leaning middle classes. This is a great result for Ireland and for all of Europe, it is killing dead with a huge democratic vote the anti-democratic notions of the EU bureaucrats, whose plans for a European army, a pro-privatisation agenda, and the increasing trend towards greater centralisation is being rejected by the people of Ireland. It begs the question, as to why this democratic process was denied to the rest of the people of the EU member states, where the decision to commit to the Lisbon Treaty has been taken from the people and handed instead to the elites represented by their various national parliaments. Sinn Féin started preparations for this Treaty back in January with a huge effort being put into creating a solid cadre of members who were absolutely up to speed on the reasons why this Treaty was inimical to the interests of ordinary working people, that forward planning and effort towards the education of its members has paid off in swinging this vote.

The significance of this outcome should not be underestimated, the NO side in Ireland were pitted against ALL the other parties in the Dáil, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour, and the Greens all called for a YES vote, as well as that the Irish media were overwhelmingly pro the YES campaign, and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) and the employers confederation IBEC also called for a 'Yes' vote. This outcome just shows that sometimes the people just know whats in their best interests, when they are fully informed by a committed and informed campaigning alliance of Sinn Féin, Libertas, and the other 'NO' campaigners...Its enough to give you hope.

LISBON TREATY....'NO' CAMPAIGN SCENTS VICTORY

Opponents of the European Union's reform treaty have overtaken the "Yes" camp for the first time ahead of Ireland's referendum on the pact next week, a new opinion poll showed on Thursday.

Ireland is the only state planning a referendum on the treaty meaning that a country accounting for less than 1 percent of the bloc's 490 million population could derail a pact designed to streamline the running of a fast-expanding EU.

A TNS/mrbi poll to be published in Friday's Irish Times showed 35 percent of people surveyed intend to vote "No" in the June 12 ballot, more than double the 17 percent seen in the newspaper's last survey three weeks ago.

The opinion poll, details of which appeared on the Irish Times Web site in advance of publication on Friday, showed those planning to vote in favour of the treaty stood at 30 percent, down from 35 percent in the previous poll.

The proportion of undecided voters was 28 percent while 7 percent said they would not vote, according to the survey of 1,000 voters conducted throughout Ireland.

Lisbon...Who Says Theres No 'Plan B'?

Don't believe politicians who say there is no plan "B" if Ireland votes No to the Lisbon Treaty. There is, and it is being kept under wraps in Prague.

The Czechs take over the rolling European Union presidency on 1 January 2009 - the very date that the Lisbon Treaty is due to come into effect. Depending on the result of the Irish referendum on 12 June, they could survey two very different scenarios.

That's why the Czech government has prepared two different papers on what the EU should do in the first half of next year - one based on life after Lisbon, the other, plan "B".

Some of this is technical: if Lisbon lives, there will be a president of the council, be it Juncker or Blair or Rasmussen, so a smaller role for the Czech prime minister. If Lisbon dies, there will be a bigger role for him. Some ministerial councils that would change under Lisbon, would survive.

But the Czechs are also setting out a plan "B" for the political future. Whether it is to persuade the Irish to vote again, to rip up Lisbon, redesign it or forget it I don't yet know.

But perhaps, after the demise of the constitution, we are currently living through plan "B". Perhaps the Czech plan should be codenamed "C", with the possibility of an alphabet soup of alternatives lined up behind it.

Radio Moscow Crackling Late Into a Hot Spanish Night...

I was moved and very interested to see, thanks to Madrid Kid , that the 'Voice of Russia' the current successor to the old Radio Moscow has been reconnecting with some of its loyal listeners in Spain. This is a further example of a most welcome trend within Russia of acknowledging and embracing many diverse aspects of the Soviet times. Of course the important aspect of the Radio Moscow Spanish service was that it provided an important means by which the exiled anti-fascist and progressive forces could stay in direct contact with the Spanish people as Franco's oppressive regime ruthlessly squashed internal opposition to the fascist dictatorship. Voice of Russia came to Madrid on April 23 to pay recognition to a group of Spanish Civil War (1936-39) exiles who helped put together what would become the Spanish-language service at Radio Moscow. During an emotional ceremony that took place at Hotel Puerta de Toledo next to Madrid’s famous Toledo Gate, Leonard Kosichev, VOR’s deputy director for European programs, handed out medals issued by the Russian government. This was the first time that the Spaniards had been publicly honored for their contributions to Radio Moscow and their role in helping provide information to listeners in Spain during the Francisco Franco dictatorship. Among those distinguished were Eusebio Cimorra, depicted above , Pilar Villasante, Vicente Arana, and Agustin Masso, who all began working at Radio Moscow during the 1940s and 1950s. It is estimated that dozens of Spaniards found jobs at the Soviet shortwave radio station after fleeing the Franco regime.

Cimorra, who died in January at the age of 98, was perhaps the most popular Spanish announcer during his more than 30 years at Radio Moscow. Using the on-air pseudonym “Jorge Olivar,” Cimarro began working at the station in 1940. Before the Civil War, he was an influential publisher of the Spanish Communist Party’s newspaper Mundo Obrero. He returned to Spain after the transition to democracy in 1975 and had been recognized as one of the country’s leading "deans" of journalism. “My father always said that Radio Moscow gave him the opportunity to continue to fight against the dictatorship, a fight he began when he was a young journalist in Spain before the Civil War,” recalled Boris Cimorra who received the medal on behalf of his father from Kosichev (right, in photo above). “He decided to continue to fight for his ideals and principles because he was true to his faith. In the best of words, he was a communist who was an idealist, romanticist and intellectual,” said the son who also put in five years at Radio Moscow. Another earlier broadcaster on the Radio Moscow Spanish language service was Pilar Villasante, who also attended the gathering . Pilar came to Moscow as a child at the age of six. She was among the hundreds of Spanish children who were sent to the Soviet Union by their parents with the hope they would receive a better life there than in a fascist society. This massive evacuation began taking place toward the end of the Civil War when it became apparent the Republicans would be defeated. Although she was educated and grew up in Moscow, Villasante never forgot her mother language. She served as artistic director for the Spanish service at Radio Moscow, where she worked for 30 years before returning to Madrid in 1989. “I want to thank the Russian people, the Soviet people for taking us in, educating us and giving us the opportunity to work. I was especially lucky because I got to work for Radio Moscow,” she said.

Some readers of this blog will be delighted to know that they can relive those days of listening to Radio Moscow late into the night thanks to a series of recordings collected by Snithsonian/ Folkways. Perhaps the most evocative memory I have of listening to Radio Moscow was hearing its characteristic ‘Kremlin Bells’ chimes, on a freezing night in the bitter winter of 1981 / 1982 when I was working in Walsall in the West Midlands, I remember thinking that the amount of snow that was falling on us that particular January night was not dissimilar to what you might have expected in Russia. I also always found that Radio Moscow’s political line was so different from the BBC, at that time immersed in the jingoistic lunacy generated throughout Britain following the Falklands War. Furthermore it was actually almost a jolt to hear such anti-imperialist ideas pouring out of the radio from Moscow at this time, weirdly coming from an item of electrical equipment almost intrinsically linked with the drip-drip feed of pro-western and anti-Soviet propaganda, tuned as it was, and still is, normally to BBC Radio 4 , which I still have great time for since it does seem to have largely successfully resisted that vulgarization and dumbing down that characterizes so much of the media today .
Well done to the Voice of Russia for making that wonderful connection between the past and the present, and drawing attention to the role that radio can play in maintaining contact with ideas and information that may not easily be accessible otherwise.

Seeing through Transparency International

Pledged to fight corruption worldwide, the NGO is in danger of revealing its own political agenda in a recent report on Venezuela...Calvin Tucker of http://www.21stcenturysocialism.com/ reveals

The credibility of Transparency International, a global "non-partisan" organisation which "promotes transparency in elections, in public administration, in procurement and in business", is on the line. Their latest report on Venezuela, which was produced after months of research, is factually inaccurate in almost every respect. TI say that they "stand by their report" and stand by the person who compiled the data, an anti-Chávez activist who backed the 2002 military coup against democracy.
The full report, dated April 28 2008 and titled Promoting Revenue Transparency examined the published accounts of oil companies in 42 different countries, and ranked them according to whether they were of high, medium or low transparency. Venezuela's state-owned oil firm PDVSA was given the lowest possible ranking. Transparency International say that "comprehensive corporate reporting diminishes the opportunities for corrupt officials to extort funds".
PDVSA was directly accused of failing to disclose basic financial information such as their revenues and how much royalties they paid, and of not producing properly audited accounts. The international corporate media considers TI to be a reliable source, despite the fact that almost all their funding comes from western governments and big business. The British government is one of the major donors, contributing £1 million in 2007. Other donors include the US government, Shell and Exxon Mobil. Unsurprisingly, TI's damning report was seized upon by rightwing newspapers and websites and used as another stick with which to beat Venezuela's socialist president, Hugo Chávez.
When Dan Burnett, a New York-based blogger who runs the popular Oil Wars website, read the TI report, he almost choked on his cornflakes. Burnett had been analysing PDVSA's accounts for several years, and regularly writes about the financial information that TI claims does not exist.
I checked the PDVSA website. Burnett was right to be astonished. On page 127 of their financial statement it says that revenue for 2007 was $96.242bn, and that they paid $21.9bn in royalties. On page 148, PDVSA's auditors state that the accounts were prepared in accordance with international accounting standards. Further research showed that PDVSA's financial statements are also published in hard copy, and are widely reported in the domestic media, both in newspapers and on television.
I was perplexed. How could Transparency International, which claims that its report was subject to a rigorous "quality control regime" and had been checked for accuracy by "industry experts", have got it so wrong? I called them and asked.
A spokesperson explained that their report was published two weeks before PDVSA submitted their 2007 accounts on May 12 2008. This explanation implied that TI are unfamiliar with basic financial reporting procedures. Before company accounts can be submitted, the data has to be collated, analysed and audited. It is normal for this process to take several weeks or months. For example, Transparency International's own audited financial report for 2007 is not yet publicly available on their website.
However, TI's explanation for their inaccurate report on PDVSA contained a much more serious problem. It was wrong. The March 29 edition of El Universal, a major opposition newspaper, featured a report on PDVSA's financial statement, together with a photograph of PDVSA's president, Rafael Ramirez, holding up a copy of the 2007 report and accounts. The information that TI claimed was being withheld by PDVSA, was published four weeks before they made their allegations. Armed with this additional information, I attempted to contact TI's press spokesperson again for a comment. My calls were not returned.
Despite Transparency International's less than transparent behaviour, was it still possible that there was an innocent explanation for the errors in their report? I began to wonder whether their spokesperson had got the dates confused and was actually talking about a previous set of accounts.
I checked the historical records which are freely available on the PDVSA website. Their audited 2006 accounts were published on September 8 2007, a full seven months before TI published its report accusing PDVSA of non-disclosure. The 2006 accounts also contained the information that TI claimed was not disclosed. The 2005 accounts were also available, as were all the annual accounts going back to 2000.
In the past, there have been problems with PDVSA's accounts, and in particular with late submission. In late 2002, just months after the failed coup attempt, PDVSA oil executives went on strike in an attempt to bring down the Chávez government. It became clear that the strike would not succeed, but PDVSA's operational equipment was sabotaged, causing millions of dollars of damage. A massive amount of data was destroyed, including the files containing PDVSA's financial information and accounts. PDVSA was forced to rebuild its financial infrastructure from scratch, and for several years this caused delays in producing accounts. However, TI's accusation is that PDVSA does not disclose information, not that previous accounts were submitted late. This accusation, which forms the basis of TI's report, is demonstrably wrong.
Transparency International denies that they pursue an anti-Chavez agenda. "We are not a political organisation", their spokesperson told me. Despite this denial, TI's Venezuela bureau is staffed by opponents of the Venezuelan government (pdf). The directors include Robert Bottome,(right) the publisher of Veneconomia, a strident opposition journal, and Aurelio Concheso of the Centre for the Dissemination of Economic Knowledge, a conservative thinktank funded by the US government. Concheso was previously a director of the employers' organisation, Fedecamaras. The president of Fedecamaras, Pedro Carmo, led the failed 2002 coup and was briefly installed as Venezuela's dictator.
The data in TI's report was gathered by Mercedes de Freitas, (left) the head of their Caracas bureau and a longtime opponent of President Chávez. De Freitas' previous job was running a US government funded opposition "civil society" group. The Nation reported on her response to the 2002 military coup: "... on the night of April 12 - after Carmona suspended the assembly - Mercedes de Freitas, a director of the Fundacion Momento de la Gente, a legislative monitoring project subsidized by NED [National Endowment for Democracy, a US government agency], emailed the endowment defending the military and Carmona, claiming the takeover was not a military coup."
In July 2006, Freitas issued a press release on behalf of Transparency International, which argued against the passing of a draft bill that proposed making it illegal for Venezuelan "civil society" organisations to receive funding from foreign governments, including from the US government. "If it becomes law, civil society would be subject to considerable restrictions, with government allowed to interfere in their objectives, activities and funding sources" the press release asserted.
Documents released under the US freedom of information act show that the Bush administration gives $5m a year to organisations opposed to the Chávez government.
Transparency International has a choice. They can continue to defend their indefensible report and refuse to answer legitimate questions about their activities in Venezuela. Or they can come clean and provide full disclosure. As TI's own report diplomatically puts it: "Disclosure improves a company's image, making it less vulnerable to unsubstantiated attacks on its reputation."