Ireland's participation in an European Army.

The changes made to Bunreacht na hireann ( the 1937

Constitution ) are outlined in the following text. Please note the last sentence !!! Paragraph 9 of the
new text.
THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT AT ALL THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S DECISION AND THE
VOTE IN DAIL EIREANN WAS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL ! THEY SHOULD
HAVE GONE TO THE PEOPLE WITH A REFERENDUM TO REMOVE THAT PARAGRAPH
FROM THE CONSTITUTION BEFORE MAKING A DECISION AND VOTING IN DAIL
EIREANN !
For this reason we will challenge the Government's decision in the Superior Courts.
"The former wording of Article 29.4 of the Constitution of Ireland was:
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.
2. For the purpose of the exercise of any executive function of the State in or in connection with its
external relations, the Government may to such extent and subject to such conditions, if any, as may
be determined by law, avail of or adopt any organ, instrument, or method of procedure used or
adopted for the like purpose by the members of any group or league of nations with which the State
is or becomes associated for the purpose of international co-operation in matters of common
concern.
3. The State may become a member of the European Coal and Steel Community (established by
Treaty signed at Paris on the 18th day of April 1951), the European Economic Community
(established by Treaty signed at Rome on the 25th day of March 1957) and the European Atomic
Energy Community (established by Treaty signed at Rome on the 25th day of March 1957). The
State may ratify the Single European Act (signed on behalf of the Member States of the
Communities at Luxembourg on the 17th day of February 1986, and at the Hague on the 28th day of
February 1986).
4. The State may ratify the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on the 7th day of
February 1992, and may become a member of that Union.
5. The State may ratify the Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union, the
Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related Acts signed at Amsterdam on
the 2nd day of October 1997.
6. The State may exercise the options or discretions provided by or under Articles 1.11, 2.5 and 2.15
of the Treaty referred to in subsection 5 of this section and the second and fourth Protocols set out in
the said Treaty but any such exercise shall be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the
Oireachtas.
7. The State may ratify the Treaty of Nice amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties
establishing the European Communities and certain related Acts signed at Nice on the 26th day of
February 2001.
8. The State may exercise the options or discretions provided by or under Articles 1.6, 1.9, 1.11,
1.12, 1.13 and 2.1 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7 of this section but any such exercise shall
be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.
9. The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence
pursuant to Article 1.2 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7 of this section where that common
defence would include the State.
10. No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the
State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the
Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by
the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing
the Communities, from having the force of law in the State.
11. The State may ratify the Agreement relating to Community Patents drawn up between the
Member States of the Communities and done at Luxembourg on the 15th day of December 1989.
Changes[edit]
Deletion from Article 29.4.3 (removed text in bold and ruled):
3. The State may become a member of the European Coal and Steel Community (established by
Treaty signed at Paris on the 18th day of April 1951), the European Economic Community
(established by Treaty signed at Rome on the 25th day of March 1957) and the European Atomic
Energy Community (established by Treaty signed at Rome on the 25th day of March 1957). The
State may ratify the Single European Act (signed on behalf of the Member States of the
Communities at Luxembourg on the 17th day of February 1986, and at the Hague on the 28th day of
February 1986).
Deletion of the entirety of Articles 29.4.4 29.4.11
Insertion of new Articles 29.4.4 29.4.9:
4. Ireland affirms its commitment to the European Union within which the Member States of that
Union work together to promote peace, shared values and the well-being of their peoples.
5. The State may ratify the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty
establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon on the 13th day of December 2007 (Treaty
of Lisbon), and may be a member of the European Union established by virtue of that Treaty.
6. No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the
State, before, on or after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, that are necessitated by the
obligations of membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 5 of this section or of the
European Atomic Energy Community, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted
by
i. the said European Union or the European Atomic Energy Community, or by institutions thereof,
ii. the European Communities or European Union existing immediately before the entry into force of
the Treaty of Lisbon, or by institutions thereof, or
iii. bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section,
from having the force of law in the State.
7. The State may exercise the options or discretions
i. to which Article 20 of the Treaty on European Union relating to enhanced cooperation applies,
ii. under Protocol No. 19 on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the European
Union annexed to that treaty and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly
known as the Treaty establishing the European Community), and
iii under Protocol No. 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of
freedom, security and justice, so annexed, including the option that the said Protocol No. 21 shall, in
whole or in part, cease to apply to the State,
but any such exercise shall be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.
8. The State may agree to the decisions, regulations or other acts
i. under the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
authorising the Council of the European Union to act other than by unanimity,
ii. under those treaties authorising the adoption of the ordinary legislative procedure, and
iii. under subparagraph (d) of Article 82.2, the third subparagraph of Article 83.1 and paragraphs 1
and 4 of Article 86 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, relating to the area of
freedom, security and justice,
but the agreement to any such decision, regulation or act shall be subject to the prior approval of
both Houses of the Oireachtas.
9. The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence
pursuant to Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union where that common defence would include
the State."

there is a protest this monday coming at 5pm about this

Former wording. The former wording of Article 29.4 of the Constitution of Ireland was: 1. The
executive power of the State in or in connection with its external .
Changes to the text
Former wording
The former wording of Article 29.4 of the Constitution of Ireland was:
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.
2. For the purpose of the exercise of any executive function of the State in or in connection with its
external relations, the Government may to such extent and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be
determined by law, avail of or adopt any organ, instrument, or method of procedure used or adopted for
the like purpose by the members of any group or league of nations with which the State is or becomes
associated for the purpose of international co-operation in matters of common concern.
3. The State may become a member of the European Coal and Steel Community (established by Treaty
signed at Paris on the 18th day of April, 1951), the European Economic Community (established by
Treaty signed at Rome on the 25th day of March, 1957) and the European Atomic Energy Community
(established by Treaty signed at Rome on the 25th day of March, 1957). The State may ratify the Single
European Act (signed on behalf of the Member States of the Communities at Luxembourg on the 17th
day of February, 1986, and at the Hague on the 28th day of February, 1986).
4. The State may ratify the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on the 7th day of February,
1992, and may become a member of that Union.
5. The State may ratify the Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties
establishing the European Communities and certain related Acts signed at Amsterdam on the 2nd day of
October, 1997.
6. The State may exercise the options or discretions provided by or under Articles 1.11, 2.5 and 2.15 of
the Treaty referred to in subsection 5 of this section and the second and fourth Protocols set out in the said
Treaty but any such exercise shall be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.
7. The State may ratify the Treaty of Nice amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties
establishing the European Communities and certain related Acts signed at Nice on the 26th day of
February, 2001.
8. The State may exercise the options or discretions provided by or under Articles 1.6, 1.9, 1.11, 1.12,
1.13 and 2.1 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7 of this section but any such exercise shall be subject
to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.
9. The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence
pursuant to Article 1.2 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7 of this section where that common defence
would include the State.
10. No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State
which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities,
or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities
or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from
having the force of law in the State.
11. The State may ratify the Agreement relating to Community Patents drawn up between the Member
States of the Communities and done at Luxembourg on the 15th day of December, 1989.
Changes
Deletion from Article 29.4.3 (removed text in bold and ruled):
3. The State may become a member of the European Coal and Steel Community (established by Treaty
signed at Paris on the 18th day of April, 1951), the European Economic Community (established by
Treaty signed at Rome on the 25th day of March, 1957) and the European Atomic Energy Community
(established by Treaty signed at Rome on the 25th day of March, 1957). The State may ratify the Single
European Act (signed on behalf of the Member States of the Communities at Luxembourg on the 17th
day of February, 1986, and at the Hague on the 28th day of February, 1986).
Deletion of the entirety of Articles 29.4.4 29.4.11
Insertion of new Articles 29.4.4 29.4.9:
4. Ireland affirms its commitment to the European Union within which the Member States of that Union
work together to promote peace, shared values and the well-being of their peoples.
5. The State may ratify the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty
establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon on the 13th day of December 2007 (Treaty of
Lisbon), and may be a member of the European Union established by virtue of that Treaty.
6. No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State,
before, on or after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, that are necessitated by the obligations of
membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 5 of this section or of the European Atomic
Energy Community, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by
i. the said European Union or the European Atomic Energy Community, or by institutions thereof,
ii. the European Communities or European Union existing immediately before the entry into force of the
Treaty of Lisbon, or by institutions thereof, or
iii. bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section,
from having the force of law in the State.
7. The State may exercise the options or discretions
i. to which Article 20 of the Treaty on European Union relating to enhanced cooperation applies,
ii. under Protocol No. 19 on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the European Union
annexed to that treaty and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly known as the
Treaty establishing the European Community), and
iii under Protocol No. 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of
freedom, security and justice, so annexed, including the option that the said Protocol No. 21 shall, in
whole or in part, cease to apply to the State,
but any such exercise shall be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.
8. The State may agree to the decisions, regulations or other acts
i. under the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
authorising the Council of the European Union to act other than by unanimity,
ii. under those treaties authorising the adoption of the ordinary legislative procedure, and
iii. under subparagraph (d) of Article 82.2, the third subparagraph of Article 83.1 and paragraphs 1 and 4
of Article 86 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, relating to the area of freedom,
security and justice,
but the agreement to any such decision, regulation or act shall be subject to the prior approval of both
Houses of the Oireachtas.
9. The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence
pursuant to Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union where that common defence would include the
State.
THE SUPREME COURT No. 40/99 Hamilton C.J. Denham J ... ... in relation to
Article 15.2.1 of the Constitution of Ireland? ... 29.4.1 The executive power of the
State in or in connection with its external relations shall
http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4ac3450e2.pdf
The First Seanad (1922)
The pre-Union Irish Parliament consisted of an Upper and a Lower House, the House of Lords and
the House of Commons. The Home Rule Bills of the 19th and early 20th centuries also provided for
a bicameral legislature. This was continued in the Government of Ireland Act 1920 which provided
that the Senate, the Upper House of the Southern Ireland Parliament, should consist of 64 members.
Elections to this House were held in 1921 at the same time as the elections to the Lower House. The
Dil however refused to recognise these elections.

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.

Office of Governor-General (Seanascal) (1922)

Article 60 of the Irish Free State Constitution created the office of Governor-General: "The
Representative of the Crown, who shall be styled the Governor-General..." Holders of the office
were Tim Healy (1922 - 1927), James MacNeill (1927 - 1932), and Domhnall Ua Buachalla (Donal
Buckley) (1932 - 1936).

Abolition of the Seanad (1936)

Following somewhat unsatisfactory relations between the two Houses over a number of years
serious conflict developed after the change of government in 1932. Legislation to remove the oath
required to be taken by Members of the Oireachtas, as laid down in Article 17 of the 1922
Constitution (commonly referred to as the Oath of Allegiance), was opposed by the Seanad and its
enactment postponed for almost a year. The oath was eventually removed from the Constitution by
the Constitution (Removal of Oath) Act 1933 on 3 May 1933.

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.

Abolition of the Office of Governor-General (1936)

The office of Governor-General was abolished by the Constitution (Amendment No. 27) Act 1936
on 11 December 1936 (see also the Executive Powers (Consequential Provisions) Act 1937). The
amendment also deleted all references to the king in the Constitution. The amendment added a
provision where once a bill was passed the Chairman of Dil ireann shall sign the bill "... and the
same shall become and be law as on and from the date of such signature".
The Oireachtas enacted the Executive Authority (External Relations) Act 1936 on 12 December
1936 which stated that "... which for the purposes of the appointment of diplomatic and consular
representatives and the conclusion of international agreements, the king so recognised may, and is
hereby authorised to, act on behalf of Saorstt ireann for the like purposes as and when advised by
the Executive Council so to do." The Act also gave effect to the instrument of abdication executed
by King Edward the Eighth.

Constitution of Ireland (1937)

The Irish Free State Constitution remained in force until it was replaced by the Constitution of
Ireland, which was passed by the Dil on 14 June 1937, adopted by the people in a plebiscite on 1
July 1937, and came into operation on 29 December 1937. In accordance with Article 51, the
Constitution could be amended by ordinary statute for three years following the first President's
entry into office. Since 25 June 1941 the Constitution may only be amended by referendum.
Article 4 states that the name of the State is ire, or, in the English language, Ireland. Article 5:
"Ireland is a sovereign, independent, democratic state."

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 Second Seanad (1938)

The period of unicameral legislature was short however. When the new Constitution was being
drafted the Executive Council appointed a Commission Second House of the Oireachtas
Commission in June 1936 to "consider and make recommendations as to what should be the
functions and powers of the Second Chamber of the Legislature in the event of its being decided to
make provision in the Constitution for such Second Chamber..". Following the report of the
Commission, the Constitution of Ireland provided for the establishment of a Seanad more firmly
under the control of the government. The general election for the new Seanad took place on 28
March 1938 and the first sitting was held on 27 April 1938.

President of Ireland (1938)

Dubhgls de Hde (Douglas Hyde, nom de plume "An Craoibhin Aoibhinn") was inaugurated as the
first President of Ireland on 25 June 1938.

Republic of Ireland Act 1948 (1949)

The Republic of Ireland Act 1948 ( which came into operation on 18 April 1949 - S.I. No. 27/1949 )
repealed the Executive Authority (External Relations) Act 1936, and stated that "The President, on
the authority and on the advice of the Government, may exercise the executive power or any
executive function of the State in or in connection with its external relations." This severed the final
link with the British Monarchy. The Act also stated that the description of the State is Republic of
Ireland, but the name of the State remains Ireland in accordance with Article 4 of the Constitution.

Thomas Pringle presents his case to the ECJ

http://www.people.ie/news/PN-74.pdf

The Third Raymond Crotty Lecture 2012

http://www.indymedia.ie/attachments/nov2012/crotty12.pdf

The Thomas Pringle ESM/EU

Case C-370/12 has been
prioritised by the EU Court of
Justice
Crotty v. An Taoiseach (1986) was a landmark decision of the Irish Supreme Court which
found that Ireland could not ratify the Single European Act unless the Irish Constitution was
first changed to permit its ratification. The case established that significant changes to EU
treaties required an amendment to the Irish constitution always done by means of a
referendum before they could be ratified by Ireland.

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.

The ESM treaty? But we've already voted on it?'

Thomas Pringle TD

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,

The establishment of the ESM outside the EU architecture is an effort to circumvent

the no bail-out rule and other provisions of the existing EU Treaties in Mr Pringles
view. The ESM also infringes on the exclusive competence of the EU in the area of
monetary policy. It is not permissible to do this by stepping outside the EU.

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:

Is the ESM Treaty compatible with the EU Treaties?

Is the amendment to Article 136 of the TFEU intended to facilitate the
ESM lawful? One aspect of this question is whether it was permissible
for EU Heads of Government to amend the TFEU by use of the simplified
amendment procedure.
Can Eurozone States join the ESM before the Article 136 amendment is
in force?
The ECJ is treating the case as exceptionally urgent and has fixed the 23rd October 2012
for the oral hearing in Luxembourg. 14th September is the deadline for submissions to
the Court by Mr Pringle, the Irish Government, other EU Member States and EU
Institutions.

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.

The No Bailout Rule

The 1992 Maastricht Treaty established Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). That
Treaty required each Member State to be responsible for its own financial
wellbeing. The Treaty explicitly prohibited States supporting each other financially
except in very limited circumstances. In May 2010, faced with a critical financial situation
in Greece, the EU Heads of Government decided to establish a temporary rescue or
bail-out fund outside the EU structures, known as the EFSF. In October 2010 they
decided that a permanent crisis fund was needed. In March 2011 they decided that an
amendment was required to the EU Treaties to allow the setting up the permanent bail-
out fund, the ESM, outside existing EU structures. In February 2012 the ESM Treaty
was signed and published.

Other Court Challenges

In Estonia the Supreme Court decided in July 2012 by a 10:9 vote to reject a complaint
by the Estonian Chancellor of Justice against part of the ESM. The Court accepted that
the ESM provision in question would interfere with Estonian Parliamentary sovereignty
but considered this was excusable in the circumstances.

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.

In Austria, a number of political parties represented in parliament have indicated their

intention to challenge the ESM Treaty in the Austrian Constitutional Court.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court of Ireland, 'Crotty v. An Taoiseach' (9

April 1987)

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

Thirtieth Amendment of the Constitution (Treaty on Stability,

Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union) Bill
2012: Second Stage (Resumed)
Wednesday, 18 April 2012

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.

And the whole world will pay the price.

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.

Deputy Catherine Murphy: Information on Catherine Murphy Zoom on Catherine Murphy

According to its own institutions, the values and objectives of the European Union are to advance
sustainable development based on balanced economic growth and price stability, provide for a
highly competitive social market economy aimed at full employment, social progress and a high
level of protection of the quality of the environment, and promote economic, social and territorial
cohesion and solidarity among member states. These objectives are underpinned by values such as
respect for human dignity, democracy, liberty, the rule of law and equality.

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.

Deputy Tony McLoughlin: Information on Tony McLoughlin Zoom on Tony McLoughlin I

welcome the opportunity to support this legislation on the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and
Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union. The people will be asked for their view on 31
May and before that many of us will have the opportunity to engage with the electorate and explain
why the treaty should or should not be adopted. It is vital to explain to people who do not have the
same level of information that is available to us what the treaty is about and how it will provide a
level of support for the economy and especially for the smaller, weaker countries in the euro zone.

Cuireadh an dospireacht ar athl.

[494]Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m

Brussels made 17 errors

translating the ESM Treaty
into Irish
Dil approval was needed this week to correct 17 grammatical
mistakes, and typos, in the Irish version of the Treaty.
Jun 22nd 2012, 1:23 PM 5,007 Views 70 Comments
Share9 Tweet21 Email8

Michael Noonan required Dil approval to make 17 changes to the

ESM treaty, correcting mistakes made in the European translation.
DIL APPROVAL was needed this week to give the Irish
language version of the Treaty establishing the Eurozones
new permanent bailout fund the once-over after the
official translation was found to contain 17 grammatical
errors.
Michael Noonan was forced to seek Dil approval to make 17
small amendments to the European Stability Mechanism
Treaty Bill 2012 after a thorough examination of the original
Irish text provided by the European Council was found to
carry several errors.
Irish laws which allow the country to ratify international
treaties include the full text of that treaty as a schedule, or
attachment, to those laws meaning the full text of the ESM
Treaty, in English and Irish, is included in the Bills which
are put through the Oireachtas.
This is to ensure that any later amendments to those treaties
cannot have legal effect in Ireland without a similar
amendment being approved by the Oireachtas.
In the course of preparing the European Stability
Mechanism Bill 2012 it emerged that some corrections were
required to the Irish language version of the treaty, as held
by the European Commission, Noonan told the Dil.
Before correcting the Irish version of the European Stability
Mechanism treaty attached to the Bill, the Irish version of
the treaty held by the European Commission had to be
amended.
Procs-verbal
In order to ease the process of amending any incorrect
translations, European law provides for an
informal arrangement, called the procs-verbal, which
allows minor grammatical and typographical adjustments to
treaties as long as they are agreed by each of the
participating countries.
Noonan said each of the other 16 countries which originally
agreed the ESM had stated in writing that they had no
objection to the amendments, meaning the version housed
in Brussels had been corrected.
The Dils approval was needed, however, to ensure that the
version included in the legislation copied from the original
translation undertaken by the European Council was
amended to reflect the changes made to the original.
A number of the changes were needed to reflect the
incorrect gender of Irish nouns, though the changes also
included replacing the translation of budgetary for fiscal,
conditional for contingent (which also means accidental
in Irish) and identical for equivalent.
Other errors included the English-language initials ESM
instead of the translation SCE, the omission of the word
ansin (meaning then), and the use of the wrong plural for
the word subscriptions.
Some fadas were also left off some words, and simhi
characters left out of some phrases.
The changes were approved without opposition, before the
Dil formally approved the amended version by 114 votes to
22.
The European Union spends an estimated 300 million a
year translating documents into each of the unions 23
languages, which since 2007 has included Irish as a working
language, though treaties have been translated into Irish
since Ireland joined the union in 1973.

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,

THE DIL has approved Irelands ratification of the

European Stability Mechanism, the proposed new
permanent Eurozone bailout fund.
TDs voted to approve the European Stability Mechanism
Treaty Bill 2012 by 114 votes to 22.
Fianna Fil joined with the government parties in approving
the Bill, which was opposed by Sinn Fin and the United
Left Alliance.
Other independent opponents included Shane Ross, Mick
Wallace, Finian McGrath, Catherine Murphy, Tom Fleming
and John Halligan.
Independents who approved the Bill include Mattie
McGrath, Michael Healy-Rae, Stephen Donnelly and Noel
Grealish. Former government TDs Willie Penrose, Denis
Naughten and Tommy Broughan also supported the Bill.
The legislation will now be sent to the Seanad for
consideration next week, with the upper house also likely to
seek an early signature from the President so that Ireland
will have ratified the Treaty by July 1 when it is hoped that
the fund will take legal effect.
Ireland is expected to contribute 1.27 billion in cash to the
fund, which will have an initial cash balance of 80 billion,
over the next 18 months.
http://www.thejournal.ie/dail-approves-irelands-ratification-of-new-eurozone-bailout-fund-493788-
Jun2012/

Pringle V. Government of Ireland

and Attorney General
Judgement pdf doc
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-
11/cp120154en.pdf
... Thomas Pringle v. Government of Ireland, ... Out of the European Stability Mechanism: Comment
on the ... of Ireland, Ireland and The Attorney General, ..
http://aei.pitt.edu/47514/1/researchpaper_9_2013_loschiavo.pdf
Judgment of the Court (Full Court), 27 November 2012. Thomas Pringle v
Government of Ireland and Others. Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Supreme Court. Stability mechanism for the Member States whose currency is
the euro Decision 2011/199/EU Amendment of Article 136
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62012CJ0370&from=EN

European Union Court of Justices Pringle decision (Thomas Pringle v

... Case C-370/12 , ECJ, 27 November ... do Europe a favor? Bruegel
Working Did the German court do Europe a favour

http://aei.pitt.edu/52709/1/Did_the_German_court_do_Europe_a_favour
%2D_(English).pdf

The ESM Before the Courts

Pringle: A Paradigm Shift in the European Unions Monetary

Constitution
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56330ad3e4b0733dcc0c8495/t/56b133101bbee06392b0e3c2/145
4453521247/GLJ_Vol_14_No_01_Van+Malleghem.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

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF EUROZONE LAW: THE

ADJUDICATION OF POSTNATIONAL NORMS IN THE EU
COURTS, PLURALA CASE STUDY OF THE EUROPEAN
STABILITY MECHANISM

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.

The emergence of this astonishing negligence in throwing away our

access to ESM funds, is really just dawning now. Veteran journalist
Vincent Browne drew attention to it last Sunday in his weekly
column in the Sunday Business Post. This is the recent history of
the matter.
11th July 2011. Finance ministers from the 17 EuroZone countries
sign the Treaty creating the European Stability Mechanism.
30th January, 2012. The text to the Fiscal Compact treaty is agreed
and includes a provision STRESSING the importance of the Treaty
establishing the European Stability Mechanism as an element of a
global strategy to strengthen the Economic and Monetary Union and
POINTING OUT that the granting of assistance in the framework of
new programmes under the European Stability Mechanism will be
conditional, as of 1 March 2013, on the ratification of this Treaty by
the Contracting Party concerned and, as soon as the transposition
period mentioned in Article 3(2) has expired, on compliance with
the requirements of this Article
30th January 2012, In a press conference by president of the
European Commission, Manuel Barroso, President Barroso
commends that days discussions and says it was important that
the Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism is now
ready for signature and the objective is that it enters into force in
July 2012. So after all discussions we can now conclude that this
was agreed at Heads of State or Government level Now this is
confusing because the Treaty was in fact signed in July 2011, so
that being the case, how could President Barroso say the treaty is
now ready for signature?
1st February, 2012. Both Sinn Feins Peadar Toibin and Fianna Fails
Willie ODea ask Minister for Finance, Michael Noonan about
whether the imminent signing of an amendment to the ESM Treaty
will make access to the fund conditional on ratifying the Fiscal
Compact. To which Minister Noonan replies The ESM Treaty which
is expected to be signed later this week by Euro Area Member
States, subject to ratification, also provides that the granting of
financial assistance in the framework of new programmes under the
ESM will be conditional, as of 1 March 2013, on the ratification of
the Intergovernmental Treaty on Stability, Coordination and
Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union by the ESM
Member concerned. The linkage between the ESM and the
Intergovernmental Treaty to ratification was accepted in the
interests of securing agreement on the ESM and its acceleration into
force by July 2012. By the way Intergovernmental Treaty on
Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and
Monetary Union = Fiscal Compact and also Ireland isnt expected
to need additional funding until 1st January 2014.
2nd February, 2012 Press release from president of the European
Council, Herman Van Rompuy welcoming the agreement to the text
of the Fiscal Compact, but also referring to a change to the ESM
Treaty which introduced a stipulation that access to ESM funding
would be dependent on ratification of the Fiscal Compact.
9th February, 2012 Fianna Fail finance spokesperson, Michael
McGrath asks Minister for Finance, Michael Noonan about changes
made to the ESM Treaty on 2nd February, 2012. The Minister
responds and buries the stipulation about access to ESM funding
being dependent on ratification right in the middle of his answer
and says assistance will be provided under strict economic policy
conditionality. Furthermore, the modified treaty establishes a new
precondition for benefiting from such assistance as of 1 March 2013
(recital 5): member states concerned must ratify the fiscal
compact, i.e. the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance
in the Economic and Monetary Union, and implement the balanced
budget rule as specified in that treaty within the agreed timeline
(one year after entry into force). It has been clarified that the
linkage of both the ESM and the Intergovernmental Treaties refers
to new applications for assistance under the ESM and will not affect
the transfer to the ESM of undisbursed amounts under the EFSF to
Ireland(and other programme countries)
16th February, 2012. Junior minister at the Department of Foreign
Affairs, Lucinda Creighton appears before the Seanad and says the
following Senator Katherine Zappone also asked about added
value. She particularly wanted to know whether, if we signed up to
the treaty, we would be allowed to access the European Stability
Mechanism funds should we require them, and whether, if we did
not sign up to it, we would be precluded from accessing them. The
simple answer is yes. The treaty clearly links its ratification with
access to ESM funding. It is not our intention to draw down funding
under it; our funding is in place through the EFSF and we are
confident that we will meet all our targets, as we have been doing,
and that we will emerge from the programme on target. However,
the simple answer is that there is a direct link with the ESM. We
must consider the logic behind it. We obviously see this challenge
from one perspective, while the creditor countries the remaining
triple A credit rated countries in the eurozone see it from a very
different point of view. They want some assurances, as they turn a
blind eye to the intervention of the ECB in the last two months and
agree to enhance the capacity of the ESM, that they are not putting
money into a black hole. That is the sort of language we have heard
from a number of finance Ministers of triple A credit rated countries
and it is a reasonable perspective. They must go back to their
parliaments, as we do, and explain to taxpayers why they are
investing money in these funds, in which there is always a risk
involved. Therefore, they are seeking some type of assurance that if
countries intend, or are likely, to draw down funding from the ESM,
they will make every effort to reform their economies, restructure
their government spending, reform in so far as is possible and make
significant strides in reducing their deficit and debt to GDP ratio.
That is, objectively, a reasonable assumption.
21st February, 2012. Sinn Feins leader Gerry Adams asks Minister
for Finance, Michael Noonan if the linking of accessing the
European Stability Mechanism to the new fiscal compact treaty was
discussed at the EU Council meeting on 30 January 2012; and the
position he took on this issue and the response from Minister
Noonan included it [preamble to the Inter-Governmental Treaty
agreed by Heads of State or Government on 30 January ] also
states that the granting of new assistance from the ESM will be
conditional, from 1 March 2013, on ratification of the Inter-
Governmental Treaty. The ESM Treaty contains a similar provision
28th February, 2012. An Taoiseach Enda Kenny announced to the
Dail that, following consultation with the Attorney General Maire
Whelan, the Government had decided to hold a referendum on the
incorporation of the Fiscal Compact into Irish constitutional law.
6th March, 2012 Fianna Fail finance spokesperson, Michael McGrath
asks Minister for Finance, Michael Noonan to confirm that access to
ESM funding is conditional onIreland voting yes in the forthcoming
Fiscal Compact referendum (or as Michael McGrath put it
contingent on countries ratifying the fiscal compact treaty. He
gets a confirmation that this is indeed the case, but doesnt get a
justification for the concession.
7th March, 2012. Independent deputy Stephen Donnelly asks
Minister for Finance, Michael Noonan if, in respect of the
amendment to the ESM Treaty, if Irish representatives sought to
influence negotiations in any wayand if Minister Noonan
supported or opposed its inclusion; the justification for this
position There is a non-answer from the Minister which makes no
sense for Ireland which is fully funded to 31st December 2013 when
the Troika bailout programme comes to an end.
Is it time to demand the Minister come to the Dail and make a
statement justifying what now seems a bewilderingly stupid action,
which has the potential to strand this country without feasible
funding sources in 2014 unless this forthcoming referendum is
passed? The July 2011 ESM Treaty made access dependent on fiscal
discipline, but the Fiscal Compact now being put to the country goes
far further in handing over sovereignty and control of our national
finances to a Europe which, in recent times, has not shown itself to
be particularly sympathetic to the domestic economic problems of
this country. Maybe on 2nd February, 2012 Minister Noonan
thought a referendum on the Fiscal Compact would not be
necessary and that ratification of the Compact was a done deal.
That would have shown serious contempt for the deliberations of
the Attorney General, and would also have been incompetent. The
Minister now has very serious questions to answer.
UPDATE: 9th March, 2012. The updated treaty is available here,
together with a fact-sheet concerning the changes.
Statement by President of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy on the
signature of the European Stability Mechanism Treaty
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%2019%202012%20IN
IT
Factsheet on ESM Treaty

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ecofin/
127788.pdf

Article 136 TFEU, ESM, Fiscal Stability Treaty

Ratification requirements and present situation in the Member States
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/afco/dv/2013-12-
11_pe462455_v20_/2013-12-11_pe462455_v20_en.pdf

Unnoticed Amendment of Article 12 Paragraph 2 ESM Treaty

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251350157_Unnoticed_Amendment_of_Article_12_Paragrap
h_2_ESM_Treaty

Treaty of peace with Germany (Treaty of Versailles)

TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY (TREATY OF VERSAILLES) Treaty and protocol ... 1 S. Doc. 49,
66th Cong., 1st sess. (text of ... WHO having communicated their full powers

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

Ireland's Constitution of 1937

with Amendments through
2012
https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Ireland_2012.pdf?lang=en

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

Referendum: The Lisbon Treaty

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

June 12 pencilled in as date for Lisbon Treaty vote

02/04/2008 -
The country is to go to the polls to vote on the Lisbon Treaty on Thursday June 12, it
emerged today.
Poland today became the seventh EU member state to ratify the charter after Hungary,
Slovenia, Malta, Romania, France and Bulgaria.
Ireland is one of 20 remaining countries in the bloc that must approve the Treaty.
Announcing the polling date, Taoiseach Bertie Ahern told the Dil: "While we haven't
formalised a decision, it would seem to me that Thursday, June 12 is probably the most
appropriate date.
Mr Ahern said that he considered holding the vote on a Friday or Saturday but realised
that many people may be away during weekend breaks in June.
"It seems that the most appropriate date is June 12 but I'll finalise that. We haven't made a
formal decision but we have everything in place now."
Opposition leader Enda Kenny added: "I'm happy to accept that Thursday June 12 will be
the date."
A White Paper document on the Treaty was earlier published by the Government.
An independent Referendum Commission has been established and national campaigns
have begun for the 'yes' and 'no' sides.
The Lisbon Treaty was signed by EU leaders in the Portuguese capital last December to
replace the defunct EU constitution.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/june-12-pencilled-in-as-date-for-lisbon-treaty-vote-355850.html

Lisbon II referendum set for 2 October

Updated / Wednesday, 16 Sep 2009

The Taoiseach has told the Dil that the second

referendum on the Lisbon Treaty will take place on
Friday 2 October.
The Dil passed all stages of the 28th Amendment
Bill, which will allow the State to ratify the Lisbon
Treaty if it is passed.
The bill will be in the Seanad tomorrow.
The Irish electorate rejected the Treaty on 12 June
last year by a margin of 53.4% to 46.6%.
A total of 752,451 people voted in favour and
862,415 voted against.
The campaign was marked by a complex No
campaign which raised some issues that did not form
part of the Treaty.
Following that vote, the Government put in train an
analysis of the reasons the document was voted
down.
Arising from that research, pressure was put on the
other EU members to accommodate Irish voters'
concerns, in order to allow for a second vote with a
better chance of success.
A two-day EU summit last month agreed to legally
binding guarantees on the application of the Treaty in
Ireland.
The summit also agreed to an Irish request that the
guarantees also be incorporated as a protocol to the
EU treaties.
The guarantees ensure Irish control over tax rates,
military neutrality and the Irish Constitution's
provisions on social and family law, including the
right to life.
Minister for Foreign Affairs Michel Martin has said a
Yes vote in the referendum would put Ireland back at
the heart of Europe as opposed to the periphery.

He said every household in the country will receive a

postcard identifying the guarantees that have been
obtained for Ireland.
Speaking on RT's Six-One, Minister Martin said this
is not a matter about Government but about the
future of the country.
He said citizens needed to ask whether they want to
be at the heart of Europe or at the periphery.
Brian Cowen said the guarantees, and the
declaration on workers' rights, and the decision taken
last December that every country will keep its own
commissioner, would enable him to go back to the
Government and recommend the holding of a second
referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
Two other countries, Poland and the Czech Republic,
have completed the parliamentary phases of
ratification, but in each case the President has
declined to finalise the process until and unless
Ireland ratifies the Treaty.
Germany's ratification awaits passage of amending
domestic legislation.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said approval of

the Lisbon Treaty is consistent with Ireland's role in
the UN.
Mr Ban said: 'The role of regional organisations, like
the European Union and the African Union, is
crucially important in carrying out the major ideals of
the United Nations.
'If you conform and support this Lisbon Treaty,
according to the wills of your own people, then this
will be a completely in consistence with the major
goals and ideals of the United Nations.'
He was inspecting troops at McKee Barracks in
Dublin this afternoon on the second day of his Irish
visit.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0708/119330-eulisbon/

(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.

Support for the treaty -- designed to streamline decision-making in an enlarged European

Union -- has surged according to the Sunday Business Post/Red C poll with 58 percent in
favour, 28 percent against and 14 percent undecided.

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.

Red C interviewed a random sample of 1,001 adults on January 26-28.

This is the fraud rigged changed yes boxes votes

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

Irish rigged Referendum Count at Cork City Hall

Oct 3, 2009
SUBSCRIBE 24
Video taken at Cork City hall Ireland during Irish Referendum ballot box deliveries to the central ballot
count center showing a man removing a ballot box from where they were to be stored to be ready for
the referendum count next morning
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t764ACqXK3M&feature=share
REFERENDUMS IN EUROPE Report adopted by the Council for ...
http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-
AD(2005)034-e
Ireland's Nice Treaty Referendum
A Dark Day for Democracy

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.

The Referendum Commission's publicly funded advertisements, while evenly balanced

between Yes and No in last year's Nice referendum, were in practice of more advantage to
the No-side interests because they have little money anyway. Moreover, private interests
did not bother advertising in Nice One, when they knew that the Yes/No arguments would
be put by the publicly funded Referendum Commission, and would be grounded in the
facts of the Nice Treaty, not on wholesale or partial irrelevancies such as "Jobs and
Growth," being "Better off in Europe," or EU enlargement, which is something that
primarily depends on the Accession Treaties, not Nice. The Government's removal of this
Yes/No function from the Referendum Commission last December cleared a free field for
private advertising in the Nice Re-run, as the politicians responsible intended that it would.
The cost of the advertising was 20/1 in favour of a Yes.

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

EU nations sign up for

new era of deeper
defense cooperation
Share279 Tweet

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

Twenty-three of the EU's 28 member nations signed up to the

process, known as permanent structured cooperation, or PESCO.
Britain, which is leaving the EU in 2019, and Denmark with a
defense opt-out were among those not taking part.
EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini described it as a
"historic moment in European defense," and added that "23
member states engaging booth on capabilities and on operational
steps is something big." Those who didn't sign up can join later.

Federica Mogherini

@FedericaMog

We made it: 23 Member States notified to me joint

decision to start Permanent Structured Cooperation
#PESCO. Historic step for #EUDefence
2:54 PM - Nov 13, 2017
71 71 Replies 602 602 Retweets 991 991 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Mogherini said countries have already submitted more than 50

joint projects in the fields of defense capabilities and military
operations.
Britain can take part in some if they are of benefit to the entire EU.
She said PESCO, backed by the EU defense fund, "will enable
member states to use the economy of scale of Europe and in this
manner to fulfil the gap of output that we have."
Their signatures are a sign of political will but the program
will only enter force once it's been legally endorsed, probably
in December.

PESCO
http://www.france24.com/en/20171113-eu-defence-defense-joint-military-
development-cooperation-pesco

Protocol on Permanent Structured Cooperation established by Article 42 of the Treaty on European

PROTOCOL
ON PERMANENT STRUCTURED COOPERATION
ESTABLISHED BY ARTICLE 42 OF THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION

THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,

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

Dil votes to join EU

defence group Pesco
1
Taoiseach Leo Varadkar
Cormac McQuinn
December 7 2017
THE Dil has passed a government proposal to join, Pesco, an organisation
aimed at deepening defence cooperation among EU member states.

TDs voted 75 to 42 in favour of the decision to take part in Pesco (Permanent

Structured Co-operation Agreement) despite opposition concerns about the
implications of the move.

Independents4Change TD Mick Wallace had argued on Wednesday that an

EU army was being created and raised concern.

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.

He said Europe is "worth defending" and should not be dependent on the

United States in this regard.
Mr Varadkar gave counter-terrorism initiatives, cyber-security and
peacekeeping as as example of areas Ireland may participate in.

He said Ireland won't be buying aircraft carriers or fighter jets.

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.

He referred to Mr Varadkar's remarks about how Ireland won't be entering

the market for heavy weaponry but raised concern about the desire among
some member states for an "increasingly militarised" EU.

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.

He said there's no obligation on Ireland to increase defence spending to 2pc of

GDP under Pesco membership.

But he said he would like to see increased investment in Defence Forces

personnel given the reduction in their allowances over the past decade.

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.

New proposals for EU-NATO

cooperation
Brussels - 06 December, 2017

The EU and NATO Councils yesterday took EU-NATO

cooperation to a new level by endorsing a new set of common
proposals on the implementation of the June 2016 Joint
Declaration.
In addition, a joint progress report was presented to the respective
Councils by the HRVP and Head of the European Defence Agency
Federica Mogherini and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg
demonstrating the good progress made on the implementation of the
existing 42 proposals endorsed in December 2016. These will be
complemented by 31 new proposals, covering new topics such as
counter-terrorism, women, peace and security and military mobility. The
next progress report is planned for June 2018.

The EDA actively contributes to the implementation of the June 2016

Joint Declaration in areas such as capability development, cyber
defence, hybrid, defence industry/research and exercises, and is
expected to play a central role on the implementation of the new
proposals, including on military mobility, on the basis of the agreed
principles on the implementation of the 2016 Joint Declaration.

https://www.eda.europa.eu/info-hub/press-centre/latest-
news/2017/12/06/new-proposals-for-eu-nato-cooperation

Department of Defence and Defence Forces Strategy Statement

http://www.defence.ie/website.nsf/Strategy2016aE

These are the key points.

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/#

1) the NATO dimension; 2) the necessity to increase defence spending ("regularly

increasing defence budgets in real terms in order to reach agreed
objectives",); and 3) that the Petersberg Tasks are not as innocent at portrayed.
The underlying thread of supporting the arms industry is also a huge point.
2. Also this article from French TV (http://www.france24.com/en/20171113-eu-
defence-defense-joint-military-development-cooperation-pesco) which has the
following:

"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."

3. Also, this German news site: http://www.dw.com/en/pesco-eu-paves-way-to-

defense-union/a-41360236 'EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini described
the signing of PESCO as a "historic moment in European defense." The decision to
launch PESCO indicates Europe's move towards self-sufficiency in defense matters
instead of relying solely on NATO. The EU, however, also stressed that PESCO
is complimentary to NATO, in which 22 of the EU's 28 countries are
members.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg welcomed the launch, saying

that he saw it as an opportunity to "strengthen the European pillar within
NATO."Stoltenberg had previously urged European nations to increase their
defense budget.

"I'm a firm believer of stronger European defense, so I welcome PESCO because I

believe that it can strengthen European defense, which is good for Europe but also
good for NATO," Stoltenberg said.

Irelands review of illegal defence force of Europe

http://www.defence.ie/WebSite.nsf/report1

THE ARMY RANGER WING

This Unit is officially designated 'Sciathn Fianglach an Airm' which
is translated as 'The Army Ranger Wing' (ARW). There is no direct
English translation of the term 'Fianglach' so the designation
Ranger is the accepted version. 'Fianglach' links the traditions of
'Na Fianna', legendary Irish warriors, with the present day glaigh
na hireann, the Defence Forces. Qualified members of the unit
wear the Fianglach shoulder flash insignia.
The Army Ranger Wing Motto
The Unit motto is taken from an old Fianna poem and continues the
link with which the name is associated. It is written in the Irish
language;
Glaine r gcro, Neart r ngag, Agus beart de rir r mbriathar
The cleanliness of our hearts, The strength of our limbs, And our
commitment to our promise
The Army Ranger Wing Ethos
The rapid emergence of new technology and the increasing diversity
of potential tasks dictated the requirement for logical contingency
planning. The need for a high level of preparedness to deal with any
requests for operations of a specific nature is inherent in the Unit
mission. From its foundation it was necessary for the ARW to ensure
that the highest standards pertained at all levels of the Unit.
Motivation, training and operational flexibility are paramount to
success. This is achieved by ensuring the highest level of individual
proficiency allied to the C3 (Command, Control & Communications)
function, all of which knit together to form cohesive military
teamwork.

ROLES OF THE ARW

The Army Ranger Wing is an integral unit of the Defence Forces. Its
roles are divided into Conventional Warfare roles and specialist
ATCP roles. It also has an established role in the advancement of
standards within the Defence Forces.
Military Tasks
Offensive Operations Behind Enemy Lines:
Securing of vital objectives
Long Range Patrolling
Raids
Ambushes
Sabotage
Capture of Key Personnel
Diversionary Operations
Intelligence Gathering
Defensive Operations:
VIP Protection
Counter Insurgency
Training in and Conduct of Specialist Operations
Delay Operations
Aid to the Civil Power (Anti-Terrorist) Tasks
Anti-Hijack Operations
Hostage Rescue Operations
Airborne and Seaborne Interventions
Search Operations - Specialist Tasks on Land or Sea
Pursuit Operations
Recapture of Terrorist-Held Objectives
VIP Security Operations/Close Protection of VIPs
Contingency Planning to Counter Terrorist/Subversive
Threat
Advancement of Defence Forces Standards
The ARW contributes to the improvement of standards in military
and related skills throughout the Defence Forces by:
Testing and Evaluation of Equipment for the Defence
Forces
Organising and Participating in Defence Forces Training
Exercises
Conducting Specialist Courses
Returning ARW personnel to all Corps of the Defence
Forces
The Defence Forces wishes to inform the public of a major exercise that will take place in
the Dublin area tomorrow, Wednesday 6th December 2017.

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.

We hope to keep any disruption to a minimum; however, this exercise is necessary to

ensure that the Defence Forces are fully prepared when called upon.

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 Chief of Staff Vice Admiral Mark Mellett added:

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

4. Finally interesting document re EU/NATO Council Conclusions on the

Implementation of the 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://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15283-2016-INIT/en/pdf

See the attached for more (word doc).

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

Ireland and Others

Defendants

[1st March, 1990]

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.

The plaintiffs' claim

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.

8. In his judgment the learned trial judge stated:-

"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.

The relevant constitutional provisions

15. The relevant constitutional provisions are as follows:-

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."

The Anglo-Irish Agreement

ARTICLE 1

16. The two Governments

(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.

Interpretation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution

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:-

1. The re-integration of the national territory is a constitutional imperative (cf. Hederman J. in

Russell v. Fanning [1988] I.R. 505).
2. Article 2 of the Constitution consists of a declaration of the extent of the national territory as a
claim of legal right.
3. Article 3 of the Constitution prohibits, pending the re-integration of the national territory, the
enactment of laws with any greater area or extent of application or extra-territorial effect than the
laws of Saorstt ireann and this prohibits the enactment of laws applicable in the counties of
Northern Ireland.
4. The restriction imposed by Article 3 pending the re-integration of the national territory in no way
derogates from the claim as a legal right to the entire national territory.

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.

The grounds of the plaintiffs' claim

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.

1. Inconsistency of the Agreement with Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution

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.

3. Disregard of the interests of the "majority" community in Northern Ireland

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."

44. In the Supreme Court, Walsh J., at p. 645 said:-

"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.

The constitutional issue

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.

A Europe worth building is a Europe worth defending, Leo Varadkar.

#PESCO

By Europe he means the European Union, by building he means

federalising, and by defending he means killing and dying for.

No. It is not.

TO An Taoiseach, Leo
Varadkar
No To An EU
Army
AA

Campaign created by
Afri Action

Do not support in any way, financially or with our

defence force personnel, the deepening
militarisation of the EU.
Why is this important?
The EU should not be acquiring military capabilities or
competences - it is not a military organisation and neutral
member states such as Ireland should not be expected to
support in any way a military infrastructure that is incompatible
with the peaceful resolution of international disputes. Ireland
should continue its tradition of peacekeeping within UN-
mandated operations only and should refuse to participate in or
support increasingly militaristic EU operations as well as ever
growing military expenditure.
https://my.uplift.ie/petitions/no-to-ireland-supporting-a-military-force-in-the-
eu
You are traitors.
The Irish people have NEVER given you permission to overturn our
neutrality.

That you called joining a EU military alliance something as pathetic as

'Permanent Structured Cooperation' is indicative of your contempt.

#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."

Not in Ireland though. Message from the Irish Government...

Humans can go fuck themselves...

Particularly if you are homeless or destitute...

Hands up who voted for us to Join the EU Army with out our Permission,
Not me!
Why don't they let the public vote
List of all TDS who voted yes to the PESCO deal ,know who you are voting for right here --
see the ones who are willing to sign away your childrens futures into the 'great EU army'
.Pesco is merely a guise to openly use Ireland as a military base is all our tiny country has
virtually no other valuable military input ,no good can come of more US military
involvement in Ireland .FF/Fg will be the actual death of us all
Fianna Fail and Fine Gael have just signed away the lives of our Children and Grand children as cannon
fodder, they should go to France and Belgium and see the Garden's of Stone WW1 and WW2 Graves
from all nations including Ireland "The Irish move to the sound of the guns like salmon to the sea" (Rudyard
Kipling)
They want you to pay in blood and treasure.
Absolute traitors!

With PESCO brought to life, will

European defence live happily
ever after?
http://www.egmontinstitute.be/content/uploads/2017/07/SPB90.pdf?type=pd
f
Dil ireann - 21/Nov/2017 EU Defence Issues (Continued)
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.
Tuesday, 21 November 2017
Deputy Paul Kehoe: Information on Paul Kehoe Zoom on Paul Kehoe] The participation criteria
expressly stipulate that PESCO will be undertaken in full compliance with the Treaty on European
Union and the associated protocols and will respect the member states' constitutional provisions.
Participation in each project is on an opt-in basis and is therefore entirely voluntary. Three other
neutral EU member states, Finland, Sweden and Austria, have already committed to joining PESCO.
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.

Legal Metrology (Measuring Instruments) Bill 2017: From the Seanad

The Dil went into Committee to consider amendments from the Seanad.

Seanad amendment No. 1:

Section 1: In page 3, to delete line 15 and substitute the following:

Minister means the Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation;.
Seanad amendment agreed to.

Seanad amendment reported.

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."

Question put and agreed to.

Finance Bill 2017: Report Stage

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Information on Pat the Cope Gallagher Zoom on Pat the Cope
Gallagher Amendment No. 1 is out of order.

Amendment No. 1 not moved.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: Information on Richard Boyd Barrett Zoom on Richard Boyd Barrett
I move amendment No. 2:

In page 8, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:

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

New Thinking About Israeli National Security in a Changing Regional

Environment Maj. Gen. Yair Golan, IDF THE 2017 ZEEV SCHIFF MEMORIAL
LECTURE September 7, 2017

New Thinking about Israeli National Security in a Changing Regional

Environment

Maj. Gen. Yair Golan, Israel Defense Forces

2017 Zeev Schiff Memorial Lecture
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy September 7, 2017

New Thinking About Israeli National Security in a Changing Regional

Environment Maj. Gen. Yair Golan, IDF THE 2017 ZEEV SCHIFF MEMORIAL
LECTURE September 7, 2017
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/other/GolanTranscri
pt20170907-3.pdf
NATO needs more consistently strong, determined American presidential
leadership. It needs a stronger Germany with a military to match its political and
economic weight. It needs the United Kingdom (UK), France, Italy, and other
Europeans allies to contribute much more to our collective defense
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/images/publications/Restoring_the_Power_and
_Purpose_of_the_NATO_Alliance_web_0624.pdf
The US-UK Special Relationship at a Critical Crossroads
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/images/publications/The_US-
UK_Special_Relationship_at_a_Critical_Crossroads_web_0721.pdf
update on PESCO from the EU Commission

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

European Council conclusions

on security and defence,
22/06/2017
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/06/22/euco-
security-defence/pdf

mplementation of the 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

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

Troops commemorate the Easter Rising centenary last year

ROLLINGNEWS

The government has faced down objections to

Ireland signing up to a body that is said to be a
precursor to a European Union army.
Opposition politicians reacted furiously to plans for
a rushed vote on Irelands membership of the
Permanent Structured Co-operation (Pesco), a
mechanism to allow countries to co-operate more
closely on security operations and build-up military
capability. A debate and vote on joining the body
was scheduled to be passed through the Dil
tomorrow but opposition TDs expressed grave
concerns. Richard Boyd Barrett suggested
membership could erode Irelands military
neutrality. This is an absolutely scandalous
suggestion, he said.
This is a move to ram through a vote to move
towards joining an EU army. This would have huge
financial implications for the
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eu-defence-vote-triggers-dail-anger-
r7sd9r2xc
A "Constitutional Treaty" - sounds like an oxymoron to me! By calling it a "treaty" means the citizens of
every national State in the EU get no say on the matter, no referendum, no vote. That is all so wrong.
FG minister Deeihan denied a SF motion to enshrine neutrality in our constitution....Rejecting the Bill, Mr Deenihan
said it was not necessary to incorporate such a commitment in the Constitution because military neutrality was firmly
committed to by the Government.

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. #

Yesterday's (Wednesday 7th Dec '17) Dil exchanges on PESCO

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
The Council of the European Union press release on PESCO has a
promotional video that opens with the line, "In a troubled world, citizens
want the EU to offer them more protection", followed by images of
fighter jets, drones, Apache helicopters, armed troops running off
military transport helicopters, aircraft carriers and warships, all to the
tune of the kind of aspirational and emotive modern classical one would
get on an advertisement for a new Mercedes car.
Apart from that, there is no detail as to what exactly it will mean for
those who sign up, especially in terms of actual warfare. The only thing
that is obvious is that the arms industry is about to make even more
money because, for some vague reason, we all need to be stocking up
on guns and locking up our borders. What is this vague threat? Why
does the EU need all these warships, fighter jets and aircraft carriers?
The EU was set up with the aim of ending the frequent and bloody wars
between neighbours which culminated in the Second World War, or so
it says on the European Union website. Now, it seems that if one wants
to stay on the right side of the EU, one must sign up to enrich its arms
producers. The German Defence Minister, Ms Von der Leyen, the main
driver behind PESCO along with the French, said in 2014, "I believe that
joint armed forces would be a logical consequence of an increasingly
close military co-operation in Europe". After PESCO was set up in
November, she said this was, "another step in the direction of the army
of Europeans".
We seem to be the only country that is in denial and refusing to
acknowledge that an EU army is being created. We are struggling to pay
members of the Defence Forces a proper wage and some 335 Army
personnel left voluntarily in 2017 alone, yet we are now going to join
PESCO, which states that members must commit to year-on-year real
increases in defence spending and investment.
The speed at which the Council of the European Union has made this
turn towards beefing up EU defence capabilities is frightening. In the
space of seven months we have gone from arguing about 90 million of
EU money being spent on defence research over a period of three years
to the European Commission in June proposing the mobilisation of 40
billion by 2027 for research and development of weapons and military
hardware through the European Defence Fund.
Our neutral status is already on a shaky footing.
The lack of warning, debate and detail around joining this new military
group, when we can join any time in the future, give us good grounds
for fearing that this could be the final nail in the last notions of Irish
neutrality. This matter is going to committee today and will be debated
and voted on tomorrow. I did not hear one radio station mention it this
morning and the public does not even know this is happening. There
should be a proper debate in the public realm as well. Given that should
take some time, I do not believe there should be a vote before
Christmas. It is unfair to do so, given the people are, generally, unaware
it is even taking place.
Leo Varadkar (Taoiseach, Department of An Taoiseach; Dublin West,
Fine Gael)
I have a clear view on this matter. My view is that a Europe that is worth
building is a Europe that is worth defending. For a very long time, all of
Europe has relied on the United States to provide for its defence. There
are real threats to European security and, over time, rather than relying
on the United States to defend Europe and pay for European defence,
Europe should provide and pay for its own defence and not be
dependent on the United States in the way it has been since 1945. That
is what PESCO and European security and defence co-operation are all
about. It is Europe starting to take responsibility for and control over its
own defence, not relying on the United States in the way it has done
until now.
In Ireland, however, we have a particular, different view. We have a
long-standing tradition of non-alignment and neutrality, one that I and
this Government will defend because we believe our non-alignment and
neutrality makes us stronger and gives us more influence around the
world. PESCO, for us, is going to be something different than it perhaps
is for other countries. The reason we want to join PESCO is precisely
because it is not what the Deputy says it is for us, because we are going
to join it on an opt-in, opt-out basis. We will only opt in to certain
programmes and certain parts of PESCO that we want to be involved in,
for example, counter-terrorism, given all European countries need to
work together to defeat terrorism.
Cyber-security and peacekeeping are further examples of areas we are
going to opt into. I can assure the Deputy we are not going to be buying
aircraft carriers, we are not going to be buying fighter jets and we are
not going to be shopping around military trade fairs for any of these
things, as that is not in our interest.
Defence spending will rise. We have already committed to an increase
in defence spending that has been set out in the White Paper since long
before PESCO. That increase in defence spending will go into bringing
our Defence Forces up to the level we want them to be at, that is,
between 9,000 and 10,000. It will go into pay increases, which have
already started but which will kick in across January and through to
October of next year. It will go into new equipment because we need
new equipment for our Defence Forces.
Yes, we are going to increase defence spending, but we are going to
increase it moderately and we are going to increase it so that our
Defence Forces can carry out the job that we want them to do.
When it comes to PESCO, we are proposing to join on an opt-in, opt-out
basis, only opting into the particular operations and programmes that
we want to be a part of. In doing so, we are joining three other neutral
countries that have already decided to join - Sweden, Austria and
Finland, countries with long-standing traditions of neutrality and of not
being members of NATO and that have already made the decision to
join. I think we should, too.
Mick WallaceMick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
If the Taoiseach is so hawkish and so confident that this is good for us, I
do not understand why he is not prepared to allow for a more public
debate on it outside the House. Did the Lisbon and Nice treaties teach
the State about allowing people to think too much about these issues?
For a number of years, we have witnessed the increased militarisation of
Europe. The Taoiseach can say that what is happening now does not
affect our neutrality, but there are few neutral observers who would
share that view.
The Taoiseach says that we have relied for too long on the US to defend
us. We are a small island. We have no intention of attacking anyone and
no one will attack us. Why do we need the American military to defend
us? We do not need it. Neither do we need a European army or to be a
part of one for this island to be protected. I will tell the Taoiseach how
to keep peace - do not bother anyone else and do not go to war with
others. We should also stop allowing Shannon to be used as a US
military base and a stopover point for the US to cause destruction,
which has created many problems in the past 16 years.
Do we not accept the fact that, even though the world is a less safe
place today because the amount of arms has increased, we are now
going to sign up to arrangements that will make us a part of that?
Leo Varadkar (Taoiseach, Department of An Taoiseach; Dublin West,
Fine Gael)
I do not accept that I am being hawkish. I do not think that sending
peacekeepers all around the world is hawkish. I do not think that
sending ships to the Mediterranean to rescue refugees and pull children
out of the water is hawkish.
Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Sending them back to Libya is wrong.
Leo Varadkar (Taoiseach, Department of An Taoiseach; Dublin West,
Fine Gael)
I do not believe that using our Defence Forces and our police to train
defence forces and police in unstable countries and new democracies
around the world is hawkish. It is part of our obligations as global
citizens and I think it is the right thing to do in the interests of our
country.
We want to be involved in PESCO. Not on the same basis as everyone in
Europe, but on an opt-in basis whereby we opt into programmes that
we want to be part of, for example, peacekeeping, cybersecurity,
counter-terrorism, sharing expertise, training and all those things-----
Richard Boyd Barrett (Dn Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
The Taoiseach knows how terrorism is defined. Some of our friends in
Europe-----
-----and being involved in those kinds of programme.
For other countries in Europe, PESCO is going to be something
different. They are going to opt as a bloc, en masse, into everything
because they want Europe to be able to defend itself. France is in a
different place than us, for example. So is Germany. Even now 70 years
after the Second World War, there are American troops in Germany as
part of Europe's defence.
Europe as a continent needs to move away from that. We should be
able to defend ourselves and not rely on Americans to do so, but that is
not why we are joining. We are joining coming from a particularly
distinct Irish perspective, where we are a neutral non-aligned country
joining on the same basis as Austria, Sweden and Finland, opting into
programmes as we wish to do so.
On this particular issue, and as we are mentioning the Defence Forces, it
is worth informing the House that a Defence Forces exercise is taking
place today in the Dublin area that will allow them to practice various
operational and tactical procedures. Approximately 500 members of the
Defence Forces, including the Army Ranger Wing, explosive ordnance
disposal team and specialist search engineering team will be in Dublin
today. In addition, the Air Corps and the Naval Service will provide
support.
The Defence Forces are working closely with the Garda in this exercise.
The exercise will also help them to develop their procedures with An
Garda Sochna and other emergency services and build their
preparedness. The Defence Forces constantly prepare on an ongoing
basis to support the civil authorities in the event of a national security
incident. This exercise today is a part of our preparations for that.
Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
The Government is still not paying them.

ntegration of the European Fiscal Compact into the EU Legal

Framework: incorporating neoliberalism into EU law. Shameful stance
by majority in EU Parliament.
As a reaction to the economic and financial crisis, the Member States of
the European Union imposed strict budgetary discipline and a reduction
of existing debt on themselves. This austerity policy has been reflected
in the so-called Fiscal Compact. This week, the European Parliament
held lively discussions concerning the integration of this agreement into
EU law. However, from the point of view of employees, the discussions
should have focussed on another issue: putting an end to neoliberal
austerity policy!
Economic | | 05-10-2017
The Fiscal Compact, as part of the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and
Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union, is an agreement
according to international law between 25 EU Member States (without
Great Britain, Czechia and Croatia), which came into force in January
2013. This Compact imposes on the Member States the obligation to
observe strict budgetary discipline and a continuous reduction of their
national debt. In concrete terms this means a maximum structural
budget deficit of 0.5% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per year, a
speedy reduction of the national debt up to the reference value of 60%
of GDP, as well as the European Court of Justice monitoring that these
conditions are being adhered to. The Member States are also obliged to
enshrine these regulations in their national constitutions. Apart from
that, only those countries that have signed the Fiscal Compact are able
to apply for financial assistance by the European Stability Mechanism
(ESM).
On request of the EFDD group, the planned integration of the Fiscal
Compact into EU law was discussed in the plenum of the EU Parliament.
By and large, three points of view emerged during the sometimes
emotional debate: representatives of EPP and Alde regard the Fiscal
Compact as a step in the right direction. In their opinion, stricter fiscal
discipline is urgently required. They regard the integration of the Fiscal
Compact into the EU Legal Framework as being positive. The
spokespersons of the S&D faction are critical of the Fiscal Compact.
According to their argumentation, the Agreement must be revised prior
to its integration. Their demand is a departure of the rigorous austerity
policy and a focus on the creation of jobs. On the left of the political
spectrum, the GUE/NGL and the Greens, and on the right the ECR,
EFDD und ENF completely reject the Fiscal Compact. Whilst the former
massively objected to the neoliberal austerity policy and demanded a
social Europe, the latter were afraid of a further loss of sovereignty by
the national states.
Neoliberal austerity policy
The criticism on the Fiscal Compact has not stopped since its
implementation in 2013. At fundamental level, the Agreement means a
legal establishment of the neoliberal doctrine into European economic
policy. The speedy proclamation of a lack of alternative regarding the
austerity policy in the course of the economic and financial crisis
confirms this and is at the expense of employees. From an economic
point of view, the self-imposed austerity policy restricts economic
growth and holds countries such as Greece in a debt trap. Based on
strict budgetary discipline, Member States are driven towards a
unilateral austerity policy and are losing economic room to manoeuvre
on a massive scale. Another aspect is the democratically questionable
construction of the Agreement. According to this, individual Member
States are not able to unilaterally terminate the Agreement. Only a joint
agreement by all Member States can dissolve the Fiscal Compact.
The AK has criticised the Fiscal Compact since the start of the
negotiations. A misunderstood austerity policy is not a practical path to
achieve a wealth-oriented and social European Union. The debate
should focus on solving the question of distribution, on further
regulating the financial markets and on creating jobs. The importance
of a Golden Investment Rule is a key issue as is the introduction of a
Financial Transaction Tax.
The departure from a unilateral austerity policy does not only make
sense from an economic point of view. Massive investments in social
and educational systems, as well as developing the public infrastructure
at European level, does not all benefit all people; it would also
strengthen solidarity within the EU.
Further information:
Blog Arbeit&Wirtschaft: Austerity policy in the Eurozone: Shooting
oneself in the foot
AK WIEN: The Elusive Recovery. Independent Annual Growth Survey
2017
ETUC Declaration on the "Treaty on stability, coordination and
governance in the economic and monetary union"

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

Irish Referendum Count at Cork City Hall

Oct 3, 2009
Video taken at Cork City hall Ireland during Irish Referendum ballot box deliveries to the central ballot
count center showing a man removing a ballot box from where they were to be stored to be ready for
the referendum count next morning
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t764ACqXK3M&feature=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!

Concerns Government will have to commit to

annual 3bn defence bill if they join PESCO
Thursday, December 07, 2017
There are concerns the Government will have to commit to an annual 3
billion euro defence bill if they join PESCO.

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.

Executive Member, Carol Fox, thinks its scandalous to spend more

money on militarism and says the Government hasn't released details
on how they intend to pay for the deal.
She said: "It could require quite a big increase in our defence spending if
we are supposed to bring our capabilities up to certain levels then also
we will be committed to proming the arms industry through the
European Defence Agency and through other group agencies aswell.

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.

The European Union's Permanent Structured Co-operation Agreement

(PESCO) is seen by some as the first step towards an EU army.

It will see countries taking part in sharing information and co-operating

on issues of defence.

The Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has said it is necessary to ensure the

security of the State, and it will not affect our neutrality.

Opposition TD Richard Boyd Barrett is staunchly against the idea.

He said: "This is what Tusk said about PESCO, its purpose is to protect
the bloc from the affects of the migrant crisis and hostile bordering
states.

"Affects of the migrant crisis... that's 35,000 people drowned in the

Mediterranean thanks to 'fortress Europe', and they want to militarise
the wall that Donald Trump dreams of building to keep those desperate
people out."

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

The EU's mutual assistance clause

First ever activation of Article 42(7) TEU
SUMMARY

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

relationship with CSDP and Article 42(7)

Explaining France's choice

Main references

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service Author: Carmen-Cristina Ci rlig

Members' Research Service
PE 572.799

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

During the debates in the Convention that led to the

drafting of the Constitutional Treaty, the question arose
whether the EU should have a mutual defence clause
similar to that of NATO and the WEU, as well as on the
future role of the WEU. In this context, proposals on the
principle of solidarity in light of new threats such as
terrorism and weapons of mass destruction were also
discussed. In this regard, a Franco-German proposal
aimed to incorporate the WEU mutual defence clause into
the EU, through the mechanism of enhanced cooperation
since an automatic defence obligation in the Treaty would
have been opposed by the neutral Member States. A
subsequent Franco-German idea was to have a 'general
clause on solidarity and security, binding all member
states in the European Union, and allowing for a response
to risks of any sort that threaten the Union', therefore
combining in one clause both a mutual assistance
obligation on the model of the WEU (addressing traditional threats such as
aggression by another state) and a solidarity obligation to respond to new threats,
such as terrorist attacks. In the end, the draft Constitutional Treaty included two
separate provisions. First, a solidarity clause in event of terrorist attacks and natural
or man-made disasters was included, and later incorporated in Article 222 of the
Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU). And second, there was the mutual
assistance/defence clause which constituted the fruit of a compromise and therefore
contains weaker language than the WEU's mutual defence clause. This provision was
incorporated by the Lisbon Treaty in Article 42(7) TEU. The compromise was meant
to bring closer the positions of three groups of states: those seeking a mutual
defence commitment; those aiming to protect their traditional neutral status (such
as Austria, Finland, Ireland and Sweden ) and those wanting to ensure that the
article would not undermine NATO. The introduction of the mutual assistance clause
in the TEU also allowed for the dissolution of the WEU, officially announced in 2010.

Scope and reservations

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

Article 42(7) TEU

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.

Members' Research Service Page 2 of 9

The EU's mutual assistance clause (Article 42(7) TEU)
NATO, to the clause being located within the chapter on CSDP, as well as by the
origins of the clause as outlined above.

A series of elements should therefore be underlined in this context.

Firstly, the different formulations of the mutual assistance/defence clauses

contained in the TEU, the WEU Treaty and NATO's Washington Treaty lead to the
idea of differing obligations and to the conclusion that the WEU's Article V was more
exigent than Article 42(7) TEU and NATO's Article 5. Article 42(7) TEU renounces the
automatism implied by the WEU clause the Member States 'will afford the Party so
attacked all the military and other aid and assistance in their power' and provides
instead that 'Member States shall have ... an obligation of aid and assistance by all
the means in their power'; which is then subject to other conditions (see below)
which alleviate to some extent this duty. Moreover, Article 42(7) TEU gives leeway to
the Member States to decide with what means they fulfil the aid and assistance
obligation (e.g. diplomatic, financial, military, police cooperation, etc.), just like
Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty also leaves it to the individual member state to
decide what action it deems necessary and does not automatically assume military
response by all members. In this respect, Article 42(7) TEU does not expressly
mention military means so as to accommodate those EU members with a neutral
status and Denmark which has an opt-out from the adoption and implementation of
decisions with military and defence implications. But the article does not exclude
7
On the other hand, the Article 42(7) TEU clause is said to be more extensive from a
geographical point of view than the equivalent WEU and NATO provisions: while
assistance under those is limited to 'Europe' for the WEU and 'Europe and North
America' for NATO, the TEU covers all armed aggression against a Member State 'on
its territory' which is said also to cover those extra-European territories to which
EU law applies (e.g. France's overseas departements) but not to the Overseas
8
Secondly, in the context of the reference to Article 51 of the UN Charter, while the
Charter speaks of a right to self-defence in the event of an 'armed attack', the TEU
uses the term 'armed aggression'. However this distinction has been explained as a
9
is a persistent debate on whether Article 51 of the UN Charter could also be invoked
in relation to non-state armed groups. However, the predominant view is that Article
51 applies only to armed attack/aggression committed by a state, and that it cannot
be invoked in relation to armed aggression, including terrorist attacks, perpetrated
by non-state actors. In any case, the link to Article 51 in the EU's mutual assistance
provision can be understood to mean that any military action in self-defence by EU
Member States under Article 42(7) TEU will be assessed against the legality of that
10
Thirdly, the duty of assistance under Article 42(7) TEU is subsumed to two
considerations: the relationship with NATO and the 'specific character of the security
and defence policy of certain Member States'.

As concerns relations with NATO, the EU Treaty's mutual assistance obligation is

understood as not having precedence over the collective defence obligation
contained in NATOs Article 5. In this respect, it is considered that the EU's mutual
assistance clause is secondary to NATO's and could not be invoked if NATO's Article 5
had already

Members' Research Service Page 3 of 9

EPRS
been invoked. It is argued that, in accordance with the Vienna Convention on the
Law of Treaties, whereby 'when a treaty specifies that it is subject to, or that it is not
to be considered as incompatible with, an earlier or later treaty, the provisions of
that other treaty prevail', NATO's founding act takes precedence over the application
11
consider there is no danger of legal inconsistencies unless the EU mutual defence
clause is triggered against a non-EU NATO member, which would be highly unlikely.
The EU, in CSDP, and NATO have been portrayed as organisations complementary to
each other, and problems could arise in the event of duplication. However with
respect to the EU conducting crisis management operations, there is in principle no
such NATO precedence. But the EU itself is constrained by primary law with regard
to collective self-defence under the CSDP: in principle, the EU cannot conduct self-
defence operations within the framework of the CSDP (only its Member States),
unless the Treaty is amended or the European Council decides unanimously on the
establishment of common defence in accordance with Article 42(2) TEU. In this
sense also, NATO is the primary organisational venue for Member States to exercise
12
Furthermore, the EU's collective assistance obligation must respect the specific
character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States. In
conformity with this provision and taking into account Declarations 13 and 14
annexed to the EU Treaties, on the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), the
Treaty guarantees Member States' specific character in this field. In particular, it
gives them the possibility that their specific principled reservations with regard to
the duty of aid and assistance pursuant to Article 42(7) TEU be taken into account.
This 'specific character' can entail for example the policy of military neutrality of the
four abovementioned EU Member States, the reservation of the German Parliament,
namely giving consent to the deployment of German armed forces, or could even be
taken to encompass the nuclear armed EU Member States (France and the UK). The
provision is assessed as not exempting absolutely these Member States from their
legal obligation to provide aid and assistance, but as allowing these states to choose
means of assistance which are not incompatible with their status or domestic law
13
Finally, Article 42(7) TEU could be also viewed in connection with Article 44 TEU (and
also Article 42(5) TEU), whereby the Council may entrust the implementation of a
task, i.e. a CSDP mission/operation, to a group of willing states or with Article 43(1)
TEU, whereby the EU's CSDP operations 'may contribute to the fight against
terrorism, including by supporting third countries in combatting terrorism in their
territories'.

Implementation and role of the EU institutions

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.

Members' Research Service Page 4 of 9

EPRS
On 17 November 2015, France invoked for the first time the mutual assistance clause during
the Foreign Affairs Council meeting (in the format of Defence Ministers). France requested
assistance, following the terrorist attacks in Paris on 13 November 2015 that left 130 dead
and hundreds injured. Unanimously, the EU Defence Ministers promised their full aid and
support.

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.

EU High Representative and Vice-President of the Commission (HR/VP), Federica Mogherini,

clarified that France's invocation of the article does not mean a CSDP mission or operation.

What is the role of the EU institutions?

The invocation by France of Article 42(7) implies an intergovernmental process,

excluding the EU institutions from decision-making and the application of measures
taken. According to the HR/VP, Article 42(7) TEU is meant to activate bilateral aid
and assistance and the EU/EEAS role will be limited to coordination or facilitation of
what France and the other Member States decide ('the European Union can facilitate
this and coordinate this, whenever and however it is useful and necessary'). Already,
the CFSP and CSDP are intergovernmental policies in nature. As such the Union's
'communautaire' institutions the Commission, the EP (according to Article 36 TEU)
and the Court of Justice of the EU play a limited role. The Court for example has no
jurisdiction (with two exceptions: monitoring respect for the powers of EU
institutions (Article 40 TEU) and reviewing the legality of CFSP decisions providing for
restrictive measures against natural or legal persons (Article 275(2) TFEU)).

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 European Parliament

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.

Members' Research Service Page 5 of 9

EPRS

The EU's mutual assistance clause (Article 42(7) TEU)

Member States' bilateral commitments

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.

Germany had apparently already mentioned the possibility of increasing its

contribution to the EU training mission (EUTM) in Mali, where it already contributes
around 200 staff, while ruling out involvement in Syria. Ahead of President Francois
Hollande's meeting with Chancellor Angela Merkel on 25 November, Germany also
announced it will increase its contribution to the UN peacekeeping mission in Mali
(MINUSMA) from 10 to 650 troops, subject to parliament's approval, so that French
commitments in the country could be reduced to some extent. Belgium and the
other countries active in the Sahel were requested by France to maintain their
commitments in the region Belgium had seemingly planned to end its military
contribution of 80 troops to EUTM Mali in January 2016. As concerns Italy, which has
ruled out any military intervention in Syria or Iraq, the possibility of increasing the
country's presence in Lebanon is being considered.

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

The EU's mutual assistance clause (Article 42(7) TEU)

In June 2014, according to Article 222(3) TFEU, the Council adopted a Decision
setting out the modalities for implementation by the Union (but not by the Member
States Article 222(2) TFEU) of the solidarity clause (Council Decision 2014/415/EU)
on the basis of a joint proposal from the Commission and the High Representative.

The Council Decision specifically mentions that it has no defence implications, so it

does not fall within the remit of CSDP; although the means put at the disposal can be
military resources of Member States (e.g. one could envisage the European
Gendarmerie Force deployed for civilian protection). Therefore the Council Decision
does not represent a legal framework for action if military means are used for
defence purposes. The Council Decision states that it 'is without prejudice to Article
42(7) TEU' and also provides that, 'in the event that a crisis requires CFSP or CSDP
action, a decision should be taken by the Council in accordance with the relevant
provisions of the Treaties.'

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.

Another detail to underline is the Council Decision's provision on the invocation of

the solidarity clause, according to which 'in the event of a disaster or a terrorist
attack, the affected Member State may invoke the solidarity clause if, after having
exploited the possibilities offered by existing means and tools at national and Union
level, it considers that the crisis clearly overwhelms the response capabilities
available to it.' This has been considered a contradictory provision also because the
other Member States have no means of assessing whether the affected Member
State has indeed exploited all possibilities and tools at its disposal before invoking
Article 222. Also, Article 222 TFEU is under the jurisdiction of the EU Court of Justice,
therefore failure to assist a Member State that has invoked the solidarity clause
could be the object of judicial proceedings.

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

Members' Research Service Page 7 of 9

EPRS

The EU's mutual assistance clause (Article 42(7) TEU)

threats. Finally, it could also be imagined that the two provisions might apply in
parallel, and in this case the different procedures for implementation should be
reconciled.

Explaining France's choice

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

Members' Research Service Page 8 of 9

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.

European Union, 2015.

Photo credits: somartin / Fotolia.

eprs@ep.europa.eu http://www.eprs.ep.parl.union.eu (intranet)

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank (internet) http://epthinktank.eu (blog)

The proposed Directive on Copyright in the Digital

Single Market (Articles 11, 14 and 16) Strengthening the Press
Through Copyright

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

The Lisbon Treaty and the militarisation of the European Union

http://irishantiwar.org/files/Lisbon.pdf
I believe everyone deserves security and dignity in their work. That's why I'm standing up
and saying no to zero hour contracts
Best wishes to you in court today Joe, and your ongoing efforts to stand up to our massive
"IMPUNITY PROBLEM" in the Republic of Ireland, which enables the "ruling elites" to put
themselves above the law, and the members of the general public who try to expose their
wrongdoing beneath in.
Related Google Listing:
OUR MASSIVE IMPUNITY PROBLEM, Human Rights Ireland:
https://www.google.ie/search
=== === ===
ARISTOTLE
"Whoever controls the courts controls the state."
=== === ===
Related FACEBOOK Publications:
http://www.humanrightsireland.com/index.htm#26June2017
TWENTY-EIGHTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION (TREATY OF LISBON) BILL 2009 the State
shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 42 of the
Treaty on European Union

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

BOTH BILDERBERG ATTENDEES !

Here are the Irish attendees at Bilderberg 2017

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

Garret FitzGerald (1985), former Taoiseach (deceased)[62]

Paul Gallagher, Attorney General of Ireland[23][62]
Dermot Gleeson, former Attorney General of Ireland[53]
Charlie McCreevy[62]
Michael McDowell (2007), former Attorney General, former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law
Reform[1][62]
Michael Noonan, (2012, 2016), then Minister for Finance.[52][62][63]
Peter Sutherland, Director General of the WTO and former Attorney General of Ireland[62]
Simon Coveney, (2014), then Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, shortly afterwards
became Minister for Defence.

Many people also attend these meetings covertly.

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

Dil ireann - 21/Nov/2017 EU Defence Issues (Continued)

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.
Tuesday, 21 November 2017
Deputy Paul Kehoe: Information on Paul Kehoe Zoom on Paul Kehoe] The participation criteria
expressly stipulate that PESCO will be undertaken in full compliance with the Treaty on European
Union and the associated protocols and will respect the member states' constitutional provisions.
Participation in each project is on an opt-in basis and is therefore entirely voluntary. Three other
neutral EU member states, Finland, Sweden and Austria, have already committed to joining PESCO.

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.

Legal Metrology (Measuring Instruments) Bill 2017: From the Seanad

The Dil went into Committee to consider amendments from the Seanad.

Seanad amendment No. 1:

Section 1: In page 3, to delete line 15 and substitute the following:

Minister means the Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation;.
Seanad amendment agreed to.

Seanad amendment reported.

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."

Question put and agreed to.

Finance Bill 2017: Report Stage

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Information on Pat the Cope Gallagher Zoom on Pat the Cope
Gallagher Amendment No. 1 is out of order.

Amendment No. 1 not moved.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: Information on Richard Boyd Barrett Zoom on Richard Boyd Barrett
I move amendment No. 2:

In page 8, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:

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.

Traitors used to be shot

The E.U. have been Robbing us for years ,Fish, Bank and Bondholders bailouts etc., and now our
Neutrality ,I think its time we got to Hell out of it and asap .
Implications of the Lisbon Treaty on the European Unions Common Security
Defense Policy and the Emerging Strategic Partnership Between NATO and the
EU
https://www.scribd.com/document/366626550/Implications-of-the-Lisbon-
Treaty-on-the-European-Union-s-Common-Security-Defense-Policy-and-the-
Emerging-Strategic-Partnership-Between-NATO-and-the-E
Defence cooperation 23 EU
member states sign joint
notification on PESCO
By EWB - 13.11.2017

European flags in front of EP Building in Strasbourg; Photo: European

Parliament
BRUSSELS Ministers from 23 member states of the EU
signed today a joint notification on the Permanent
Structured Cooperation (PESCO) and handed it over to the
High Representative and the Council.
The possibility of the Permanent Structured Cooperation in
the area of defence security and defence policy was
introduced by the Lisbon Treaty.
It foresees the possibility of a number of EU member
states working more closely together in the area of
security and defence.
This permanent framework for defence cooperation will
allow those member states willing and able to jointly
develop defence capabilities, invest in shared projects, or
enhance the operational readiness and contribution of
their armed forces.
The member states who signed the joint notification are:
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Croatia,
Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the
Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain
and Sweden. It is possible for other member states to join
at a later stage.
The joint notification is the first formal step to set up the
PESCO. It sets out the principles of the PESCO, in
particular underlining that the PESCO is an ambitious,
binding and inclusive European legal framework for
investments in the security and defence of the EUs
territory and its citizens, the list of ambitious and more
binding common commitments the member states
have agreed to undertake, including regularly
increasing defence budgets in real terms in order to
reach agreed objectives, proposals on
PESCO governance, with an overarching
level maintaining the coherence and the ambition of the
PESCO, complemented by specific governance procedures
at projects level.
The Council now has to adopt a decision establishing
PESCO by reinforced qualified majority. This could take
place at the next Foreign Affairs Council on 11th
December.
A first list of projects to be undertaken within the PESCO
framework should be agreed by the participating member
states once PESCO has been established. These could
cover areas such as training, capabilities development and
operational readiness in the field of defence.
https://europeanwesternbalkans.com/2017/11/13/defence-cooperation-23-
eu-member-states-sign-joint-notification-pesco/
. The 5 countries that REFUSED to sign up to France and Germanys defence force ... a joint HQ.
And EU ... EU Army suggestions ; The PESCO agreement

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.

The permanent structured cooperation on defence agreement (PESCO), seeks

to tighten defence between EU members and improve coordination in the
development of new military hardware.

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

EU Army Defence Summary/glossary/permanent_structured_cooperation ... and

46 of the Treaty on European Union ... the European Defence Agency in the field
of defence ...
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/print-
pdf.html?pageTitle=Glossary+of+summaries&currentUrl=%2Fsummary%2Fglos
sary%2Fpermanent_structured_cooperation.html

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

Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of ...

RECOGNISING that visa facilitation should not lead to illegal ... European Union Declaration
on documents to be ... Agreement between the European Union
https://www.auswaertiges-
amt.de/blob/286854/8de8fa91fc3bd8ef06febc43f0cdf67f/eu-arm-abkommen-
data.pdf
CLASSIFIED INFORMATION NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
https://www.archives.gov/files/isoo/security-forms/sf312.pdf

Pharmaceuticals in Ireland Basic Information Official Name: Republic of Ireland Date of

Establishment: 29 December 1937 EU Accession: 1 January 1973
http://een-
ireland.ie/eei/assets/documents/uploaded/general/Pharmaceuticals%20Fact%
20sheet.pdf
Irish Republican Army ... well as with the consent of a majority in Ireland). While the agreement ...
Northern Ireland: Current Issues and Ongoing Challenges
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS21333.pdf
Status of Forces and Status ... Reform Treaty (see Council doc CIG 1/07, ... The
EU Status of Forces Agreement- Continuity Status of Forces and Status of Mission
Agreements under the ESDP- The EUs Evolving Practice
http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/19/1/180.pdf
USA This White Paper provides additional detail ... The Treaty on the Functioning
of the European Union ... arrangements provided by the Irish tax authorities
regarding
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-
policy/treaties/Documents/White-Paper-State-Aid.pdf
european union brussels, ... ce/id/en 1 framework agreement ... ireland, the hellenic .
http://www.eeas.europa.eu/archives/delegations/indonesia/documents/eu_ind
onesia/eu_idnpca_en.pdf
European Union ... Ireland to provide anyadditional information related to the transfer pricing
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/253200/253200_1582634_87
_2.pdf
The Good Friday Agreement An Overview 5 ... ern Ireland. The Agreement addressed a number of
issues ranging from devolution and ... Republican Army, 2013

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

Arrangement Between the

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
and the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

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

The Report of the Baseline Study

on the Integration of Human
Rights and Gender into CSDP
28/06/2017
https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/baseline_study_r
eport.pdf
"This is a dangerous fantasy. The idea that there's going
to be a European air force, a European army, it is simply
not true."
Apr 2, 2014
SUBSCRIBE 8.7K
The second debate between LibDem deputy PM Nick Clegg versus UKIP's Nigel Farage. A debate the
public polled says Nick Clegg badly lost, even worse than the first debate. Recorded from BBC2 HD,
The European Union In Or Out debate, 02 April 2014.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd9rsmD4HiM&feature=youtu.be&t=15m4
0s