On the 15th December 2001 the leaders of the EU member state governments issued a joint statement at Laeken -the Laeken Declaration. The declaration dealt with the future of the EU and the direction/issues it needed to address going forward. It declared that 'The Union needs to become more democratic, more transparent and more efficient'. High words indeed.

With these objectives in mind the Convention on The Future of Europe was established. The European Convention was set up with 105 members, chaired by former French president Valéry Giscard d'Estaing. Its members were drawn from the national parliaments of member states and candidate countries, the European Parliament, the European Commission and representatives of heads of state and government.

The Convention met for the first time in February 2002, and met thereafter in plenary session once or twice per month. It occasionally deliberated in public in the European Parliament building in Brussels.

The Convention was supposed to examine the allocation of power between the Union and Member States and rectify the various problems those involved with the EU identified-inefficiency, lack of accountability and transparency, democratic legitimacy or the so-called democratic deficit.

However from the off it was apparent that those who wanted to push the federal EU agenda were to set the agenda for the convention and its worthy original aspirations were to go unaddressed.

The chairman of the convention former French president Valerie Giscard D’Estaing a committed euro federalist who chaired the proceedings determined that a constitution was needed for the EU.

The now hijacked convention was largely a sham exercise with its ultimate conclusion always pre-determined. The chairman d'Estaing had even tried to have an article inserted that stated that any member state that didn't ratify the new treaty within 2 years should be expelled from the EU! This was rejected by other convention members and the proposal dropped.

When the convention completed its 'work' it produced the Draft Constitution for Europe which was signed by all EU member state leaders pending ratification in their respective national parliaments.

The ink was hardly dry on their signatures before the disagreements began over the draft's interpretation. A joint statement after the signing ceremony was due to be issued but wasn't because the wrangling over its interpretation meant that there could be no agreement on the statement's text.

Because of the massive changes proposed in the constitution and its implications for member states' sovereignty and leagal systems many mamber states had to conduct constitutionalreferenda on the issue.

On May 28th 2005 the French voted 55% to 45% against the proposed constitution. Just 3 days later another of the EU's 'founding 6' countries the Netherlands likewise rejected the treaty but this time with a huge no vote of 62%.

Spain and Luxembourg had both held referenda earlier that year and both had approved the constitution but according it-if even one failed to ratify it the constitution was dead.

Misinformation and dissembling followed. First, we were told that there would be no enlargement without the Treaty being ratified or that the EU would grind to a halt in its absence. In fact new countries did join and the EU continued working even more productively.

The EU leaders got together in various negotiations to see what aspects of the constitution could be 'saved' and the new treaty eventually called The Treaty of Lisbon was signed on December 13th 2007. The 'new' treaty The Lisbon Treaty was an according to Gisela Stewart-Britain's representative at the european convention an 'ill disguised attempt to get through the back door what couldn’t be got through the front'.

Ireland was the only member state to hold a referendum on the new treaty despite it being 90-95% the same as the old constitution. The old convention chairman Valery Giscard had fulfilled his promise that the new treaty would be effectively the 'same letter in a new envelope' when he had said that 'All the earlier proposals will be in the new text but will be hidden and disguised in some way'. The new treaty and the old constitution were the same.

Attempts were made in the run up to the Irish vote to repackage the Lisbon Treaty as 'the reform treaty' whose main focus was to tidy up the EU's internal workings and make the organisation more efficient.

The attempt failed as it was obvious that the 'new' treaty was in effect the old constitution and on the 12th June 2008 the Irish voted no to The Treaty of Lisbon.

The reaction amongst the people of Europe was one of celebration and gratitude towards the Irish for having stopped the constitution in its tracks. Many of the people like those in France and Britain were angry that they had been promised a referendum by their governments who had failed to fulfil their pledges(manifesto pledges!) and deliver a referendum. The Irish had come to the rescue.

Reaction amongst the EU federalists, the commission civil servants, the media and their supporters was simpleshock.

The Irish had spoken. This should have meant the treaty was dead as all member states had to ratify it as like all previous treaties unanimity was required.

However in an extraordinary few days following the Irish vote the Irish government led by Mr.Brian Cowen had gone to Brussels and instead of delivering the verdict of the Irish people in person and articulating that position he cravenly apologised to the commission and his fellow member state leaders for the no vote and said he would consider all options open to him.

Before the lead on the ballot papers were dry Mr.Cowen was already hatching plans for a referendum rerun.

The Irish government then embarked on what they termed an analysis exercise to see just why people had voted no. Their conclusions that it was all about ignorance, anti government feeling, racism, abortion, loss of a commissioner and military conscription were simply bogus. With what they perceived as the 'concerns' of the Irish no voter clear in their minds Mr.Cowen and his minister Martin engaged in a series of 'negotiations' with the EU and other leaders culminating in the Brussel's European Council Summit Conclusions in June of this year which gave the Irish 'guarantees' in a number of areas.

The 'legal guarantees' 'secured' by Ireland at the Brussell's summit in June of this year-in the form of a Decision by the European Council-to insert a protocol attached to a future-sometime-EU treaty does not in the words of the Council itself "change either the content or the application of the Treaty of Lisbon" and further "are fully compatible with the Treaty"- direct quotes from Brussels Presidency Conclusions.

So whether the 'guarantees' have any legal basis-they are referred to as clarifications in the Pesidency Conclusions document-seems a moot point. The 'guarantees' have and can have no effect on the treaty as stated.

The government didn't accept during the first referendum campaign that there were any issues of concern surrounding these areas within the treaty. Now one of the main arguments put forward by them and others on the yes side is that a yes to Lisbon will secure the areas covered by the 'guarantees'; taxation policy, the right to life, military neutrality and education and the family. 'Our commissioner' is also 'saved'.

If there are concerns about the impact The Lisbon Treaty may have on these areas within and without The Constitution of Ireland / Bunreacht na hÉireann then surely the best thing one could do to protect these areas is to vote no once again, reject the treaty and avert the danger perceived or otherwise.

A no vote is the ultimate protection for these areas and indeed for all the other provisions within our constitution Bunreacht na hÉireann.

Read the Brussels European Council Presidency Conclusions here.

Following the Brussel's meeting the government here indicated they would hold a second referendum on the same treaty. The decision was made on the 8th July last and the referendum date was fixed for October 2nd 2009.

Back to top