Ireland latest

The special sub-committee of the Irish Parliament, set up to evaluate the options for Ireland following its rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, reported yesterday. Interestingly, its recommendations to the Irish government focus on the option of re-running the Lisbon referendum, but on the assumption that the Irish government "would respond to concerns expressed during the referendum campaign". Such a response might involve supplementing the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty with a range of declarations, protocols and decisions but "the committee has strong concerns about actions which may involve Ireland opting out of EU policy areas".

It remains to be seen how the Irish government will respond to its Parliament on this, but given that we are now approaching 26 ratifications by every other EU country, the most likely option for Ireland as the only member state to say 'No',is that it indeed seeks reassurance on those points on which it was unhappy, and then seeks the approval of the Irish people in a new referendum.

For all those eurosceptics who accuse the EU of "bullying" Ireland, it is interesting that this suggestion has come from the Irish Parliament itself, following widespread consultations, public hearings and debates. The hearings included both supporters and opponents of the Lisbon Treaty, parties from across the political spectrum and NGOs of all kinds as well as businesses and trade unions. It produced a considered and detailed report.

Other EU countries must now do their bit to meet Irish concerns and respond to any reasonable requests put forward by Ireland as a result of this process.

Obama's victory and meeting with MPs and Lords

I guess there's scarcely a blogger out there today who's not commenting on Barack Obama's election victory. And what a victory speech! Also impressive was John McCain's concession speech, a model in graciousness, that losing candidates in many other parts of the world would do well to emulate.

Meanwhile, I spoke today to the all-party Europe group of MPs and Lords at Westminster. Support for the reform of the EU, as embodied in the Lisbon Treaty, remains strong there. The large majorities approving it in both the Commons and the Lords have been emulated in 24 other countries. The sole rejection has been Ireland. How that might be dealt with was the subject of my blog last Wednesday, 29 October.

Declan Ganley: more than meets the eye?

It was interesting to be in Ireland on Wednesday discussing what may happen about Lisbon. I also learnt more about Declan Ganley, leader of the No campaign and his mysterious organisation “Libertas”. Links to information on him can be found at this most interesting site

It shows that far from being a small businessman from the west of Ireland, Declan Ganley appears to be highly involved in a network of big businesses with military interests, usually based in Britain, and closely connected to US defence and intelligence networks. Many of the personalities in these networks can be described as “neo-conservative” in the American sense, and hostile to any degree of European integration that might offer a different view to the most belligerent unilateralist wing of the American Republican party.

The company he keeps in Europe is also right wing and Eurosceptic. At his meeting of 2 September at the European Parliament in Brussels, he was flanked by UK Tory arch-eurosceptic Dan Hannan, most of the UKIP MEPs and MEPs from Jean Marie Le Pen’s Front Nationale and the Vlaams Belang.

What is Libertas?

In December 2003, Ganley mentioned in an article in the American publication Foreign Policy Research Institute entitled “Europe's Constitutional Treaty: a threat to democracy and how to avoid it” that he supported the creation of a new political party (“I will for the sake of discussion call it Libertas”, he wrote) to campaign for a new Europe that would be a “partner” for the USA rather than “try to define itself in contradiction to the United States.”

Libertas Institute Ltd. was set up in October 2006. Five of its seven members worked for a company called Rivada Networks, Ganley's firm in the field of military security technology. The other two were his brother Sean and Chris Coughlin of Hewlett Packard Ireland. Libertas presents itself as a think-tank, but until 2007 there was no sign of any intellectual activity. It seems to have had the same telephone number as Rivada Networks.

Yet this “think-tank” managed to outspend the three main political parties of Ireland (Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Labour Party) in the Irish referendum according to the Irish European Minister, he spent some €2 million.

Where that money came from is a mystery. Under current laws, Libertas does not have to declare where money came from or even how much was spent, as it is not classed as a political party. Political parties on the other hand must declare detailed spending and donation returns. The Irish government, as a result, is set to change its ethics laws so that other groups must also declare the source of their funding.

Ireland’s ethics laws do set limits on the amount an individual donor can give to a political group, such as Libertas in any one year, which is €6,348.69. Ganley has admitted that he provided funds of €200,000 to Libertas’ campaign, but this was only a “loan”. Loans can be made as long as they are "bona fide", according to the Standards in Public Office Commission, who are now likely to investigate whether or not Ganley’s loan is legitimate.

What is Rivada Networks?

Declan Ganley’s Rivada Networks designs and operates communications and information technology networks for security forces. The multinational corporation has Declan Ganley as its chairman and chief executive. Other board members include a number of retired or active US military (a General, an Admiral, a Rear Admiral) and Bush administration members.

Rivada Networks boasts some high level American military and security organisations as major clients. Among them are the United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM), the National Guard Bureau, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Ganley’s other companies

Ganley appears to have set up at least 9 companies in the UK and 11 in Ireland over the past 18 years. Many of them have been renamed or dissolved. Why?

Ganley Group International is registered at 128 Mount Street, London, near the US Embassy and with an innocuous antique shop on its ground floor. At the same address was Paladin Capital, specialising in Homeland security investment and worth over $900 million. Chairman of its advisory board is James Woolsey, former Director of the CIA.

Also at this address, is the Anglo Adriatic Investment Fund. This was involved between 1995 and 1997 in the privatisation programme in Albania. It will be recalled that the second phase of Albanian privatisation featured significant criminal activity in the pyramids financing scheme which broke the back of the Albanian economy and caused civil unrest in which over 2000 people died.

Ganley calls for all out war against Iran

In 2006, when there seemed a possibility that British and American forces might be pulled out of Iraq, Declan Ganley, whose company Rivada Networks has lucrative contracts with the American military, argued that if Iraq and Iran were to be tamed “full mobilisation for war would have to be carried out, complete with drafts, rationing and all of what Churchill referred to as the ‘blood, toil, tears and sweat’ that it takes to secure overwhelming victory.” And on the diplomatic efforts to try and avoid war: “As the US and Europe start yet another round of dialogue with Syria and Iran, the Mullahs are rolling around laughing behind closed doors — they did not cave in when we had leverage, now they will declare ‘the Emperor has no clothes’.” According to the Irish Examiner, Ganley said that Iran was near guaranteed to acquire nuclear weapons with little resistance and that only all-out war could tame both Iraq and Iran.

Ganley’s apparent thirst for all out war with Iran and an increased effort against Iraq is made all the more curious by the fact that one of Libertas’ main anti-Lisbon Treaty themes was the incorrect claim that the Lisbon Treaty would lead to an increase in the militarisation of Europe. Now we find out that Ganley has been criticising Europe for exactly the opposite – not being militarised enough. So does Ganley want more or less militarisation in Europe, or does that depend on whether or not he’s trying to win political battles or secure contracts for his business?

Is Declan Ganley actually Irish?

The nationality of Declan Ganley has come into question after Irish Minister of State, Dick Roche, revealed that Ganley had stated that his nationality was British on company records for nearly a decade, before changing it to Irish in 2006 (coincidently just as the debate over the constitutional future of Europe was beginning). Ganley, who claims to be from Galway in the west of Ireland, also stated that his address was in London during this period. Mr Roche said Ganley, who was born in London to Irish parents "likes to wrap himself in the tricolour whenever he faces any form of query or interrogation on issues like this [the debate on the Lisbon Treaty] … if you look at some companies you [Ganley] register yourself as an Irish citizen when it suits and register yourself as a UK citizen in other cases.”

Europe must now work with Ireland to resolve its objections to the Lisbon Treaty

The other EU countries must stand ready to meet Ireland's concerns if they want Ireland to re-consider the Lisbon Treaty. But to do so, they need Ireland to articulate a list of demands.

That is the message I gave today to the special Oireachtas sub-committee on Ireland's relationship with the EU as part of a delegation of the European Parliament's Constitutional Affairs committee.

This is not an easy situation for anyone. We all know that any changes to the EU treaties require the agreement of every single Member state. But as we approach a situation where 25 or 26 will have said "Yes" and just one has said "No", it is neither unreasonable nor undemocratic to ask the one to reconsider - especially if a serious effort is made to meet its concerns.

Of course, Ireland would be perfectly entitled not to re-consider. In law, that would be the end of the Lisbon treaty. But Ireland's friends across Europe would be dismayed at such an attitude. In the EU, the give-and-take co-operation of all member countries is fundamental to the continued success of the EU. If there is a divergence of views, we attempt to bridge the gap. If Ireland were to reject the idea of even trying to find a solution acceptable to all Member States, without even trying, it would find itself losing the considerable sympathy it has always enjoyed across Europe.

Some leading "no" campaigners, such as Declan Ganley, said at the time that the result was "a mandate to the Irish government to seek a better deal". It is a pity that he now seems to want to oppose any such attempt.

Fifteen years ago, when Denmark rejected the Maastricht treaty, it told the other member states to continue with their ratification procedures. The Danes said to the rest of Europe that they didn't want to blow up the whole edifice, but would come back with proposals to find a way out. Denmark identified four items in the Maastricht package that it didn't like; the other member states were able to meet its concerns (without, by the way, needing to change the treaty to do so) and Denmark then approved the treaty by a comfortable majority in a new referendum. Ireland itself went through a similar process with the Treaty of Nice.

Will it be possible to do likewise with Lisbon? The findings from the research commissioned by the Irish government indicated that lack of knowledge and information were the single most important factor, both in abstention and in voting "no". Fear of conscription into a European army, threats to corporation tax, the lack of an automatic Irish Commissioner and workers rights were among the specific concerns that were confirmed by the research.

Several of these concerns can easily be met, not least because they were unjustified fears. The treaty does not change Ireland's ability to set its own tax rates, it does not oblige it to send troops to a European army and, perversely, workers' rights would actually be strengthened by the treaty. Such fears can be assuaged without needing to change the treaty, by clarifying declarations or, if necessary, additional protocols.

Other concerns might be more difficult. The loss of an Irish Commissioner (for one Commission out of three, as of 2014, as for every member state) was an issue, but special treatment for Ireland would be difficult. After all, Ireland and the other small countries were victorious on that point in ensuring equal rotation, irrespective of the size of countries, while the current Nice Treaty would anyway require a smaller Commission - but without an agreed rotation system.

Whatever the issues are, it should not be impossible to address the bulk of Irish concerns. If this can be done without having to alter the treaty - which would require a new IGC and renewed ratification in all other countries - then so much the better.

Of course, no-one relishes the prospect of still more debate and negotiation on the minutiae of the composition and functioning of the EU institutions, and achieving a solution acceptable Ireland and to all 26 other countries may not be easy. But an even worse solution would be to abandon all reform. A poorly functioning EU, failing to deliver on behalf of its citizens, is in no-one's interest, especially in this time of economic uncertainty. Sweeping the necessary reforms under the carpet because you can't even be bothered to explore the possibility for a compromise would do nobody any favours.

Naturally, other countries and the European Parliament would prefer to find a solution in time for the European elections. Whether this is possible is up to Ireland. As responsible players, the Irish government and the main opposition parties will want to proceed carefully but purposefully. Other European countries must do what they can to help, but while we all want a solution as soon as possible, we must accept that there are no shortcuts and the issues raised by the "No" campaign must be given a respectful answer

So UKIP did interfere with the Irish referendum

Back in January, Nigel Farage wrote on his blog that IND-DEM had made a large donation to the Irish "No" campaign. This letter from Kathy Sinnott proves that UKIP's group paid for a leaflet to be sent to every Irish household arguing for a "No" vote. It is both amusing and astonishing hypocrisy that UKIP, which frequently makes shrill accusations about "Brussels meddling with Britain", meddled in a referendum campaign in another country.

However, at another level, this is a serious matter and potentially illegal. The rules governing donations for referendum campaigns in Ireland are very clear. Donations are illegal if they fall into the following categories:

"A donation, of whatever value, from an individual (other than an Irish citizen) who resides outside the island of Ireland" or,

"A donation from a body corporate or unicorporated body of persons which does not keep an office in the island of Ireland from which one or more of its principle activities is directed".

Of course, UKIP and IND-DEM knew this and no doubt tried find an indirect route to channel their money. Sinnott's letter is also interesting in that it asks the Taisoeach Brian Cowen to ensure that "each European Parliament group(s) and political foundation(s) be asked to make public the exact expenses they made for this referendum campaign in Ireland" adding that "my parliament group, IND-DEM is prepared to respond to this request in full". It would certainly be in the public interest, and highly revealing, for this information to be made available.

Seeking a solution to Lisbon

Interesting to meet the Irish Foreign Affairs Minister Michael Martin today and hear him confirm that Ireland does not consider the matter of the Lisbon Treaty to be closed. Noting that almost every other Member State has taken a sovereign decision to approve the treaty, he described what is being done in Ireland to find "the right solution within a reasonable time frame".

Overcoming a divergence of views when there is a 26-1 split is easier if the 1 rather than the 26 reconsiders. (Same if it is 25-2). But this in turn requires the other Member States to help meet the concerns of the one. Any reform of the treaty requires the approval of all Member States, so nothing can be done unless Ireland (and every other country) agrees. The Irish government is clearly up for that challenge and will seek to identify a set of demands that would make the package acceptable to Ireland.

Europe must strengthen exisiting financial regulations

The financial sector crisis has left governments with little choice but to bail out banks, lest the entire financial system collapses, yet these same banks were embarking on high-risk strategies while paying obscene bonuses only a few months ago.

Understandably, this has given rise to calls for better regulation of financial markets. In Europe, which has an increasingly integrated financial market, there is a risk that new rafts of separate and diverging national regulations lead to fragmentation of this market, with duplication and extra bureaucracy adding to costs and instability. Reivisiting existing common rules to tighten them up where necessary would seem to be a more effective way forward than each country rushing to regulate its own patch in an uncoordinated way.

Even a seemingly welcome national measure can have harmful knock-on effects on other countries. Ireland's announcement that it would guarantee all deposits at its six banks, could lead to large commercial deposits being switched from un-guaranteed banks in other countries, especially those considered vulnerable, maybe in Halifax, Amsterdam or Paris. This would aggravate the current chaos, threaten jobs and trigger rivalries, with governments forced to out-bid each other in order to stem financial flows caused simply by different national approaches. Co-ordination is desparately needed.

The Record, Europe debate on Ireland

Click here to see me debating what to do after the Irish referendum (against the Tory-Sinn Fein alliance) on BBC “The Record, Europe” programme.

You can also view or downlaod the programme on BBC iPlayer from here.

Declan Ganley and the Irish No

Declan Ganley, the Anglo-Irish millionaire who led the No campaign to the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland, spoke at a public meeting in the European Parliament today. The meeting was hosted by the Tory Eurosceptic, Dan Hannan MEP.

To the horror of the UKIP members present, Ganley presented himself as a pro-European, waxing lyrical about how good Europe was to Ireland, how the EU was the most successful peace process in history and how the last thing he wanted was for the EU to break up. The big smiles quickly disappeared from the UKIP faces as he said that.

Yet Ganley was stupendously vague as to what he did believe in and as to what he objected to in the Lisbon Treaty. He simply said that he wanted to replace Lisbon with a new Europe which would be "prosperous, democratic, free and legitimate" as if the supporters of the Lisbon Treaty wanted a Europe that was undemocratic and/or illegitimate.

He said he was against the Lisbon Treaty because having read it he didn't see how any democrat could support it, yet did not said what he found undemocratic in a treaty which seeks to extend the powers over the EU system of both national Parliaments and the European Parliament. He said he that the No campaign wants transparency, democracy and accountability to be at the heart of the European Union - precisely the objectives of the Lisbon Treaty - but offered no alternative way of achieving it.

He refused to answer questions as to where his "Libertas" No campaign obtained its massive financial resources. He peddled yet again the myth that the European Parliament had voted not to accept the result of the Irish referendum and that it had kept secret the plans to implement the treaty. (On this last point, he was particularly disingenuous as it was the Eurosceptics who had objected to the European Parliament discussing implementation before it was ratified, yet when such a postponement was agreed, they claimed it was an attempt to conceal.)

He refused to disassociate himself from the wild claims made by No campaigners to the effect that the Lisbon Treaty would impose on Ireland abortion, conscription to a European army, the death penalty and higher corporation tax. (Presumably what he meant when he said that in the referendum campaign "every angle was looked at"). Interestingly, in the same room I glimpsed an article by an American academic Andrew Moravcik, if anything a slightly Eurosceptical commentator on European affairs, whose verdict of Ganley's campaign is: "Libertas and like-minded groups specialise in spreading untruths by internet faster than they can be refuted".

He squirmed when reminded of previous writings of his calling for a fully federal European with a directly elected President.

When he rightly said that when a majority vote on a subject you have to accept the result, he was particularly reluctant to discuss the outcome of the Spanish, Luxembourgish and Romanian referenda which gave majorities for the Constitutional Treaty. When I questioned him on how to reconcile the divergent verdicts given by different European countries, in order to find a reform to the European Union acceptable to all, he simply avoided responding by repeating that Lisbon was dead - and presumably nothing it contained should ever be supported by Ireland or anybody else, even if it is ratified by the overwhelming majority of member states.

Well, if Mr Ganley is a Euroenthusiast, than I am a Eurosceptic!

We must find a solution for all

Suppose the future reform of the House of Lords required the approval of every county. Suppose that all county councils agree the reform, except Herefordshire, which votes "No".

What should be done? Should reform be abandoned because one county votes against? Should Herefordshire be asked to vote again, in light of the support of every other county? Should Herefordshire's concerns be identified, if possible, and an attempt made at a compromise?

That is the situation facing European coutries, who negotiated a package of reforms to the EU, which one country has rejected, while most if not all of the others continue to support it. Reform of the EU needs approval from every single member state.

Of course, every country has its own procedure to decide on such matters, in accordace with their own traditions and constitutions. Some have a decision of their national parliament (sometimes by a simple majority, some by a two-thirds or three-fifths majority), one has a referendum, one requires the approval of each of its internal entities (seven parliaments) another the approval of a two-thirds majority of its internal states. These differences sometimes give rise to claims that one method is better than another, but it is any case not something for the EU to decide, but is up to each member state.

What is not allowed under the current rules is a single referendum of all European citizens. To obtain agreement for reform, you need to win the Grand Slam of of 27 victories and zero defeats.

In this situation, there is no choice but to do what all 27 governments agreed at the end of last week, namely to persevere in searching for a solution acceptable to all countries. The Reform Treaty agreed last year proved acceptable to almost all member states. The most likely route to a solution is to do what it takes to make the package acceptable to Ireland, without making it unacceptable to others. Not easy, but as I said in the parliament on Wednesday it is a challenge we must rise to.

Lords seal ratification of Lisbon Treaty in UK

Last night the House of Lords brought to an end the to the long and careful parliamentary scrutiny of the Lisbon Treaty and approved it by giving a third reading to the EU Amendment Bill. The Conservatives made a last-gasp attempt to derail the process by tabling an amendment to delay the vote on third reading by four months, but this was comfortably defeated by a majority of 93. When the Bill is given royal assent today, the UK will become the 19th country to have ratified the treaty.

Our ratification of the treaty coincides with the start of the European Council meeting which will take place today and tomorrow. British ratification makes clear that our position is that the Lisbon Treaty is good for the UK and good for the EU. Whether or not the treaty can be salvaged will depend in part on the outcome of this Council meeting. While the impetus is on the Irish to take stock of last week's 'No' vote and assess whether an agreement can be reached, the views of the 26 other countries who also signed the Lisbon Treaty (and 19 of whom have now ratified it) should not be blithely ignored. This is a collective problem that requires a collective solution.

Some say that we should take the Irish 'No' vote as a hint to end the reform process and focus on policy delivery. Of course, we all, even those of us most closely involved in the process of drawing up the Lisbon Treaty, want to get away from institutional reform and focus on policy delivery. The most significant policy challenges facing the EU: tackling man-made climate change, the effects of globalisation on the most vulnerable in society, energy security etc will not wait for us to reform our institutional structure. As Gary Titley, the leader of the Labour MEPs, said this week, "globalisation continues apace".

But better institutions would make it easier to tackle these and other problems, and the checks and balances the reforms would bring in would reassure people that the EU is subject to democratic control.

Indeed, this week, the Parliament adopted the report by my colleague Eluned Morgan MEP to reform the electricity market in the Europe. In particular, it included proposals for full ownership 'unbundling', whereby companies would not be able to own both the production and distribution of electricity - good news for consumers, as the competition should prevent electricity prices from being distorted. This is a classic case of the "Europe of results" that a 21st century EU should aspire to be.

Getting beyond the self-serving hyperbole of, on the one hand, the Eurosceptics, who claim that any attempt to seek a compromise acceptable to Ireland is undemocratic, and , on the other hand, some ultra-federalists, who want a hard core of integrationist countries to go it alone, the reality is that the EU is still here and still needs reform.

The European Parliament's debate on Ireland's No

Interesting debate today in the European Parliament on the fallout of the Irish referendum, punctuated by UKIP and three of the Tories coming in wearing T-shirts urging "respect for the Irish votes" - prompting one Irish MEP to comment that history would have been quite different if right-wing British politicians had started to do that a century or more ago!

The problem we face, of course, is how to respect the divergent results of different member states - both the No from Ireland and the Yes from other member states.

Some want to listen just to one side. I want to listen to both. We must then rise to the challenge of bridging the gap.

If there are by the autumn 25 or 26 ratifications, it would not be unreasonable nor undemocratic to ask the minority to consider the possibility to seek a compromise rather than to block reforms entirely.

Indeed, that was the professed view of No campaigners in Ireland, who said they want a better deal.

Yet, the UKIP/Tory/Sinn Fein/French Communist view (what an alliance! watching the acting leader of the Tories vigorously applaud the French Communist leader was instructive) expressed in the debate was that other countries shouldn't be allowed to vote on the treaty at all (presumably in case they Vote Yes).

For good measure, Nigel Farage threw into the debate a claim that a Commissioner had committed fraud - a remark somewhat undermined when the very next speaker was UKIP's shame, Ashley Mote, recently released from prison after serving a sentance for...fraud!

Several Irish members were understandably bitter at the the claims by some No campaigners that the Lisbon Treaty would have legalised euthanasia, drug-taking and abortion in Ireland, and also required higher corporation tax rates and an Irish contribution to a European army. These lies had an impact on enough voters to swing the result.

But blame was also laid at the door of the Irish government for not campaigning or explaining properly or even bothering to rebut the No claims until the last few days, preoccupied as they were with installing a new Prime Minister and re-shuffling the government.

Be that as it may, we now have to face up to the consequences rather than apportion the blame. It will be no easy task, but the need to reform the EU has not gone away and achieving this remains on the agenda.

If you want to read more on the referendum I recommend Will Hutton's excellent piece for the Observer which addresses the issue of lies and misinformation used by some of the No campaingers.

So Ireland has said No

All the indications suggest Ireland has said 'No', but there are 26 other member states whose opinion matters too.

It is inconceivable that all of the others will simply say "too bad - one country has said ‘No’ to the package as it stands, so let's forget reform and stick with the current system for evermore."

All member states want reform. Even the ‘No’ campaigners in Ireland claimed they want to negotiate a better package.

So, what is to be done? First, Ireland must have a profound internal debate to identify precisely what it is they don't like about the Lisbon Treaty. Presumably it is not the extra powers for parliaments, nor the clearer focus on combating climate change, but some other aspects. If they can identify what those are, then they can ask the other member states for help in addressing their concerns.

This, after all, is precisely what Denmark did after their initial rejection of the Maastricht Treaty. They said to the rest of Europe that they didn't want to blow up the whole edifice, but that they would come back with proposals to find a way out. They identified four items in the Maastricht package that they didn't like, the other member states were able to meet their concerns (without, by the way, needing to change the treaty to do so) and Denmark then approved the treaty by a comfortable majority in a new referendum.

Several concerns raised in the Irish debate can easily be met, not least because they were unjustified fears. The treaty does not affect Ireland's abortion laws, it does not change their ability to set their tax rates, it does not oblige them to send troops to a European army and it does not change the EU’s negotiating stance on agriculture on the WTO. Such fears can be assuaged without needing to change the treaty, by clarifying declarations or, if necessary, additional protocols.

Other concerns might be more difficult. The loss of an Irish Commissioner (for one Commission out of three, as of 2014, as for every member state) was an issue, but special treatment for Ireland would be difficult. After all, they and the other small countries were victorious on that point in the negotiations on the treaty in ensuring equal rotation, irrespective of the size of countries. Note that the current treaties, if left unamended, would anyway require a smaller Commission - but without an agreed rotation system and already in 2009.

Whatever the issues are, it should not be impossible to address the bulk of Irish concerns. If this can be done without having to alter the treaty - which would require a new IGC and renewed ratification in all the counties (now nearly 20) that have ratified already - then so much the better.

Nor should we accept the bleating from Eurosceptics that there is somehow something undemocratic about a new referendum. It is perfectly reasonable to address a divergence in the positions of the 27 EU countries by asking the minority of one to think again - especially if its concerns have been addressed. What would be undemocratic would be to allow the one to prevail over the many.

Of course, no-one relishes the prospect of still more debate and negotiation on the minutiae of the composition and functioning of the EU institutions. Achieving a solution acceptable to all 27 countries may not be easy. But an even worse solution would be to abandon all reform. A poorly functioning EU, failing to deliver on behalf of its citizens, is in no-one's interest. Sweeping the necessary reforms under the carpet because you can't even be bothered to explore the possibility for a compromise would do nobody any favours.

Ireland votes tomorrow

So, Ireland votes tomorrow on the Lisbon treaty. It's their choice for their country's ratification, but I do hope they take account, in evaluating the arguments for and against, of the wider context.

All 27 countries in the EU agree that the EU needs reform. All have worked for several years to draw up this package of reforms, taking account of every country's concerns. A first attempt, replacing the current treaties with a new constitution, fell when two countries rejected it. This new attempt, amending the current treaties, has already been ratified by a majority of Member States, but needs the approval of all 27, including Ireland. If this attempt also fails, it would take years to agree on a new set of reforms. Some are hoping that there would never be such agreement and the EU would fall apart (the UK Conservatives, for instance, hope that a failure to approve the treaty now would give them a chance of being in power - they think - before any new package is agreed, which they could then block.)

That is why Eurosceptics from across Europe, but especially from Britain, have helped the NO campaign in Ireland. They have not hesitated to deploy the same lies as they have used in Britain, together with some new ones tailored to cause concern in Ireland such as claiming that the treaty will affect Irish laws on abortion. They tell workers that the treaty will undermine social standards and they tell businesses that it will increase their taxes, both patent lies. They try to stir up fears that small countries will lose out (so why have all the countries that are smaller than Ireland already ratified with large majorities, while some larger ones are among those considered difficult?).

Let us hope the Irish people will give short shrift to the myth-makers and endorse the treaty by a clear majority!

Who says the Lisbon Treaty is boring?

Who says the Lisbon Treaty is boring? This amusing 'Spoofers guide to how to not vote No' by Jason O'Mahony is well worth a read and a chuckle!

Eurosceptics target Ireland

A few months ago UKIP leader Nigel Farage trumpeted on his blog that the Independence and Democracy group (that his UKIP MEPs are the main part of) had decided to "donate a substantial sum of money" to the Irish "No" campaign for the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

At one level, it is amusing to see UKIP, which frequently makes shrill accusations about "Brussels meddling with Britain", trying to meddle in a referendum campaign in another country.

However, at another level, this is a serious matter and potentially illegal. The rules governing donations for referendum campaigns in Ireland are very clear. Donations are illegal if they fall into the following categories:

"A donation, of whatever value, from an individual (other than an Irish citizen) who resides outside the island of Ireland" or,

"A donation from a body corporate or unicorporated body of persons which does not keep an office in the island of Ireland from which one or more of its principle activities is directed".

Of course, UKIP knows this and will no doubt try to keep their donations quiet or find an indirect route to channel their money. The well-heeled eurosceptics from across Europe are targeting Ireland. Anyone who gets wind of such donations should inform the Irish Commission on Standards in Public Office, the body charged with making sure that the referendum is fair and that Ireland's rules on spending - which gives equal amounts of public money to both sides - are not subverted.

Myth about not respecting Irish referendum result

Following my comments of yesterday, yet another myth has been drawn to my attention. This time it is that the European Parliament voted not to respect the results of an Irish referendum on the Lisbon treaty.

The parliament did, of course, reject an amendment to add to my own report evaluating the treaty, a paragraph calling for it to respect the result of the Irish referendum, but it did so (1) because this goes without saying as the Treaty can only come into force if it is ratified by every Member State and (2) it was inappropriate to refer only to Ireland as it is every county's decision that has to be respected, not just Ireland's.

The authors of the amendment knew it would be rejected for those reasons, but tabled it anyway simply to be able to misuse its rejection and to make their absurd claim. It's known as manipulation.

The Tories and Schengen

It is always pleasantly surprising to see pro-European Tories fighting back against their party's all-consuming Euroscepticism. Last weekend saw Christopher Beazley MEP joining his new colleague Saj Karim in supporting the EU Reform Treaty. More unusual, however, was John Purvis's recent letter to the Financial Times supporting British accession to the Schengen free movement area.

At present, the UK and Ireland are the only two EU members to not have signed the Schengen Agreement: both have an opt-out. As islands, who do not have land borders with mainland Europe, the two countries share a Common Travel Area with no systematic border controls between them. Ireland is thus unable to join the agreement without dissolving this agreement with the UK, and incurring border controls at its land border with Northern Ireland. However, the UK remains reluctant to surrender its own border controls and work permit system. Therefore, while the UK and Ireland cooperate closely within the Schengen arrangements on matters such as police cooperation, judicial cooperation, and tackling organised crime, there are no imminent plans to be full members of Schengen.

In Mr Purvis's words, however, "any business person looking to the Schengen market would be crazy to site his head office in the UK. His staff would spend most of their time wrecking their productivity targets in disorganised queues waiting for the four available HM Revenue and Customs operatives in their fancy new uniforms to let them cross the "UK Border" - emblazoned on the wall behind them. If it is bad enough for UK and EU citizens, it is even worse for American, Chinese, any other business people and tourists - "guests" to our country."

It finishes with "once in the Schengen area (and that is now well controlled) they will next year have over 25 countries they can visit without hindrance - but not the UK. Be warned, foreigner!"

All of this is a far cry from William Hague's claims that British membership of Schengen would see us lose control of our borders and be flooded with immigrants!

As the PES spokesman on Constitutional Affairs it is heartening to see Irish Premier Bertie Aherne make clear his enthusiasm for the new European Union Constitution.

Speaking in Dublin today, he said: "The Constitution will make it more effective, more democratic, more open and more easily understood.

"There is nothing automatic about the Europe we have built for ourselves over the last generation. There is nothing inevitable about the union's future. It falls to us now to make choices about our future. We should not underestimate the human potential to make the wrong choices."

His determination to fully engage the citizens of Ireland about Europe is something this country could do a lot worse than to follow.

It is also another excellent example of the disporportionate amount of media coverage given to the two countries (France and the Netherlands) who rejected the Constitution compared to those countries that are strongly in favour of it or are likely to be. For instance, I didn't see much coverage of Estonia ratifying it on Tuesday, making a total of fifteen so far.

Irish has been officially recognised as the EU's 21st working language! More information here.