Does Danny the Red need help?

Cohn Bendit... losing his mind?

A transcript of the meeting between Czech President Vaclav Klaus and senior MEPs at Prague Castle on Friday is reproduced on EUreferendum.

The exchange speaks for itself, but Bruno Waterfield correctly diagnoses the "staggering arrogance of MEPs who were, we must remember, guests in the official residence of the Czech head of state."

We've blogged on Peter Pan revolutionary Green MEP Daniel Cohn Bendit before, in particular regarding his swivel-eyed conspiracy theories on the supposed links between anti-Lisbon group Libertas and the US industrial-military complex. 'Danny the Red' remained true to this increasingly insane form during his exchange with Klaus on Friday:

I brought you a flag, which - as we heard - you have everywhere here at the Prague Castle. It is the flag of the European Union, so I will place it here in front of you.

Lisbon Treaty: I don't care about your opinions on it. I want to know what you are going to do if the Czech Chamber of Deputies and the Senate approve it. Will you respect the will of the representatives of the people? You will have to sign it.

I want you to explain to me what is the level of your friendship with Mr Ganley from Ireland. How can you meet a person whose funding is unclear? You are not supposed to meet him in your function. It is a man whose finances come from problematic sources and he wants to use them to be funding his election campaign into the European Parliament.

Laying the blame with politicians

The Irish Independent on Sunday carried a comment piece from Dublin Professor Colum Kenny, which criticised Irish politicians who have sought to lay the blame for the failure of the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty at the feet of the media, rather than accept their own failures to engage the public in a dialogue.

He writes, “The Committee on the Constitution seems to be angling to find a way to discourage broadcasters from giving equal time to both sides during referendum campaigns.”

But, as he points out, the media debate can be outweighed by symbolic messages, such as, “When the Taoiseach and the Irish EU commissioner both indicated that they had not fully read the Lisbon Treaty, they sent a symbolic signal of immense force to the electorate… voters were immediately freed to reject the document when even two highly-paid and highly-placed public figures -- who have access to highly qualified advisors -- appeared to find it incomprehensible.”

“The extent to which the legislative agenda of national parliaments is now largely set by EU initiatives and directives is not generally acknowledged by politicians. Voters might treat EU proposals with greater interest and respect if it were.”

He goes on to argue, “What is crucial from a communications perspective is a commitment by elected representatives to earn their considerable incomes and perks by working harder to convince the public of the benefits of Lisbon and the relevance of the EU. Don't blame the media, please, for a political failure.”

How refreshing to hear an argument for apportioning blame where it belongs, rather than attempt to scapegoat the media for failing to fall in line with a political agenda.

Planning underway to integrate Lisbon into Croatian accession treaty

On the blog of Belgian daily De Standaard, its EU correspondent Bernard Bulcke has some inside information on the plans to get the Lisbon Treaty passed.

It reports that a “very reliable source” has confirmed that “if the Lisbon Treaty hasn’t been ratified by the end of 2009, the Treaty will be integrated into the accession treaty for Croatia”.

It adds that “the probability of this scenario increases as the chances of Lisbon just being ratified through a second Irish referendum diminish”. This means that “the Irish would have to block the accession of Croatia in order to remain able to block Lisbon.”

And not only the Irish, because, as the article says, it is a “happy coincidence” that “the countries that aren’t that excited about the new treaty are exactly the greatest proponents of further enlargement of the European Union”, citing Poland and the Czech Republic, neither of which has ratified Lisbon.

The article reports that by 2009 all negotiations with Croatia should be concluded, but that this doesn't automatically guarantee Croatian entry. French President Sarkozy and German Chancellor Merkel have already indicated that the approval of Lisbon will be made a condition for enlarging the EU, effectively blocking the accession of Croatia until this happens.

Sarkozy’s claim that it would be impossible to enlarge without Lisbon is dismissed as “legal nonsense” by the piece, given that accession treaties always adapt the EU institutions to take account of new members. However, as the article points out, the claim nonetheless serves as a “political threat” directed at Ireland, Poland and the Czech Republic.

Integrating the Lisbon Treaty into the Croatian accession treaty certainly would make this 'blackmail' strategy against future enlargement carry more weight in terms of persuading more reluctant member states to ratify it.

And as we've argued before, opting for this plan will also mean that supporters of the Lisbon Treaty may be able to circumvent the Irish electorate. The "Croatian Accession Treaty plus Lisbon" could be ratified through the Irish Parliament, with a referendum held on various opt-outs. Even if the Irish referendum on the opt outs returns a no vote, the Constitution / Lisbon Treaty will still come into effect for everyone else.

On the other hand, the Croatian option would mean effectively re-ratifying Lisbon in other member states. This would be particularly unwelcome for a weakened Gordon Brown, especially if it happens in early 2010 - just before a General Election.

It's a Conspiracy! (part III)

EU funded 'news' site Euractiv has an interview with Fine Gael MEP Colm Burke. It doesn't take much leading questioning from the interviewer to get Burke to reveal his sympathy for the growing number of conspiracy theorists linking the Irish No campaign with the US industrial-military complex:

Talk to us about Libertas, the group that was arguably the most vocal and high-profile anti-Lisbon force in the Irish referendum. Questions are emerging not just in Ireland but throughout the EU as to where this group received their substantial funding. What is your opinion?

I can't comment on where they're receiving their funding, but I can say this: I would say to you, based on my own involvement here in the European Parliament, that the pro-NATO lobby* is not happy with the idea of Europe becoming involved in peacekeeping operations. I had clear evidence of that, for instance when EU troops were assigned to Chad, and I would certainly not be surprised by the arms trade in America becoming involved in trying to destabilise the development of a common European defence.

The idea of arms trade lobbyists funding 1.2 million euro towards ensuring a 'no' to Lisbon in Ireland is certainly not beyond the bounds of possibility.

As with many conspiracy theories, this one is clearly irrational and contradictory on a number of counts. The US Government has consistently supported the Lisbon Treaty and its predecessor, the EU Constitution. And why would shadowy arms trade lobbyists oppose greater European spending on defence, and a more activist role for European armed forces (an argument the UK has made to support the Treaty)?

But rationality or pursuit of the truth was never behind speculation of the links between Libertas and the Pentagon: these rumours are designed to discredit and smear opponents of the Treaty in the run up to a second referendum.

When the Irish are made to vote again, the stakes will be extremely high, and supporters of the treaty are prepared to fight dirty. As we reported previously, the Commission has already hired a firm of American 'PR hitmen' to set up a "crisis communications" unit to promote the EU - these are not the sort of people who are hired by their clients for friendly, softly-softly publicity.

The second Lisbon referendum campaign has already started, and this steady drip of unsubstantiated rumour and speculation over the No campaign's funding is only the beginning.

*On a different note, it is interesting to hear Burke refer to tensions in Brussels between the "pro-NATO lobby" and those who want to see a greater role for the EU in defence/ peacekeeping. If this is true, it goes against the UK Government's line that the Lisbon Treaty is designed to complement and reenforce, but not challenge NATO.

MPs slam Lisbon Treaty's provisions for parliaments

A new, but belated, report on the Lisbon Treaty's provisions for national parliaments from the cross-party EU Scrutiny Committee makes for very interesting reading.

Just to pull out some of the best bits, the committee concludes: "we doubt whether the Lisbon Treaty's new subsidiarity provisions about the role of national parliaments would make much practical difference to the influence presently enjoyed by the UK Parliament", and says, "we doubt the significance of the 'greater opportunities' for national parliaments to be involved in any meaningful manner in the workings of the EU."

The Committee notes that "if national parliaments trigger the yellow or orange card procedures, the decision on whether a proposal is compatible with subsidiarity will continue to rest with the EU institutions." It also notes that, "There may in future be proposals where it might be difficult to deny that collective action by the EU would be the most effective way to achieve a Treaty objective, but where a national parliament would strenuously object to the proposal because it infringes national sovereignty. If a proposal were objectionable on grounds of sovereignty alone, neither the yellow nor the orange card procedures would be available to national parliaments."

The report quotes Andrew Duff MEP, who told the Committee: "there is a danger that, in assessing the Treaty of Lisbon, national parliaments become obsessed by the early warning mechanism on subsidiarity. It was understood by those of us involved in its drafting and, then re-drafting that the mechanism, although a necessary addition to the system of governance of the Union, was not really intended to be used. It is, in Bagehot's terms, more a dignified part of the European constitutional settlement than an efficient one." Richard Corbett MEP also told the Committee: "in practice, I do not think that the 'yellow' and 'orange' card mechanisms will be extensively used."

It's just a shame this damning opinion on the sham that is the Lisbon Treaty's so-called new provisions for national parliaments wasn't released in time to have an impact on the UK ratification of the Treaty.

Adjusting to a non-European world

Anand Menon has an excellent essay in European Voice dismissing the "preposterous argument" that the Lisbon Treaty would have helped Europe deal with the credit crunch or the Georgia crisis. This is his conclusion:

"...the brutal truth exposed by both crises is that the EU's soft power relies for its effectiveness on a permissive hard-power environment, on real rather than confected common purpose. The EU can bring about change, but only if no powerful state opposes it. The Europeans, quite simply, lack the power to deter, let alone coerce Russia.

Claims that Europe is one institutional reform away from global power feed into a profound sense of denial afflicting many in the ‘Old Continent'. How long is it, really, since the states of Europe, either individually or collectively, could decisively shape global politics?

The open contempt Moscow has shown for European attempts to secure its withdrawal from Georgia underscores a stark, painful truth.

Now more than ever, Europeans inhabit a non-European world. There is no choice but to adjust to that and safeguard, as quickly and soberly as we can, what is left of Europe's role in global politics and economics."

Menon touches on a key failing in the thinking of much of the European political class - the idea that Europe's rapidly declining power can be remedied by closer institutional centralisation.

Surely this notion has been tested to destruction by now?

In the broad sweep of history, Europe's period of dominance was short - 200 years at most. This ascendance was achieved as a result of complex factors that are hotly debated amongst historians. But there are two key points to note. First, Europe may be weak now, but it was relatively much weaker in the past (as recently as 1700, Qing China and Mughal India each represented a little less than 25 per cent of world GDP). Second, Europe's meteoric rise was achieved not through the centralisation of power, but through technical, fiscal, political and cultural innovation amongst diverse nation states.

Is European decline innevitable? Can it be reversed? If so, how? This subject won't be resolved in a blog post - but recent events should certainly provoke some serious thought on the issue.

The EU's crisis PR - update

Some more developments on Ethan Winner, the PR hit-man hired by the Commission to set up a "crisis communications" unit to promote the EU. His firm specialises in helping large organisations get round 'problems' - click here for more on his past record.

There been much debate on the US blogosphere in recent days on Winner's activities in the US Presidential election. See here, here, here and here.

Responding to original accusations made on the Jawa Report, Winner has admitted to distributing a video designed to smear Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin (the video was behind the row over Palin's alleged support for Alaskan independence).

According to Jawa, Winner's company has a past record of producing fake 'grassroot style' messages designed to look like they did not originate from an organized campaign, a practice know as “astroturfing”.

Will we see similar tactics being adopted by the pro-Treaty camp in the second Irish referendum on Lisbon? The stakes are high and they will not be pulling their punches...

There is still uncertainty (and some scepticism) over whether the Democrats were complicit in Winner's video. But whoever initiated the action, we can be certain that it was not funded by American taxpayers.

The same cannot be said for Winner's new campaign to promote the EU - you will be footing the bill whether you like it or not.

It's a Conspiracy! (part II)

MEPs are to investigate claims that Libertas, the Irish group that campaigned successfully against the Lisbon Treaty, is some sort of CIA-backed front.

Nostalgic student revolutionary Prominent MEP Daniel Cohn-Bendit said in a statement that if these allegations are proved correct, "this would clearly show that there are forces in the United States willing to pay people to destabilise a strong and autonomous Europe. If this can happen for the treaty vote, it raises grave concerns for interference in next year’s European elections."

Apart from wondering why shadowy forces in Washington would have much interest in 'interfering' in the European Parliament elections in the first place, it struck us that cranky conspiracy theorizing is becoming a distinct trend amongst the pro-Lisbon crowd. We were reminded of claims back in June from French Europe Minister Jean-Pierre Jouyet that the Irish no vote was masterminded by sinister American neocons:

"Europe has powerful enemies on the other side of the Atlantic, gifted with considerable financial means. The role of American neo-conservatives was very important in the victory of the No."

Arcane Parliament

PA informs us that following the final ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in the UK, the implementing legislation will be printed... on goatskin.

"Parliamentary officials confirmed later that a goatskin version of the EU Amendment Act would be prepared, and kept in the UK.

The practice of Acts of Parliament and other important documents being printed on vellum has existed since the 15th century. Both Magna Carta and Charles I's death warrant were produced on skin parchment.

There have been several efforts over recent decades to move to paper records, which would be less expensive and potentially save the lives of several goats a year.

They have been successfully resisted by traditionalists."

With these plans out in the open, it's suddenly becomes clear who the first victims of Lisbon will be..