Lisbon Treaty Ratification “Secured by Dishonesty”

The final ratification of the Lisbon Treaty was secured by “dishonesty” and false assurances that certain protocols would not apply, Andrew Brons MEP told the European Parliament.

Speaking yesterday during a debate in the EU’s constitutional affairs committee (AFCO) on a proposal not to call a Convention of member states on Ireland’s concerns about the Lisbon Treaty, Mr Brons pointed out that the European Council “gave assurances, quite dishonestly, to the Irish people, in order to secure a ‘Yes’ vote in the second referendum.

“It now considers those assurances to be legally binding or claims to believe them to be binding and therefore does  not consider that it is necessary to call a conference (or convention) of member states under Article 48 of the  Treaty for the Functioning of the European Union, to discuss a protocol enshrining those guarantees,” Mr Brons said.

“I think that we have heard all of this sort of thing before.

“The United Kingdom Government, the Polish Government  and (later) the Czech Government were all given assurances that the Charter of Fundamental Rights would not apply completely to them.

“Indeed, Article 1(1) of the Protocol precluded the domestic courts in Poland and the UK and the EU’s court from finding that laws, regulations or administrative provisions, practices or action, in the countries to which it applied, were inconsistent with the Charter,” he continued.

“We now know, from case C-411 of 2010, involving Mr. NS, an Afghan citizen, that the assurances in the Protocol were worthless.

“The answer to the problem of a worthless protocol is not to attach a protocol at all. The answer to the problem of being caught out lying is that next time you say nothing in writing.

“It would appear that the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty of no fewer than four countries was secured by dishonesty, which means that the Lisbon Treaty has lost whatever moral authority it ever had,” Mr Brons continued.

“The willingness of the European Council comprising heads of governments and heads of state to make worthless assurances, brings to mind a former head of state and head of government of a certain mid-European country, who remarked in 1938 about Mr. Chamberlain after he had left: ‘The nice old man wanted my autograph so I gave it to him.’

“The Irish Government was, at best, naive and, at worst, dishonest, when addressing the Irish people.

“In the end there will be no areas of public policy that will remain untouched by EU legislation. The EU Project will not be complete until all of the laws of all member states are ultimately subject to EU law.”

Mr Brons also pointed that it will “ be recalled that when Ireland was first called upon to ratify the Lisbon Treaty by referendum, the Irish people voted ‘No’.

“In response, the European Council promised the Irish people that at the time of the conclusion of the next accession treaty, a reassurance on their concerns about the concerns of the Irish people in relation to the right to life, family and education, taxation and security and defence would be set out in a protocol to be attached to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as clarifications of the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon with respect to Irish concerns. This promise resulted in a ‘Yes’ vote in the second referendum.”