The WSJ reports that the European Commission has said it will accept Greece’s plan to reduce its government budget deficit, but warned that further spending cuts and new taxes might be needed to fix the country’s public finances. According to FT Deutschland, the European Commission has put Greece under de-facto EU supervision.

Trade unions in Denmark have reacted strongly to suggestions that the Commission could demand pay-cuts in Greece, Danish paper Politiken reports. The FOA, a Danish trade union which represents most of the country’s public sector workers, has warned that the Commission’s demands could force the union to recommend a No vote in a future Danish referendum on euro membership. “That the EU intervenes in setting [national] wages is completely unacceptable”, Dennis Kristensen, head of the FOA, is quoted saying. The FOA has previously stayed neutral in referenda questions.

The Telegraph quotes EU Monetary Affairs Commissioner Joaquin Almunia saying the Greek targets will be enforced vigorously: “Every time we see or perceive slippages, we will ask for additional measures to correct these slippages. Never before have we established so detailed and tough a system of surveillance”.

The Guardian looks at the possibility of a Greek bail-out and quotes a senior official in Brussels saying, “For political reasons there can be no bailout, but the eurogroup can act with the Greeks to reform. We have a monetary union, a system for supporting the currency, interdependence.”

Die Welt reports on a study by the Cologne Institute for Economic Research, which favours IMF intervention as a solution for Greece, with a researcher quoted saying that “one could question whether EMU institutions have the necessary powers to persist and sanction budgetary discipline”, adding “it’s better that the IMF imposes disciplines on the indebted countries than that Eurozone countries fight amongst each other and political tensions emerge.”

Meanwhile, the FT reports that eurozone governments have borrowed a record €110bn from the markets so far this year, forcing up borrowing costs for those countries with the weakest public finances.

via Open Europe

Statement from the executive board of The People’s Movement against the EU in Denmark

The People’s Movement against the EU finds it reprehensible that the Danish Government wants to put pressure on the Icelandic population by threatening to withdraw Danish loan offers, if Icelanders say “no” to pay 27 billion kroner (4 billion euro) to the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.

It is unfair that Iceland’s population should pay an amount to cover the reckless borrowing that people in these countries have recorded in Icelandic banks. Denmark must therefore act to ensure that the British and the Dutch government cover the losses themselves. This applies all the more so as the British government during his time even recommended municipalities to incorporate Icelandic loans.

As the British newspaper Financial Times writes in an editorial on 7th January, the amount is of a negligible size for the two large countries, whereas it would be a disaster for Icelanders to pay it.

From the website int.folkebevaegelsen.dk

How is it that we, the citizens, have no legal interest in a treaty to which our government is attaching such great importance, asks Ditte Staun from the People’s Movement Against the EU after the High Court declined treating the suit concerning a breach of our constitution in connection with the Lisbon Treaty.

October 28 2009 Østre Landsret (one of the two high courts in Denmark) dismissed the suit which had been filed against the government by Ole Krarup, Niels Hausgaard, Helge Rørtoft-Madsen and 35 other citizens, claiming that it had committed a breach of the constitution by ratifying the Lisbon Treaty. The plaintiffs are of opinion that the treaty is in defiance of the Danish constitution and ought to have been submitted to the citizens in a referendum. The Junior Counsel to the Treasury, representing the government, is of opinion that the plaintiffs have no legal interest in the issue and that it should consequently be dismissed. The judges of the High Court found for the Junior Counsel to the Treasury. Now the plaintiffs will lodge an appeal with the Supreme Court.

In 1993, when a number of citizens accused the then government for breach of the constitution in connection with the Maastricht Treaty, the High Court also dismissed the interest of the citizens in the issue. The suit was taken to the Supreme Court which found that the citizens had an interest in the issue. But today the High Court is of opinion that this does not apply to the Lisbon treaty. (excuse us??)

It is no surprise to us that the High Court once more finds that citzens have no legal interest in the consequences of the treaty. If quite ordinary citizens have no interest in the issue, who has? We are looking forward to see the issue being tried at the Supreme Court, and we trust that the Supreme Court will at the very last give weight to the citizens’ fundamental interest in the influence and effects of the treaty, says Ditte Staun, spokesperson for the People’s Movement Against the EU.

The government is of opinion that this treaty is of tremendously great importance to us. Then how can their own counsel maintain that we, the citizens, have no legal interest in this matter?

Read more at int.folkebevaegelsen.dk.

German professor: German court ruling shows why Ireland should vote No

At a press conference of Europeans organised yesterday by the Irish No campaign, Professor Dietrich Murswiek from the University of Freiburg said that the media had given the “completely wrong impression” of the ruling on the Lisbon Treaty by the German Constitutional Court. He said that the Court didn’t approve of the Treaty, because it damaged German democracy and sovereignty. The only way it could be passed, Murswick said, was if Germany adopted reforms which would “repair” the damage the Treaty did to national democracy. He said that since the Irish had not taken any similar measures, the Irish people should vote No to the Treaty on democracy grounds.

On a question from a journalist on whether it could really be correct that the entire Irish political establishment, including employer organisations and main political parties, are wrong about the Lisbon Treaty, Professor Murswiek said the German government said exactly the same thing about the Lisbon Treaty before it was challenged in the German Constitutional Court. However, he said, the Court ruling showed that the “German establishment got it wrong”.

The speakers also talked about the pan-European No campaign “Europe Says No - No to Lisbon, Yes to democracy”, established this month.

The Irish Independent reports on the press conference, and quotes Danish MEP Soren Sondergaard saying that he had to “think twice” about coming to Ireland to back the ‘No’ campaign, but that the “interference” by the EU Commission led to his decision to call on Irish voters to reject the Treaty.

sources Open Europe and Irish Independent

Lisbon Treaty event in front of Irish embassy in Copenhagen today Thursday from 15.30 to 16.30

Letter from 11 organizations will be handed over to Irish ambassador in Denmark

11 Danish organizations will make a common event due to the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty the 2nd of October. The event will take place in front of the Irish embassy, Østbanegade 21 in Copenhagen today Thursday the 24th of September from 15.30-16.30.

The Danish entertainer Niels Hausgaard, former professor of law and MEP Ole Krarup and Finn Sørensen from Trade Unions against the European Union are among the speakers while Arne Würgler will sing songs for the participants and activists which are holding a banner demanding respect for the Irish no and a wish for treaty referendums in other EU countries.

An open letter to the Irish population will be handed over to the Irish ambassador around 16.00.

The 11 organizations are:

• Attac Denmark
• Citizens’ Initiative Yes to Europe - No to the EU Constitution
• Trade Unions against the European Union
• People’s Movement against the EU
• Europe of Nations - Supporters of the European Community against more Union – Frank Dahlgaard’s phone number 0045-44 44 62 29
• Necessary Forum
• EU-critical Network of Social liberals
• Social democratic Network Europe – Nicolas E. Fisher phone number: 0045- 23 22 44 82
• The think-tank New Agenda
• Challenge Europe
• Youth against EU

Full letter reads:

Henrik Brors: Sweden among losers as new EP emerges

Henrik Bors, writing in Swedish newspaper DN, says that Sweden, along with Denmark and Finland emerged as the greatest losers as the new European Parliament power structures became clear. Swedish MEPs were unable to land any of the more important chairmanships in the new parliament as they all went to larger countries.

Surprise, surprise… the big ‘uns - Italy, Germany, France, Great Britain and Poland took all the spoils.

addition (on July 28th)

The French Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has hailed France’s presence on European Parliament committees, saying “With 4 committee and sub-committee chairs, France has only one chair less than Italy, is equal to Germany and is ahead of the UK and Spain.” He added that France “is one of the leading European countries in terms of the number of vice presidents.”

sources: - European Voice - French Government, July 20th

Today’s EU Summit on Ireland

Comment by Jens-Peter Bonde, MEP 1979 - 2008
euabc.com and bonde.com

On Friday 19th of June, little before 3 pm, the Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen entered his briefing room on the 20th floor in the Justus Lipsius building in Brussels to claim a big political victory.

“We came to have legally binding guarantees, and we got them.”

The Irish had arranged a drama with the Council presidency and the British delegation by leaking a confidential letter from the Irish Prime Minister to the other Prime Ministers. He asked them to support a legally binding protocol on Irish concerns, to be able to call and win a second Lisbon referendum.

The British played their role to perfection. It would be very difficult to deliver that to the Irish. The negotiations could not be finished on the first day. The prime ministers needed to use the night for these very difficult negotiations - resulting in a document that was actually finalised days before…

The press was then invited to play their role in what looked like a re-play of the famous fairy tale of Hans Christian Andersen: The Emperor’s New Clothes. Claim a big Irish victory to help the Irish Prime Minister convince the Irish voters to change their No into a Yes.

There is no real content in these so-called Irish guarantees. But they will be inserted in the next treaty following the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty. It may be the next accession treaty with Croatia.

It could also be with a new protocol changing the numbers of seats of the European Parliament. Any treaty can include the document or part of the document called “Ireland and the Treaty of Lisbon”.

It will make it legally binding. Until then it exists simply as a political agreement between prime ministers to agree on something at some point in the future. This is possible politically, but not legally. No government can bind the next government. No parliament can bind voters to come back and give support for this Protocol.

If Ireland insists that the agreement made on 19 June is legally binding, there is only one way forward: to open the ratification process on the Lisbon Treaty again and have all 27 member states sign and ratify an amended Lisbon Treaty.

They cannot claim a legally binding victory and then avoid the necessary ratification together with the Lisbon Treaty. Under EU law a protocol is only legally binding when it is ratified by all member states. There is no third way. You cannot have your cake and eat it. Not-binding is still not identical with binding.

There is now a possibility of re-opening the debate of the Lisbon Treaty. Others may have other suggestions, for example seeking legally binding protocols on Democracy, Accountability and Transparency. These are more needed than the Irish assurances, since the latter change nothing.

But they establish enough legal uncertainty on the interpretation of existing treaty articles to make it fully legitimate to require new ratifications in all Member State parliaments.

Hopefully some parties, MPs and at least one President - Czech President Vaclav Klaus - may now demand that.

Lawyers will support this argument. For example, I have received the following comment from Mr Leolin Price CBE QC today: “The Lisbon Treaty is not yet in force. To be in force it requires ratification by all Member States. The Irish ‘No’ means that the present position in domestic UK law is that the Treaty is not yet operative and does not have any relevant legal status.”

Changes to the Treaty to help the Irish Government get the Irish “No” replaced, in a Second Referendum, by a new Irish “Yes”, will mean that existing ratifications by member states, including the UK, will be without effect; and re-ratification of the Treaty including the changes, will be necessary in order to give the changed Treaty operative effect and status under UK law.

” ‘Guarantees’ given to the Irish, or new ‘interpretations’ which change the effect of the Treaty have the same consequence as any more formal changes: They make existing ratifications irrelevant and require re-ratification by all member states which have so far given their ratification. In particular the UK ‘ratification’ already given will not be effective and under UK law there will have to be a new ratification in order to give any effect to the Treaty. “

In 1992 the Danish government tried to bind a future Danish parliament by ratifying a change to come at a later day. A professor of State law, the late High Court judge Henrik Zahle, issued a memorandum against “giving up sovereignty in advance”. The Danish Government had to withdraw this future decision from the Referendum Bill and give a free hand to future politicians. It is just as illegal to try to bind future politicians as to include the Irish Assurances in a future treaty.

It is not possible. Then, the Irish Government will claim the commitment is legal under international law. The agreement will be sent to the register of international agreements at the United Nations and thereby be legally binding between governments.

This is a breach of the Lisbon Treaty Art. 344 and the similar rule in the Nice Treaty forbidding Member States from settling conflicts of interpretation outside the EU institutions. There is only one court that is able to settle conflicts between EU Member States, and this is the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

THE 1992 DANISH OPT-OUTS

The European Council made a similar exercise after the Danish No to the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. But that time the Danish opt-outs were already in the treaty. The treaty articles were legally binding. The 1992 Edinburgh Agreement was more of a moral commitment from the other prime ministers. Conflicts over the interpretation of the Maastricht Treaty could not be settled in the international court in the Hague. Only in the EU Court in Luxembourg.

The whole EU Summit strategy for dealing with the Irish No vote was similar to the way the prime ministers at the time established the Edinburgh Agreement of December 1992. Denmark then exchanged its No to Maastricht for political guarantees that the Danish opt-outs from some provisions of that Treaty could only be changed by a new Danish referendum.

The European Council has now made another “decision” of the prime ministers and presidents of the EU Member States.

This so-called “decision” did not previously exist as a formal legal instrument of EU summits. It was specially invented to get around the Danish No to Maastricht in 1992, by the head of the Council legal service, Jean-Claude Piris.

It is a creative way of giving people a feeling of legal certainty which does not and cannot exist since only properly ratified EU treaties, with their Protocols, can offer binding legal guarantees in EU law.

This “decision” of the EU summit changes absolutely nothing in the treaties. If it did change anything, even the smallest change could only be validated through new ratifications by all 27 member states in their national parliaments or by referendums.

Just as in the 1992 Edinburgh Agreement these Irish “assurances” include an explicit statement that “these concerns (are) in conformity with that treaty”. This is the core sentence in the Summit document. In the so-called “Irish assurances” not one single comma in the Lisbon Treaty will be changed.

Up until now no government has been able to give a single example of a national law which cannot be affected in some way or other by the Lisbon Treaty.

This does not mean that the current generation of politicians has in mind the establishment of European laws in all areas. But in reality they could do this if they wished with a few derogations. Decisions of the European Court could also affect virtually every single area of what is currently believed to be a purely national responsibility.

This “decision” of the EU summit isn’t signed by the heads of states or government. In legal form it is simply an Annex to a Summit Declaration which, in contrast to a Treaty Protocol, is not binding in EU law.

The “decision” is followed by a common “solemn declaration” which may express the intentions of the politicians taking part. It does not prevent politicians at future summits affecting these “assurances”.

Finally, Ireland has its own Irish Declaration. A unilateral Declaration of this kind has to be interpreted as a statement of position by one state which the others do not necessarily agree with. If they did agree to it, it would have been part of the joint declaration or the earlier “decision”, in the name of all 27 states.

Press release from The People’s Movement against the EU, Denmark

EU-opposition strengthened

The cross party opposition to the EU, The People’s Movement against the EU, was strengthened at the European parliamentary election and regained its seat with 7,2% of the votes.

The People’s Movement continues its work in the European Parliament from a strengthened position. This became clear when all votes had been counted after the election on June 7th. The voter turnout was 59,5% (more than 4 million votes).This means that about 170.000 people voted for The People’s Movement. The 7,2% is an impressive increase compared with the 2004 election where The People’s Movement received 5,2% of the votes.

• We are pleased with this result that gives our campaign against the Euro a much stronger starting point, when Prime minister Løkke Rasmussen calls for a new referendum - as he promised the European Commission to do, says re-elected MEP for The People’s Movement Søren Søndergaard.

• In spite of our joy at this good result, we regret that our EU-sceptical electoral alliance with the June Movement did not succeed in keeping a second seat.

Declan Ganley, the leader of Libertas who has led a campaign against the Lisbon treaty, has bowed out of politics having failed to win a seat in the European Parliament in Ireland. He said he would not campaign against the treaty in a second referendum later this year and that “the future of Libertas is a matter for others”.

Libertas, which fielded more than 600 candidates in 14 member states, had an abysmal election with only one candidate officially elected – Philippe de Villiers, a French MEP.

source

From June Movement there came an announcement: “In 2009 the movement lost its representation in the European Parliament and is planning to disband.”

source

TEAM members from Denmark can only add that “the People’s Movement obtained a good result, so the democratic cross-political EU-opposition in Denmark is alive and all right!”*

Skøl, Søren! Skøl, Denmark!

Den tværpolitiske EU-modstand - Folkebevægelsen mod EU - gik frem og genvandt mandatet med 7,2 pct. af stemmerne. Omkring 170.000 danskere satte kryds ved liste N

In short Søren Søndergaard from Danish People’s Movement against EU is now freshly re-elected MEP with People’s Movement gaining 7,2% votes while in 2004 they got 5,2% votes.

Things can only get better.

The strongest party in Iceland’s parliament and government will keep Iceland out of the union. Recent polls show that the voters support them, says Ditte Staun from the People’s Movement Against EU.

On behalf of the People’s Movement against the EU in Denmark, research institute Synovate made an opinion poll on EU military. 1010 statistically representative persons in Denmark were interviewed between the 15th and 25th of October.

Three questions were asked:

READ MORE

from BBC NEWS

The eurozone is on the brink of recession with economic growth falling 0.2% in the second quarter, the European Commission has announced.

A Commission statement warned: “In 2009, the EU economy is expected to grind to a standstill.”

The slowdown will mark the eurozone’s first recession since the currency’s inception in 1999.

Figures also announced on Monday show that manufacturing in the zone fell in October to its lowest level since 1997.

The Commission also forecast further falls of 0.1% in the third and fourth quarters of this year, and overall growth of just 0.1% next year and 0.9% in 2010.

On the other side some are still z€lous:

The financial crisis “makes it evident” that Denmark needs to join the euro, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said on Thursday (30 October), while recent polls show that 50 percent of Danes are now in favour of scrapping the krone.

“The euro ensures political and economical stability in Europe and the current financial turmoil makes it evident that Denmark has to join the Euro,” Mr Rasmussen said at the European Liberal Democrats annual conference in Stockholm.

The ”Clog Award” of the People’s Movement gainst the EU, Denmark, was given – for the third time - to Ireland, the country that turned down the Lisbon Treaty in June.

Irish flags were waved in the small town of Roslev during the evening party of the yearly general assembly of The People’s Movement against the EU, Denmark, when the international ”Clog Award” was presented to artist Robert Ballagh.

”For the third time we are giving it to Ireland. In the year 2000 it was given to Patricia McKenna, member of the EU Parliament for the Green Party because she had succeeded in making a court rule that a government should give equal treatment to the parties in a referendum. In 2001 it was given to Frank Keoghan from the National Platform after the Irish No to the Nice Treaty. And this year will we give it to Robert Ballagh from Peoples Movement after the Irish No to the Lisbon Treaty,” said Jesper Morville, chairman of the International Committee of The People’s Movement against the EU.

Robert Ballagh is a well known artist and designer. His work is represented in many museums ans galleries, and he designed the last set of Irish currency before the introduction of the Euro in Ireland. He designed Riverdance as well as around 70 Irish stamps.

Robert Ballagh spoke his thanks for the award in Gaelic, his native tongue, as well as in English. He said:

”According to the EU’s own rules a treaty is discarded if it not ratified by all member countries. But the elite of Ireland do not understand a No.
Just now the government of Ireland and its civil servants are scuttling around in the corridors of the other EU countries attempting to make them isolate Ireland in order to use that as an argument for a Yes in a new referendum. I call that treason.
We have a great challenge in front of us. We must defend democracy – not only in Ireland, but in the whole of Europe,” he said, referring to the fact that no other peoples in the EU have been allowed to vote on the treaty.
”The EU has achieved what no dictators have been able to do: cheating half a billion people of their democratic right.”

Press release from People’s Movement against EU in Denmark
A letter to the Irish Government

It is not you but the EU who has a problem

28th of August 2008

EU must respect the Irish NO. Accept that the Lisbon-treaty is rejected, states Ditte Staun from the Peoples Movement against EU to the Irish Government.

According to The Irish Times civil servants from the Irish Foreign Ministry and the Attorney General’s Office has visited Copenhagen to discus the technical and legal details in the Danish EU opt-outs from 1993.

The other governmental leaders try to make the Irish NO to the Lisbon Treaty to an Irish problem. Just like the Danish NO to the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 was made a problem for the Danish government. But this is making democracy a problem, says Ditte Staun who is a spokesperson for the People’s Movement in Denmark.

The reality is the opposite. The other governments have a problem when they do not dare to ask their populations. And in reality is it the EU who has the problem that the Lisbon Treaty is rejected. EU must respect the democracy and the Irish NO. It is not Ireland’s fault that EU does not understand it, says Ditte Staun.

It is the Danish experience that our opt-outs from 1993 have constantly been under fire since the beginning. So instead you should stand firm and defend the people’s decision, says the Peoples Movement in Denmark.

As the 08 Games begun we started recording many parallel activities:

• skirmishes in South Ossetia that could escalate to a full fledged war between Russia (playing for Russia) and Georgia (playing for NATO);

• European sportists were advised by the EP President to protest in favour of Tibet’s independence, no other politician from other continents defended the independence of any European state vis a vis the attempted Lisbon Treaty;

• Danish PM postponed the Danish referendum on their op-outs (logical, since there is no valid document to vote on it);

• while some europhiles still don’t get it (current analysis by the “Centre for European Reform”).

When will they ever learn? Oh, when will they ever learn?

Article from Jutarnji list:

Amongst the 1000 asked citizens of Croatia only 30% of them share the opinion that the membership in EU is “a good thing”, while 39% are “neutral” or think that “the membership is neither good or bad”.

Quite to the contrary Macedonians (FYROM) would gladly accept EU - 72% are in favour.

Croatia is one year away from technical closing of membership negotiations. Most pressure has been around ZERP (Law on Ecological and Fishing Belt) and around shipbuilding scandals. Also extremely mild attitude from EU against Serbia and its Hague tourists has been detrimental for the Croatian optimism.

In EU member states as Ireland, Denmark, Poland, Slovenia and Netherlands there are between 70% to 80% of those who see much larger benefits than negative aspects.

In lands like Hungary and Austria around half of the people sees EU as “more damage than benefits”.

In Croatia again only 44% believe that possible membership in EU will bring benefits, while 50% of Turks thinks the same for Turkey and in Macedonia(FYROM) 80% of those asked.

Cowen can’t veto for Irish farmers – it’s a pie in the sky

Experts confirm that its nonsense, when the Irish Taoiseach (Prime Minister) promises to veto in WTO-negotiations. – He tries to deceive the Irish voters and farmers to vote yes to the Lisbon-treaty, states Søren Søndergaard from Peoples Movement in Denmark

The Irish Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Brian Cowen promised last week, that he will veto in EU and WTO against any agreement that gives worse conditions for the Irish farmers, whereupon the Irish Farmers Association IFA decided to recommend a yes to the Lisbon-treaty.

Member of The European Parliament for The Peoples Movement in Denmark Søren Søndergaard were astounded that Brian Cowen could promise this, and asked the European Committee of the Danish Parliament to ask the Danish government if Cowen could do so. The Government’s deadline to answer is today, but still there is no answer. And the Government will not promise an answer today.

But the Irish voters and the Irish farmers deserve to get the facts out in the open. So The Peoples Movement in Denmark has asked several experts, which all agree that a veto in EU and WTO is in conflict with the current EU treaties – and it will not get better for the Irish farmers with the Lisbon-treaty, states member of the European Parliament for The Peoples Movement in Denmark Søren Søndergaard an concludes:

The picture is clear: Taoiseach Brian Cowen tries to deceive the Irish voters and farmers to vote yes to the Lisbon-treaty with a pie in the sky.

Professor of international economics at University of Copenhagen Søren Kjeldsen-Kragh is one of the experts, which the Peoples Movement in Denmark has asked. He states crystal clear:

It’s nonsense to claim that a single member of the European Union or the Prime Minister of such can veto in WTO negotiations. The European Union acts as a state in international trade negotiations such as the WTO negotiations. International trade negotiations are a supranational matter. The EU acts as one unit with the authorization, it has from its institutions.

Professor of international economics at the University of Roskilde Jesper Jespersen explains that if the negotiations are about products, there is no veto. He refers to the textbook “Policy-making in the EU”:

“Article 133 (ex Art. 113 EEC) grants exclusive powers for common commercial policy to the EU. Together with agriculture and competition policy, the common commercial policy (henceforth EU trade policy), was one of the major areas of Community competence granted in the original Treaty of Rome. The treaty provisions set out how member governments should cooperate in reaching common positions on trade. These provide for the Council of Ministers to authorize the European Commission, in consultation with the member states, to negotiate trade agreements, which the council then adopts under a qualified majority voting rule.”

Helen Wallace, William Wallace and Mark A. Pollack, Policy-making in the EU, Oxford University Press, 2005, page 379

For further information or comments, please contact:

• Søren Søndergaard, member of The European Parliament for The Peoples Movement in Denmark,
  Mobile phone 00 45 40 45 38 49. E-mail: soren@folkebevaegelsen.dk Office in Bruxelles: ASP 07F343, Rue Wiertz, 1047 Bruxelles/Brussel, Belgique-België.
  Phone 00 32 2 284 51 52. Fax 00 32 2 284 91 52.

• Søren Kjeldsen-Kragh, professor of international economics, phone 00 45 35 33 22 81 (at work), 00 45 39 64 40 43 (at home) and 00 45 26 39 39 64 (mobile phone).

• Ib Roslund, press officer for Peoples Movement in Denmark. Phone 00 45 35 36 36 40 / e-mail: ib@folkebevaegelsen.dk

Events across 16 European countries dedicated to the referendum in Ireland

Østbanegade, 21 in Copenhagen today from 3 PM to 4 PM

Ireland is the only member state to grant its citizens a vote on the so-called Lisbon Treaty (the Reform Treaty). The referendum is to be held on 12th June and is a stimulus for organisations all across Europe to point out the democratic shortcomings of the ratification process of the treaty in every other member state.

Under the slogan “Congratulations Ireland”, 12 Danish organisations congratulate the Irish people on their say in front of the Irish embassy in Copenhagen. The 12 Danish organizations represent many different views on the EU – for instance there are supporters of EU as well as organizations against EU and there are organizations from all sides of the political spectrum.

“We congratulate you on having a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, as that proves that your democracy is stronger than ours” says the spokesman of Social Democratic Network Europe Nicolas E. Fischer.

The 12 organizations will through the Irish ambassador Joe Hayes hand over a letter to the Irish people. In the letter the organizations congratulate Ireland and states:

“The entire process of carrying through the EU Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty has been characterized by heavy manipulation. You too are experiencing measures taken by the EU system aiming at limiting the objectivity of the debate in Ireland. One instance is the instructions within the EU system to avoid sensitive questions that will be influenced by the Lisbon Treaty.

You also experience threats as to what will happen if your referendum should result in a no to the Lisbon Treaty. But those are empty threats. You are entitled to decide for yourselves, and the rest of the EU must respect your choice and make common cause with you, regardless of the outcome.”

For more information please contact:

Nicolas E. Fischer, Social Democratic Network Europe: +45 23 22 44 82, fischer@zetnet.dk
Lave K. Broch, EU-critical Network of Social liberals: +45 28 92 21 27, lave@radikaleukritik.dk
Peter Westermann, Challenge Europe: +45 21 94 16 09, peterwestermann@gmail.com
Kenneth Haar, ATTAC: +45 23 60 06 31, kenneth@attac.dk

The English version of the letter is in Read more section below.

It must be that Wallstrom’s Ze Plan for more democracy includes further half-secretive ratifications. Yesterday and today we were pleasantly surprised by the Portugese and German ratifications:

Today Peoples Movement against EU and June Movement have demonstrated the broad and popular support to an appeal of referendum to the Danish Government and Parliament.

Besides referendums there exists a variety of political and legal tools to prevent unitaristic and homogeneous Europe to emerge. TEAM will try to collect and present some examples of the struggle against enforced political unification. First examples will be mainly describing legal aspects but we are always interested in learning new ways. You are invited to apply any of them or shape new ones within the practice of your national frameworks and then share your experience with us.

First story: Denmark and the ratification of the renamed EU-constitution

Denmark has had so far six referendums on EEC/EU of which the first was in 1972 when a majority voted in favor of joining the EEC.