Court ruling crucial for Polish EU bid

Debate on whether Poland's parliament can push through European Union entry if voters fail to show up for a referendum in sufficient numbers has so far only troubled elderly professors of constitutional theory.

But the abstract discussions will become very real when Poland's Constitutional Tribunal rules on May 27 on a case brought by euro-sceptics hoping to scuttle EU entry.

They say a law allowing parliament to approve EU entry by a two-thirds majority should turnout in the June 7-8 referendum be below the 50 per cent of the electorate needed to make the plebiscite valid is unconstitutional.

If the tribunal overturns the law, Poland would have no safety net should the referendum be ruled invalid, plunging it into crisis by delaying entry beyond the May 2004 date.

No referendum in Poland since the fall of communism in 1989 has drawn voter turnout of more than 50 per cent. Surveys show EU support at 70 per cent, but voter apathy is the greater concern.

Last week's EU referendum in Slovakia, where turnout barely cleared a similar threshold, will have rattled Poland's leaders, despite the convincing 93 per cent backing from those who voted.

Poland, by far the largest candidate, would likely have to negotiate a new entry schedule and hold a second referendum, damaging enlargement and embarrassing a state that hopes to be a power in the new union of 25 nations.

"We cannot get better conditions than we have now - they can only be worse," Prime Minister Leszek Miller said. "It's a case of 'to be or not to be'."

The euro-sceptics and some lawyers argue that Poland's 1997 constitution does not allow parliament to override an effective "no" vote if the people vote with their feet by staying at home.

"To win acceptance two conditions must be fulfilled: Turnout must be over 50 per cent and there must be a majority for ratification," said Professor Stanislaw Gebethner, head of the Institute for Political Science at Warsaw University.

"My adversaries say you can go back to parliament. I say the (people's) decision is final; it is a lack of acceptance," Prof. Gebethner told Reuters, stating an argument shared by members of parliament who petitioned the tribunal.

"Nowhere in the Polish constitution does it state that parliament can determine the outcome of a referendum," said Roman Giertych, leader of the League of Polish Families, a nationalist opposition party.

Mr Miller is campaigning hard to mobilise voters, but is handicapped by sleaze scandals which have dragged his left-wing minority government's ratings to record lows.

The timing of the tribunal ruling, before the referendum, is little help either. If the petition is rejected, Poles may ask: "Why vote, if parliament will ratify accession anyway?"

Mr Miller would, in the event of a "yes" vote on low turnout, then be forced into horse-trading for lower house votes, possibly derailing budget reforms vital to prepare for EU entry.

"We would get in only after various rows whose consequences could be fatal," Mr Miller said.

Poland was the first country in Europe to promulgate a written constitution, in 1793. Its history of foreign domination may make today's constitutional guardians loath to make it easy for politicians to cede sovereignty to Brussels bureaucrats.

But Mr Miller should draw comfort from the fact that Prof. Gebethner is outnumbered by lawyers who argue "plan B" for entry is backed up by parts of the constitution.

"If turnout is below the minimum, the requirements for a binding referendum are not met and the matter returns to the starting point, to parliament, which has the final say," said Kazimierz Dzialocha, a former Constitutional Tribunal judge.

Experts predict a close split decision when the 15-judge tribunal announces its verdict.