WHAT THE EU TREATY OF LISBON DOES(legally accurate).

[luckee1]

They are waiting on the Americans!     Nah, The resisters will be quelled with the word terrorist, again.  They just got done collecting arms that the IRA was warehousing. 

[Sub-X]

I wanna see the Irish Revolution...

They are waiting on the Americans!     Nah, The resisters will be quelled with the word terrorist, again.  They just got done collecting arms that the IRA was warehousing. 

Sinn Fein the one main party apposing the treaty,a revolution deja vu or what 

[rosso]

Sinn Fein the one main party apposing the treaty,a revolution deja vu or what 

Isn't it ironic that Sinn Fein has not had the most stellar of reputations of late, but yet they are the ones speaking out against the Lisbon treaty.

[Sub-X]

Isn't it ironic that Sinn Fein has not had the most stellar of reputations of late, but yet they are the ones speaking out against the Lisbon treaty.

Sinn Feins stance is quite an obvious one,their main objective is to united the island of Ireland which won't make any difference if the Yes vote is successful one,so instead of fighting against the british empire to gain complete independence for the 32 counties,now they are fighting against the European empire too,figuratively speaking.

The Pro Yes camp are biting their lips,holding back from making statements against Sinn Fein,regarding their past etc.they can not say what they are really thinking because of the peace process.Members of the IRA had murdered 3 innocent people in the last few years with little or no justice for the greater good i.e the peace process.Its OK for the yes camp to attack Declan Ganley and his business dealings but in the case of Sinn Fein they will only debate the facts of the treaty.   

[Sub-X]

Ireland: Icons on the campaign trail for Lisbon Treaty
http://www.minnpost.com/globalpost/2009/07/29/10542/ireland_icons_on_the_campaign_trail_for_lisbon_treaty
29 July 2009

DUBLIN — The government in Ireland is so unpopular that the electors would likely reject any referendum proposal it makes just to register a protest. That is why poets, rock stars and sports personalities have taken upon themselves the role of persuading people to vote in favor of the Lisbon Treaty in a second referendum on Oct. 2.

Since a majority voted no on the European Union reform package last year, Ireland has been experiencing a version of buyer’s remorse. There is deep unease across all sections of society at the prospect of Ireland becoming isolated if it rejects the treaty twice, which would stop it from being implemented despite ratification by all 26 other members of the EU.

Most people are of the view that only EU membership saved Ireland in the last year from the type of economic collapse suffered by Iceland, which, tellingly, is now seeking European Union membership. A second no vote would cast doubt on Ireland’s commitment to Europe and almost certainly infuriate its economic and trading partners on the continent. That is why a non-party group called Ireland for Europe has taken the initiative to campaign for a yes vote.

The group features national icons including poet Seamus Heaney, probably the country's most popular figure, Edge from the band U2, filmmaker Jim Sheridan and Republic of Ireland soccer captain Robbie Keane. On Ireland for Europe's website, Heaney is seen on a video clip reciting from Beacons at Bealtaine, a poem he wrote to mark the occasion five years ago when the European Union welcomed 10 new countries.

"There are many reasons for ratifying the Lisbon treaty, reasons to do with our political and economic well-being," commented the Nobel laureate, "but the poem speaks mainly for our honor and ­identity as Europeans."

Ireland is one of the few countries in the world where poets can influence national debate, and Heaney's intervention has brought discourse to an elevated level in the "land of saints and scholars."

Another independent pro-Europe lobbying group called We Belong, headed by popular figures such as Dublin Gaelic football manager Pat Gilroy and Eurovision Song Contest winner Eimear Quinn, was launched on July 27 with the slogan "Lisbon: We belong, you decide" (echoing the mantra of Fox News: "We report, you decide").

On the same day a survey by the business group Ibec showed that 84 percent of Irish chief executives believe rejection of Lisbon in 2008 damaged Ireland's reputation. Ibec spokesman Brendan Butler said, "When we voted on the treaty in June last year 100 people a day were losing their jobs, now almost 600 jobs are being lost each day." Only by removing the uncertainty would Ireland remain "an attractive location for foreign investment."

All major Irish political parties support the Lisbon Treaty, including the Green Party, the junior partner in government, which was neutral last time. The government plans to send a postcard to every household explaining the improvements in the treaty since the last referendum. It will explain that Ireland has negotiated a legally binding series of guarantees with EU leaders to meet the objections of those who voted no.

Under the guarantees, Ireland will have a representative on the European Commission at all times, it will retain control of its taxes, its traditional military neutrality will be respected and it will decide on ethical issues such as abortion and workers' rights.

The no camp has been weakened by the defeat of its de facto leader, wealthy businessman Declan Ganley, in June's European elections. The only significant opposition party to oppose the treaty is Sinn Fein, which holds four of the 165 seats in the Irish parliament. It argues that the accord "provides no meaningful tools for protecting workers wages and conditions, rather it promotes an economic policy that facilitates companies undercutting workers' wages and conditions in a race to the bottom."

But this time a majority of Irish voters is expected to vote yes for the treaty, which aims to reform EU institutions and tackle contemporary challenges such as the impact of globalization, climate change and economic downturns.

The Czech Senate finally ratified Lisbon in May, leaving this Irish vote as its final hurdle.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The reason this country is losing 600 jobs a day is because the government opted to bail out the banks and not safe guard jobs,this has nothing to do with the successful No vote last year,complete and utter bullshit 


The Edge is coming out in support of the treaty,are we seeing a point where my Bongo could be bad Lets not forget U2s failure to pay taxes(I'm not implying anything I'm just saying).

Robbie Keane,I doubt very much that he could even spell the word "constitution",never mind having read the treaty 

Guinness is 250 years old this year,maybe they will find a way to work that in too so how       

[rosso]

Sinn Feins stance is quite an obvious one,their main objective is to united the island of Ireland which won't make any difference if the Yes vote is successful one,so instead of fighting against the british empire to gain complete independence for the 32 counties,now they are fighting against the European empire too,figuratively speaking.

The Pro Yes camp are biting their lips,holding back from making statements against Sinn Fein,regarding their past etc.they can not say what they are really thinking because of the peace process.Members of the IRA had murdered 3 innocent people in the last few years with little or no justice for the greater good i.e the peace process.Its OK for the yes camp to attack Declan Ganley and his business dealings but in the case of Sinn Fein they will only debate the facts of the treaty.   

Yes that's kind of what I was meaning. Hopefully the older crowd & the offspring of Sinn Fein supporters will have enough in number to over-ride the Yes camp. Sinn Fein would be a dying entity if the treaty gets voted in and would only be referenced to in the history books in years to come. If I were a publicly outspoken supporter of the Yes camp I would be very concerned about going out to my car.

[Sub-X]

If I were a publicly outspoken supporter of the Yes camp I would be very concerned about going out to my car.

 

They are already concerned about using their cars(they are all very green aware,hence the green parties support for the treaty) 




(I knew what you meant) 

[Sub-X]

GAAW No to Lisbon meeting on Monday
http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/15142
30 July 2009

The Galway Alliance Against War will hold an organisational meeting as part of its Galway No 2 Lisbon campaign in Amnesty International’s Freedom Café, Middle Street, this Monday at 8pm.

The peace group will be campaigning for a No vote “because of the militaristic nature of the treaty” and “the affront to democracy in forcing the Irish people to vote again on the exact same treaty”.

According to GAAW spokesperson Niall Farrell, the treaty is “bristling with military clauses”. Articles 21-55, Articles 326-334, and Protocol 10 all focus on the militarisation of the EU. Included in these articles are references to the European Defence Agency, which is creating a basis for the development of common military projects in the union.

According to the EUobserver.com, the “work of the EDA is happening completely outside the view of the wider general public. The lack of public involvement in an area that is still highly controversial, undermines its legitimacy and risks further erosion of public support for the wider European project”.

The main political parties and those on the Yes side argue that it is perfectly legitimate to hold a second referendum on the treaty. However Mr Farrell has pointed out statements by Yes campaigners which appear to contradict this.

Labour leader Eamon Gilmore told RTÉ in June 2008: “I think the Lisbon Treaty is dead. The Irish people have now decided in a referendum that they do not wish to have it ratified, therefore the Lisbon Treaty falls.”

In a recent Dáil debate, Fine Gael’s European spokesperson Lucinda Creighton admitted: “nothing has changed in the Lisbon Treaty and it would be dishonest to suggest otherwise.” She also said the legal guarantees “do not change the content of the treaty

[Sub-X]

The Lisbon Treaty: Democracy or Oligarchy?
One World Scam
31 July 2009

On the 2nd of October 2009,the people of Ireland once again hold 500 million Europeans futures in their hands. In addition to the concerns of the Irish people regarding taxation, abortion and militarization, the responsibility of all 27 states sovereignty should also be considered with equal importance. If Ireland is the gateway of Europe, then the Irish people are the gatekeepers of Europe’s future; never again will the voice of the Irish people be heard so loud, if this treaty is ratified in its present form. We are almost at the point of no return and no amount of regret or lack of comprehension of the EUs true intentions will bring us back to this point again, unless the treaty is rejected once more.

In an usual moment of honesty, EU Commissioner Charlie McCreevy while addressing the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Dublin, quite openly admitted that a Europe wide referendum would have been a disaster for the treaty:

“I think all of the politicians of Europe would have known quite well that if a similar question had been put to their electorate in a referendum the answer in 95 per cent of countries would have been 'No' as well”.

Continuously we are told that this treaty will make Europe more democratic, yet the lack of democracy we have witnessed in denying all 27 states the right to hold a referendum in their respective countries and the lack of respect of Ireland’s rejection of the treaty last year, begs the question: What sort of Democracy denies the right of almost every citizen to voice their opinion on their own futures? This is just a form of double speak,” we need to be less democratic to become more democratic”, this alone should be of serious concern even before we begin to study the contents of the treaty.

During an interview immediately after last years no vote Labour leader Eamon Gilmore stated:

“I don't think there's any question of this Treaty being put a second time to the people... People have made a decision. The Lisbon Treaty cannot now be ratified. And I think that the decision that has been made by the Irish people has got to be respected by everybody. Got to be respected by the Taoiseach, by the Government, by the other Member States, by the political leadership in Brussels.”

Yet a little over one year and we are on our way to the polls once again. What should be clear to every citizen of Ireland and Europe, as a whole is the EU’s new definition of democracy, which in actual fact seems more like an oligarchy?

The rejection of the treaty in last years referendum should point out beyond reasonable doubt that this treaty is flawed and in need of review in its entirety, instead we are offered “legal guarantees” that will only come into effect once the treaty has been ratified, in which case the treaty rejected last year is exactly the same treaty we will have to vote on again this time, not one word, comma or full stop has changed. The so called “legal guarantees”, guarantee very little if anything at all and there legality is questionable which in fact amounts to nothing more than a wink and a handshake, yet we are lead to believe that this should be enough to address the electorates concerns?

After the results of a survey conducted among 300 Irish chief executives, Brendan Butler, IBEC director of EU and international affairs, said: "At a time of great economic turbulence a question mark hangs over our reputation and our relationship with Europe. A 'Yes' vote is an essential step on the road to economic recovery and will send a very positive signal," he said of October's vote on the treaty.

Mr. Butler went on to say: "That when we voted on the treaty last year 100 people a day were losing their jobs -- now almost 600 jobs are being lost each day”.

Irelands international reputation maybe in question but nothing to do with last year’s rejection of the treaty, Irelands reputation is in question because of the government’s inability to act in the face of the worst economic disaster since the 1980s. Choosing to bail out the banks that are in many ways responsible for Irelands present economic climate over the choice of saving jobs. Unfortunately this is the type of spurious reasoning we will be subjected to in the coming months leading up to the referendum.

A No vote to the Lisbon Treaty is just that, a rejection of this treaty, not a rejection of Europe, as some would have us believe. To reject the treaty once again gives not just Ireland but the rest of Europe the opportunity to reflect, review and agree upon a treaty that meets the needs and concerns of every citizen of the all 27 states, in a Europe wide referendum.

Only then can we claim that the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty has been achieved through democratic means.



“ You must be the change you want to see in the world”
Mahatma Gandhi

[luckee1]

Sub X,

Do the people of Ireland know that we in America are watching these developments? 

I don't know how you have managed to keep yourself from being overwrought by this Daily inundation of programming.

[Sub-X]

Sub X,

Do the people of Ireland know that we in America are watching these developments? 

I don't know how you have managed to keep yourself from being overwrought by this Daily inundation of programming.

I would imagine that some people here are aware of who is watching alright and I'm especially glad people in America are watching,this is all ahead of you guys.I often wonder how the NAU will be achieved ,I really can't see them going to the people because you guys are just as disobedient as us,you all might vote No.

As for managing the daily programming,thats easy,there are some very good teachers of spotting BS on this very forum and you tend to pick up a thing or 2       

[Sub-X]

Against the Lisbon Treaty
One World Scam
31 July 2009

There is an idea abroad in North America that the European Union (EU) represents a progressive alternative to U.S.-sponsored neoliberalism. You can find this argument in books such as Jeremy Rifkin's The European Dream and in numerous articles in left-leaning journals. Yet nothing could be further from the truth.


At the behest of the European Commission, the EU's powerful unelected executive, member state governments are busy dismantling welfare states, enhancing their military forces, enacting illiberal political measures and neoliberal economic policies, and expressing undisguised contempt for anyone who disagrees with them. The dissenters include the peoples of France, the Netherlands, and Ireland, all of whom have had the nerve to vote against the neoliberal version of European integration.

The Irish, given a second chance to get the answer right in a referendum scheduled for October 2, are currently being subjected to a tidal wave of pro-Lisbon Treaty propaganda financed from their own taxes. Not a word of the treaty has been changed as a result of their rejection of it. According to the EU's own rules, this refusal to amend the original should have killed the proposal. But the Commission has merely appended a number of non-legally binding interpretative declarations. The protocol containing these declarations openly states that these declarations "will clarify but not change either the content or the application of the Treaty of Lisbon." The people of France and the Netherlands have been given no second chance, though the Lisbon Treaty is almost identical to the European Constitutional Treaty they rejected at the ballot box, in the Dutch case by a landslide.

The EU's much-vaunted successes are open to question, to say the least. Europe has indeed gone more than six decades without a major war, but whether or not this is a result of the European Union is impossible to say. A degree of economic integration, beginning in the 1950s with the European Coal and Steel Community, can almost certainly claim some of the credit. But building on the back of this integration a permanent, unquestionable, constitutionally established neoliberal economy is another matter. Like so many aspects of EU-style integration, the institutionalization of the misleadingly-named free market takes advantage of people's natural desire for peace and prosperity to build what is rapidly becoming a capitalist dystopia.


Undermining Social Ownership

The 2005 Directive on Services in the Internal Market, for example, has exposed almost all services to market-based competition. Despite assurances to the contrary, the EU is applying the directive across the board, making it increasingly difficult for local or national public authorities to provide services designed for people, rather than profit. Covering everything except transportation, financial services, certain services provided free of charge by the state, and those already covered by other directives, the Services Directive forbids member states from blocking operators if they've been authorized in any other member states. Despite claims from social democrats in the European Parliament, the Country of Origin Principle (COP) introduced by the Services Directive remains, in all its essentials, intact. The COP means that a company may register in one member state, operate in another, and follow the labor and environmental protection laws prevailing in its state of registration. A series of European Court of Justice rulings have declared that the right to establish or operate a business takes precedence over the rights of labor unions or national governments to negotiate or fix rates of pay per trade, for example. In addition to undermining workers' rights, the Services Directive makes it illegal for governmental authorities at any level to favor local businesses, which makes any effective regional development plan impossible.

In the last decade the EU has used competition policy to undermine social ownership in sector after sector. Fully aware of the extent of public opposition to privatization of essential services, the European Commission claims neutrality on ownership structures yet passes measure after measure forcing socially-owned enterprises to compete in the capitalist market. This enables private corporations to cherry-pick profitable elements of sectors such as postal services, water, energy, and health care. The shareholders of these corporations then pick up the profits, while the taxpayer picks up the tab for essential but unprofitable services.

The EU's malign policies are not limited to undermining both individual and social wages. The Common Agricultural Policy has ravaged Europe's countryside and handed agriculture en masse to corporate farmers. The Common Fisheries Policy has emptied the seas of fish, throwing families that in many cases have relied on the sea's bounty for generations of employment out of work. Trade and development policies have benefited EU-based corporations, with no thought given to the social, economic, and environmental consequences for developing countries.

Irish voters are also particularly concerned by the Lisbon Treaty's threat to the country's neutrality since the treaty effectively would bring Ireland into a military alliance. EU defence policy, the institutional and constitutional basis of which will be hugely enhanced by the Lisbon Treaty, is based not on the real security needs of Europe's peoples, but on the interests of the biggest, most powerful member states and their corporations. The treaty will boost defense spending by all 27 member countries and will encourage the consolidation of European arms manufacturers so that they become more powerful and competitive global actors.


Not Popular, Not International

There has never been a single popular demonstration in favor of European integration. In what Gramsci called a "passive revolution," an elite, lacking popular support, is using legalistic devices to enforce its will. The "Lisbon Strategy," with its absurd ambition to make the EU's economy the most competitive in the world by 2010, comes closest to admitting this. In this case, competitiveness equals efficiency, which equals profitability, with the final element serving as a justification for all manner of ills.

The EU is not an internationalist project at all. Internationalism is, as the name suggests, about cooperation among nations and peoples. The EU is, instead, a universalist project which seeks to impose universal values and universalized structures on a large group of countries with very different economies, histories, traditions, and constitutions. The values that underlie this instance of universalism are those of a hegemonic elite, an elite that has decided that the misnamed free market is a cornerstone of democracy, undermining the latter by transferring powers from elected to unelected institutions and drastically narrowing the policy space available to parliaments and national governments.

The Lisbon Treaty represents a further deepening of this corporate project. It would massively increase the voting power of big member states, more than doubling Germany's to 17% while halving Ireland's to below one percent. It would give the EU the power, for the first time, to harmonize indirect taxes. It would remove the Irish government's right to propose and approve an EU commissioner. It would underline and enhance the precedence of EU law over national legislation, including national constitutions. It would abolish the national veto in 32 new policy areas and thus all but eliminate the power of national parliaments and any possibility of popular influence on decision-making. It would permit heads of state and government to add to the list of areas where policies can be adopted without unanimous approval, with no need for a new treaty. It would create a powerful new office of EU President, an office over which the electorates of the 27 member states would have no influence. And it would require member states, including neutral Ireland, "progressively to improve their military capabilities" and to aid and assist other member states experiencing armed attack "by all the means in their power."

If the Irish reject the Lisbon Treaty a second time, they will not be rejecting cooperation between European nations, but rather a specific vision of Europe's future that is tilted in favor of military and corporate power.

[Sub-X]

Moldovans may like Brussels, but it is time for Britain to secede from the EUSSR
London Telegraph
31 July 2009

If it were 1990, there would be great celebrations. Moldova, the last Communist-ruled nation in Europe, has finally expelled the Party from power in its latest elections. Superficially, it is cause for rejoicing: the end of the nightmare that began in 1917.

The fall of the Soviet Union, however, has not ended tyranny in Europe. On the contrary, the massive centralisation, the sprawling bureaucracy, the corruption, the ideological intolerance, the sclerotic economic policy, the rule of a privileged nomenklatura wholly indifferent to individual rights or the wishes of the masses – all that has been replicated in the European Union.

“These are people who don’t know what democracy is,” said Dorin Chirtoaca, mayor of Chisinau, the Moldovan capital, when the Communists won controversial elections last April. He might have said the same of the ruthless dictators who run the EUSSR from Brussels. That is the destination to which young Moldovans aspire. “We want Europe”, their banners proclaimed during the so-called “Twitter revolt” last April and during the recent elections. God help their foolish wit.

It is easy, when grumbling about the EU, to lose sight of the wood while complaining about the trees. Yes, the Common Agricultural Policy is outrageous; true, much of the British rebate has been surrendered for nothing; of course, excessive regulation is strangling enterprise – but the problem is much larger than that. The problem is that Britain, which not so long ago ran an empire and fought two World Wars to assert its interests, has been absorbed, by a process of osmosis, into a completely new empire of which it is a minor colony.

That is the problem: unlike our ancestors for as far back as history reaches, we are not masters in our own country. There is no supposed commercial or geopolitical advantage that can compensate for that. There is no adjustment of voting rights, no reallocation of budgets, no derogation even from the Lisbon Treaty that can alter the hard fact of our servitude. We are currently watching our neighbour, the Irish Republic, for the second time in recent history, re-running a referendum whose outcome found disfavour with the masters in Brussels.

What kind of democracy is that? We are beginning to take it for granted, simply because we have seen it before: familiarity is breeding fatalism. Could the Soviet Union have bastardised democracy more extravagantly? If Moldova wants to enter that prison house, that is the Moldovans’ affair. For Britain, there is only one answer: we must get out, completely and irrevocably out, of the EU as soon as possible, with the minimum formalities and no concessions to Brussels’ pretensions. It is as brutally simple as that.

[Sub-X]

Yes side can’t afford to get it wrong on Lisbon a second time
Irish Times
2 August 2009

As our politicians ponder the summer from Ballybrit or wherever, there are two significant issues which will be in their thoughts in the lead up to the autumn. The first, which divides opinion strongly, is the legislation to establish the National Assets Management Agency (Nama) published this week.

Ruairí Quinn and Brian Lenihan put up reasoned and coherent contributions to the initial discussions last week and it is to be hoped this tone will continue. For those who are concerned that Irish political debate can be devoid of substance, there is no shortage of substance here.

The second issue - again critically important, but one that unites mainstream political opinion - is the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. All the parties know how important this one is. As the opposition toys with the prospect of government after the next election, it will not want to inherit office following a defeat of the second referendum.

It is not politically correct to say it yet, but the consequences of such a defeat would be horrendous and Backroom for one would be more worried about how the news is received in Washington and US boardrooms than in Brussels.

The current consensus is that the treaty will be passed easily. Opinion polls and business surveys all point that way. Nobody believes that the Irish people will jeopardise their already perilous economic situation by shooting themselves in the foot over Lisbon for a second time.

Backroom is prepared to concede that he didn’t think that possible last time round either, yet this consensus itself could be the biggest problem facing the Yes campaign - that and a tendency to underestimate the No campaign.

There are a number of issues that concern Backroom. The government was right to publish the McCarthy Report before the summer to take it out of the Lisbon 2 news cycle. They should do likewise with the Commission on Taxation report when they get it. Yet neither of these reports will have gone away, and political debate in September will already be influenced by the workings through of the December budget.

One thing is particularly clear from the June elections: the public is not yet minded to discuss solutions to our current problems. Perhaps that time will come, but for the moment they are angry and looking to avenge themselves on the government and the establishment in general.

While some of the anti-Lisbon forces took a beating in the European elections, Backroom is wary of underestimating the populist campaigning skills of Joe Higgins in the current economic climate. Nor, despite the European elections results, is he alone. Patricia McKenna and Mary Lou McDonald may be gone, but British-based newspapers and British-based trade unions, in particular, remain deeply ambivalent about the treaty and the European Union itself.

Indeed, the trade union movement in general is struggling to find a positive response to our economic predicament and may lapse into playing politics on the issue. They should remember that workers’ jobs should not play second fiddle to workers’ rights.

Backroom has another concern too about the nature of the Yes campaign. Undoubtedly, there have been positive developments such as the launch of the Ireland for Europe, We Belong and the Ireland’s Future civic society groups campaigning for a Yes vote. It would be much better that we hear from these people than from Ibec, whose contribution to the campaign could be especially negative.

Ireland for Europe and We Belong should be encamped down in RTE and elsewhere, ensuring they are as entitled to contribute to the campaign as the various No campaign groups were on previous occasions.

Nonetheless, Backroom is somewhat concerned about the nature of the debate on the treaty. Already, the worthies from each side are lining up to fill the columns of our national newspapers with arguments in favour of the treaty. Many of them are the same people who dominated the last campaign.

Few if anybody in the general public will be reading them. The Yes side runs the danger of being terminally boring.

Then there is the Referendum Commission, a body whose contribution to the last campaign only served to make things more confusing. A debate focused on the nuances of every clause and sub-clause of the treaty, as seems envisaged, plays into the hands of the No campaign, first, by making the public lose interest, and second, by turning the debate into a legalistic argument about each clause of the treaty. As the No side does conspiracies better than the Yes side, this is also in their favour.

A debate about whether we are in or out of the European project - the main issue at stake - has the advantage of being clear, simple and direct. Will any politician be prepared to stake their reputation on that simple proposition?

By common consensus, all the political parties fought bad campaigns last time around. This time, Backroom feels that the victories of both Fine Gael and Labour in the local and European elections put a particular onus on them to lead the debate. Let’s see how Enda Kenny and Eamon Gilmore measure up as potential government material.

After all, who would buy a used car from the current government? The campaigns run by Fine Gael and Labour, as well as the civic groups on the Yes side, also need to have a sense of fun and adventure about them. The growing sophistication of political campaigning we have seen at general elections in this country and elsewhere in recent years was noticeable only in its absence during the first referendum. Political campaigning, new and old, at its best can be quirky and stimulating. Those campaigning skills need to be resurrected this time around.

This is a debate that the Yes side can win and win well, but realising that defeat could still be grasped from the jaws of victory should be the incentive required to get things right this time.


 

[Sub-X]

This video is a must see,produced by the guys at One World Scam and Truth Coalition Ireland 


LISBON 2 : THE REAL STORY OF EUROPE

[Sub-X]

Shannonwatch calls for the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty
One World Scam
30 July 2009

The abject disregard of the Irish political elite for Ireland's neutrality has been demonstrated by the routine transit of US military planes and troops through Shannon Airport for most of this decade. With the re-run of the Lisbon Treaty referendum we are now being asked to accept EU promises that it will not affect or prejudice Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality. But the ongoing support of the Irish government for US-led NATO exercises around the world clearly shows that we cannot trust our leaders to uphold Irish neutrality, with or without the non-binding decisions that have been tagged onto the Treaty in an attempt to have it accepted by the people of Ireland.

Up until 2003, Irish governments upheld the 1907 Hague Convention on Neutrality which states that "belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power". But then the Fianna Fáil-led government agreed to support the build-up of US troops in Kuwait to invade Iraq by providing Shannon as a transit base. Since then we have seen daily plane loads of foreign soldiers passing through Irish territory to fight on behalf of an imperial power. Our proud tradition of peacekeeping has been replaced by disregard for widespread human suffering and support for wars leading to regional destabilisation.

The Lisbon Treaty will continue to erode our national values by forcing us to support military actions outside Europe, either on behalf of NATO or a NATO independent force.

The Treaty states that "the Member States shall support the Union's external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union's action in this area". The "decisions" that are intended to water down this obligation are not legally binding, and it is unlikely that a future Irish government will refuse to comply with demands to support a more aggressive EU foreign policy.

The promotion of international security, democracy and human rights should be key elements of Ireland's foreign policy. However, as a result of our relationship with NATO over the past decade they have been severely undermined. We have played a part in the death of one million Iraqi people and in the displacement of millions more by facilitating troop movements through Shannon. We have been part of illegally operated torture networks in a so-called "war on terror". We have contributed directly to ISAF, the NATO-led force in Afghanistan. And we may even have helped with the supply of deadly weapons used on the defenceless and innocent people of Gaza.

Our Government was unable to resist US pressure to participate in the Iraq war. It was also unable to resist European pressure to participate in the EU Chad mission which in effect is supporting a French client military dictatorship. It is hardly likely therefore that a future Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael led government will resist pressure to support further EU military exercises.

With the Lisbon Treaty, the range and scope of the military tasks which the EU wishes to undertake are growing. It introduces twelve new areas within the Common and Foreign Security Policy (CFSP) where majority voting is to be introduced, including a plan to allow "permanent structured cooperation" within the EU framework. This would permit the creation of an inner core of EU members interested in taking forward military integration in order to perform what are described as "the most demanding missions". The notion of a common defense force has already been proposed, with France, UK, Germany, Spain, Italy and Poland likely to spend up to two per cent of GDP annually on defence (at present only Britain and France do this). This elite group would create a European defence market, carry out joint anti-terrorist initiatives, and participate in costly missile defence programmes.

The world does not need another well armed international force seeking to secure regional and economic interests militarily. But Lisbon will give the green light to this, using finances that should be spent on the health, education and welfare of European citizens or on dealing effectively with poverty and oppression around the world. None of the guarantees offered to Ireland will take from the militarisation strategy of Europe's elite. The Lisbon Treaty should therefore be rejected by the people of Ireland.

For further information, visit http://www.shannonwatch.org or email shannonwatch@gmail.com.

Shannonwatch is a group of human rights and anti-war activists based in the mid-West of Ireland.

[Freeski]

This video is a must see,produced by the guys at One World Scam and Truth Coalition Ireland 


LISBON 2 : THE REAL STORY OF EUROPE

Respect The Irish Vote!

Sub-X, do you have any knowledge about who is running the public relations (propaganda) for the pro-Lisbon side? I've been poking around and haven't had much luck. Naturally my hunt starting with Hill & Knowlton, the infamous Iraqi incubator baby scammers, but that led me down a nasty path where not only do we have corporate media amalgamation, we also have advertising/PR/marketing consolidation through a holding company called WPP. (www.wwp.com). They own many of the world's top PR and advertising firms and it really is quite mind blowing.

They have 22 mindf**k companies in Dublin (including H&K), along with TNS Market Research in Blackrock.
http://www.wpp.com/wpp/companies/

[Sub-X]

Respect The Irish Vote!

Sub-X, do you have any knowledge about who is running the public relations (propaganda) for the pro-Lisbon side? I've been poking around and haven't had much luck. Naturally my hunt starting with Hill & Knowlton, the infamous Iraqi incubator baby scammers, but that led me down a nasty path where not only do we have corporate media amalgamation, we also have advertising/PR/marketing consolidation through a holding company called WPP. (www.wwp.com). They own many of the world's top PR and advertising firms and it really is quite mind blowing.

They have 22 mindf**k companies in Dublin (including H&K), along with TNS Market Research in Blackrock.
http://www.wpp.com/wpp/companies/

Good question,I think I would have to do a bit of digging to say for sure,though if you have your own line of research,maybe this could be of some help 

LISBON ‘YES’ MEN AND WOMEN
Infowars Ireland
19 June 2009

THE Svengali behind the team coalescing to front the YES to Lisbon Mark II campaign is headed by Brendan Halligan, chairman of the Institute for International and European Affairs (IIEA), which receives thousands of Euro from nearly every government department and state funded body yearly.

Following the disastrous effort of the Irish Alliance for Europe, headed by Ruairi Quinn, in the first referendum (the one that came up with the wrong result) it was determined that the next effort would keep politicians in the background and that personalities from civic life — youth, women etc — would front the campaign. However, following efforts to unearth such interesting celebs, the Eurocrats realised that many such people were usually unable to answer half-serious questions about the EU or the Lisbon Treaty. As a result, four rather tired Euro political hacks have formed the new team to lead the campaign with former president of the European Parliament Pat Cox the main ‘personality’, UCD Professor Brigid Laffan the academic, former Fianna Fail general secretary Martin Mackin (now with PR company Q4) the organisational brains, and Halligan the master strategist.

This team plus other YES campaigners met the minister for Europe Dick Roche and officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) at Iveagh House last Tuesday to plan their campaign. Also present were members of Generation Yes, a youth group set up by Halligan (73), which involves young FFers, Labour and Green Party members. At least one of Halligan’s employees at his consultancy CIPA (main activity, lobbying against restrictions on tobacco in Europe down the years) helped to set up this group.

Halligan would be well known to the DFA, which has been funding his IIEA for over 15 years — last recorded contribution, €32,626 for 2007. Halligan’s financial MO is to secure ‘membership’ subscriptions of €6,000 pa from nearly all government departments and state agencies. It does not publish accounts and only parliamentary questions from Independent TD Finian McGrath elicited information from each government department earlier this year about the extent of their largesse. In total, the IIEA received over €820,000 in 2006 with much of this coming from public funds. The IIEA used to publish detailed accounts but ceased doing so after Goldhawk published a series of articles 8 about the extent to which the Institute was funded by the public (see The Phoenix, 27/9/02 and passim).

The IIEA is unashamedly pro-Lisbon and has produced literature and propaganda in favour of all European treaties (although Halligan began political life as an opponent of the European Community in the early 70s). In April of last year, the Institute was reported as saying it could not take sides in the Lisbon referendum as it was a charitable institution in receipt of public money — the McKenna judgment forbids the use of such funds. Thus, Halligan’s Herculean efforts for Lisbon are purely voluntary and unselfish.

[Sub-X]

Great video!

Here's some background on when they attempted this back in 2008:
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Deception/index.php?showtopic=4222&st=0&


Ireland - YOU MUST SAY "NO" AGAIN AND KEEP SAYING "NO"!

 

[Sub-X]

Lisbon guarantees represent 'new deal', says Ibec
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0804/1224251960896.html
4 August 2009

GUARANTEES SECURED by the Government ahead of the second Lisbon referendum campaign will represent a “new deal” for Ireland, Ibec said yesterday.

The employers group strongly endorsed the Yes campaign and said it welcomed the new agreement that all European Union states will retain a permanent commissioner.

Ibec director of EU and international affairs Brendan Butler said its board and national council had decided that the group should take a strong, assertive and upfront stance in support of the treaty, which will be put to referendum on October 2nd.

He said while the retention of a commissioner by each state was not necessarily a gain for the business community, all the research showed it was a vitally important issue for voters. It was therefore an important gain for them. “It is clear that many voters had concerns regarding the loss of an Irish commissioner,” Mr Butler said.

“Research also showed that many were worried that the Lisbon Treaty could interfere with our position on tax, military and social issues.

“All of these issues have now been addressed by rock-solid legal guarantees. There is now a ‘new deal’ on the table for Irish voters,” he said.

Mr Butler also welcomed the greater clarity given by the assurances on the issue of corporation tax. “The treaty ensures that key national interests are protected and our ability to determine our own corporate tax policy is guaranteed,” he said. “Many foreign companies repeatedly state that the low rate of corporation tax in this country is one of the major reasons they have established a base in Ireland.”

He referred to figures showing that 994 foreign companies are based in Ireland, providing 140,000 jobs.

These companies account for 85 per cent of all manufacturing exports, he said.

“A Yes vote is an essential step on the road to economic recovery and will send a very positive signal [from Ireland],” added Mr Butler.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally some honesty from the Yes supporters,thank you Mr.Butler,IBEC don't care about retaining a commissioner because IBEC are more interested in profit and better business relations,than they are of peoples rights.The business world as they say is a world of cut throats and IBEC have no problems about cutting the throats of not only the people of Ireland but of all citizens of the 27 states. 

Mr. Butler went on to say: "That when we voted on the treaty last year 100 people a day were losing their jobs -- now almost 600 jobs are being lost each day”.

Irelands international reputation maybe in question but nothing to do with last year’s rejection of the treaty, Irelands reputation is in question because of the government’s inability to act in the face of the worst economic disaster since the 1980s. Choosing to bail out the banks that are in many ways responsible for Irelands present economic climate over the choice of saving jobs. Unfortunately this is the type of spurious reasoning we will be subjected to in the coming months leading up to the referendum.

[Freeski]

Good question,I think I would have to do a bit of digging to say for sure,though if you have your own line of research,maybe this could be of some help 

LISBON ‘YES’ MEN AND WOMEN
Infowars Ireland
19 June 2009

THE Svengali behind the team coalescing to front the YES to Lisbon Mark II campaign is headed by Brendan Halligan, chairman of the Institute for International and European Affairs (IIEA), which receives thousands of Euro from nearly every government department and state funded body yearly.

Following the disastrous effort of the Irish Alliance for Europe, headed by Ruairi Quinn, in the first referendum (the one that came up with the wrong result) it was determined that the next effort would keep politicians in the background and that personalities from civic life — youth, women etc — would front the campaign. However, following efforts to unearth such interesting celebs, the Eurocrats realised that many such people were usually unable to answer half-serious questions about the EU or the Lisbon Treaty. As a result, four rather tired Euro political hacks have formed the new team to lead the campaign with former president of the European Parliament Pat Cox the main ‘personality’, UCD Professor Brigid Laffan the academic, former Fianna Fail general secretary Martin Mackin (now with PR company Q4) the organisational brains, and Halligan the master strategist.

This team plus other YES campaigners met the minister for Europe Dick Roche and officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) at Iveagh House last Tuesday to plan their campaign. Also present were members of Generation Yes, a youth group set up by Halligan (73), which involves young FFers, Labour and Green Party members. At least one of Halligan’s employees at his consultancy CIPA (main activity, lobbying against restrictions on tobacco in Europe down the years) helped to set up this group.

Halligan would be well known to the DFA, which has been funding his IIEA for over 15 years — last recorded contribution, €32,626 for 2007. Halligan’s financial MO is to secure ‘membership’ subscriptions of €6,000 pa from nearly all government departments and state agencies. It does not publish accounts and only parliamentary questions from Independent TD Finian McGrath elicited information from each government department earlier this year about the extent of their largesse. In total, the IIEA received over €820,000 in 2006 with much of this coming from public funds. The IIEA used to publish detailed accounts but ceased doing so after Goldhawk published a series of articles 8 about the extent to which the Institute was funded by the public (see The Phoenix, 27/9/02 and passim).

The IIEA is unashamedly pro-Lisbon and has produced literature and propaganda in favour of all European treaties (although Halligan began political life as an opponent of the European Community in the early 70s). In April of last year, the Institute was reported as saying it could not take sides in the Lisbon referendum as it was a charitable institution in receipt of public money — the McKenna judgment forbids the use of such funds. Thus, Halligan’s Herculean efforts for Lisbon are purely voluntary and unselfish.

Yeah, there are some leads in there for sure. Thanks.

[Sub-X]

Czech Leader Questions Path for Europe
One World Scam
3 August 2009

When the European Union and Russia held their most recent summit meeting in May, the Czech president, Vaclav Klaus, stunned European diplomats when he passed out copies of his book denouncing the fight against global warming — a central policy of the 27-nation bloc he was supposed to lead.

Just before the summit meeting, Mr. Klaus, whose country held the rotating presidency of the European Union, warned his European colleagues that they should take greater heed of Russian concerns than those of “small Estonia or Lithuania” — two former Soviet republics that are now, like the Czech Republic, members of the union.

The European Union is the world’s biggest political and economic bloc, and it often aspires to global leadership. But Mr. Klaus, a contrarian agitator who is also the head of state of one of Eastern Europe’s wealthiest democracies, does not agree with many things the European Union espouses — or even that Europe should have a strong union. He declined to display its gold-starred flag in his office during his nation’s presidential term.

The fact that he was one of Europe’s top representatives at the height of the global economic crisis reveals the difficult trade-offs made to achieve the semblance of unity, as well as the limits of Europe’s clout. The European Union rotates the top leadership post among its members in half-year increments, irrespective of their size or, in some cases, commitment to its professed goals.

Mr. Klaus helped topple the Czech government in March midway through the Czech presidency, embarrassing many supporters of Europe in his homeland and leaving the bloc of 495 million people rudderless during the financial crisis.

Even after the Czechs ceded the presidency to Sweden at the end of June, Mr. Klaus remains a potent symbol of the difficulties of acting collectively in a union divided between leaders who favor greater integration, and those like Mr. Klaus who cling to national sovereignty.

Soon Mr. Klaus may have the opportunity for the ultimate act of sabotage. In a few months he will be asked to sign the Lisbon Treaty, which aims to enhance the bloc’s role on the world stage by creating, among other things, a permanent European presidency. The treaty has finally approached ratification after years of setbacks, but Mr. Klaus, one of its fiercest critics, has warned that it will create a centralized “superstate.”

In order to be ratified, the treaty must be signed by all 27 nations, including Ireland, which rejected it in a referendum last summer and will vote again in October. Should the Irish vote “yes,” as they are expected to do after receiving generous concessions, Mr. Klaus could prove to be the last holdout, and bring the postwar project of European integration tumbling down.

“Klaus is the ultimate provocateur and would relish the opportunity to create a mess and to see Brussels officials go ballistic,” said Jaroslav Plesl, deputy editor of the Czech daily Lidove Noviny, who has spent more than a decade covering Mr. Klaus.

The Czech presidency, argues Thomas Klau of the European Council on Foreign Relations in Paris, represented “the first time when the E.U. presidency practically collapsed and abdicated.”

Czech officials reject this characterization and emphasize that their leadership secured agreement on 84 legislative initiatives, including a new framework for financial regulation. The Czechs also successfully mediated a gas dispute between Russia and Ukraine that left several countries shivering this past winter. But much of the hard work by studious Czech technocrats was overshadowed by the showmanship of their political leaders.

There were signs of trouble even before the Czechs took over the presidency from France in January, with senior officials in the Élysée Palace so alarmed that they suggested bypassing the country altogether.

Adding to the tension was an ideological divide over how to respond to the economic slump, with President Nicolas Sarkozy of France pushing for a big financial stimulus package to combat the downturn and Mr. Klaus, an economist by training and ardent exponent of free markets, equating his methods to “old socialism.” Several countries echoed the Czech position, including Germany, which, traumatized by the hyperinflation of the 1920s, was weary of spending its way out of the recession.

Even without these economic differences, Alexandr Vondra, the former Czech deputy prime minister for European affairs, argued in an interview that from the first days of the Czech presidency, larger countries like France were determined to undermine it.

“We were under fire from the start,” he said. “The ayatollahs of the Lisbon Treaty in Brussels and Paris wanted us to fail in order to prove their argument that the rotating E.U. presidency didn’t work and that the E.U. couldn’t function without a new treaty.”

In November, Mr. Klaus set the stage for the Czech presidency when he visited Ireland’s leading activist against the Lisbon Treaty. He praised him as a “dissident” akin to Czechoslovak rebels like Vaclav Havel who had languished in prison during the communist era. For Ireland’s pro-European government, battling to secure passage of a treaty that had plenty of domestic opponents, the words were treated as an undiplomatic interference.

Many of the problems during the presidency were rooted in the toxic political atmosphere in Prague. Mr. Klaus was engaged in constant combat with Mirek Topolanek, the prime minister, a fellow center-right leader whom he feared was becoming too enamored of European plans concocted in Brussels. Colleagues say he also resented Mr. Topolanek, who as prime minister was expected to coordinate the Czech presidency of the union, for hogging the spotlight.

“It was no secret that Mr. Klaus didn’t like Mr. Topolanek and he openly expressed happiness when the government fell,” said Mr. Vondra, the former deputy prime minister.

Indeed, throughout their presidency, analysts say, the Czechs — and not just their intransigent president — failed to appreciate the difference between speaking for themselves and representing the bloc as a whole.

In early January, a spokesman for the Czech presidency described the Israeli offensive in Gaza as more defensive than offensive, taking a position that was anathema to most big European nations, including France, which had strongly condemned Israel’s action. That prompted the Czechs to revoke their comments, which they said had been misunderstood.

Likewise, the Czechs apologized to several countries for a public artwork they commissioned in Brussels to celebrate their presidency. The art installation consisted of an avowedly satirical map of Europe that depicted Bulgaria as a Turkish toilet and Germany as a highway resembling a swastika, among other offenses.

Prime Minister Topolanek also took on President Obama’s economic policies even as the United States and Europe were trying to show solidarity in responding to the slump. Ahead of Mr. Obama’s first presidential trip to Europe, Mr. Topolanek called the American fiscal stimulus package “a road to hell” in a speech to the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France.

Mr. Vondra noted wryly that the famously agnostic Czechs were less afraid of hell than Americans, but acknowledged that Mr. Topolanek’s “overstatement” may have been intended to prove his relevance. Only a day earlier, rebel members of the Czech Parliament — urged on by Mr. Klaus — had helped bring down the government.

The speech, he said, was also a reflection of how the European Union, dominated by a few large countries, forced smaller member states to speak loudly — or risk irrelevance.

With Mr. Topolanek a lame duck, the signature event of the Czech presidency — a May meeting to engage with the European Union’s eastern neighbors, including Georgia, Moldova and Belarus — was snubbed by leaders of the main European players, including France, Britain and Italy.

The Czechs scrambled to assemble a new team of ministers they could send to lead meetings in Brussels. The new prime minister, Jan Fischer, a colorless but able bureaucrat, was recruited from his job as the head of the Czech statistical service.

When the Czechs led a European summit meeting in Brussels in June, aimed at overcoming Irish resistance to the Lisbon Treaty, they were sidelined at central negotiations, which were conducted mainly by Germany and France, European diplomats said.
When presented at the meeting with a menu of Czech food, including roast duck, cabbage and traditional potato dumplings, Mr. Sarkozy seemed to summarize the mood: he declined and asked for an omelet instead.

[Sub-X]

Swedish MP: I don't want to force abortion on Ireland
http://www.thelocal.se/21090/20090804/
4 August 2009

A prominent Swedish MP has insisted that she is not trying to use the European Union's Lisbon Treaty to impose liberal abortion laws on Catholic countries like Ireland, which will vote on whether to accept the treaty in a referendum this autumn. She just wants a proper debate, she says.

Birgitta Ohlsson, chairwoman of the centre-right Liberal Party's women's movement, launched a petition last month calling for abortion to be legalised throughout the European Union. The petition, entitled 'Make Noise for Free Choice' is aimed at Ireland, Poland and Malta, all Catholic countries that ban pregnancy terminations.

"From a liberal perspective, the right to abortion is not just a Swedish or European issue, it's a global issue," Ohlsson said.

The petition calls on the European Union "to secure the right to free, safe and legal abortions and render it a human right." It calls for the issue to be reclassified across the union as a human rights issue, rather than be dealt with as a health issue as at present.

Under the Lisbon Treaty, the European Commission must consider proposing Europe-wide legislation if one million signatures can be collected calling for action on a given issue.

The decision to link the abortion question to the treaty has alarmed some pro-Lisbon Irish politicians. Fianna Fáil MEP Brian Crowley told the Irish Times that supporters of the petition "either don't know what is in the EU treaties or are engaging in publicity-seeking stupidity."

Ireland has been issued additional guarantees by the European Council that the treaty will not be used to impose abortion laws.

But speaking to The Local on Monday, Ohlsson denied she wanted Europe-wide legislation:

"We are not pushing for a European law. We're not seeking to change Irish law," she said. If the target of one million signatures was reached, "the Commission would need to raise the issue, but they cannot force countries to do anything."

The petition "is also a great opportunity to support activists in Malta, Ireland or Poland," Ohlsson added.

At the time of writing, the petition had been signed by slightly more than 4,000 people.

[Sub-X]

Patten signals availability to be first EU foreign minister
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0805/1224252013115.html
5 August 2009

CHRIS PATTEN, the former European Union external relations commissioner, has emerged as a potential candidate to become the EU’s first foreign minister.

Lord Patten, now chancellor of Oxford University, said he would not lobby for the post but would be “very positive” if asked.

Britain now has two political heavyweights who have signalled their availability for new high-profile EU jobs next January, if the bloc’s Lisbon reform treaty is finally ratified this autumn.

Tony Blair, the former Labour prime minister, is being backed by the UK government to become the union’s first president, with the apparent support of President Nicolas Sarkozy of France.

The posts of president of the European Council and EU foreign minister are likely to be hotly contested at an October summit – if the Irish vote to back the Lisbon Treaty in a referendum a few weeks earlier.

If Mr Blair became president, it would dash any hopes Lord Patten might have of returning to frontline EU politics. Nobody imagines two Britons holding the two new jobs.

However, Mr Blair remains a controversial figure because of his involvement in the Iraq war and alleged subservience to the US during his premiership. EU leaders may opt for a lower-profile president. Lord Patten might then come into the frame for the foreign post, given his breadth of experience and 1999-2004 tenure as EU external relations chief.

“I’m not campaigning for the job,” he told the Financial Times. “But if I was approached, which I think is unlikely, I would certainly be very positive about it.” Lord Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong, enjoys good relations with German chancellor Angela Merkel and is well regarded in the newer EU states of central and eastern Europe and by MEPs.

His appointment would be ironic, given that he is a former chairman of the UK’s main opposition Conservative party, which opposes the Lisbon Treaty.

The odds are against him. Britain will throw its support behind Mr Blair, while some in Brussels regard Lord Patten (65) as yesterday’s man. Some of his views, including support for Turkish EU membership, do not play well in Paris.

France blocked moves to install him as European Commission president in 2004. President Jacques Chirac did not want a Briton in the post, while diplomats claimed his French language skills were not good enough.

Other potential candidates whose names have been mentioned include Wolfgang Schüssel, former Austrian chancellor; Olli Rehn, the EU enlargement commissioner; and Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, former Nato secretary-general.

[luckee1]

Where did you go Sub-X?

Does this relate to the Lisbon Treaty in any way?

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=126110.0;topicseen

[luckee1]

http://international.sp.nl/bericht/36280/090814-lisbon_treaty_three_strikes_youre_out.html

Lisbon treaty: three strikes, you’re out

August 14th, 2009 • In 2005 the Dutch people overwhelmingly said ‘no’ to the constitutional treaty, just as the French had done some days before. In contrast to the Irish, this was the first time the Dutch people had been allowed a say about the future of Europe; and they made it clear that they didn’t like the way it was heading. Did they want to get out of the EU? No - the Dutch are big supporters of EU membership, just like the Irish, but they don’t want Europe to develop into a federal superstate.

by Harry van Bommel, Dutch MP for the Socialist Party

Instead of changing the EU’s direction, our government insisted on changing the appearance of the treaty, which was blamed for the ‘misunderstanding’ by the Dutch people. All the governments of the European Union’s member states pitched in to offer to help the Dutch and others to avoid new referenda. Our government took the unilateral decision that no new referendum was needed, because now, stripped of its symbols and re-baptised as the ‘Lisbon Treaty’, the treaty was no longer deemed ‘constitutional’. My own parliamentary initiative for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was stranded by a blockade of the governing coalition parties.

Luckily the Irish constitution is better at protecting its citizens against the giving away of their country’s sovereign power by its politicians than is ours, in that it makes a referendum on the treaty obligatory. Sovereignty is not something to be given and taken away by politicians, but belongs to the people. Even the recent ruling of the German Federal Supreme Court forces the German Government to make arrangements to secure the power of the country’s parliament against the changes made by the Lisbon Treaty. As it rightly states, the European Parliament is no substitute for the national parliaments, which are the primary representatives of their people. Handing the European Parliament more powers is no excuse for taking them away from national parliaments.

But the EU doesn’t take ‘no’ for an answer - not from the French, not from the Dutch and not from the Irish. So, after you wisely said ‘no’ to the treaty, a new scam was organised. On all the justifiable worries of the Irish people - on the threat of a European influence on taxation, abortion law, social provision, and neutrality in time of war, texts have now been produced which say bluntly that the Irish people should not worry and were wrong all the time. When I asked our prime minister what these guarantees would change in the Lisbon Treaty, his reply was that the Irish government had agreed that "all guarantees would be in keeping with the Lisbon Treaty." The demand from other member states was, in so many words, "no special status for Ireland when it comes to the question of neutrality." But how can Ireland be neutral while at the same time troops operate abroad under an EU flag and therefore also in the name of Ireland, a practice that will increase should the Lisbon Treaty be adopted?

To win over the Irish people, the European Commission has also launched this year a multimillion dollar ‘information’ campaign. This is nothing but one-sided propaganda at the expense of the taxpayer.

So again the Irish people may vote - on exactly the same treaty. On the last occasion the Irish people voted in the name of all other European peoples, including the Dutch, who were deemed by their own politicians unfit to judge the treaty. Now, the Irish may not only vote on the Lisbon Treaty a.k.a. the Constitutional Treaty, but also have the chance to send a message to all the European leaders: that power belongs to the people, and when they say ‘no’ it means ‘no’. After the rejection of the treaty by the French and Dutch, and last year by the Irish people, this third time I have trust that the Irish will say, in relation to the Lisbon Treaty: three strikes - you’re out.

This article was earlier published by Indymedia Ireland.

[Protocol22]

August 23, 2009 by Infowars Ireland



The screening of pro-EU ads in Free State cinemas has been criticised by Republican Sinn Féin.

The screening of pro-EU adverts in cinemas has been criticised as a blatant example of pressurising people into voting yes on the same Lisbon Treaty which was rejected by voters in the 26-Counties. A spokesman for Republican Sinn Féin said that they are also clearly demographically aimed at youth, where a high percentage voted against the tightening of the EU’s grip.

“These talktoeu.ie advertisements claim that the cinema seats are comfortable and confectionery is safe because of the European Union. One of them also claims that you don’t have to change currency any more because of the Euro. Evidently they are blissfully unaware that there are two currencies in existence within this country alone.

“This type of brainwashing and re-education by the yes side is sinister and flies in the face of a free choice on the 2nd October. Thankfully the ads are that laughable that few are likely to be convinced by them.”          http://info-wars.org/?p=5832

[kblanking]

Hi folks

I hope the Irish do say no as the fate of 500 million people is in their hands. If you know anyone who is Irish,
please get them to read Article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty, or failing that get them to look at wiseupjournal.com or wethepeople.ie.
The last opinion poll I looked at showed 54-28 in favour. I fear for the future.

[oshea.declan]

More Lisbon Treaty Cartoons Here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/41282757@N04/

[Protocol22]

DUBLIN (Reuters) – Bookmaker Paddy Power has cut the odds on a “No” vote in a second Irish referendum on the European Union’s Lisbon treaty after a flow of punters gambled on another defeat, a spokeswoman said on Friday.

Irish voters, representing less than 1 percent of the 27-nation bloc’s population, will once again decide the fate of the charter on October 2 after their shock rejection last year delayed its reforms, which are designed to streamline the EU’s decision-making and give it a stronger voice in world affairs.

The most recent opinion poll, published in early June, showed 54 percent of respondents backed the treaty but last year surveys also showed a majority in favour until a few weeks before the referendum.

“We have seen a shift towards the ‘No’ side in the last couple of weeks and it appears our punters think things could be just as tight second time around,” Sharon McHugh, a spokeswoman for Paddy Power, said.

“Until a few polls emerge however, there’s just no telling how close.”

Paddy Power cut the odds of a “No” vote from 5/1 against to 5/2 against — a probability of two in seven.
Read full article…    http://info-wars.org/?p=5886

[Sub-X]

August 23, 2009 by Infowars Ireland
“These talktoeu.ie advertisements claim that the cinema seats are comfortable and confectionery is safe because of the European Union.

   

 

What a very odd thing to say

Where did you go Sub-X?

Does this relate to the Lisbon Treaty in any way?

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=126110.0;topicseen

No this has nothing to do with the treaty,as of yet   ,no doubt this is will be in the front of everybody's mind leading up to the referendum,although this is set up by the Irish government to deal with Ireland's economic crisis but could very well play a major part in the outcome of the referendum.

In regard to the Green party,they needed 2/3 of their own party to back their Yes to Lisbon campaign,which they only barely got,now if they decide to go against NAMA,that will spell the end of the present coalition government which could have serious consequences for the treaty.The Green party have gone against everything they promised in their election campaign and in my opinion this it would seem is their last chance to prove their not Fianna Fail's lackeys,because if they don't the Green party will end up back in political obscurity.

As they say "its all to play for",but I'm starting to really have a good feeling,the work thats been done behind the scenes puts last years No campaign to shame(with no disrespect to the work that went into the campaign last year),and we all know how successful that was,for example Sovereign Independent: New Irish Newspaper,(which will be going to press in the next couple of weeks),Scott Tips & Anthony Coughlan Conferance         

[luckee1]

It is so good to see you again!!!

Warn us if you'll be out.  (bites nails) 

[Freeski]

It is so good to see you again!!!

Warn us if you'll be out.  (bites nails) 

No kidding! Thanks for keeping us in the loop Sub-X.

[Sub-X]

It is so good to see you again!!!

Warn us if you'll be out.  (bites nails) 

 

I was on sabbatical,recharging the batteries for the long fight ahead   but I won't be going too far now for the next couple of months,so you can leave those nails alone    

[corbettreport]

Hey guys, just wanted to let you know about a couple of interviews I conducted recently regarding the Lisbon Treaty.

I talked to Simon Murphy and Paul Flynn of Truth Coalition Ireland and The Sovereign Independent about their activism and the newspaper they've put together to hand out to the people of Ireland:

Interview with Simon Murphy and Paul Flynn - MP3 / 29:16

And I talked to Senior Lecturer Emeritus of Trinity College and Secretary of National Platform Anthony Coughlan about his four decades of experience fighting the encroaching European superstate and the information he's assembled about Lisbon:

Interview with Anthony Coughlan - MP3 / 16:35

Enjoy.

[Sub-X]

Hey guys, just wanted to let you know about a couple of interviews I conducted recently regarding the Lisbon Treaty.

I talked to Simon Murphy and Paul Flynn of Truth Coalition Ireland and The Sovereign Independent about their activism and the newspaper they've put together to hand out to the people of Ireland:

Interview with Simon Murphy and Paul Flynn - MP3 / 29:16

And I talked to Senior Lecturer Emeritus of Trinity College and Secretary of National Platform Anthony Coughlan about his four decades of experience fighting the encroaching European superstate and the information he's assembled about Lisbon:

Interview with Anthony Coughlan - MP3 / 16:35

Enjoy.

Wow one of the guys was only saying today that they didn't think Anthony had gotten back to yet,excellent stuff 

[Sub-X]

Military Empowerment by Stealth
One World Scam
25 August 2009

The recent ruling by the German Constitutional Court arguing whether the German-created Lisbon Treaty is constitutional has more far-reaching effects than most have realized. At its roots, the ruling has more to do with empowering Germany’s military force than anything else!

The Lisbon Treaty, which is really the European Constitution in new clothes, opens the way for the European Union to exhibit vastly more military clout than is apparent at present. Should the treaty be finally ratified, the next-to-last element cementing the EU’s global superpower status would be in place: the opportunity to become a united global military power, with an initial combined force of 2 million men at arms and a unified military equipment industrial output spanning the whole continent.

To counter the United States, the EU has superseded the U.S. in diplomatic, economic and informational power. But the EU has yet to match, let alone exceed, U.S. military might. This is the full intention of EU/German elites, as it has been since their ideological forebears went underground to pursue their dream of global conquest by subterfuge during the closing stages of World War II.

However, what recently became obvious to German elites is that the very constitution of their making, known as the Lisbon Treaty, had a glaring gap: While it creates the avenue for the formation of that penultimate element of national power to become a reality under German dominance of the European Union, it denies Germany its sole sovereign right to decide on the deployment of its military forces. The fact that all other 26 EU member nations were denied such a right is beside the point. Since the resurrection of the German High Command under its rather innocuous title of the Military Command Council, German military and political elites have intended to secure sole power over the command of Europe’s 2 million-man combined military force.

The German Constitutional Court sought to fix that problem. “[T]he court used a trick by declaring the treaty per se as constitutionally compliant, but at the same time declaring that part of the accompanying legislation as unconstitutional, which was used by the Bundestag (lower house) and Bundesrat (upper house) to ratify the treaty …. An important aspect is the decision-making process regarding military deployments of the European Union” (Informationsstelle Militarisierung, August 6; emphasis mine).

Yes, “The Lisbon Treaty creates vast new military competence for the EU,” this article continues. However, “One of the questions was, who is going to decide whether the German federal army will participate in a military operation of the EU? The judges of the Constitutional Court have now clarified that this is the exclusive authority of the Bundestag.”

Through this “trick” of the German Constitutional Court, Germany must give the “go” on any deployment of any EU battle group. In other words, should the Lisbon Treaty be ratified by all EU member nations, following the forced Irish vote in October, the EU will find that not only are the most vital EU parliamentary committees now dominated by Germany, but the deployment of EU battle groups—should the relevant changes to German legislation be endorsed by the German parliament—will be essentially at the direction of the German High Command under German parliamentary approval!

To be sure, certain legal challenges will have to be faced in Germany so the parliamentary process does not inhibit rapid deployment of EU battle groups when required. But with Germany now having a firm hand on the whip of the European Parliament, and a legal prerogative likely that will trump the EU in the event of any legal conflict between that parliament and the German national will, it becomes patently obvious that the pace and the direction of the development of EU military power will be essentially Germanic!

Once this element of power—military force—is in place within the EU, it will remain for just one final element of power to be added: the ideological glue that will bind the EU together: the Roman Catholic religion (article, page 11). Should the Lisbon Treaty proceed to ratification, then watch 2010 very closely for the Vatican to move ahead aggressively to enable that final element of power to become a reality!

[Sub-X]

Where did you go Sub-X?

Does this relate to the Lisbon Treaty in any way?

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=126110.0;topicseen

Lenihan Says Bad Bank Shouldn’t Disrupt Lisbon Debate 

[Sub-X]

Palpable public anger at Mullingar Lisbon meeting
One World Scam
25 August 2009

"We've said no once; how many bloody times will we have to say no before it makes a difference?" former Fine Gael councillor, Michael Newman said at a meeting in the Greville Arms Hotel, Mullingar on Thursday night, where the Midlands branch of the People's Movement launched their second campaign against the Lisbon Treaty.

"We have already had a referendum, in which the people of Westmeath voted no by a majority," Mr. Newman continued.

"Just suppose the majority of us voted yes; how ridiculous would we look if we were sitting here looking for another vote to take place?"

Last year's People's Movement meeting in Mullingar was a rather subdued affair, but not so on Thursday night; between 40 and 50 people, who appeared to be well versed in arguments for and against the Lisbon Treaty, turned out in a vocal show of support for the 'No' side.

Speaking on behalf of the People's Movement were Mags Glennon, chairperson of the Midlands branch; Peter Lacey, one of the group's Dublin organisers; and former Green Party MEP Patricia McKenna.

Ms. Glennon gave a run-down on the arguments against Lisbon (summarised on the group's website, www.people.ie), while Mr. Lacey - a finance and banking student - sought to quell what he described as Government "scaremongering" over the potential economic effects of rejecting Lisbon again.

Mr. Lacey said that not only did the country's initial rejection of Lisbon have no effect on foreign direct investment in Ireland, but figures for such investment actually increased during 2008.

Ms. McKenna spoke about how the ratification of Lisbon would give the EU a new personality, creating a new union with substantially increased powers, heavily militarised.

The former MEP said that the competencies afforded to the EU via Lisbon would allow the Union to become heavily militarised.

"We're talking about militarisation, not conscription," she said.

"Nobody on the 'No' side ever mentioned conscription. That word was brought in to debate by the pro-Lisbon lobby to confuse the argument." Ms. McKenna attacked the Government, and Dáil deputies from all parties as "spineless" for attempts to change referendum broadcasting laws in the wake of the first Lisbon vote.

"There's nobody with the backbone or the gumption in the Dáil to stop this," she exclaimed, recalling how TDs had moved to "neuter" the impartiality of the Referendum Commission after the initial rejection of the Nice Treaty in 2001.

Ms. McKenna also described the recent "guarantees" secured by the Government as nothing more than "promises of a protocol" which may be appended to a future Croatian accession treaty.

"The Lisbon Treaty itself remains unchanged," she said, adding that "the political élite are the only ones whose noses have been put out" by the rejection of Lisbon.

One woman, who described herself as a member of the "Green Party grassroots" in Westmeath, condemned Intel Ireland general manager, Jim O'Hara for his declaration of support for Lisbon this week, accusing him of "frightening 6,500 Intel employees into ratifying it".

Remarkably, one man present at the meeting said that he had been "threatened at work" for being vocal in his opposition to the treaty. He described the European Union as a "new Soviet Union" run by individuals promoting a "Masonic New World Order".

A number of young adults attended the meeting. Although speaker Peter Lacey was keen to express himself as a concerned European, one young man in his twenties took a different view.

"They don't care about our Constitution," he said. "I don't consider myself to be a European, I consider myself to be Irish." At times, expressions of bad feeling about Lisbon bordered on cacophony. "Why are so many politicians and journalists behind it?" asked a prominent Mullingar businessman in the audience.

"Money," came a shout from the back row.

"The only people who seem to support this are on wage packets above €120,000," another man interjected, citing the enthusiastic support shown for the treaty by the employers' lobby, IBEC. One gentleman paid tribute to local farmers who have "come out from under the skirts of the IFA" to oppose the treaty.

"We are being muzzled left, right and centre, and this is backed up by sleeveens in public service," he said.

"If you examine the credentials of some of the members of the Cabinet, you wouldn't put them in charge of a small factory in Mullingar," he added.

Talk of "green shoots" was followed by cries from the audience of "aye, weeds", and it's clear that even in peaceful Mullingar, there are a lot of angry voters just looking for a stick with which to beat the Government.

Whether Lisbon will be that stick, all will be told on October 2.

[Sub-X]

Under Lisbon: Citizenship of a New Federal State (Video)

You are not a real citizen of the EU because the EU is not a real Union and citizenship is stated as “notional” [ theoretical - not real - imaginary]. The Lisbon Treaty would make us real citizens of a new federal state legally called the European Union. It would be legally a new union, federal state separate from it’s members, for the first time. We would be real citizens of this new entity for the first time, with real rights and duties superior to our national citizenship. This is being brought in by deception and you are not being told the full implications of the changes proposed in the treaty.

For more information:

www.wiseupjournal.com

www.nationalplatform.org

www.truthcoalitionireland.org

www.oneworldscam.com

For a free newspaper with information on Lisbon, the EU, vaccinations and the banking crisis: The Sovereign Independent

Download a consolidate reader-friendly edition of the treaty

For a more detailed video: End of Nations - EU Takeover and the Lisbon Treaty