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

[Sub-X]

I amazed that so many countries believe that oil reserves will make your an economic stability.  America has tons of oil reserves many untapped.  Look at our economy!

I take great exception to those that say the those who had voted 'no' didn't know what it was about.  It was like 'they just don't get it, do they?'  Suggesting a a lack of comprehension rather than lack of agreement to the terms. 

With America's new anti hate speech bill those who would say such a thing would be guilty of hate crime. 

In a lot of cases this was the truth,with a lot of people not understanding the text,because it is a nightmare to read which is the fault of the authors of the treaty to start with and the Irish governments cock sure attitude that it was going to be just a formality.The country is in so much of a mess because this government ignored the advice and warning signs,because they were so sure they knew better,give the treaty and they will sign because we said so.

Another of the arguments against this treaty is that it is unreadable and this is still the case,nothing has changed 

amazing shit

It boggles the mind sometimes   

Since Ireland joined the E.U. in 1973, it has gone from one of the poorest members to third place in per-capita purchasing power. Some commentators said rejection of Lisbon showed the Irish have a short memory.

"People who vote no are taking a huge risk," he said. "We're not Norway with huge oil and gas reserves. If it wasn't for the support of the ECB, which is effectively funding this country, we'd be in even bigger trouble."

These 2 statements are almost as amazing as Cowen's after the first round.This is the sort of scaremongering that will help tip the opinions in favour of the treaty.As I said above this is not a question of leaving Europe,its a question of postponing the treaty,holding Europe wide referendums and making the necessary changes where needed instead of giving these half arsed guarantees and a lot of rhetoric.The risk is not in rejecting this treaty for something better,the risk is if we don't reject it in its present form that it,once its ratified there is no going back.

"The Irish have short memories" clearly written by somebody that knows nothing of the Irish condition 

[luckee1]

"The Irish have short memories" clearly written by somebody that knows nothing of the Irish condition 

I know right? 

But seriously, it looks like there are other countries(Germany/Czec) looking at Ireland and that if Ireland jumps in then they will too.  Or am I off here?

[Sub-X]

I know right? 

But seriously, it looks like there are other countries(Germany/Czec) looking at Ireland and that if Ireland jumps in then they will too.  Or am I off here?

Not at all,you are pretty much right on  Germany are kinda doing the "we will do it in our own time" sorta thing,but its definitely a done deal there,there was never any question about them,the Czech Republic on the other are indeed waiting to see what happens here,in Germany and Poland first.

Forgetting our little corner of Western Europe holding up the ratification for a minute,the courage of the Czech has to be mentioned because they have be members of Europe a lot less time than we have 

Top German court suspends ratification of Lisbon Treaty

President Klaus hints Czech Republic may be last to sign Lisbon Treaty

[Sub-X]

UKIP threatens action over Irish concessions on Lisbon treaty
The Parliament
14 July 2009

The UK Independence Party is considering mounting a challenge to the legal guarantees won by Ireland over the stalled Lisbon treaty.

Irish premier Brian Cowen won the guarantees from his EU partners last month to address concerns of voters who last June opposed the treaty, designed to streamline EU decision-making and give the 27-nation EU a greater say in world affairs.

But UKIP questions whether the guarantees on issues such as Ireland's military neutrality and abortion are legally binding.

It has hired a leading Dublin law firm to look into the matter, saying that it could seek a judicial review.

UKIP leader Nigel Farage, whose party opposes the treaty, told this website, "Our understanding is that the so-called guarantees the Irish 'won' are not worth the paper they are written on. But we need to legal advice on this before what, if any, further action to take."

The move comes after it emerged that the second Irish referendum on the treaty will be held on 2 October.

An Irish government spokesman said it viewed ratification of the Lisbon treaty as "a vital contribution" to economic recovery, saying the government was "very satisfied" with the outcome of the recent EU summit in Brussels.

The Irish government, accused of failing to allay voters' concerns and not tackling opponents to the treaty head-on last year, has pledged to conduct a better organised and livelier campaign this time with plenty of information about the complex treaty text.

Opinion polls suggest the Lisbon treaty now has the support of a majority of voters who see the benefits of EU membership to help bring Ireland out of one of the deepest recessions in the industrialised world.

Meanwhile, newly-elected Irish Socialist MEP Joe Higgins has marked his arrival in parliament by describing the recent EU summit in Brussels, where Ireland won its legal guarantees, as an "elaborate charade" and accusing Cowen of "throwing dust in the people's eyes" by peddling worthless guarantees.

Higgins said "not a comma" would be changed in the treaty before the Irish people were forced to vote in a second referendum.

"What is at question here is the right of the Irish people to say 'No'," said Higgins, who was due to give a news conference in Strasbourg on Wednesday.

Higgins claimed the assurances thrashed out between Europe's leaders in Brussels had not addressed voters' concerns.

[luckee1]

mmmm  hmmmmmm!  (it is better i leave my opinion just like that!)

[Sub-X]

mmmm  hmmmmmm!  (it is better i leave my opinion just like that!)

Very interesting development indeed,mmmm hmmmmmm  This has kinda come out of left field.

[Sub-X]

Federalists accused of 'hijacking' European Parliament opening
London Telegraph
13 July 2009

Soldiers of the Eurocorps detachment raise a European Union flag to mark the inaugural European Parliament session

Federalists have been accused of hijacking the official opening of the new European Parliament session after soldiers raised the EU flag to the tune of Europe's official anthem Ode to Joy.

Critics accused them of using the event to uphold the flag and anthem symbols of European Union statehood that were officially dropped after French and Dutch referendum rejections threw out Europe's Constitution in 2005.

Leading the ceremony in Strasbourg, a detachment of combat troops marched to the overture of The Force of Destiny by Verdi, before raising an EU flag twice the size of the national flags around it to a military bugle call.

The troops - drawn from the Eurocorps member states of Germany, France, Spain, Belgium and Luxembourg - then stood to attention to a full orchestral and choral rendition of Ode to Joy.

Eurocorps was created in 1992 as a self-styled "force for the European Union" and is regarded as an expression of ambitions to create a Euro-army as part of a federal Europe.

Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party, said: "Today is the EU's equivalent of trooping the colour. There is no pretence anymore. The EU is to be a fully militarised state."

British MEPs have been angered by the European Parliament's defiance in clinging on to EU symbols of statehood that were cut from the Lisbon Treaty after voters in France and the Netherlands rejected its predecessor, the EU Constitution, four years ago.

Timothy Kirkhope, leader of Conservative MEPs in the EU assembly, accused European federalists of hijacking the event.

"The parliament should focus on its efforts to increase democracy and accountability in the EU, rather than its attempt to create a federal Europe," he said.

"These displays are Europe attempting to take upon itself a character that the vast majority of its citizens do not want."

The linkage between the EU and military ambitions to create a European army is deeply controversial in Ireland as the neutral country, that has remained outside Nato, gears up for a second referendum on the Treaty on Oct 2.

Joe Higgins, a Socialist Party MEP for Dublin, said: "Why should there be military involvement in the European Parliament? I object to that. Is this part of a process of trying to get people used to the idea of a military EU?"

Fears of "militarism" played a major part in last year's Irish rejection of the Treaty and the Eurocorps involvement in the parliament's opening will be taken up by Ireland's No campaigners over the next three months.

"Drafting in combat soldiers to raise the European flag is politically explosive as Ireland prepares to hold a second Lisbon Treaty vote and after the Irish government denied any link between the EU and militarism," said Roger Cole of Dublin's Peace and Neutrality Alliance.

Troops from Eurocorps form part of Nato's rapid response forces and have served during Alliance operations in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan over the last 14 years.

Major Juan Billon, the Spanish Eurocorps officer leading the honours squad in Strasbourg, insisted that his troops were proud to be present at an EU political ceremony.

"It is very important for us. It is what Eurocorps is about. The EU is really what we belong to. It is our first vocation," he said.

[luckee1]

In other words:  It is forgone conclusion.   

[Sub-X]

Yes vote on Lisbon could open door for abortion
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0714/1224250637985.html
14 July 2009

If you are against abortion, you should reject the treaty, writes RICHARD GREENE .

YOU MAY have received a missive from the Department of Foreign Affairs recently. A cute-looking postcard, it was paid for by your taxes and contained a serious plug for the Lisbon Treaty.

This sort of political propaganda should be illegal, since the 1995 McKenna judgment forbids government spending public money directly to achieve a particular result in a referendum, but, as we know, this Government has been known to bend the rules before, so perhaps we should expect more of the same in the coming months.

The postcard is written to persuade No to Lisbon voters that the treaty is changed utterly. The tone is meant to be reassuring, and in its very first paragraph the department makes a statement that brazenly dresses up a political promise as a legal certainty.

It states that “when the Irish people vote on the Lisbon Treaty later this year, it will come with additional legal guarantees and assurances to address their main concerns”. This is not the case, and the selling of the assurances obtained by the Government as legal guarantees which change the Lisbon Treaty, is not only dishonest, but in this instance uses taxpayer funds to fool the taxpayer. This Lisbon Treaty will remain unchanged by any assurances obtained by the Government on any issue. Not a word or a comma will be altered. It is exactly the same treaty rejected last June by the Irish people.

Neither are these “guarantees” legally binding on the European Union – something the Government understands better than most, despite their insistence that lodging the assurances with the United Nations gives them some legal standing.

This fatuous notion caused journalist Vincent Browne to remark that they might as well be lodged with Leitrim County Council. That’s no disrespect to Leitrim County Council, it’s just that the UN has no jurisdiction to enforce EU guarantees – and the European Court of Justice does not have to consider any other law besides EU law. These guarantees are not part of any EU treaty (including the Lisbon Treaty), so cannot be considered EU law.

So the guarantees have no real legal effect. In fact, they are merely political promises – the sort that we know, from bitter experience, are broken daily.

But what of the future protocols promised by the EU – which may or may not be attached to a future treaty at some date? Several problems arise with this proposed means of securing our right to decide on abortion and other issues.

Firstly, when the Government says it promises to bring forward at some future date a protocol on, for example, abortion, that’s a promise we cannot hold them to. We don’t know the wording of these proposed protocols or whether they will ever actually come to pass.

Secondly, and more importantly, while such protocols would have legal standing, the same problem as before still arises (and is the reason why anti-abortion people voted No to Lisbon despite the Maastricht protocol). That problem is the Charter of Rights attached to the treaty which becomes legally binding on all EU member states if Lisbon is passed.

That charter, and the fact that we will be citizens of a new EU super state, will be the basis of a legal challenge to Ireland’s abortion laws which will surely be brought before the European Court of Justice. This court would have enormously enhanced powers to decide on social and moral issues, such as abortion, under the Lisbon Treaty.

This is the core of the problem. Any protocol on the right to life (or on family law) can come into conflict with the charter – and the European Court of Justice can use the charter to overrule the conflicting protocol and impose abortion on the Irish people.

In other words, the matter will still be in the hands of the European Court of Justice, not the Irish people, if the Lisbon Treaty is passed.

So we’re left with the same bad treaty that was rejected by the Irish people last year. And the scaremongering has started in earnest, as Yes campaigners try to use the recession to bully the Irish people into accepting this treaty.

At the recent launch of a Yes campaign, it was claimed that a No vote to Lisbon “discouraged investment from abroad”. But the opposite is the case. As reported in this newspaper, despite (or perhaps because of) our No vote to Lisbon the number of jobs created by foreign direct investment here actually increased by 56 per cent last year, according to a report published by Ernst Young.

The simple fact is that in these straitened times we can’t afford the Lisbon Treaty. It contains absolutely nothing that will assist us in restoring our economy and, in fact, could well damage us in the critical areas of jobs and taxes.

That’s because, according to leading economists such as Prof Ray Kinsella, the bigger EU member states will use the Lisbon Treaty to push for an end to Ireland’s low corporation tax rates. As everyone knows those low tax rates are what bring multinationals – and the jobs they provide – to Ireland. The treaty will also bolster EU court decisions which facilitate importing cheap labour from abroad to undercut Irish workers and drive down wages.

The treaty would also see Ireland’s voting power in making European law halved – to 0.8 per cent, while Germany’s doubles – to 17 per cent; hardly a good position for Ireland to be in when presenting concerns on unemployment, taxation or other economic issues.

To protect jobs, the economy and our right to decide, we should stand firm in saying No to Lisbon. We can’t afford to do otherwise.


Richard Greene is spokesman for Cóir – www.coircampaign.org

[Sub-X]

Merkel Fails To Reach Lisbon Treaty Deal With CSU
http://www.javno.com/en-world/merkel-fails-to-reach-lisbon-treaty-deal-with-csu_270400
14 July 2009

The Christian Social Union (CSU), Bavarian sister party to Merkel`s Christian Democrats, has taken a hard line against the treaty.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and her conservative Bavarian allies failed to resolve their differences over the European Union's Lisbon reform treaty at a meeting on Tuesday.

The Christian Social Union (CSU), Bavarian sister party to Merkel's Christian Democrats, has taken a hard line against the treaty, even though Merkel and her Social Democratic coalition partners would like to ratify it before a federal parliamentary election on Sept. 27.

The CSU, traditionally sceptical of ceding powers to Brussels, appears intent on demanding legislative changes that could delay ratification beyond the election.

That would embarrass Merkel, and could embolden eurosceptic presidents in the Czech Republic and Poland, who have refused to sign off on the treaty until other EU members have approved it.

Only four EU countries have yet to ratify the treaty, which would streamline decision-making in the 27-nation bloc. The other is Ireland, which voted against the treaty last year but will hold a second referendum on Oct. 2.

Merkel was hoping, following a court ruling earlier this month, to rush legislation through parliament in September.

"We had a first discussion about the Constitutional Court's ruling," she told a news conference with CSU chairman Horst Seehofer after a meeting in Bavaria.

"Everyone knows that we have to find a joint position and want to. I made clear what the government's interests are. I don't see any irreconcilable differences," Merkel said.

She added it was essential that the two conservative allies find the "right balance" to give the government the necessary flexibility while safeguarding the interests of parliament.

Seehofer said the CSU would remain firm.

"We're going to continue the constructive discussion about this that we've had from the start," he said.

Merkel told journalists: "There is a timetable that leaves open good chances for an agreement before the election."

Merkel's CDU and the CSU unveiled a common election programme last month and have vowed to fight together to ensure her re-election. But Seehofer also has an eye on supporters in Bavaria and has shown he will not hesitate to break with Merkel on some issues in order to score points closer to home.

[Sub-X]

The Lisbon Treaty and the triumph of technocracy
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/93119
11 July 2009

The Lisbon Treaty is the latest step in a process which, though its conception can arguably be traced to the Treaty of Rome itself, was born at Maastricht. This process is one of removing what is truly of fundamental importance to capitalism – principally, the way in which it manages its economy – from the realm of an at least partially democratised politics.

This is, moreover, not an exclusively European process, but one which is global. As parliamentary institutions have spread following the collapse of authoritarian systems of 'left' and right, they have simultaneously been deprived of a range of powers once considered proper to them.
The nationalist right makes much of the transfer of powers from national to transnational institutions, from Dublin or London to Brussels, for example. Not sharing their 'patriotic' fantasies, I am far more concerned by the transfer of powers from institutions whose nature makes them responsive to popular sentiment, to those essentially immune to such pressures. Not only the European Union, but other regional bodies such as the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement, and international institutions like the World Trade Organisation and the International Monetary Fund, have now narrowed policy choices available to national governments and parliaments to such an extent that 'legitimate' democratic pressure can no longer be brought to bear on the most important areas of policy.

This does not, as yet, represent the complete abolition of democracy, whose continued existence, albeit in shadow form, retains a powerful propaganda function. We are still able to decide for ourselves, as peoples, whether we want legalised abortion, a smoking ban, gay marriage, identity cards and even, as things stand, a socialised system of health care. Yet these issues, though important in themselves, are either subordinate to the economic questions now effectively removed from politics, or not truly controversial within the realm of capital itself. Whether a country has legal abortion or not has few implications for capitalism, which has shown itself capable of adapting to progress towards gender equality. Similarly with the issue of gay marriage. Right-wing views on such matters are mere atavisms, of no fundamental importance to the maintenance of this hyperexploitative system. What really counts is the economy, and the creation and maintenance of conduits for the transfer of public wealth into private hands. Of the issues I mention above, the one which bears most heavily upon this is the question of socialised medicine, which is why the European Commission has, with measures such as the directive on the application of patients' rights in to cross-border healthcare, begun what will become a steady, erosive assault on this cornerstone of a civilised, humane and efficient society.

No issue is immune from removal from the democratised realm in which elected national governments answerable to elected national parliaments continue to exercise real decision-making powers. The Lisbon Treaty's extension of qualified majority voting into several new policy areas, and the concomitant abolition of the national veto in those areas, represent an attempt to narrow the policy choices available to elected politicians still further.

Capitalism faces what may be its greatest ever crisis, one which has been evident to it since the oil shocks of the 1970s. In order to extricate itself from this crisis it needs to increase the rate at which it extracts surplus value from labour. There is no other way, and everything must be subordinated to this. All policy areas must be scrutinised through the lens of corporate capital's economic imperatives. The war on terrorism, another part of the process of undermining the powers of democratically elected institutions, is about creating the structures needed to discipline what is certain to become an increasingly rebellious, troublesome population and workforce. The continued pressure to force member states to accept genetically modified organisms is designed to enhance the control of the food supply by major corporations, as hunger is an even more effective disciplinary tool than a police officer's baton or gun. Whatever else the bank crisis may be, it also represents an opportunity to move wealth from the public purse to private pockets. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan likewise. Because any and every aspect of our lives can be turned into an opportunity to profit, any and every aspect of our lives must eventually be removed from the realm of popular democratic decision-making, or even influence. Governments must cut social spending because Brussels tells them they must, just as Tony Blair took his country into an illegal war because God told him to do it. Popular sovereignty was a fad whose time has passed.

The creation of an independent European Central Bank was thus the thin end of the wedge. Politicians, we are told by those who favour this dictatorship of the bankers, are not for the most part economists; they are vulnerable to their short-term need to win elections; they cannot be trusted to put the public interest before career or party. If all of this disqualifies them from making economic decisions, however, they are surely also unfit to decide on other questions. Abortion, gay marriage? Well, they aren't necessarily lawyers, doctors or philosophers, either, so why let them near such issues? GMOs? What does the average politician know of DNA markers or protein structure, or the relationship between genotype and phenotype? Clearly, if politicians, and by implication the people who elect them, can't be trusted to take decisions about economics, they can scarcely be trusted to take decisions on anything at all. And so, in place of democracy, we now have a developing technocracy, in which decisions of importance are increasingly removed from the elected and given to the appointed.

The European Union's bogus internationalism makes for effective propaganda. I concentrate my own oppositional activity on the EU simply because it is the most powerful distillation of bourgeois hegemony in my part of the world. Its function and philosophy are indistinguishable from other transnational instruments of technocratic rule such as the WTO and IMF. I am equally opposed to these international bodies, yet in presenting my arguments against them I have never once provoked the charge that I am nationalistic, or anti-internationalist. No-one, even their most ardent admirers, has ever to my knowledge tried to romanticise these institutions, to claim that they are responsible for decades of peace, or that they represent a future in which we will all embrace across boundaries of culture and language. Yet such things are said of the European Union all of the time.

A second 'no' vote would, of course, achieve nothing concrete. Ireland would be reviled, the Irish people insulted, the democratic veil worn by the European establishment once more cast aside, and a way found to continue business as usual. It would, however, represent a tremendous blow on the level of propaganda, and thus an important step in the war of manoeuvre we are obliged to fight, now that power is so diffuse, now that there are no more Winter Palaces to storm. Two centuries of progress towards politically and socially democratic societies are being reversed. At the very least, a no vote would mean that this is not happening with our acquiescence. At best, it might represent the beginnings of an effective progressive movement against this ongoing subversion of everything which underlies the relatively egalitarian prosperity and relatively open societies which have increasingly characterised western Europe since the defeat, in the ruins of Berlin in 1945, of the last attempt to destroy democracy and impose a bogus Union on its peoples.



Steve McGiffen is Assistant Professor of International Relations at the American Graduate School of International Relations and Diplomacy in Paris. He is editor of the radical left website Spectre [www.spectrezine.org] and, with Kartika Liotard, MEP, the author of Poisoned Spring: The EU and Water Privatisation (Pluto Press, 2009). Steve can be contacted at spmcgiffen @ yahoo.co.uk

[Protocol22]

DAVID ICKE IN DUBLIN 5th SEPTEMBER 2009

David will be speaking against Globalisation, The European Union and the Lisbon Treaty.
He will be supported by Brian Gerrish speaking on ‘ Common Purpose’ and other speakers to be advised.

More details coming soon!!

http://info-wars.org/?page_id=2173

[Sub-X]

DAVID ICKE IN DUBLIN 5th SEPTEMBER 2009

David will be speaking against Globalisation, The European Union and the Lisbon Treaty.
He will be supported by Brian Gerrish speaking on ‘ Common Purpose’ and other speakers to be advised.

More details coming soon!!

http://info-wars.org/?page_id=2173

This is brilliant news,just under a month before the election 

Great work by all involved   

[akston]

I've just been doing some reading on the great Irish famine. Holy sh*t. Talk about population control. Good luck over there. Wikipedia is an okay place to start, btw.

[Protocol22]

A Comic View Of The Lisbon Treaty - Or - Irish People Tell 'Em To Feck Off

[Sub-X]

I've just been doing some reading on the great Irish famine. Holy sh*t. Talk about population control. Good luck over there. Wikipedia is an okay place to start, btw.

Heres a here link that goes against the MSM opinion on the famine :

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=34028.0

[Sub-X]

UK 'backs Blair for EU president'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8152099.stm
15 July 2009

Tony Blair will be the UK's official candidate for EU president, Baroness Kinnock has apparently confirmed.

The post will only be created if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified by all EU states - Ireland is to hold a second referendum in October.

There has long been speculation that the former PM would go for the post but he has not confirmed he will do so.

It is the first time a UK government minister has publicly announced Tony Blair is a candidate for the job.

Previously, ministers have said it was premature to talk of supporting any particular candidate when the job itself did not exist.

'Strength of character'

But at a briefing in Strasbourg, Europe Minister Lady Kinnock said: "The UK government is supporting Tony Blair's candidature for president of the Council [of EU governments]."

Asked if it had been discussed with Mr Blair, currently a Middle East envoy, she said: "It is the government's position. I am sure they would not do that without asking him."

Lady Kinnock went on to say Mr Blair had the "strength of character" and "status" to take on the job.
   
As we have said, time and again on this, there is nothing to be a candidate for since the job doesn't actually exist
Tony Blair's spokesman

She added: "People know who he is, and he could step into this new role with a lot of respect and he would be generally welcomed."

But there have been reports that Mr Blair's role in the Iraq war and Britain's failure to join the euro, could go against him.

Mr Blair's spokesman said later: "As we have said, time and again on this, there is nothing to be a candidate for since the job doesn't actually exist."

Ireland was the only EU member state to hold a public vote on the treaty, which must be ratified by all 27 countries. The treaty was rejected in that referendum last June. It will hold a second referendum in the autumn.

'Ambitious operator'

The precise role of the EU president has not been laid out. The Swedish government, which currently holds the six-month EU presidency, has suggested drawing up a proper job description before seeing which available political figure fits it best.

Downing Street said if Mr Blair wants to stand for the job, the government would support him but it was up to him to decide if he wanted to put his name forward.

The prime minister's spokesman declined to say whether Mr Brown had discussed the post with Tony Blair or had encouraged him to stand.

The Conservatives, whose efforts to get a UK referendum on the treaty were defeated in the Commons, said the British people had not been given a say on whether Europe should have a new president.

Shadow foreign secretary William Hague said the new role could be "enormously damaging".

"Any holder is likely to try to centralise power for themselves in Brussels and dominate national foreign policies.

"In the hands of an operator as ambitious as Tony Blair, that is a near certainty. He should be let nowhere near the job."

Campaign group Open Europe said the EU should stick with the rotating presidency which allows the current national leaders - who have a democratic mandate - to set the EU's agenda on a six-monthly basis.

Director Lorraine Mullally said: "Tony Blair may well be a respected politician around the world, but he is also yesterday's news.

"The problem with creating a post of EU president is that it would inevitably go to an ex-leader who has lost the support of his or her own electorate."

Since leaving Downing Street in 2007, Mr Blair has been appointed Middle East peace envoy and launched the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, which aims to foster better relations between world religions.



Another good reason to vote NO 

[luckee1]

Another good reason to vote NO  Wink

I would say that is a key reason to vote NO.

[Freeski]

Where are the "awakended voices" in senior levels of power? Not just in Ireland but around the world? There seems to be a cut-off point, some level of line authority above which no one speaks, preaches or even thinks about natural law, or tyranny versus freedom. I just saw an AJ interview with ex-IRS enforcer Joe Bannister who said something to the effect that "They forced me to resign because I wouldn't break my oath."

[Sub-X]

You are absolutely right Freeski,looking closer to home for yourself,the likes of Ron Paul, Denis Kucinich etc.is a great example of the lack of attention regarding the "other side",barring a few independents or Sinn Fein,there is very little public objection to this treaty and with the publication yesterday of the Bord Snip Nua report taking up the majority of political discussion for the time being.

[Sub-X]

Germany’s Stealth Attack on the EU
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=6337.4795.0.0
16 July 2009

The German high court is ambushing the European Union. Europe’s leaders don’t see it, but they will. Soon.

Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court recently ruled that the Lisbon Treaty is compatible with the German constitution. On June 30, the court rejected complaints by some German lawmakers that the treaty violated the constitution, and decided that “the substance of German state authority is protected” in the treaty.

EU leaders are so relieved Berlin said ja to Lisbon that they appear to have given little thought to a colossal caveat attached to the ruling.

Germany’s constitution “says yes to the Lisbon Treaty,” stated presiding judge Andreas Voßkuhle in his verdict, which was televised nationally, “but calls at national level for a strengthening of parliamentary responsibility” .

What does Voßkuhle mean by the “strengthening of parliamentary responsibility”? He means this: Before Germany ratifies the Lisbon Treaty, it must strengthen the German parliament’s influence on EU decisions made in Brussels. Therefore, a law is now being created that will demand members of the Bundestag approve any change to the Lisbon Treaty, or any expansion of EU power, before it can be imposed on Germany.

By nature, this law essentially equips Germany with the power to hijack the EU!

Peter Gauweiler, member of the right-wing Christian Socialist Union, spearheaded the challenge against the Lisbon Treaty. Although he lost his appeal and Germany is preparing to ratify Lisbon, Gauweiler was more than satisfied with the federal court’s far-reaching stipulation. “It’s a very sweeping decision on the Lisbon Treaty as a whole,” he told Spiegel Online. “In 91 pages, the Federal Constitutional Court expressly held that the treaty and its accompanying law must conform to Germany’s constitution, the so-called Basic Law ….”

Germany has been chiseling itself a seat atop of Europe ever since its reunification in 1989. With its location at the heart of the Continent, its large population and its economic and political clout, it has been quite successful. This legal stipulation gives Germany unparalleled influence in Brussels. EU leaders will essentially be held hostage by Berlin; they will be forced to take the German constitution and German opinion into account when formulating virtually every law, every policy and every decision.

Essentially, it will make Berlin, not Brussels, the epicenter of EU law and policy!

EU leaders are so consumed in dreams of European unity that they ignore the nightmare that could come with German ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. The Germans are working fast too. In response to the court ruling, the Bundestag (the lower house of the German parliament) will meet in August to draft the new law. The bill will undergo a second reading in early September. Upon approval, it will be attached as an addendum to Germany’s official ratification of the Lisbon Treaty before national elections on September 27. EU leaders are tickled that Germany is being so expeditious in ratifying Lisbon. They hope Berlin embracing this EU constitution will provide fresh, much-needed impetus to Ireland, the Czech Republic and Poland, which have all yet to ratify the treaty.

EU leaders are so consumed with dreams of European unity that they ignore the nightmare that could come with German ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.

Even a cursory reading of the German media’s response to the court ruling ought to have shocked them into seeing reality.

The federal court’s verdict “takes the German parliament to task,” observed the German paper Süddeutsche Zeitung. “German politicians will need to become involved with every new law, no matter how small. … And with this decision European integration becomes part of Germany’s domestic politics. … This spectacularly clever verdict artfully says that European integration will not be stopped—but will be making a little detour through Germany, where it will benefit from some added democracy.”

“This is the end of European integration as we know it,” wrote the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. “Germany will support the Lisbon Treaty, but only under strict conditions. And anyone who wants to found a European state must now ask for the permission of the German people.” Multiple issues are already lining up, waiting for adjudication by the German court, the article said, and the “message is loud and clear: We wear the pants.”

Observed Handelsblatt: The German federal court clearly sees the “European Parliament as a minor instrument which is ‘not suited to major political decisions.’” The German business daily continued:

For Karlsruhe [the city in which the German federal court is located], democracy has only one important organ: the national constitution. And that’s not exactly an altruistic move—because by saying this, the Constitutional Court is also increasing its own claim to legislative power. Only Karlsruhe can stop Brussels from going overboard, only Karlsruhe can protect principles of democracy. And that secures Karlsruhe a long sought-after advantage over various European tribunals.

Could this ruling be any more plain? When it comes to EU affairs, Germany considers the European Parliament a minor instrument, and the German national constitution, and the German federal court, the supreme authority!

Under the new law, the German high court will often supersede the European Union courts. Take the European Court of Justice, for instance. If it makes a decision at odds with German national law, or if Germany perceives that it oversteps its authority, German citizens will have the right to legal protection by the Federal Constitutional Court, even against EU regulations.

It must comfort German citizens to know they stand above EU law. But what about the lawmakers in Brussels, or the citizens of the other 26 EU member nations? Brussels will be forced to formulate laws and policies with the German high court peering over its shoulder, ready to shred any decision that doesn’t align with German interests or the German constitution. Citizens of other member states will have to stand idly by as the EU is stealthily subjugated by Berlin.

That’s democracy, German-style!

In its ruling, the German high court expressed concern that the EU in its current form is an undemocratic institution. It argued that this new law strengthening the role of the German parliament in Brussels would make the EU more democratic.

Look at history. Could there be a more terrifying LIE? Yet most of Europe has fallen for it!

In 1954, Herbert Armstrong wrote, “Nothing can prevent Germany from completely dominating Europe. Soon there will be the prophesied united Europe—the resurrected Roman Empire—with Germans in complete domination. IT’S PROPHESIED! It is hurtling on toward the destruction of America and Britain” (co-worker letter, Sept. 18, 1954). Mr. Armstrong was referring to prophecies in Isaiah, Daniel, Nahum, Hosea and Revelation 13 and 17, all of which speak about the emergence in the last days of a newly resurrected Holy Roman Empire—led by Germany!

This recent ruling by the German high court is direct fulfillment of this prophecy.

This new law will NOT make the EU more democratic. Germany will be the only member with a greater voice. It’s a stealthy ambush of Brussels that will only make the European Union even more German-centric, German-dependent and German-dominated. This legal decision will equip Berlin with far-reaching leverage over EU law and policy, and will ultimately advance Germany’s prophetic march to become the unchecked leader of a united European empire.

If you haven’t already started, now is the time to begin studying Bible prophecy, specifically those prophecies relating to Germany. A German-led European empire is building. You need to know how it will affect America, Britain and the rest of the world, how powerful it will ultimately become, how its reign will end, and what will come after it is gone.

We can help you answer these questions. Take the time to investigate and request the free literature offered to the right.

Believe it or not, this resurrected German empire is about to touch your life!

[White Rose Sophie]

See?  National Socialism (NAZI) was not defeated in WWII - just changed names!

WWII was just a dry run for the future.

Except the entire world is now alarmingly similar to the deluded German population of the 1930's.

[luckee1]

That first glance did look promising.  ooops

[Freeski]

See?  National Socialism (NAZI) was not defeated in WWII - just changed names!

WWII was just a dry run for the future.

Except the entire world is now alarmingly similar to the deluded German population of the 1930's.

Alarmingly similar, yes, now add the technology we have today. Scary stuff. I know we shouldn't be scared but I am.

[Sub-X]

Lisbon Will Force Abortion into Ireland through EU Charter of Human Rights: Irish Pro-Life Lobby
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09072006.html
20 July 2009

One of the Republic of Ireland's leading pro-life lobby groups has warned Irish voters that a vote for the Lisbon Treaty will be a vote against the country's constitutional protections for the unborn.

With the impending second Treaty referendum, Irish voters have been presented with postcards, paid for by the Department of Foreign Affairs, that assure that acceptance of the Lisbon Treaty will pose no threat to abortion laws or national sovereignty and independence. But these are empty promises that cannot be upheld under governing EU laws says Richard Greene, head of the lobby group Coir.

Green wrote Tuesday in the Irish Times that despite promises from the government that Ireland has "iron-clad" opt-outs from certain sections of the Treaty, these "Irish guarantees" do nothing to change the text of the Treaty itself and a Yes vote on Lisbon in October would lead to the overturning of Ireland's abortion law.

The Lisbon Treaty, he said, "will remain unchanged by any assurances obtained by the Government on any issue. Not a word or a comma will be altered. It is exactly the same treaty rejected last June by the Irish people."

Under the Treaty the national laws of each member state will be interpreted not through the state's courts, he said, but by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) that is under no legal obligation to consider any other law besides EU law. This means, Greene wrote, that the government's much-touted guarantees "are not part of any EU treaty (including the Lisbon Treaty), so cannot be considered EU law."

The main danger is the EU's Charter of Rights which is attached to the Treaty and becomes legally binding on all EU member states if Lisbon is passed. This Charter, Greene said, "will be the basis of a legal challenge to Ireland's abortion laws which will surely be brought before the European Court of Justice."

"This is the core of the problem. Any protocol on the right to life (or on family law) can come into conflict with the Charter - and the European Court of Justice can use the charter to overrule the conflicting protocol and impose abortion on the Irish people."

The guarantees were recently laid out in material for voters published by the Department of Foreign Affairs, which said that Ireland "retains control of sensitive ethical issues such as abortion." A postcard mailed to voters insist that the guarantees mean that Ireland (and all other member states) will keep its own Commissioners and remain in control of its own tax rates, that Irish neutrality will not be affected and there will be no conscription into an inter-EU military force.

Last week, Pat Buckley, the representative at Brussels of Britain's Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), gave the same warning against Lisbon, saying that under the Treaty, given the strongly pro-abortion sentiment of most European legal institutions, the ECJ will be in a position to order the Irish government to overturn its pro-life laws.

Irish voters are set to return to the polls on October 2, 2009. The 2008 referendum rejected Lisbon by a vote of 53.4 per cent to 46.6 per cent, with a turnout of 53.1 percent. Rural areas, where the majority of the public retain more traditional opinions on life and family issues, overwhelmingly rejected the Treaty while more urbanized Irish voted yes.

Ireland is the last member state in the EU to retain a legal requirement for a public plebiscite accepting the Treaty before the government can ratify. As far back as 1987, the Irish Supreme Court warned that a predecessor document to Lisbon, the Single European Act, would create significant changes to national sovereignty and said that such changes require a referendum. The Supreme Court said that the state's power to determine its foreign relations is "held in trust" from the people and may not be transferred by the national government to a supranational EU body without public approval.

[Sub-X]

Irish demand their pint for backing EU treaty
http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSTRE56L3JZ20090722
22 July 2009

DUBLIN (Reuters) - After abortion, the army and taxes, another pivotal issue has emerged in the debate over Ireland's ratification of the European Union's Lisbon reform treaty: the right to a single drink on the way home.

The Vintners' Federation of Ireland said on Wednesday plans to reduce the amount of alcohol that can be legally consumed before driving could make people vote "No" in the second referendum held on the treaty in Ireland in as many years.

"People in rural Ireland will see this as more of the nanny statism and it probably would affect the way they might consider voting in respect of the Lisbon treaty," said Padraig Cribben, chief executive of the Vintners' Federation of Ireland, which represents 5,000 publicans.

Reducing the limit would not save lives and put more than 1,000 pubs out of business by stopping drivers from enjoying a small drink, Cribben said, adding that speeding was the real threat to safety.

As such tough decisions are often blamed on Brussels, the move could turn people against the EU, he told Newstalk radio.

The Road Safety Authority says even a single drink impairs driving by affecting the ability to judge distances and risks and by slowing down decision-making.


  

[Protocol22]

Not So Hidden Face Of Europe ~ by Desso from France


July 22, 2009 by Infowars Ireland


An Irish expat living in France, Desso, after reading a particular comment posted to Infowars Ireland, was so affected by the images it portrayed that he created a picture slide show and sent it to us.

The comment was posted by Joe on July 7th, 2009 , in response to the article "Thirteen important things the Lisbon Treaty would do if it were to come into force".

Here is the slide-show: (Thank-you Desso)    http://info-wars.org/?p=3938     

[luckee1]

Pray tell that got published and is circulating in Ireland?

[Sub-X]

The Awkward Squad-Poles,Czechs and the Lisbon treaty
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14098451
23 July 2009

AFTER being subject to commissars in Moscow, some east Europeans are twitchy about commissioners in Brussels. But that only partly explains the reluctance of two presidents, Poland’s Lech Kaczynski and the Czech Republic’s Vaclav Klaus, to sign the European Union’s Lisbon treaty, which both countries’ parliaments have ratified.

Both men are famously prickly and prone to nit-picking. Both frame their objections in the language of national sovereignty. Both hate to see Ireland bullied—it is being asked to vote again on Lisbon on October 2nd. Mr Kaczynski similarly disliked the sanctions briefly imposed by the EU on Austria when the right-wing Freedom Party was in government. Mr Klaus says the EU elite cannot accept dissenting views (when visiting European parliamentarians attacked his Euroscepticism he compared them to communist-style thought police).

But the differences are bigger than the similarities. Mr Kaczynski’s opposition to Lisbon is about posturing not principle. He says publicly that he is merely waiting for the second Irish referendum before signing. Given that he helped to negotiate the treaty on Poland’s behalf, it would be hard for him to demonise it as Mr Klaus does. Indeed, Mr Kaczynski, who worries about waxing Russian influence and a waning American presence, has described the EU as “a great thing”.

The real reason for the Polish president’s delay is a desire to annoy the government led by Donald Tusk’s Civic Platform party. Mr Tusk defeated the government led by Law and Justice, headed by the president’s twin, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, in 2007. Mr Tusk’s emollient, pro-EU stance contrasts sharply with the Kaczynskis’ abrasive style. A delay over Lisbon also allows the president to grandstand on the EU’s “moral relativism” (meaning the incompatibility of its views of human rights with Polish social mores on homosexuality and the like).

Mr Klaus says he will get around to Lisbon only once everyone else has endorsed it. He will probably sign, but through gritted teeth. He would like a loose free-trade zone instead of what he sees as a nascent superstate. Unlike Mr Kaczynski, he is no Atlanticist; he gets on quite well with Russia. Also unlike Mr Kaczynski, he has the excuse that, though Lisbon passed the Czech parliament in May, it faces a court challenge by politicians from the Civic Democratic party that Mr Klaus once led.

Euroscepticism has only limited appeal in eastern Europe. The EU is widely seen as a guarantor of stability and progress: generous in paying for modernisation of public services and infrastructure and the best hope for fighting corruption. Lisbon is widely backed not on its merits but because its failure would risk pushing the EU into yet another interminable internal debate.

[Sub-X]

Obama-style campaign to be used to push yes vote on Lisbon Treaty
http://snardfarker.ning.com/profiles/blogs/obamastyle-campaign-to-be-used
21 July 2009

The Labour Party is vowing to launch an Obama-style campaign to secure a 'yes' vote in the re-run of the Lisbon Treaty referendum. The party says ratification of the contentious treaty is crucial to Ireland's economic recovery and will make Europe more democratic. It also says the issues that worried Irish people during the first referendum campaign have been addressed.

The Evening Herald

Also, here are a bunch of interviews on the Lisbon Treaty by a former Irishman, Ognir from TIU Radio and The Information Underground Forums.

TiU Radio July 13, 2009 Fighting the Lisbon Treaty mp3 download


TIU Radio July 13, 2009 Fighting the Lisbon Treaty mp3 download with guest Anthony Coughlin from National Platform


TiU Radio July 16, 2009 Fighting the Lisbon Treaty mp3 download with guest Michael Youlton from Campaign Against the EU Constitution


TiU Radio July 17, 2009 Fighting the Lisbon Treaty mp3 download with guest Frank Keoghane chair of The Peoples Movement


TiU Radio July 17, 2009 Fighting the Lisbon Treaty mp3 download with guest Richard Boyd Barrett from People Before Profit

TIU Radio July 20, 2009 Fighting the Lisbon Treaty mp3 download with guest David Noakes from Expose the EU Dictatorship and its Police State 

[Sub-X]

Lisbon will bolster EU's global presence
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0725/1224251303525.html
25 July 2009

WORLD VIEW: THIS IS an important year in the history of the European Union. It marks the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the fifth anniversary of the accession of 10 new member states from central and eastern Europe. It is an important year in Ireland’s relations with the union with the referendum in October, writes BRIGID LAFFAN .

Before the white heat of referendum politics hits, it is important to assess why the EU needs the Lisbon Treaty. Inevitably once the referendum campaign begins, the focus will be on Ireland and Irish interests, but in assessing Irish interests it is vital to maintain a European perspective. Being a member state of the EU embeds Ireland in the wider EU polity.

The Lisbon Treaty enhances the constitutional architecture of the EU. It is superior to the Nice treaty in three important respects to do with Europe’s role in the world, the democratic fabric of European integration and the union’s capacity to act.

First, Lisbon will strengthen Europe’s voice and presence in the world. Europe and Ireland face major challenges over the next 20 years. Global population is set to grow by 23 per cent to 2025 compared to just 2 per cent in Europe, which will leave Europe at just 6 per cent of world population in 2025.

We are already seeing a shift in economic power to the emerging markets, notably, China, India and Brazil.

The challenge of climate change and climate justice is becoming ever more pressing. Security threats have altered across the globe. The financial crisis brings it home to us just how connected the world is.

The Lisbon Treaty will not solve all of the challenges facing Europe in the world but it is vital to the union’s search for greater global coherence and presence. Under Lisbon provisions, the high representative of the union for foreign affairs and security policy chairs the Council of Foreign Ministers and is also a member of the commission, thus bringing together the political, economic and security dimensions of foreign policy for the first time.

Europe will have a more identifiable global presence. International institutions, particularly the UN, are looking to the EU to play its part in addressing global problems. UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon, on his recent visit to Dublin, spoke of the EU as one of the UN’s most important partners given its capacity for crisis management, humanitarian relief and rapid response. Lisbon will also improve the union’s ability to develop an energy policy and tackle climate change.

Second, Lisbon will build up the democratic fabric of the EU in a number of important respects. Lisbon provides a map of the values that underpin the EU. A reading of the opening articles of the treaty leaves no doubt about the strong normative dimension that characterises the EU. Those articles are further strengthened by the Charter of Fundamental Rights which will become part of the union’s legal architecture if Lisbon is ratified.

The democratic fabric of the union is further strengthened by the increased powers of the European Parliament, the only directly transnational parliament with real powers in the world. Beginning with the Single Act in 1987, the powers of the parliament have increased so that it has become an equal legislature with the Council of Ministers. The parliament represents the people, while the council represents the governments.

The role of national parliaments is greatly improved. National parliaments will receive draft European legislation at an earlier stage in the legislative process and will be able to issue a yellow or orange card if they feel that the union is acting beyond its competence. In addition, there is provision for individual citizens to band together to make petitions to the EU. Put simply, this treaty is better for parliaments and people.

Third, the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty will enable the union of 27 and more states to function more efficiently and transparently. The provisions of Lisbon are much clearer about the competences of the union and the competences of the member states.

The new voting system is far simpler than the existing one and its dual character protects the interests of both large and small states. The identification of a new role, President of the European Council, will endow the council with a personality and a coherence that it has lacked heretofore. The European Council is at the political heart of the European Union as it brings together all of Europe’s key political leaders in a common search for solutions to the problems that they face. No European country, even the largest, can solve the multiple problems facing the continent on its own.

When we come to vote in October, it is important to bring both a national and European perspective to bear in the ballot box because this small state has a vital interest in a well functioning EU with the capacity to respond to Europe’s multiple problems.

The union has been debating institutional and treaty change for over seven years now, sometimes at the expense of the bigger issues facing the continent. Failure to ratify the Lisbon Treaty would greatly weaken the European Union both internally and internationally. It could well trigger disintegrative forces within the union which is not in Ireland’s interest.

More importantly, Lisbon is superior to the existing treaty in terms of its core values, Europe’s role in the world, the union’s democratic fabric and its capacity to act. The EU needs the Lisbon Treaty.

Brigid Laffan is principal at the UCD College of Human Sciences and chairwoman of Ireland for Europe which is campaigning for a Yes vote on October 2nd;

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

Blah,blah blah makes Europe more democratic,blah blah blah Ireland will break Europe by voting No 

Mentioning democracy and Lisbon at the same time is a sick joke,mentioning the arse falling out of Europe while the sky comes crashing down is a boring one  France and Holland still have a sky as far as I know and Europe is still here,so I think its safe to say,by voting No,the worst that can happen is a review of the treaty in its entirety to by agreed on not just by the 27 heads of state and their parliaments,but also by the people.This would be democracy at its finest 

The most troubling aspect is the use of these tacked on meaningless guarantees,that can be overturned at any time as the bases of being unconstitutional under the new EU constitution(Lisbon Treaty),indicates that this is not a work in progress to be debated and amended where needed,this is all or nothing,there is no going back after this,we will be in a place where the EU constitutions supersedes all 27 states sovereign constitutions.

We are in deep shit without a paddle,a boat and arms if this treaty is passed and then we are going to wish the arse would fall out and the sky come crashing down upon us 

The triggering disintegrative forces on each of the 27 sovereign states constitutions is in nobody's interest.               

[Protocol22]

Bilderberger Peter Sutherland say’s Irish government should use exchequer funding to subvert Irish Constitution







THE GOVERNMENT should be able to spend exchequer funding on a campaign to encourage people to back changes it proposes to the Constitution, former EU commissioner, Peter Sutherland has said.

The Supreme Court’s McKenna judgment, which barred such spending, has “not merely been interpreted as inhibiting but actually as precluding” the Government from such spending, he said.

“This seems to be an unwarranted interference with the government of the country,” Mr Sutherland told the Institute of European Affairs during a speech on the October Lisbon Treaty referendum.

“I do not think that a government in a democratic state should be as restricted as it is in Ireland and an opportunity should be found to review this situation in the future,” he went on.

Pointing to the Hanafin v the Minister for the Environment ruling, Mr Sutherland said Mr Justice Barrington had then said that “the Government is [not] merely the chairman of the debating society”.

Politicians in favour of constitutional change were entitled to persuade the public to adopt a proposal “individually as private citizens or collectively as members of a political party or of the government”, the judge had said.

Ireland, said Mr Sutherland, who stands down as chairman of BP in September, has had numerous referendums on European Union treaties over the three decades of its membership. Read full article…  http://info-wars.org/?p=4021

[Sub-X]

Irish Friends of Palestine Against Lisbon put their case to the public in Dublin's Grafton Street
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/93281
25 July 2009

For the last three days, several activists from the recently formed campaigning group IFPAL (Irish Friends of Palestine Against Lisbon) manned a stall at the top of Dublin's Grafton St, conspicuously decorated with Palestinian flags billowing freely in the breezy, showery weather.

IFPAL seeks to highlight the negative effects of the European Common Foreign and Security Policy, particularly as displayed by Ireland's renunciation of its independent policy on the issue of Israel/Palestine in favour of conformity with that of the more powerful and pro-Israeli EU members. Some 1,300 leaflets were distributed, stating that:

    • EU foreign policy has damaged the human and political rights of the Palestinian people by giving Israel financial and political support regardless of its gross human rights violations in breach of numerous statutes of international humanitarian law and the EU-Israel Trade Agreement.
    • EU foreign policy has emboldened Israel which continues its policies of murder, ethnic cleansing, illegal detention, home demolition, land and water theft, construction of the illegal apartheid wall, torture, genocide and apartheid without fear of sanction from the EU.
    • It would pivot Ireland from its present status as an independent sovereign country to that of a minor subordinate in a newly constituted European superstate.
    • It would allow the EU Council to change the manner in which EU foreign policy is decided from unanimity to qualified majority vote thus removing Ireland’s veto.
    • Ireland would be obliged to uphold the common EU foreign policy - even if we disagree with the policy.
    • Ireland would lose its sovereign right to espouse an independent foreign policy, even in the United Nations where a new EU foreign minister, as proposed by the Lisbon Treaty, would represent all EU member states.
    • EU foreign policy is decided behind closed doors away form the gaze of public scrutiny and is being manipulated by a well funded Zionist lobby embedded in the political architecture of the larger states that dominate and control EU foreign policy.

The EU claims to be guided by values of human dignity, liberty, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and respect for human rights. This claim is exposed as a lie when we examine the EU’s relationship with the rogue Israeli state.

The EU aids and supports Israel

When Israel launched a 22 day assault against defenceless, impoverished and imprisoned civilians in Gaza, already severely weakened by a devastating two year siege - a war crime - the EU took no action to protect these people or to rein in or to sanction Israel. As the people of Gaza were attacked day and night from land, sea, and air with weapons of mass destruction, including white phosphorous bombs and flechette nail bombs, the EU continued to promote economic and diplomatic relations with Israel. No Israeli ambassadors were expelled from any EU member state and none of the EU states withdrew their ambassadors from Israel – the very minimum that should have been done. The EU gave Israel the Green light to continue its assault which killed 1417 people including 315 children and left hundreds of others burned, blinded, crippled, and maimed for life in an impoverished and ruined ghetto that has neither the facilities or the means to care for these people. Six months later and the EU has not sent a single ship with aid to the port in Gaza.

Irish Foreign Policy now decided by the EU.

The common EU foreign and security policy has already had a serious negative impact on Irish foreign policy. This is evident from the decisions agreed by Irish foreign minister Michael Martin which are counter to Ireland’s proud record of supporting human rights and the rule of law. In June 2008 Minister Martin agreed to upgrade relations with Israel even though in the previous five months Israel killed over 300 Palestinians, including 60 children. He failed to use the Irish veto to block the EU upgrade despite Israel’s actions which also breached the “essential” human right Article of the EU-Israel Trade Agreement. In doing do he also ignored a direct plea from the Palestinian Prime Minister to our Taoiseach not to agree the EU upgrade. When Israel killed over 300 children in January, Minister Martin took no action to punish Israel for its gross human rights violations. He refused to withdraw the Irish Ambassador or to expel the Israeli ambassador or to even call for a suspension of the EU-Israel trade agreement which affords Israel lucrative concessions on its exports to the EU, its largest trading partner; Minister Martin failed to act because he could not do so without breaching the Common EU Foreign and Security Policy which shelters Israel from sanctions and which all EU states have agreed to uphold. This situation will be set in stone if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified. Israel will continue to be sheltered and aided by the EU and Ireland will have to comply.

The response to the stall was generally favourable, but many people expressed their surprise that this perspective had never been drawn to their attention before. Many, as expected, agreed with IFPAL's point of view but felt intimidated by economic scaremongering. Others said they would vote no anyway, and were delighted to be given a further reason. A remarkable number of Israeli tourists stopped by, most of them disapproving and one or two almost violently hostile. This would seem to confirm that the vast majority of Israelis (100% as far as tourists in Ireland are concerned) are fully content with the criminal policies of their government. IFPAL believes that the Irish government and the Irish people shouldn't share their contentment!

[luckee1]

Screw Sutherland!!  Using the taxpayers money to promote and advertize the agenda!! 

Irish Friends of Palestine Against Lisbon.  Whoa!  This introduces a new element.  Makes one wonder how they are treated, as they don't  prefer the pet of the monarchy, Israel.  This is waxing interesting.

[Sub-X]

Screw Sutherland!!  Using the taxpayers money to promote and advertize the agenda!! 

Irish Friends of Palestine Against Lisbon.  Whoa!  This introduces a new element.  Makes one wonder how they are treated, as they don't  prefer the pet of the monarchy, Israel.  This is waxing interesting.

Yeah Peter Sutherland is a worthless human being,nothing he says surprises me,its what we have come to expect from him and people like him.

As for the IFPAL,I'm really glad I caught this article,definitely brings another dimension to reasons for voting No,a lot of Irish people are very sympathetic to the Palestinians struggle for the obvious reasons(as much as we do for the Iraq's and the Afghans).Though the saddest part is this is further proof of Ireland's neutrality is a thing of the past.Renditions flights,troops in Afghanistan and a lack of compassion towards the plight of the people of Palestine.

Slightly off this particular topic but with Ireland's peace keepers held in the highest regard in places they have been station around the world,I fear this reputation could lead our peace keepers to the roll of the PR division,the smiling trusting faces for the jack booted nazis food for thought.           

[Sub-X]

Czech president refers Lisbon Treaty to court
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/5913219/Czech-president-refers-Lisbon-Treaty-to-court.html
26 July 2009

Supported by 17 Czech senators, Mr Klaus, a critic of the treaty, plans to refer the document to his country's constitutional court at the start of August.

In seeking a ruling on whether the treaty complies with the Czech constitution, Mr Klaus would be able to delay signing the treaty into Czech law until the court had given its verdict.

That could thwart the ambitions of Sweden, current holder of the EU's rotating presidency, to see the Treaty's provisions pushed through before the end of the year if Ireland votes to approve the treaty in its Oct 2 referendum.

Fredrik Reinfeldt, the Swedish prime minister, said recently he wanted to see the EU "move over to the Lisbon Treaty, if possible, late in our presidency".

He wants an EU heads of state summit in Brussels on 29-30 October to nominate candidates for two influential posts which will be created if, and when, the treaty is ratified. The posts are President of the European Council, for which Tony Blair is expected to be the UK government's candidate, and a new High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy.

The treaty, which also envisages an EU diplomatic service, is highly controversial because its critics say it will strip member states of many of their powers.

Germany and Poland still have to ratify the treaty. While they are widely expected to do so, any further delay could hold up the appointment of the new European Commission, which is due to take office on Nov 1.

Andrew Duff, the UK Liberal MEP, accused Mr Klaus of procrastinating.

Meanwhile, one of the key figures in the pro-treaty campaign in Ireland has admitted that the "Yes" camp faces a "tough campaign" over the next two months.

The latest opinion polls suggest a "Yes" vote would be possible, but Pat Cox, campaign director of Ireland for Europe, an independent civil society group promoting ratification, said, "Ireland is a very different place today to what it was a year ago. The financial crisis has rocked our confidence. We are reeling from a series of body blows over the last 12 months. There is no room for complacency.

"There are those on the No side who will seek to exploit our present uncertainty to encourage the Irish people to vote against our own interests and reject the Treaty.   

"We do not plan to let them succeed," Mr Cox, a former Irish MEP and president of the European Parliament, added.

[luckee1]

"We do not plan to let them succeed," Mr Cox, a former Irish MEP and president of the European Parliament, added.

So much for the voting!  Just how do his plans read?  Evidently by will of the people.

[Sub-X]

So much for the voting!  Just how do his plans read?  Evidently by will of the people.

No thats what happened last time and we did it wrong and voted No,we can not be left to our own devices 

[Sub-X]

Anger reigns supreme, down on the farm
The Post.ie
26 July 2009

Anger is surging through the Irish farming community.

Anger at falling prices for their produce, falling subsidies from the state and the EU and, now, further threats to programmes such as the Rural Environmental Protection Scheme (Reps), grants from which give support to so many struggling farms.

The thousands of farmers who descended on Cavan to protest at agriculture minister Brendan Smith’s constituency office, and the hundreds who laid siege to his car in Cork days earlier, made that anger plain enough; as did the large crowd which turned up when Taoiseach Brian Cowen opened a road in East Galway last Thursday.

The Cork protest was particularly rough, and deliberately so. The Irish Farming Association is used to organising demonstrations. IFA president Padraig Walshe later declined to condemn it.

Walshe and other farm leaders have pledged a campaign against the ‘‘Dublin 4 economics’’ of the Bord Snip Nua report, which recommends an end to various agricultural and rural subsidies.

Expect tractors on Kildare Street before long. And yet, in the middle of this maelstrom of protest against the government, the IFA’s national council voted unanimously last week to back the government’s Lisbon Treaty referendum- the very measure they threatened repeatedly to oppose last year.

The discussion, according to one person present, took about 20 minutes, and not one voice was raised against the treaty. Even allowing for the fact that Walshe is now head of the European farmers organisation, this is a pretty abrupt change.

What’s happened? ‘‘Last year we had a problem with a commissioner, this year we have a problem with the government,” said an IFA spokesman. But this doesn’t really account for the difference in attitude.

The calculations of the farmers’ leadership about Lisbon has changed after the fallout from last year’s No vote.

Nobody plays the Brussels lobbying game more smartly than the farming organisations; nobody was more aware of the distinct chill towards Ireland last summer. With battles on reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (Cap)and trade deals to come, the IFA will need allies.

So it has decided not to risk a repeat of last year’s approach when the farmers’ opposition to EU proposals to cut farm subsidies at the world trade talks in Geneva led them to repeatedly threaten to withdraw support for the Lisbon Treaty, unless the government promised to veto the EU’s trade proposals, as led by then commissioner Peter Mandelson.

At first, the government refused to accede to the farmers’ demands, and an extended game of chicken dragged on until newly-installed Taoiseach Brian Cowen caved in - a development memorably (if controversially) introduced by RTE broadcaster Sean O’Rourke when he opened his News at One report with the words: ‘‘Did Biffo blink?”

The IFA immediately recommended a Yes vote but, for supporters of Lisbon, the damage had been done. The farmers’ advertised willingness to vote against Lisbon had moved opposition to the treaty from the margins to the mainstream in a way which - allied to a similar position by some trade unions - allowed people who thought of themselves as proEuropean to oppose the treaty.

This was a crucial departure. ‘‘It told people, ‘in the past, you believed Europe was on your side - now it’s plotting against you’,” said one senior member of the government’s campaign team of last year. ‘‘The farmers legitimised the idea of being against Lisbon in the political mainstream.”

It also encouraged people to see the Lisbon Treaty as a way of hitting out at the government - even if Cowen’s government wasn’t remotely as unpopular then as it is now. In the event, post-referendum polls by Red C for The Sunday Business Post showed that more than 60 per cent of farmers voted in favour of the treaty - still not a terribly high number for a group which has been one of the great beneficiaries of European Union membership.

Moreover, given that farmers’ opposition was, in the main, purely tactical rather than principled, it was an unflattering majority for the Yes side. The numbers have, however, moved a bit since. In the most recent Sunday Business Post poll on the treaty, taken at the end of May, three-quarters of farmers said they were likely to vote in favour of the measure.

Meanwhile, a campaign of protest by farmers against cutbacks - those proposed and those already announced - will continue. Farming incomes, many of them marginal, are under pressure.

Average farm income, according to a recent Teagasc study, is less than €20,000; compare this to the average industrial wage of nearly €40,000 and the average public sector pay of nearly €50,000. Fewer than half of those farms are full-time, but now farmers’ off-farm income is suffering too. Cutting Reps and other subsidies could not come at a worse time for them. On those numbers, Reps payouts of €6,000-€8,000 are not insignificant.

Relations with the government are poor, and will get worse. A meeting between farm leaders and Cowen ten days ago was sharp and, at times, heated. As the government faces into an autumn of cuts, that atmosphere is unlikely to get any better. Only this time, Lisbon won’t be the battlefield.

[Femacamper]

I wanna see the Irish Revolution...