Saying NO across the spectrum
The 26 Counties is set for a debate that could fundamentally affect the future of the EU this year.
After the people of France and the Netherlands killed off the European Constitution by voting No in 2005, the project was rebranded as the Lisbon Treaty in 2007. Member states have until 2009 to ratify this new version or it too will fall. However, European leaders openly conspired to deny people their voice, recognising the Treaty would be rejected and only Ireland (part of anyway) seems set to have a referendum.
The majority of the political establishment in the south is openly endorsing the treaty, with even the Greens adopting a strange position where the parliamentary party will support the treaty while the rest of the membership can campaign how they choose.
At present there are two major campaigns in opposition:
The Campaign Against the EU Constitution (CAEUC) which incorporates a range of left wing opinion and groups – Communist Party of Ireland, Community Action and workers Group, éirígí, National Platform, Peace and Neutrality Alliance, People Before Profit, People’s Movement, Socialist Party, Socialist Workers Party, Workers Party – along with SF and elements of the Green party including former MEP Patricia McKenna.
and
Libertas, a right leaning campaign with major input from politics.ie supremo David Cochrane, backed by former FF donor multimillionaire Declan Ganley and receiving legal advice from Michael McDowell.
As yet the date for the referendum hasn’t been set but Europe’s eyes will be increasingly fixed on Ireland as it approaches.
Brian, you can play the game too. Tell the world that you are a whistle blower and your employer is corrupt and your bosses won’t listen to you when you tell them so (no need to present any evidence to back up your claim). See how long you keep your job.
Marta Andreasen was very public about getting fired by the European Commission but less so about her previous termination of employment at the OSCE. In fact she was very very quiet about that.
Give us some pithy insight on that then.
CS
You don’t like America..Tough shit. All my statements still stand about Turkey. Muslims murderers are vile and the sooner we blow them to allah the better. Silence is consent as far as the rest of the ‘moderates’ go. Pull your head out of your ass and face reality.
I have not defended Bush….he has been far to weak on crushing these islamic terrorists and the mexican invasion. Use your labels and motive assignments, can’t argue the truth.
BfB,
none of your assertions about the CDU stood. In fact, you made them up. I presented evidence to prove you made it up.
As you seem incapable of backing up anything you say with anything close to evidence and in fact seem to make things up, why should anybody believe what you have to say about Turkey, blowing up people or any of your other crazy ideas.
Your truth is not the truth. If you ask me, it’s madness.
“I understand that people can be for or against the European Union. I personally am for the EU, the Euro etc.
I can see no evidence whatsoever of the EU being some sort of socialist conspiracy. And where is the slightest bit of evidence for claiming that the EU is a belligerent warmongering entity? I don´t belief that for a minute.” – foreign correspondent
Complete disregard for democracy … check
Only one member state of 27 member state in total has the right to decide its own future. Why? Because socialists harbour contempt for democracy, knowing that the people do not support the engineering for a socialist superstate and knowing that the people would vote against the project if proper debate and democracy was permitted, those who are engineering the project seek to deny the people the right to vote on it. What more proof do you need of utter contempt for democracy that the one that is unfolding in real-time before your eyes? Why do they know this? Because this treaty was rejected by the people the last time they tried to get it past the people, so they tweaked it a little, renamed it, and decided to force it past the people without giving them the right to reject it again just as they rejected it before. Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states: “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” This fundamental right is being utterly violated here.
Aggressively expansionist… check
They have a nice neutral term for this: ‘enlargement.’ Expanding from 6 member states to 27 member states, and deliberating about ‘enlarging’ to include Russia, Middle Eastern and North African countries is an aggressively expansionist agenda. What makes you think this aggressive expansionism won’t be perused by force rather than by subterfuge when Europe becomes a nation state with its own army and a mission to spread socialism? Do you think that people who show such contempt for democracy that they seek to further their ulterior agenda without debate and without granting the citizens of member states the right to decide their own destiny in accordance with Article 1 of the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights will suddenly regain respect for democracy after they successfully subvert it? No, a more reasonable conclusion is that those who show contempt for the will of the people actually harbour contempt for the will of the people and that such contempt is the basis by which force is used to force compliance – once they get themselves into a position where they can use force to further their expansionist agenda.
Conspiratorial… check
Gee, do I really need to explain this one? The whole premise of the EU is about subversion, as it subverts the rights of countries and subverts the rights of the people to decide their own future, subverting cultures and the rights of individuals to homogenise peoples into one new identity of ‘European,’ moving from its original position of creating a common market in which goods could be sold to creating a common country which more controls all aspects of our lives, not simply common standards relating to goods manufacturing and supply or to excise legislation. This is the socialist state by the backdoor. For an example, see this Slugger thread. There is a step-by-step approach in play to get EU tax harmonisation by granting a veto to member states giving them the false impression of retaining tax soverienty, but this veto is de facto useless and it will be removed in time under some other pretext such as further ‘reforming’ the system to ‘improve’ it. Now, why do socialists want tax harmonisation? Simple, because competition between member states for inward investment keeps taxes low – if a member state has high taxes, business will relocate to a member state with lower rates. So in order to raise taxes to pay for the socialist superstate, they have to remove the competition within member states that exists on tax rates. That removes the option from companies to relocate – since all member states have one tax rate, all member states can have one high tax rate and business will just have to pay it if they want to do business within the EU. Unsurprisingly, most multinationals will choose to do business among the 995% of the world’s population who are not in the EU, so the EU will begin to fail just as all socialist states fail.
Continued
Socialist… check
There is no secret about this: it is the stated policy of the socialists who are engineering it. For example, former French President Jacques Chirac, spent his time in office pushing for a European Constitution and pushing full integration of all member states into one European entity, even calling for an elite group of member states to move faster towards European integration than others as a tactic of forcing the others to follow suit. The French Prime then, Minister Lionel Jospin, wanted the EU to adopt a far more socialist agenda. He, however, differed from Chirac in that he wanted a federation of member states rather than full integration. The constitution is a crucial step in the EU’s step-by-step approach to engineering a socialist superstate. Once it gets that (and this treaty is a rehash of the rejected treaty), it will be past the point of no return on its way to a homogenised superstate, with the remainder being its own flag, anthem, government, etc. It already thinks it is a nation state and wishes to appoint its own Foreign Minister… big clue, eh? Look back to how it started – as a common market – and look at how it has progressed by stealing sovereignty and independence from member states and transferring them to the new authority, so with a minimal amount of forward thinking, you can see exactly where it is going. In fact, you have to wear horse blinkers not to see it.
The above are not the hallmarks of people who respect other people; they are the hallmarks of the USSR. It’s not what people say they are doing, it’s what they are actually doing that you need to scrutinise – and form your own conclusions. Say ‘No’ to the Lisbon Treaty and free the free the citizens from the tyranny that is being imposed upon them without their consent. Irrespective of what you think about Europe, do not forsake the principle that people have the right to decide their own future, and vote against this treaty simply because you are the only member state with the option. The citizens of all member states should have had that right, too. Send the right message back to the tyrants: contempt for democracy will not be tolerated.
CS Parnell,
She was Head of the Accounting Division at the OECD (not OSCE as I have it above) in the late 90s. She was suspended. She was public about it at first but when her wars with the European Commission started a few years later any questions on her time at the OECD were met with silence. When questioned she was strangely quiet for one so keen to portray herself as a martyr in the cause of transparency.
When she fell out with the Commission, and Neil Kinnock in particular, she worked through the Conservative eurosceptics to publicise her case but as time went on she drifted across the political spectrum to the point where she has ended up with UKIP. Some would say that nearly a decade after her fall-out with the OECD she has at last found her spiritual home.
The Dubliner,
The closest anology most of us would have to your ‘socialist superstate’ would be the arguments betweem ‘state’s rights’ and Federal law in the USA, especially as the arguments came up during the Civil Rights era.
There will be tensions between the local nation states and any central Executive and Assembly but surely this is something which is as likely to be used for good as for evil? Socialism in the sense you use it seems to stand for too much central planning, which most of us would condemn, but state’s rights can equally be a cover for total de-regulation which is equally liable to be mis-used, the de-regulation of meat and bone meal use landing us with foot and mouth disease being just one obvious example.
We need competing leadership at every level, it’s the best way to keep them on their toes. We saw what restricting competition to the level of nation states has meant in the last century – two world wars and the possibility of annihilation by atomic weapons. There is no pre-ordained level at which authority stops and the nation-state is no more infallible than any other group.
lib2016, people are post-nationalist, not nation states. Perhaps that is where your confusion arises? Europe cannot be post-nationalist, even if its people call themselves that trendy label. There is no such thing as a state that is not a nation state or a nation state that is not nationalist. I don’t see how I can make it any clearer. Therefore, you are deluded when you say that Europe will be post-nationalist.
Both of those ‘world wars’ (which were not world wars) were caused by imperialism, not nationalism. Europe is imperialism by another name. Europe, as a nation state, will account for 5% of the world’s population. The other 95% will still live in nation states outside of Europe. Sorry, kid, the nation state isn’t going anywhere. All you are doing is merging 5% of the world’s population into another nation state – and one that is aggressively expansionist.
By the way, lib2016, all these projects can be made to sound like Nirvana. The USSR sounded like a great idea to the socialists at the time.
G-d save us from sentimental idiots.
George, you’re a loser in fantasy land. Any research shows I’m right in my assessment of the German Christians waffling until they can weedle Turkey in. If they did not want them in the should have rejected Turkey outright. They can’t, because the ‘disaffected young turks’ would be burning cars in a heart beat. Wake up and smell the coffee.
The Kurds
The Euphrates
Turkish muslim extremists
Turkish muslim unrest in Germany
BfB:
You don’t like America..Tough shit.
Jesus, Bob. We’re talking about Europe and Turkey, and you use my opinions to suggest that I “don’t like America”. Well, you’re wrong there. I think the USA is great. I visit at least every two years, and I’ll be going to Las Vegas again this year. I like the place a lot. I have enough friends there to know that your ignorant and moronic perspective of life isn’t one that is universally shared by the people who live there.
The USA has in many ways in the past made sacrifices to make life better for other people in different parts of the world. On many other occasions, it has conspired to make life worse for people in different parts of the world. Observing this fact doesn’t mean that I hate the country. It means that I disagree with aspects of it’s foreign policy, an opinion held my many Americans and an opinion that people are free to hold. I appreciate that you lack the intellectual depth to distinguish between disagreement between mature adults, and an irrational hatred for a foreign state, but I suggest that you spend some time doing a bit more reading and thinking.
All my statements still stand about Turkey.
But you won’t back them up. Funny that.
Muslims murderers are vile and the sooner we blow them to allah the better.
I think that all murderers are vile, not just muslims. Well over a million people are dead in Iraq. Isn’t that equally vile ? Or is murder only murder depending on whom you choose to worship ? In that case, what should we do about Christian murderers, such as those who blow up abortion clinics in the USA ?
Silence is consent as far as the rest of the ‘moderates’ go.
That’s Osama Bin Laden’s policy, and that’s how he justified the 9/11 attacks. It’s unsurprising to see that you and he are on the same page.
Pull your head out of your ass and face reality.
Facing it right now, pal. American foreign policy since 2001/02 has led directly to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians, thousands of US soldiers (more US soldiers and contractors have died in Iraq than the total bodycount of 9/11) and it has increased international terrorism, and created more enemies – far from defeating them, it has created a hostile body politic in Iraq and is in the process of consolidating another one in Afghanistan.
Stop fucking up other people’s countries.
I have not defended Bush,
Don’t give me that, you liar. You defended Bush wall-to-wall on all the threads about the US election. Want me to dig out quotes of you doing it ?
….he has been far to weak on crushing these islamic terrorists and the mexican invasion. Use your labels and motive assignments, can’t argue the truth.
Your hatred of people based upon their religion and their race speaks for itself, and requires no comment from me.
CS
Your trainspotting rants make you look the fool. I don’t hate the murdering muslims. I want them dead before they kill more innocent people. Mostly fellow muslims btw. I hope you enjoy your trips to San Fransico. Your glazed eyed parroting of death tolls shows me where you get your facts. I presented evidence about Turkey, done with your ignorance of that. Your type of high on the hill, ‘nuetral’ observer crap sickens me. The US for all it’s faults is trying to protect itself. You and your nancy EU sisters can only fling witty rejoinders, with the usual fact denying essays. I say get off your coward asses and do something about these murdering menaces (who will gladly tell you in video and print what their intentions are) or go sip your toddies and shut the fuck up about those of us who are willing to sacrifise for a better world. You are a collossal twat. Really.
Tsk, tsk.
This may have something to do with it.
BfB
Your number 15 post is a really good example of how both US citizens like yourself and the followers of Bin Laden confuse cultural matters with the norms of islam. Historically in places like the part of Pakistan the people come from who are mentioned in the article you posted, it was necessary to survive for families to inter marry within one and another [the British royal family did this for centuries to increase its wealth] This has led to problems today when children are born, this is a cultural phenomena not one of religion..
I do not believe people must travel to far flung countries before they comment on them, as to do so would exclude most debate, but if we are to understand peoples who adhere to a different faith or way of life to that of our own it helps to understand them.
Unless you travelled over seas in the military, which is something different, I doubt you have been to many countries in which islam is the main faith, for if you had you would understand that the people in these nations are little different from ourself in their aspirations.
Myself I believe all religion is a curse, but hell what do I know; and I have no wish to inflict my own prejudices on others. Perhaps you should lighten up and consider that when it comes to religion nothing is black and white and just as I know your somewhat strident opinions about muslims is not representative of all US citizens. You would do well to consider that the overwhelming majority of muslims have only contempt for bin Laden and those who advocate his views.
Your trainspotting rants make you look the fool. I don’t hate the murdering muslims.
You don’t hate people you describe as “murdering” ? That’s very genial of you.
I hope you enjoy your trips to San Fransico.
So you’re a homophobe as well. It’s a real pretty picture we’re getting here.
Your glazed eyed parroting of death tolls shows me where you get your facts.
List the parts that you’re disputing, and we’ll sort it out.
I presented evidence about Turkey, done with your ignorance of that.
I wasn’t talking about Turkey. And you didn’t present any evidence to support your claims about the CDU.
Your type of high on the hill, ‘nuetral’ observer crap sickens me. The US for all it’s faults is trying to protect itself.
In what way did the Iraq invasion achieve that ?
You and your nancy EU sisters can only fling witty rejoinders, with the usual fact denying essays.
What you’re saying is that you can’t hack it when someone comes back at you with a reasoned argument. Why am I not surprised ?
I say get off your coward asses and do something about these murdering menaces (who will gladly tell you in video and print what their intentions are) or go sip your toddies and shut the fuck up about those of us who are willing to sacrifise for a better world. You are a collossal twat. Really.
Let’s talk about cowards, Bob. What military service have you done in Iraq or Afghanistan ?
CS
You’re full of it. Labels, motive assignment, stem to stern. You are a jellyfish. Well written, but spineless nonetheless. Tell me what I’m saying, swami.
Tsk, tsk.
I’m moving on. You stay in the clown car.
Girls, can we stay on topic?
Vincent Browne has a great article in the SBP wherein he exposes the fraud that our politicians are attempting to perpetrate upon the people with this dismal treaty. He points out that we should not alter our fundamental rights without knowing exactly what we are altering and how we will be effected by the alterations, and that as we have no way of knowing exactly what we are altering, we should err on the side of caution and vote against the Reform Treaty:
“Just think of the sheer outrageous arrogance of our betters who want us to go into the ballot boxes sheepishly and vote Yes to a treaty that we cannot possibly understand from the documentation they have made available.
If you were asked by a bank manager or estate agent or solicitor to sign a form, wouldn’t you insist on knowing in advance what it was before doing so?
Why, then, are we expected to approve a treaty that affects our Constitution (for if it didn’t affect our Constitution, we would not have to vote at all) without being able to understand what it is about, other than by trusting the word of these arrogant trick artists?
I would bet my bottom dollar that not one of the following gang have a bull’s notion of what this treaty means article by article, for the good reason that it is literally incomprehensible: Bertie Ahern, Dermot Ahern, Brian Cowen, Dick Roche, Mary Harney, John Gormley, Enda Kenny, Eamon Gilmore and the rest. Even Alan Dukes – and even more Brendan Halligan (the guy who is chairman of the European Institute of European Affairs in North Great George’s Street, near where David Norris lives).
The only responsible, sensible, reasonable, intelligent course of action to adopt is to vote No to this treaty on the grounds that we don’t know – and can’t know – what it means.”
” we should err on the side of caution and vote against the Reform Treaty:”
Dubliner,
You have posted really informative good posts lately, thanks. I agree totally with the above, whilst being in favor of European integration this treaty is a step to far, as it puts the cart before the horse and Vincent is correct when he suggest the electorate err on the side of caution and vote against the Reform Treaty.
Adter all there is no real hurry, lets democratize the EU before we go creating a post of President of Europe and signing documents like the Lisbon Treaty. The founders of the USA quite correctly cried no taxation without representation and it is time we Europeans took that cry up.
The Dubliner
Girls, can we stay on topic?
Vincent Browne has a great article in the SBP wherein he exposes the fraud that our politicians are attempting to perpetrate upon the people with this dismal treaty. He points out that we should not alter our fundamental rights without knowing exactly what we are altering and how we will be effected by the alterations, and that as we have no way of knowing exactly what we are altering, we should err on the side of caution and vote against the Reform Treaty:
I’d disagree with you that the EU is a Socialist plot (if anything, the changes it has produced have massively favoured capital) but this is 100% spot on.
I have yet to hear a single case put for the treaty on its own merits. The arguments seem to be base don “not being left behind”, “embarrassing ourselves”, and vagaries about “needing to streamline”. I’m perfectly open to a reforming treaty if a case is made, but that sends big alarm bells ringing on my head.
The most worrying on I heard was that changes could be made in Europe that would affect the Constitution without the need for a referendum in Ireland but I don’t know if it is true. That should be a deal killer for any serious repbublican and democrat.
Thanks for the kind words, Mick. While I think Vincent Browne’s argument is an irrefutable reason to vote No, I’d be against it even if the local government wasn’t trying to hoodwink the people as he exposed since I am against the EU having any role other than an advisory standards agency. Vincent has exposed the contempt in which the people are held by the EU and those domestic charlatans who proffer it as a source of lucrative careers for political hacks and expired prime ministers. As he points out, comprehension of the Reform Treaty is impossible without cross-referencing it to other treaties that have not been supplied for the purpose. So, clearly, the government expect the people to vote Yes without supplying them the information on which to base an informed decision, i.e. the treaties. They expect people to vote Yes just because they tell them to.
That’s right, Kensei – while an admirer of Charlie McCreevy, his argument that Ireland should vote Yes because if he voted No we would be “a laughing stock across Europe” was utter contemptible and puerile.
None of the other governments will trust their own people to come up with the ‘right’ answer. When the good people of France and the Netherlands rejected the Euro-Constitution, its protagonists decided not to take that risk again. Lisbon is that Constitution reframed.
Brown reneged on the Labour manifesto commitment to hold a referendum so the hopes of the peoples of Europe lies once again with the people of Ireland. Here’s hoping for a decisive No vote, even if it’s just for the fun of seeing the Leinster House establishment’s discomfort.