“It is a real political mess..”

Today’s Irish Times editorialised about the “real political mess”, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s ‘Lisbon or Nice’ comments to the European Parliament, “We are gradually becoming aware of the damage done to Ireland’s reputation and loss of influence among political leaderships in existing and applicant states”, before ending on this note.

Most EU opinion agrees with Mr Sarkozy’s remark yesterday that “institutional things are for members of parliament, not referendums” but, alone among the 27states, we have a written Constitution which allows the people to decide.

It’s a point explored further by Ruth Barrington, a member of The Irish Times Trust and the board of The Irish Times Limited, in the comment section

Many commentators have suggested that a second referendum is unavoidable. If the Government decides on this course, it would seem sensible to clarify the reasons why a referendum is necessary. The Oireachtas could enact a Bill ratifying the Lisbon Treaty on the understanding that the President might use her discretion to refer the Bill to the Supreme Court under Article 26 for a test of its constitutionality. This would establish what exactly in the Lisbon Treaty requires a constitutional amendment. Any referral would have to be on the basis that, were the Supreme Court to find that the Lisbon Treaty did not require a constitutional amendment, a second referendum would be held. We would at least be clearer about why we are voting.

Not that her argument impressed Richard Delevan, who adds an interesting historical example of how a Treaty Constitutional referendum campaign should be held.

What does it say that the arguments and process around the US ratification 220 years ago are considered the vital and legitimate Enlightenment project that led to a remarkable result, and the present European process seems alternatively revolted and terrified of writing a simple deal, openly making the case for it and treating opponents as legitimate interlocutors?

, , , , ,

  • joeCanuck

    One of the beauties of the US Constitution is that it written in language that most people can understand.
    If the bureaucrats in Europe, encouraged by their political masters, can write a constitutionTreaty that few can understand, then said politicians have no right to moan and complain when the public rejects accepting the unknown.

  • Pete Baker

    Joe

    It’s worth noting Richard’s referencing of the meta-process involved in the US example.

    The American ratification process is something that really should have been looked at by now in a serious way in the present circumstances. Not just the majoritarian mechanics but the meta-process. The Federalists arguing for the Constitution published hundreds of articles making their case to the electors about why a central government was needed, what it would be like, what it would do and not do – the Federalist Papers are still relied upon for the American Supreme Court to better understand what “the framers” meant by various provisions. Pretty useful stuff, really.

  • Dave

    It’s rather typical of a liberal propaganda rag like The Irish Times to proffer a role for Ireland as being a servile supplicant of the EU, suppressing its own will lest it impede the will of others, causing offence to them. Whose will is to take priority in Ireland: the will of the Irish or the will of foreigners? Sovereignty isn’t an abstraction – there are very real consequences to surrendering national sovereignty. Very few EU supporters have any idea of what it means to separate the nation from control of the state or that such is the modus operandi of the EU in order to engineer the emergent state of Europe. They don’t know now but they will rapidly find out if the Lisbon Treaty is ever implemented – and that’s when they won’t be able to silence the people.

    The actual reason that the people were permitted to approve or disapprove of a document that alters their fundamental rights is explicitly anti-democratic: Europhiles know that the people do not approve and, ergo, they have conspired to exclude the people from voting. Unlike the ‘hard’ totalitarianism of Nazism, communism and fascism, the ‘soft’ totalitarianism of the EU is advanced not by force but by bribery, bureaucracy, propaganda, coercion, and by systematically undermining the democratic processes of its member states but what they both have in common is a sinister disregard for the will of people (those who are not part of the governing elite).

    The EU project has no democratic legitimacy. It has no right to self-determination under international law. It has no right to become a state. The governments of its member states have no right to surrender the national sovereignty of the states that they represent to the EU. Those governments do not own the national sovereignty of the states that they serve and they do not own their nation’s claim to self-determination. That right resides with the people. It is they alone who must renounce their right to be a nation-state.

    The legal basis for the EU to impose laws on its laws on its member states is a series of treaties that those member states have signed. However, those governments have no right to surrender the right of their nations to self-government in those treaties. There is no legitimate basis for any government elected by the people to abolish the right of the people to self-determination to or surrender it to others. Those parliaments who have been coerced by the EU into doing this have committed acts of treason against their nations.

    Some blackguards sell their country’s secrets to foreign powers for money or blackmail and some blackguards like Tony Blair sell their country for a shot at the EU presidency. These people are simply traitors to their respective nations. Other blackguards like Bertie Ahern can’t sell their nation for personal gain because its constitution makes it clear that sovereignty resides with the people and not with parliment, so they just try to trick their nation out of its right to self-determination by instructing them not to exercise due diligence but rather to “trust” the traitors and vote as they instruct them to vote. Thankfully, this time the people weren’t fooled.

  • Dave

    Typo: “The actual reason that the people were [b]not[/b] permitted to approve or disapprove of a document that alters their fundamental rights is explicitly anti-democratic…”

  • joeCanuck

    Indeed, Pete.
    It’s almost as if they are afraid to spell it out in plain English, French, German or whatever.
    This is extremely arrogant to say the least. “They” know better than “us” what’s good for us. In their eyes, the general public are just too stupid to be trusted with their own future.

  • Greenflag

    JC/Pete ,

    ‘It’s almost as if they are afraid to spell it out in plain English, French, German or whatever.’

    Plain basic English consists of 600 words – the equivalent about 1500, whereas plain German runs to about 2,000 .

    Translation from one to the other can be a ‘perilous affair ‘ even when the language is simple . Word order , sentence structure etc sometimes cause confusion . I’m reminded of the interpreter who was listening to a German MEP give a speech . After about 4 minutes into the speech an English MEP asked her what the German was saying . Her reply was she did’nt quite know yet as she was still waiting to hear the verb .

  • Greenflag

    Dave ,

    ‘There is no legitimate basis for any government elected by the people to abolish the right of the people to self-determination to or surrender it to others.’

    So how many USA States committed acts of treason against their people during the 19th and 2oth centuries ?

    ‘Those parliaments who have been coerced by the EU into doing this have committed acts of treason against their nations’

    So the governments of 26 countries in the EU are now guilty of ‘treason’ for having ratified the Lisbon Treaty . Will have the entire House of Lords and Commons executed by firing squad along with the German Bundestag .?

    There were people before there ever was a State or nation and the ‘nation state’ is not necessarily the be all and end all of democratic governance.

    Little Ireland ‘uber alles’ eh ?. Everybody else is out of step except us ?

  • joeCanuck

    Translation from one to the other can be a ‘perilous affair ‘ even when the language is simple .

    So what are you intimating, Greenflag? That all treaties should be written in Esperanto? Or that the European Project is doomed because les autres cannot agree that English should be the Common Language?

  • Dave

    Greenflag, perhaps you should ask Richard Delevan (an American) to acquaint you with the sound political philosophy contained in his country’s Declaration of Independence. It observes that the right to self-government is “unalienable.” Do you know that that means? It means that no government elected by the people can abolish the right of the people to self-government. Why? Because, dupe, no government owns the “unalienable” right of a people to self-government. Since they don’t own it, but merely operate it in trust on behalf of the people who elected them to serve the interests of the people who elected them, they cannot cancel the right to self-government or give it away to others either in whole or in part. See? It’s not that hard to grasp the principle, is it?

    You, being a socialist, adore the EU project because your ilk sees it as a way to introduce legislation that would not be passed by national parliaments. This, of course, indicates a profoundly anti-democratic and opportunist mindset. Your ilk and the EU are well-suited.

  • Dave

    By the way, let’s look at The Irish Times “we’ve lost your influence in the EU” spiel. Firstly, what influence was that? Secondly, if we are now powerless within the EU, then we should apply logic and remove our internal affairs from a realm wherein we have no influence over them. Oddly enough, the Irish Times doesn’t apply this form of logic but applies some not-yet-categorised form by which it concludes that we should give more control over our internal affairs to a realm wherein any control we may then hope to have over them is entirely dependent on how sycophantic and compliant we are prepared to be with the EU bureaucrats. Now let’s see here… we should trade 100% of our internal affairs for 0.8% control of your internal affairs by getting 0.8% control over an organisation that has less than 6% control of world affairs. This represents an increase in your global per capita control of global affairs of precisely zero since the equation is, err, per capita. So we gain no per capita increase in your control of global affairs in return for trading 99.2% control over our internal affairs for 0.8% control of the EU (which is as much control as a mosquito has over the wildebeest it is perched on). Oh dear… not very convincing. I wonder if the mandarins within The Irish Times offered to turn their newspaper into a pro-EU vehicle to disseminate anti-nationalist propaganda like they offered it for use to the British Ambassador during “The Troubles” for the same purpose? Unlikely, of course, but the letter is well worth reading.

  • Dave

    Here ya go, Greenie, learn a new word:

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unalienable

    [b]unalienable [/b] [i]adjective
    incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another; “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” [/i]

    One of those unalienable rights contained in Declaration of Independence is the right of a people to self-government/self-determination wherein sovereignty resides with the people and not with parliament. Our constitution affirms this position. Europeans, practicing a much debased form of democracy wherein what should properly be the fundamental right of a people becomes a discretionary privilege of a state, demonstratively hold that sovereignty resides with parliament and not with the people. We are closer to the American view here than we are to the European view.

    Clearly, if the EU project is to be imposed, then the Irish view of self-determination must be eradicated and replaced with the European view. Since the Irish/American view is supported constitutionally, then this must be circumvented. This is what has The Irish Times so worked up, and on the case of replacing the philosophically superior Irish/American form with the degraded European form as proffered by Sarkozy. The EU view of self-determination is also contrary to international law as stated by the United Nations: “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.”

    Once the people are persuaded that it is the business of parliament to determine what the fundamental rights of the people should be rather than the business of the people to determine what the fundamental rights of the parliament should be, then the EU project can precede with the connivance of national parliaments and the exclusion of the people. Their nationality and nation-state can then be dissolved and replaced in due course with the new nationality of European as the new nation state of Europe emerges, much like a turd from the bowels of Beelzebub. 😉

  • There’s been a few articles in the Irish Times recently along the lines of Lisbon not needing a referendum. Would we have had those had the Lisbon referendum been won? Hardly likely. What this amounts to is a serious effort by the southern political and media establishment to circumvent the democratic process. In other words, the people have lost the faith of the Establishment elite. So let’s abolish the people…..

  • cynic

    “Most EU opinion agrees with Mr Sarkozy’s remark yesterday that “institutional things are for members of parliament, not referendums”

    ..but doesn’t that just point up the fundamental paradox in Europe? The EU is a confederation of states with very different constitutions and political cultures. Sarkozy’s remarks are unsurprising and are clearly driven by the French Presidential and ‘statist’ culture that once a central Government is elected it rules almost imperially for it’s term. The role of the people is to just to elect it. They get their chance to express a view at the next election.

    The culture in Ireland, the UK and many other states is very different. There is much more political interaction in the process and some, thank God, require referenda for major constitutional issues.

    I am in favour of a stronger more cohesive Europe…but not necessarily this one. This Treaty is taking us forward too fast and has all the hallmarks of a power grab by the central elite and a few major states at the expense of the rest. They are unable to sell it to the people so they will seek to impose it. Ireland stopped that (for the moment) and we need leadership in Europe and a new direction on these vital issues. Sadly, the French Presidency (for selfish national political reasons) is almost certain not to deliver that. Just look at Sarko using the EU Presidency to attack his own trade commissioner in support of protectionst demands by French farmers and to hell with what is in the interest of the EU as a whole.

    It’s politics, yes, but all of that just reinforces the point.

  • Isn’t it ironic that the EU, established to ensure the competing nationalists of the various European powers didn’t spark another world war, is now refashioning itself into a form of benign[?] dictatorship. Hitler would have loved the EU, as it now stands. A carte blanche to do what a small cabal of people wanted and with little chance at all of being put off the rails by something as inconvenient as democracy.

    Ruth Barrington in her article sets great store by ‘representative democracy’ – because of course most large parties in the south support Lisbon. Representative democracy ceases to be representative when the representatives stop representing the people and start merely representing themselves. But being a person as learned as herself, she knows that.

  • Greenflag

    JC ,

    ‘So what are you intimating, Greenflag? ‘

    It’s not 1786. The USA is not the EU and we live in a different world from that of the heyday of the ‘nation state’. Facts of which you are no doubt aware but which our uber nationalist Dave seems to forget .

  • Sean Fear

    Little Ireland ‘uber alles’ eh ?. Everybody else is out of step except us ?

    The voters of Ireland are in step with the voters of many EU member states, on this one.

  • cynic

    Greenflag

    If you really think that the day of the nation state is over, the Chinese, Russians and Indians may have a nasty little surprise or two for you.

  • Rewind

    @Dave

    So if a “people” has an inalienable right to self determination I take it that you believe that Hawaii or Alaska joining the USA (or the USA joining Hawaii or Alaska if you like, same difference) was immoral. Like a man selling himself into slavery (freedom from slavery being the stereotypical inalienable right). If not then why not?

    Also what is a “people”? Are Abkhazians a “people” or only Georgians (including Abkazians)? Are Basques a people or only Spaniards (including Basques)? Cornish or only British (including Cornish)? Are Afrikaaners a “people”, or the members of Killymoon Golf Club? You get the picture. This “people” thing is in dire need of a serious watertight definition.

    If two peoples each individually decide to become one (e.g. Scotland and England) what right have you to say this is illegitimate? If a people decides mutually on a “demerger” (e.g. the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslavakia) what right have you to stand in the way? Or is it that they were never one people to start with, or that “people” means whatever you say it means at the time depending on the context?

    No, “the people”, is a mutual construct out of the consent of the individuals concerned. It is not immutable or eternal, and it is not inalienable. The EU is a legitimate project, at least in principle. Elected governments have a right to pool sovereignty, so long as it is a non-coerced, two sided contract. An empire I think would be a fair description, as Barroso states here

    but an empire with no centralised authority from or identifiable with any member but a democratic amalgam of them all, and where any member can decide to leave if they want. As far as I’m concerned all the negatives of empire are addressed in this arrangement. Such an arrangement is perfectly legitimate.

  • Greenflag

    Cynic ,

    ‘If you really think that the day of the nation state is over, the Chinese, Russians and Indians may have a nasty little surprise or two for you. ‘

    I did’t say the days of the nation state were over . I referred to the ‘hey days ‘ of the nation state . The EU is just one of many regional ‘unions’ NAFTA, South East Asian , Southern African , and others around the world which are tesimony to an evolving political dynamic worldwide of nations cooperating to resolve modern problems which cannot be resolved unilaterally.

    Ireland outside of the EU will have exactly how much bargaining power with the Russians, Indians or Chinese ? The last time we tried to wield influence ‘unilaterally’ was with Saddam Hussein when Larry Goodman exported 55 million pounds of beef to the Iraq almost 20 years ago . We still haven’t been paid .

  • Greenflag

    Rewind ,

    ‘If two peoples each individually decide to become one (e.g. Scotland and England) what right have you to say this is illegitimate? If a people decides mutually on a “demerger” (e.g. the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslavakia) what right have you to stand in the way? Or is it that they were never one people to start with, or that “people” means whatever you say it means at the time depending on the context? ‘

    Excellent points. If the Nationalist people of Northern Ireland decided to forego their dream of a United Ireland and opted instead for a 30 county State who would deny them that right ? Similarly if Unionists demanded ‘repartition’ and their own State outside of an Irish State who could deny them that right ?

    Dave’s views on the ‘nation state ‘ sounds very much like Mussolini’s or that other chap with fanciful notions of the survival of the ‘fittest’ nations at the expense of all others .

  • Greenflag

    Dave ,

    ‘You, being a socialist’

    Am I ? Odd then that I don’t vote Labour or SF.

    You must be one of those Americans who believes that if somebody doesn’t vote for Pat Robertson they must be godless communists and atheists 🙁

    ‘adore the EU project ‘

    As I’ve said several times the EU is in need of organisational reform which is what the Lisbon Treaty was about .

    ‘because your ilk sees it as a way to introduce legislation that would not be passed by national parliaments’

    Do I ? Which legislation would that be ?

    ‘This, of course, indicates a profoundly anti-democratic and opportunist mindset’

    Two words here Dave the one begins with F and the other ends with off ! Now please tone down your language if you want replies to your points .

  • Greenflag

    Dave ,

    ‘Greenflag, perhaps you should ask Richard Delevan (an American) to acquaint you with the sound political philosophy contained in his country’s Declaration of Independence.’

    I’m aware of the sound political philosophy in the American Declaration of Independence -It was a document far in advance of it’s time for which we should all be truly grateful . Nevertheless time did not stop in 1776 and the world economy is not what it was then and will not be the way it is now in 50 years time . Some principles are timeless but who today would uphold the institution of slavery which many of the signers of the USA Declaration did despite the claims that all men are created equal?

    Nowadays we in Ireland have more to learn from our EU coleagues than from our cousins across the Atlantic . When it comes to dealing with the rights of ordinary people to a decent education , health care , and equality of access to higher education and even childcare the EU countries are far in advance of the USA .

    What has happened in the USA over the past 25 years is that ‘bad’ capitalism ‘ has driven out ‘good ‘ capitalism and as the race to grab the most loot has been won by the financial services sector (banking , insurance cos, hedge fund con men , real estate /property brokers etc etc ) the American citizen is probably at this time a very long way from contemplating the ‘wisdom’ of the ‘founding ‘ fathers .

    Democracy is not worth the paper it’s written on if a large majority of the population are impoverished or are seeing their middle class emisserating at the expense of a tiny financial elite who have allied themselves to both the Republican and Democratic ‘elites ‘

    As it’s Bastille Day I’m tempted to advise Mr Delevan that his countrymen could do well to take a leaf out of the French example of 1789.

    The EU needs some reform and someday it may become a unified Federal State but even if, it cannot become a ‘nation state’ as it is made up of 27 ‘nations ‘ . The nearest approximation would be something akin to the British Union with the added proviso that ‘nations ‘ could choose to leave if they wanted to . They could always of course choose to rejoin following a minimum period ‘outside’ say 25 years -a generation . Their ‘re-entry ‘ of course would be subject to the unanimous permission of the other member states .

  • Dave

    “…what right have you to say this is illegitimate?” – Rewind

    The same right that you have to say “Such an arrangement is perfectly legitimate.”

    “This “people” thing is in dire need of a serious watertight definition.” – Rewind

    But you aren’t trying to define it, are you? No, you are trying to obfuscate it. Child, there is no need to tell the Chinese that they cannot be a people because you can’t figure out what a people is. They have figured it out and have defined themselves as such, and that is all that need concern you. Indeed, how do you propose to construct your edifice to Europeans if you can’t grasp that there could be such a group of people?

    “If two peoples each individually decide to become one (e.g. Scotland and England) what right have you to say this is illegitimate?”

    It depends on your political philosophy and on international law. The United Nations stipulates that “peoples” and not people have a right to self-determination, i.e. the French, the Americans, and any other group who can make a case for a nation state. American political philosophy holds that the right of a people to self-determination in unalienable. This means that it cannot be transferred to others or renounced. The concept here is that sovereignty resides with the people, held in trust by them for their own use and for the use of future generations. So, one generation cannot decide to sell their country to Japan in return for financial gain, thereby depriving futures generations of that people of their right to self-determination. This is also the Irish view. Ergo, it is illegitimate to transfer sovereignty to the EU for financial gain (or any other purpose), thereby separating the nation from the state and depriving future generations of their right to a nation-state. Those who use arms against this aim would be patriots. It is also illegitimate to transfer this right to self-government to others on what a temporary basis, particular when the intent is that it is retained on a permanent basis in order to engineer the new state of Europe.

    Now, you should also note that the nations of the various nation-states that comprise the continent of Europe have not agreed to renounce their right to self-determination – have not agreed to dissolve their nation-states and become the new nation-state of Europe (which will have enough homogeneity to be a white, Christian nation state practicing nationalism under the moniker of the European identity). Indeed, were such a proposition put to the people, they would resoundingly reject it. This is why, child, the anti-democratic mandarins who promote this project deliberately exclude the people from voting on it. Why do you think that the project is sold to them as ‘much-needed reform’ rather than the transfer of more sovereign power to the EU? Catch a clue, eh?

    Those nations will use force to reassert their right to self-determination if it is ever successfully stolen from them by stealth, and your happy will commune of engineered EU empire will collapse in due course due that internal dissent. When that happens, and if you ever live to see the day, just keep your head down and let the patriots get on with it.

  • Greenflag

    Dave ,

    ‘The United Nations stipulates that “peoples” and not people have a right to self-determination’

    So if two ‘peoples’ say the Irish and Scots decide to ‘unite ‘ to form a new nation state then thats ok then as per the UN . Enlarge the example to 27 countries and the principle remains .

    ‘ American political philosophy holds that the right of a people to self-determination in unalienable.’

    Is it ? Most of the history of Europe has been made up of many nations forcibly ‘amalgamated ‘ by one or other of their neigbours into larger states . The Scots , Irish, Welsh by the English , the Norwegians and Finns by the Swedes , the Portuguese and Basques by the Spanish , the Croats, Serbs ,Slovenians and Bosnians by the Austrians and Hungarians – the Belgiums and Dutch alternatively by the Spaniards , French and Germans -the Poles by the Germans and Russians etc etc etc etc

    It’s all very well for Americans to say that the right of a people to self determination is unalienable whatever that means . Had it not been for French military assistance and organisation the American right of self determination would have received very short shrift from King George and Washington /Jefferson /Paine /Hamilton etc would have been hanged as ‘terrorists’ and traitors.

    Most european countries share land borders with several other states . The borders are not neat straight lines as between Canada and the USA , There is many cross border ‘cultures’ such as the Franco German one in Alsace Lorraine or the Dutch German one or the German Hungarian etc etc . There’s not a country in the Eu that does not have an ethnic minority or minorities often speaking a different language .

    It is in this context that the EU presents all european countries with an option to join providing they uphold the European convention on Human Rights which are a model which the USA might look to given the manner in which it has treated foreign nationals at Guantanamo over the past several years.

    ‘So, one generation cannot decide”

    Complete and utter balderdash . We live in the here and now and hopefully for a while into the future . Each generation has to make decisions re it’s political and constitutional choices . Your argument in this respect would for example reject the right of Northern Unionists to vote themselves into a United Ireland on the grounds that they would be subjecting ‘future’ generations of ‘unionists ‘ to their right to self determination .

    ‘Those who use arms against this aim would be patriots. ‘

    So Loyalists who took up arms against a majority of Unionists who voted to join the Irish Republic would be ‘patriots ‘ as per your logic .

    ‘it is illegitimate to transfer sovereignty to the EU for financial gain ‘

    Again more horseshite . All of the EU countries bar the UK and one or two others adopted the EURO as their common currency thus making a huge finanacial gain in currency exchange costs of trade .So the Euro is ‘illegitmate ‘ then is it ? If it’s so ‘illegitmate ‘ I hate to think of what the status of the US dollar is these days .

    ‘and become the new nation-state of Europe (which will have enough homogeneity to be a white, Christian nation state practicing nationalism under the moniker of the European identity’

    Which ‘nationalism’ will they practice ? German ? English ? Slovenian ? Greek . Most if not all EU countries are predominantly secular as regards religious practice . I suspect that Ireland may be the only country where actual church attendance is more than 20% . It’s considerably less in all the major countries and virtually zero in the Scandinavian countries . European political integration will evolve in time as most europeans will behappy to have both their own local ‘nationality ‘ as well as the European catch all just like many Scots and Welsh and Northern Irish are happy to be both themsleves and also British .

    Mr Cowen needs to take the bull by the horns on this one and go back to the people. I’m sure next time out people will see Libertas and SF for they truly represent – THE PAST !

  • [url=http://www.ronline.com.ua][img]http://ronline.com.ua/templates/ronline/images/Ronline_logo.jpg[/img][/url]

    [url=http://www.ronline.com.ua][b]Ðåêëàìà â èíòåðíåò – àãåíñòâî Ronline – áàííåðíàÿ ðåêëìà[/b][/url]

    [u]Ñåãîäíÿ Èíòåðíåò ïðåäñòàâëÿåò øèðîêèå âîçìîæíîñòè äëÿ ïðîâåäåíèÿ ðåêëàìíûõ êàìïàíèé è ïðèâëå÷åíèÿ öåëåâûõ êëèåíòîâ. Èíòåðíåò ðåêëàìà íà äàííîì ýòàïå èìååò ðÿä ïðåèìóùåñòâ íàä òðàäèöèîííûìè âèäàìè ðåêëàìû â ÑÌÈ, ñòàíîâÿñü ñåðüåçíûì êîíêóðåíòîì îôôëàéíîâîìó ðûíêó ðåêëàìû. [url=http://ronline.com.ua/advertising/context/6-context.html]êîíòåêñòíàÿ ðåêëàìà Äíåïðîïåòðîâñê[/url] [url=http://ronline.com.ua/advertising/media/7-media_banners_ad.html]Èíòåðíåò ðåêëàìà,[/url] [url=http://www.ronline.com.ua]áàíåðíàÿ ðåêëìà[/url] [/u]

    [url=http://www.ronline.com.ua][b]Èíòåðíåò-ðåêëàìà[/b][/url]
    * Èíòåðíåò ðåêëàìà äàåò âîçìîæíîñòü ñîçäàòü ïðåçåíòàöèþ ëþáîãî ïðîäóêòà èëè óñëóãè â ñàìûå êîðîòêè ñðîêè
    * Èíòåðíåò ðåêëàìà ïîçâîëÿåò ïðîâîäèòü ðåêëàìíûå êàìïàíèè, íàöåëèâàÿ íà íóæíóþ àóäèòîðèþ
    [i]
    È ïðè âñåõ ýòèõ ïðåèìóùåñòâàõ ðàçìåùåíèå èíòåðíåò ðåêëàìû äî ñèõ ïîð ÿâëÿåòñÿ ñàìîé äîñòóïíîé ñ ôèíàíñîâîé òî÷êè çðåíèÿ, ÷òî ÿâëÿåòñÿ âàæíûì àðãóìåíòîì â óñëîâèÿõ îãðàíè÷åííîãî ðåêëàìíîãî áþäæåòà.
    Ðåêëàìà â Èíòåðíåò áûâàåò ìåäèéíàÿ è êîíòåêñòíàÿ.[/i]

    [url=http://www.ronline.com.ua][b]Ìåäèéíàÿ ðåêëàìà[/b][/url] – âêëþ÷àåò â ñåáÿ ðàçíîîáðàçíûå ìåòîäû ðàçìåùåíèÿ ðåêëàìû
    – áàííåðíàÿ ðåêëàìà (íà ñàéòàõ è â áàííåðíûõ ñåòÿõ)
    – ìåäèéíàÿ êîíòåêñòíàÿ ðåêëàìà.

    [b][url=http://www.ronline.com.ua]Êîíòåêñòíàÿ ðåêëàìà[/url][/b] – ýòî ðàçìåùåíèå òåêñòîâûõ èëè ãðàôè÷åñêèõ ðåêëàìíûõ îáúÿâëåíèé â ïîèñêîâèêàõ ñ îïëàòîé çà êîëè÷åñòâî êëèêîâ (ïåðåõîäîâ) èëè ïîêàçîâ

    Íà ñåãîäíÿøíèé äåíü ýòî îäèí èç ñàìûõ ëó÷ùèõ ìåòîäîâ äîáèòüñÿ óâåëè÷åíèÿ ïðîäàæ âàøèõ òîâàðîâ, ïðîäóêöèè èëè óñëóã.

    [u][b]Ïî÷åìó âàì âûãîäíî ðàáîòàòü ñ íàøèì [url=http://www.ronline.com.ua]ðåêëàìíûì àãåíòñòâîì[/url]?[/b][/u]

    * Ìû ñýêîíîìèì âìøè äåíüãè – óæå íà íà÷àëüíîì ýòàïå ðåêëàìíîé êàìïàíèè ïîäáåðåì è ñïëàíèðóåì áþäæåò, íå òðåáóþùèé ëèøíèõ çàòðàò.
    * Ìû áóäåì ðåãóëÿðíî ñëåäèòü çà ýôôåêòèâíîñòüþ âàøåé ðåêëàìíîé êàìïàíèè.  ñëó÷àå íåîáõîäèìîñòè – îïåðàòèâíî âíåñåì êîððåêòèðîâêè.

     èòîãå, âû ïîëó÷èòå íà âàøåì ñàéòå òîëüêî òåõ ïîñåòèòåëåé, êîòîðûå çàèíòåðåñîâàëèñü âàøèìè òîâàîàìè .

    [b]Èíòåðåñíî [/b]– [i]ïðîâîäÿ ðåêëàìíóþ êàìïàíèþ ñàéòà, ñîâåòóåì îáðàòèòü âíèìàíèå íà åãî îïòèìèçàöèþ ïîä ïîèñêîâûå ñèñòåìû. È ñàìóþ âûñîêóþ îòäà÷ó, âîçìîæíî ïîëó÷èòü, òîëüêî çàäåéñòâîâàâ êîìïëåêñ ìåð ïî ðåêëàìå è ïðîäâèæåíèþ âàøåãî ðåñóðñà. [url=http://ronline.com.ua/advertising/media/7-media_banners_ad.html]àãåíñòâî èíòðåíåò ðåêëàìû[/url] [url=http://ronline.com.ua/advertising/context/6-context.html]êîíòåêñò[/url] [url=http://ronline.com.ua/advertising/media/7-media_banners_ad.html]ñîçäàíèå ìàãàçèíîâ[/url] [/i]

    [b][url=http://www.ronline.com.ua]www.ronline.com.ua[/url][/b]

  • “One of the beauties of the US Constitution is that it written in language that most people can understand. ”

    Not sure that can be said for the Second Amendment.

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.