Lies, Damned Lies, and a Referendum Re-run

by drumcondradave Sat Jun 21, 2008 10:23

I wonder how is it democratic for one small group of people to decide the fate of so many millions accross the whole of Europe. It seems to me that if we dont want to be in then we should get out!

by O. O'C. - (private capacity) Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:03

Three points to the response above:

You are using the object of your argument to prove it's conclusion;

We all consciously signed up to be a club of legal equals - and this is the only legal foundation for any treaty to come into effect in the present EU. If you want to change that arrangement, fine, but you cannot assume your ideal already exists and that we are simply holding it up. You need to play by the rules we all signed up to.

Second, it needs unanimity to pass, that the other governments would continue is an attempt to bully and press-gang - but the legal fact is, it needs unanimity to pass; if there is mendacity involved, is on the part of those would urge continuance of ratification eleswhere despite this legal fact.

And the enhanced co-operation part of Nice cannot surpass the foundations of itself - it cannot bring into effect a brand new treaty, when unanimity is part of the foundations of the existing club. There is no going ahead with Lisbon (points one and two). These are the rules we all signed up to.

Third, if this treaty was put to referendum across Europe, most countries would probably reject it (as did France and Holland, effectively); what does it say about the democratic bona-fides of the political classes, that they would not only avoid letting the people have their say, but would do everything in their power to circumvent it, and subvert it when it is expressed?

by Miriam Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:35

'Millions of people' across the EU did NOT decide to ratify or even approve this Treaty. 99.9% of them outside Ireland were denied any say at all. It is the self-interested corporate driven and backed government representatives who are being held up by the only democratic vote to be allowed. The EU knows fine well that if referenda were held across Europe this Treaty would sink like a stone.

The question for the EU now is how to prevent any popular vote from ever taking place again so that it can do what it likes on behalf of the real power brokers: the corporate sector.

by Sean Sat Jun 21, 2008 13:08

Who says we all consciously signed up (to the EU)? I am now in my mid 40s. I was 12 when we held the referendum to join the EEC in 1972. I didn't consciously sign up for anything of the kind.

by Sceptic Sat Jun 21, 2008 13:16

This is not accurate - Spain and Luxembourg have both held referenda which returned a large yes majority. Also it is a bit misleading to say things like "the EU knew". In this matter "the EU" are the combined (elected) heads of government of the Member States including our own.

In any case as has been pointed out parliamentary and judicial ratification is no less valid in itself than a plebiscite. Most European countries do not or only very rarely have referenda. The reason Germany did not have one is nothing to do with the "EU". Its because they never do have them since the inception of the Federal Republic.

by Robert Sat Jun 21, 2008 16:52

As some will already know, another "spanner" has been thrown into the "Lisbon Treaty" works in the United Kingdom.

This takes the form of High Court challenge.

My observations suggest that, in recent years, the UK Judiciary is far, far more independent (of the Executive and Legislative of Government) in the Republic of Ireland.

Consequently, I would not be in the least bit surprised if UK Judiciary were to decide that the UK must hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

Were that to happen, things would get VERY interesting -- and in ways which might greatly improve the chances of Europe moving in the direction of genuine democracy (as in "government of the people, by the people, for the people").

by Robert Sat Jun 21, 2008 18:38

Sorry about the missing words in the second sentence above, which should read:

"My observations suggest that, in recent years, the UK Judiciary is far, far more independent (of the Executive and Legislative of Branches of Government) than the Judiciary in the Republic of Ireland is at the present time."

Also, and for those who might not be familiar with the subject, the situation referred to in the paragraph above all relates directly to the EXTREMELY important "Tripartite Separation of Powers Doctrine" - which, under former Prime Minister Bertie Ahern TD, appears to have been completely abandoned (by all three of the main branches of Government) during the 10 years or so he held office as Prime Minister: even though it most definitely should not have been, because this "doctrine" -- which is built into the constitutions of several other nation states -- is very deeply embedded in Bunreacht na hEireann (Constitution of the Republic of Ireland), and the correct functioning of our Constitution is highly dependant on this particular principle being vigorously and rigorously upheld at all times.

For anybody interested, more on the "Tripartite Separation of Powers" subject can be found via the following address
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Tripartite+Separat...earch

by O. O'C. - National Platform EU Research and Information Centre Sun Jun 22, 2008 01:03

Due to an editing error on my part, please note that the last line of the above should read:

"A peaceful, democratic popular revolt in Ireland and across the EU is needed to prevent this happening and to prevent the anti-democratic Lisbon Treaty-cum EU-Constitution being clamped on most of the peoples of our continent."

by Kay Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:04

"In a direction released today (June 20th 2008), High court judge Lord Justice Richards said:

'The court is very surprised that the government apparently proposes to ratify while the claimant's challenge to the decision not to hold a referendum on ratification is before the court.'

'The court expects judgment to be handed down next week. The defendants are invited to stay their hand voluntarily until judgment.' "

Taken from Guardian Newspaper (UK) at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/20/eu.foreignp...licy1

by Eoghan Mag Sun Jun 22, 2008 11:19

There is one major, major, major (I cannot stress this word enough) aspect to the Lisbon vote that as far as I can see nobody has raised whatsoever. The fact of the matter is as we stand Europe is already a two tier system. The British are allowed to play a full part in Europe yet they refuse to embrace the Euro coin. If they are allowed to do this then we can too. We did not start the current rot in Europe they did. This is the biggest issue in Europe in my Irish eyes. By holding on to Sterling they reinforce the boarder and continue to create finance difficulties on this island. The second they come onboard with the Euro the boarder will effectively collapse. Ireland as per normal is being used as a pawn. The price of Ireland signing this Treaty should also be that the Euro be adopted immediately in all countries where the treaty is effective.

Neutrality was never an issue for me in this debate as Ireland has never been fully neutral at any stage of her history. The seas are full of foreign submarines off our coasts yet people only protest against planes from Shannon because they are visible. People need only read a little history to see that we play a form of 'Irish Neutrality' meaning that we will side with whomever we like when the time suits us. We meaning the Irish Government.

I don't know how well read many of the people here are in politics. I do not regard myself as one of them but there are other issues of the Treaty that leave a bad taste in my mouth. The Irish Government stated that they could not at the outset rewrite this treaty. After the vote the reason became very clear. They had without the prior consent of the Irish people already 'signed' the treaty. The Irish Government is already seeking ways to get the Treaty passed through Irish law by by-passing the referrendum. I think we need to observe the law courts closely in the next number of months to see what actions they slide through to allow this to happen.

I've never seen a worse worded referrendum in my life as that of the Lisbon Treaty. The only logic was to reject it. If they dare to try to re-run this referrendum then I think we should also re-run the Divorce referrendum, it is the same type of logic.

by Sceptic Sun Jun 22, 2008 12:56

Eoghan - you are right in saying there are opt outs for the Euro (also Denmark and Sweden) and there is the Schengen opt out States but that does not make the opt out states a second tier except as regards those topics. However that is very different from opting out of the main Treaty itself which would be without precedent and the loss of influence at all levels would be very marked. Unless Ireland can ratify the Treaty it faces loss of membership or downgraded membership. There is no other choice so long as the Treaty is ratified by the 26.

Robert - As regards the UK the courts there cannot overturn UK legislation unless it conflicts with the European Human Rights legislation or with the ECJ. Ultimately parliament can overturn the courts because of the unwritten constitution except for the where it is bound in these areas. Also the Courts could not and would not order the UK to ratify by referendum. That is to betray ignorance of the British constitution.

by We the People Sun Jun 22, 2008 13:05

Below is an Article taken from wiseupjournal that explains the obvious and makes an important read for all Yes Men.

Former Soviet Dissident Warns of EU Dictatorship (interview) *
Brussels Journal
27.02.2006
Paul Belien

Vladimir Bukovksy, the 63-year old former Soviet dissident, fears that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union. In a speech he delivered in Brussels last week Mr Bukovsky called the EU a “monster” that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it develops into a fullfledged totalitarian state.

Mr Bukovsky was one of the heroes of the 20th century. As a young man he exposed the use of psychiatric imprisonment against political prisoners in the former USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 1917-1991) and spent a total of twelve years (1964-1976), from his 22nd to his 34th year, in Soviet jails, labour camps and psychiatric institutions.

An interview with Vladimir Bukovsky

> Listen to it here

Paul Belien: You were a very famous Soviet dissident and now you are drawing a parallel between the European Union and the Soviet Union. Can you explain this?

Vladimir Bukovsky: I am referrring to structures, to certain ideologies being instilled, to the plans, the direction, the inevitable expansion, the obliteration of nations, which was the purpose of the Soviet Union. Most people do not understand this. They do not know it, but we do because we were raised in the Soviet Union where we had to study the Soviet ideology in school and at university. The ultimate purpose of the Soviet Union was to create a new historic entity, the Soviet people, all around the globe. The same is true in the EU today. They are trying to create a new people. They call this people “Europeans”, whatever that means.

According to Communist doctrine as well as to many forms of Socialist thinking, the state, the national state, is supposed to wither away. In Russia, however, the opposite happened. Instead of withering away the Soviet state became a very powerful state, but the nationalities were obliterated. But when the time of the Soviet collapse came these suppressed feelings of national identity came bouncing back and they nearly destroyed the country. It was so frightening.

PB: Do you think the same thing can happen when the European Union collapses?

VB: Absolutely, you can press a spring only that much, and the human psyche is very resilient you know. You can press it, you can press it, but don’t forget it is still accumulating a power to rebound. It is like a spring and it always goes to overshoot.

PB: But all these countries that joined the European Union did so voluntarily.

VB: No, they did not. Look at Denmark which voted against the Maastricht treaty twice. Look at Ireland [which voted against the Nice treaty]. Look at many other countries, they are under enormous pressure. It is almost blackmail. Switzerland was forced to vote five times in a referendum. All five times they have rejected it, but who knows what will happen the sixth time, the seventh time. It is always the same thing. It is a trick for idiots. The people have to vote in referendums until the people vote the way that is wanted. Then they have to stop voting. Why stop? Let us continue voting. The European Union is what Americans would call a shotgun marriage.

PB: What do you think young people should do about the European Union? What should they insist on, to democratize the institution or just abolish it?

VB: I think that the European Union, like the Soviet Union, cannot be democratized. Gorbachev tried to democratize it and it blew up. This kind of structures cannot be democratized.

PB: But we have a European Parliament which is chosen by the people.

VB: The European Parliament is elected on the basis of proportional representation, which is not true representation. And what does it vote on? The percentage of fat in yoghurt, that kind of thing. It is ridiculous. It is given the task of the Supreme Soviet. The average MP can speak for six minutes per year in the Chamber. That is not a real parliament.

Transcript of Mr Bukovsky’s Brussels speech

> Listen to it here

In 1992 I had unprecedented access to Politburo and Central Committee secret documents which have been classified, and still are even now, for 30 years. These documents show very clearly that the whole idea of turning the European common market into a federal state was agreed between the left-wing parties of Europe and Moscow as a joint project which [Soviet leader Mikhail] Gorbachev in 1988-89 called our “common European home.”

The idea was very simple. It first came up in 1985-86, when the Italian Communists visited Gorbachev, followed by the German Social-Democrats. They all complained that the changes in the world, particularly after [British Prime Minister Margaret] Thatcher introduced privatisation and economic liberalisation, were threatening to wipe out the achievement (as they called it) of generations of Socialists and Social-Democrats – threatening to reverse it completely. Therefore the only way to withstand this onslaught of wild capitalism (as they called it) was to try to introduce the same socialist goals in all countries at once. Prior to that, the left-wing parties and the Soviet Union had opposed European integration very much because they perceived it as a means to block their socialist goals. From 1985 onwards they completely changed their view. The Soviets came to a conclusion and to an agreement with the left-wing parties that if they worked together they could hijack the whole European project and turn it upside down. Instead of an open market they would turn it into a federal state.

According to the [secret Soviet] documents, 1985-86 is the turning point. I have published most of these documents. You might even find them on the internet. But the conversations they had are really eye opening. For the first time you understand that there is a conspiracy – quite understandable for them, as they were trying to save their political hides. In the East the Soviets needed a change of relations with Europe because they were entering a protracted and very deep structural crisis; in the West the left-wing parties were afraid of being wiped out and losing their influence and prestige. So it was a conspiracy, quite openly made by them, agreed upon, and worked out.

In January of 1989, for example, a delegation of the Trilateral Commission came to see Gorbachev. It included [former Japanese Prime Minister Yasuhiro] Nakasone, [former French President Valéry] Giscard d’Estaing, [American banker David] Rockefeller and [former US Secretary of State Henry] Kissinger. They had a very nice conversation where they tried to explain to Gorbachev that Soviet Russia had to integrate into the financial institutions of the world, such as Gatt, the IMF and the World Bank.

In the middle of it Giscard d’Estaing suddenly takes the floor and says: “Mr President, I cannot tell you exactly when it will happen – probably within 15 years – but Europe is going to be a federal state and you have to prepare yourself for that. You have to work out with us, and the European leaders, how you would react to that, how would you allow the other Easteuropean countries to interact with it or how to become a part of it, you have to be prepared.”

This was January 1989, at a time when the [1992] Maastricht treaty had not even been drafted. How the hell did Giscard d’Estaing know what was going to happen in 15 years time? And surprise, surprise, how did he become the author of the European constitution [in 2002-03]? A very good question. It does smell of conspiracy, doesn’t it?

Luckily for us the Soviet part of this conspiracy collapsed earlier and it did not reach the point where Moscow could influence the course of events. But the original idea was to have what they called a convergency, whereby the Soviet Union would mellow somewhat and become more social-democratic, while Western Europe would become social-democratic and socialist. Then there will be convergency. The structures have to fit each other. This is why the structures of the European Union were initially built with the purpose of fitting into the Soviet structure. This is why they are so similar in functioning and in structure.

It is no accident that the European Parliament, for example, reminds me of the Supreme Soviet. It looks like the Supreme Soviet because it was designed like it. Similary, when you look at the European Commission it looks like the Politburo. I mean it does so exactly, except for the fact that the Commission now has 25 members and the Politburo usually had 13 or 15 members. Apart from that they are exactly the same, unaccountable to anyone, not directly elected by anyone at all. When you look into all this bizarre activity of the European Union with its 80,000 pages of regulations it looks like Gosplan. We used to have an organisation which was planning everything in the economy, to the last nut and bolt, five years in advance. Exactly the same thing is happening in the EU. When you look at the type of EU corruption, it is exactly the Soviet type of corruption, going from top to bottom rather than going from bottom to top.

If you go through all the structures and features of this emerging European monster you will notice that it more and more resembles the Soviet Union. Of course, it is a milder version of the Soviet Union. Please, do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that it has a Gulag. It has no KGB – not yet – but I am very carefully watching such structures as Europol for example. That really worries me a lot because this organisation will probably have powers bigger than those of the KGB. They will have diplomatic immunity. Can you imagine a KGB with diplomatic immunity? They will have to police us on 32 kinds of crimes – two of which are particularly worrying, one is called racism, another is called xenophobia. No criminal court on earth defines anything like this as a crime [this is not entirely true, as Belgium already does so – pb]. So it is a new crime, and we have already been warned. Someone from the British government told us that those who object to uncontrolled immigration from the Third World will be regarded as racist and those who oppose further European integration will be regarded as xenophobes. I think Patricia Hewitt said this publicly.

Hence, we have now been warned. Meanwhile they are introducing more and more ideology. The Soviet Union used to be a state run by ideology. Today’s ideology of the European Union is social-democratic, statist, and a big part of it is also political correctness. I watch very carefully how political correctness spreads and becomes an oppressive ideology, not to mention the fact that they forbid smoking almost everywhere now. Look at this persecution of people like the Swedish pastor who was persecuted for several months because he said that the Bible does not approve homosexuality. France passed the same law of hate speech concerning gays. Britain is passing hate speech laws concerning race relations and now religious speech, and so on and so forth. What you observe, taken into perspective, is a systematic introduction of ideology which could later be enforced with oppressive measures. Apparently that is the whole purpose of Europol. Otherwise why do we need it? To me Europol looks very suspicious. I watch very carefully who is persecuted for what and what is happening, because that is one field in which I am an expert. I know how Gulags spring up.

It looks like we are living in a period of rapid, systematic and very consistent dismantlement of democracy. Look at this Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. It makes ministers into legislators who can introduce new laws without bothering to tell Parliament or anyone. My immediate reaction is why do we need it? Britain survived two world wars, the war with Napoleon, the Spanish Armada, not to mention the Cold War, when we were told at any moment we might have a nuclear world war, without any need for introducing this kind legislation, without the need for suspending our civil liberaties and introducing emergency powers. Why do we need it right now? This can make a dictatorship out of your country in no time.

Today’s situation is really grim. Major political parties have been completely taken in by the new EU project. None of them really opposes it. They have become very corrupt. Who is going to defend our freedoms? It looks like we are heading towards some kind of collapse, some kind of crisis. The most likely outcome is that there will be an economic collapse in Europe, which in due time is bound to happen with this growth of expenses and taxes. The inability to create a competitive environment, the overregulation of the economy, the bureaucratisation, it is going to lead to economic collapse. Particularly the introduction of the euro was a crazy idea. Currency is not supposed to be political.

I have no doubt about it. There will be a collapse of the European Union pretty much like the Soviet Union collapsed. But do not forget that when these things collapse they leave such devastation that it takes a generation to recover. Just think what will happen if it comes to an economic crisis. The recrimination between nations will be huge. It might come to blows. Look to the huge number of immigrants from Third World countries now living in Europe. This was promoted by the European Union. What will happen with them if there is an economic collapse? We will probably have, like in the Soviet Union at the end, so much ethnic strife that the mind boggles. In no other country were there such ethnic tensions as in the Soviet Union, except probably in Yugoslavia. So that is exactly what will happen here, too. We have to be prepared for that. This huge edifice of bureaucracy is going to collapse on our heads.

This is why, and I am very frank about it, the sooner we finish with the EU the better. The sooner it collapses the less damage it will have done to us and to other countries. But we have to be quick because the Eurocrats are moving very fast. It will be difficult to defeat them. Today it is still simple. If one million people march on Brussels today these guys will run away to the Bahamas. If tomorrow half of the British population refuses to pay its taxes, nothing will happen and no-one will go to jail. Today you can still do that. But I do not know what the situation will be tomorrow with a fully fledged Europol staffed by former Stasi or Securitate officers. Anything may happen.

We are losing time. We have to defeat them. We have to sit and think, work out a strategy in the shortest possible way to achieve maximum effect. Otherwise it will be too late. So what should I say? My conclusion is not optimistic. So far, despite the fact that we do have some anti-EU forces in almost every country, it is not enough. We are losing and we are wasting time.

Full article

by Sceptc Sun Jun 22, 2008 22:09

On this issue Bukovksy has no followers except for the extreme eurospceptic little Englanders he keeps company with. Sure he was warped and undermined by the Soviet terrors he suffered grievously for but he is no philosopher nor reliable guide to anything else. His view on other matters are his own and no one else’s. Within months of arriving in the UK as a refuge he was denouncing the west which had saved him. His thesis does not bear scrutiny for a moment. If the EU is social democratic that is a reflection of the real political character of its member states. In the Russian revolution a small and unelected clique took power and held sway by brutal oppression for decades which saw millions perish. No one has suffered injury or confiscation or still less death at the hands of the EU – he is plan wrong in his analogues. The nearest thing to what seems his idea was Europe in the inter war years but that ended in complete disaster. Moving beyond that to cooperation between neighbours is what the EU project is about with peace, prosperity and democracy as its hallmarks. If the nation states were ever to dissolve it would be because the residents of the states wish them to – not for any other reason. There is no question of it anyway – any question of a fully federal Europe is over. Bukovksy is no expert on the west or of Europe – he is a troubled and sensitive man possibly manipulated by others. His comments on the EU are most unconvincing and should leave discerning readers cold.

by septic Mon Jun 23, 2008 00:12

These are the folks who are saying they will ignore the outcome of the recent referendum. Sounds pretty totalitarian to me...

by Robert Mon Jun 23, 2008 08:31

What, in your view, is the purpose of the United Kingdom High Court case regarding the Lisbon Treaty Referendum, if it cannot produce any useful results? -- by way of forcing a referendum for UK citizens?

Why do you think the UK High Court judge (Lord Justice Richards) threatened the Executive Branch of the UK Government with a court injunction to stop them in their tracks if they did not respond favourably to his "invitation" to "stay their hand" regarding the matter of ratification?

Why do you think UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown MP instantly decided to fully accept the "invitation" of Lord Justice Richards?

Last but not least, why do you think the "tycoon" who has brought the case before the UK High Court would be doing what he is doing if he did not believe that his actions might produce the result he seeks (i.e. a referendum for UK citizens on the Lisbon Treaty), and what of his legal advisers? -- what do you think they are hoping to achieve?

Also, can you provide any written evidence of your assertions regarding the "Unwritten UK Constitution", and the manner in which you apparently believe it functions? (Though some might not agree, I am assuming here that The Magna Carte -- issued in 1215 AD -- is no longer the written Constitution of the United Kingdom, at least not in full.)

by Worried Mon Jun 23, 2008 12:18

Some additional information from the Wikipedia Web Site on Vladimir Bukovsky:

"Bukovsky was one of the first to expose the use of psychiatric imprisonment against political prisoners in the Soviet Union. He spent a total of twelve years in Soviet prisons, labor camps and in psikhushkas, forced-treatment psychiatric hospitals used by the regime as special prisons."

"From June 1963 to February 1965, Bukovsky was convicted (Article 70-1 of the Penal Code of the RSFSR) and sent to a psikhushka for organizing poetry meetings in the center of Moscow (next to the Mayakovsky monument)."

Full text at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Bukovsky

by We the People Mon Jun 23, 2008 13:57

The only purpose of the Treaty of Lisbon/EU Constitution was to override the Irish Constitution and the Laws of this Country.

Why? Because Ireland has the only fully ratified Constitution enacted by the People in the World and stands in the way of Global dictatorship.

Why have the elected members of Govt. repeatedly stated that they never read the Treaty?
Because they cannot be charged in a Court of Law with an attempted Coup d'etat or an act of Treason by knowingly and willfully lieing to the People in relation to Declaration 17 of the EU Charter which states that EU Law will superseed all Irish Law and the Constitution of the Country , the ONLY reason that is needed to vote NO and protect future Generations against a Totaliterian Dictatorship.

by Sceptic Mon Jun 23, 2008 15:11

“The only purpose of the Treaty of Lisbon/EU Constitution was to override the Irish Constitution and the Laws of this Country” – We the people

This is untrue. In the areas in which it has competence EU law already overrides the constitution as has done since 1973. And EU directives, once transposed into Irish law, are Irish law as much as any other law. There is nothing sinister in this.

“Why? Because Ireland has the only fully ratified Constitution enacted by the People in the World and stands in the way of Global dictatorship.” – We the people
This is a statement from a deluded person. It will be news to many others that their constitutions are less valid than the Irish. You seem to have a very strange notion of both Ireland and the EU.

“These are the folks who are saying they will ignore the outcome of the recent referendum. Sounds pretty totalitarian to me...”
Person who wrote this has no notion of what totalitarianisms is. The outcome of the recent referendum is not being ignored. Ireland will not ratify as a result. However whether Ireland can or should insist that no other of the 26 States can ratify is moot. The view taken by the all the Governments including the Irish is that others should proceeded to ratify if they so wish.

To Robert re the UK court case:
Some rich man took an action to try to stop ratification or force a referendum. The case has fallen in any case. It was up to the Judge to conduct himself – he felt it was disrespectful to the court for the ratification to proceed. The UK government decided to respect this. It would be hard to envisage that the courts could tie the hands of the executive in the matter of a referendum merely because of legitimate expectations. In the event the case was lost. See the link for the English constitution and the concept of parliamentary sovereignty.

by Robert Mon Jun 23, 2008 18:05

Sceptic:

Do you have actual confirmation that "The case has fallen in any case" (as you have stated in your "Mon Jun 23, 2008 15:11" Post above)?

I've just had a look at the http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Lisbon+Treaty%2C+H...earch page and failed to find anything that would support your assertion.

Now I'm wondering if you are merely speculating (in your own mind) that the "Lisbon Treaty Referendum" case will "fall"? -- in other words, that you are (as an anonymous individual) simply pre-judging, in a very definite way, the final outcome of UK High Court's decision?

If so, I feel you should be making it clear that you are just expressing a personal belief (or wish perhaps?); otherwise, it seems to me that you might be seriously misleading several people regarding this extremely important matter.

by Browser Mon Jun 23, 2008 18:50

" ... currently being involved in a court case to review the British government's handling of the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon."

"Wheeler was educated at Eton College. He did his National Service with the Welsh Guards, before studying at Oxford, from where he graduated with a second-class degree in law. He practised law as a barrister, before becoming an investment banker. However, Wheeler found his niche through IG Index, which pioneered spread betting. Originally, the company was launched to allow Britons to speculate on gold, when foreign exchange controls made it exhorbitantly expensive to actually buy it."

The above excerpts have been copied from the following Wikipedia location: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Wheeler

by Sceptic Mon Jun 23, 2008 21:02

Sorry the Wheeler case is not yet lost though I predict it will be. Whoever the ratification process has not been halted - Wheeler has failed in that respect except for the act of final ratification. Wheeler seems to be a bit of an oddball and an eccentric who is indulging himself. My view it that it will be ordinary people who loose out if Lisbon is not ratified by Ireland - it will be harmful to the economy and its future prospects. It’s noteworthy that some of the main opponents of it are either very wealthy - Rupert Murdoch, Wheeler, Ganley, McFaddan. Or else people on in years and very comfortable who have less of a stake in the future - like Gay Byrne, Bruce Arnold, Shane Ross and Vincent Brown and can indulge their 1960s vestigial anarchism a bit. It’s the unwealthy young farmer or apprentice of student who will suffer most if economic prospects disapprove as a result of rejection. Jack O'Connor is short-sighted in looking for concessions out of the process as workers will be worse off if the treaty is never implemented in Ireland in the first place - he fails to see the bigger picture. The Unite/Amicus union is affected by British euroscepticsism as it is British based.

by Robert Mon Jun 23, 2008 22:29

Personally, I would not feel at all safe about attempting to predict the final decision of the UK High Court -- mainly because it appears to me that the UK Judiciary may well have very deliberately delayed the timing of their final decision: until AFTER they knew the results of the Republic of Ireland referendum. (I would if I was in their position.)

Now that the Republic of Ireland electorate has said "NO" to the Lisbon Treaty, in a manner which very clearly means "NO" (and nothing else), there are many well informed observers (in many different places) who, right from the moment our referendum results became known, have repeatedly been saying (in effect, though in slightly different ways perhaps) things such as:

"That's it, by it's very own rules -- whereby ALL states MUST ratify the Lisbon Treaty (i.e. 'full duck or no dinner') -- the European Union is, WITHOUT ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER, obliged to immediately file it all away in the dustbin of history".

Might the UK Judiciary not now decide that Stuart Wheeler's High Court challenge (relating to UK ratification of the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum) is nothing more than an "academic" issue -- for everybody -- at this stage; and, that as such, it is no longer of any importance whatsoever to them, as far as their work as High Court Judges goes?

I would, if I were in their position.

Why spend time and tax-payers money discussing, debating, and arguing about the means by which an unborn child can safely be delivered into the world, when the unfortunate child in question is already known to be dead in the womb?

by Jimbob Tue Jun 24, 2008 13:22

Why continue to ratify after the Irish vote?
Because, although Lisbon won't have an effect if it's not ratified by all 27 countries, the idea is to get the other 26 to do it, and use that as pressure to bully Ireland into voting again.

Hence the knee jerk reaction to scold us (from politicians and talking heads in the media) for getting it wrong.
The media, rather than giving space for reasoned debate to the people who voted no, and filling the healines with Hysteria from a select few EU officials about Ireland being kicked out, or a two speed EU, and the huge CRISIS (what Crisis?)
And at the same time they will put words in the mouths of the NO voters, with their columns about why we voted NO, and letters pages and pubdits saying it was only because the YES side did a poor job.
It's amazing how we buy these papers that pay these journalists who can 'look into the hearts of the people' and know what fringe parochial reasons we all had for biting the hand that feeds us.
They will not acknowledge that the NO voters got it right, that there were valid reasons for the rejection of
the treaty, - which is the only thing the vote rejected.

So, the governments of the EU, (with possible exception of the Czech Republic) will railroad the Treaty through parliament, regardless of the wishes of their citizens, and then turn on the Irish voters, as if we are letting down millions of EU citizens, the same ones that they wish to gag.
We'll they can't gag us, so they want to make us feel guilty and fearful of opening our mouths instead.
The big question is, will the national character buckle against this campaign, or will it react with more resolve?

by Maura Wed Jun 25, 2008 09:58

Jimbob at Tue Jun 24, 2008 13:22,

It seems to me you've put forward some mighty strong arguments for supporting media outlets like "Indymedia (Ireland)".

Personally, I believe we're VERY lucky to have them -- and long may they continue to function, if only for the purpose of providing voters with a less blinkered and less biased view of the world of politics, and the workings of governments.

I noticed recently that in some quarters the media is now (quite rightly it seems to me) being referred to as the "fourth power".

From Wikipedia:

"The press has been described as a 'fourth power' because of its considerable influence over public opinion (which in turn affects the outcome of elections), as well as its indirect influence in the branches of government by, for example, its support or criticism of pending legislation or policy changes. It has never, however, been a formal branch of government; nor have political philosophers suggested that it become one.'

Full text at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers

Related link:
http://uk.yhs.search.yahoo.com/avg/search?p=Tripartite+...s-avg

by MichaelY - CAEUC/iawm Wed Jun 25, 2008 13:08

Press Release from Department of Foreign Affairs

What is not specified is what company got the job [or would the tendering process be open], what budget has been agreed, the duration of the "analysis", the sample, the questions that will be asked and so on.

To be watched carefully as a similar exercise in Denmark a few years ago when the Danes voted NO took over a year to complete and cost a fortune!!!!

For your info

An Roinn Gnóthaí Eachtracha Preas Ráiteas
Department of Foreign Affairs Press Release
Preas Oifig, Teach Uibh Eachach, Faiche Stiabhna, Baile Átha Cliath 2
Press Office, Iveagh House, St Stephen’s Green, Dublin 2.

Tel: 353 -1- 478 0822 Fax: 353 -1- 478 5942 / 475 7476

Idirlíon/Internet: www.dfa.ie Ríomh Phost/E-mail: press.office@ dfa.ie

Minister Martin announces comprehensive analysis on the Lisbon Treaty referendum and public attitudes toward the European Union.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Micheál Martin, TD, has announced that, as part of its analysis of the outcome of the Lisbon Treaty referendum, the Government today decided to commission a research project. Its aim will be to clarify the reasons underlying the rejection of the Treaty and to provide information on public attitudes toward the European Union.

Speaking after today’s Cabinet meeting, Minister Martin said:
“The outcome of the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty requires serious reflection and analysis in the period ahead. At last week’s European Council, it was agreed that more time was needed to analyse the situation and that the Council’s October meeting will receive a progress report. This project will allow for a deeper understanding of the factors that shaped the outcome of the referendum and will represent an important input into the Government’s analysis of the best way forward for Ireland.”

Commenting on the findings in the Eurobarometer survey which was published today, Minister Martin said:
“I welcome the findings of the survey which show that Irish citizens are among the most positive in their general attitude to the European Union and that we have a strong sense of the benefits EU membership has brought to our country. Today’s Eurobarometer findings indicate that a massive 82 per cent of Irish people believe that Ireland has benefited from our membership of the Union. This is higher than in any other Member State. I believe that this very positive attitude will be a source of strength as we move forward in the coming weeks and months.”

ENDS+++
Press Office
24 June 2008

by Researcher Wed Jun 25, 2008 14:25

Stated Claim of Research Project:

"... the Government today decided to commission a research project ... its aim will be to clarify the reasons underlying the rejection of the Treaty and to provide information on public attitudes toward the European Union."

Real Purpose:

To put a very heavy layer of no-expense-spared spin on what most voters already know all too well about the European Union, and which our Government should also know -- had they been willing to respectfully listen to the people they are supposed to be serving.

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."

Related link: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=You+can+fool+all...meta=

by Jacob Ite & The Minty Teas Tue Jul 01, 2008 01:00

Short of a popular movement to bring the Government back to the Constitution, there is no hope that this country will not suffer its inevitable fate. Ireland has been "Enronised" by Corporate Greed and a complicit and "cheap" Government and Civil and Legal service. The ubiquitous soup that suspends and nurtures these destructive forces are of course the Molesworth Brotherhood and other Chatham House tipplers like Common Purpose and various other Marxist inspired morally deficient humans.

What, I hear Mr Septic say? Im talking hoo-ey. Alright so. Go to the CIA World Fact book and look at Irelands foreign debt. Its 1.81 Trillion yoyos. Divide that by head of population. You get 442,961 per citizen. Nothing unusual there until you compare other countries.

UK - 172,748; France 68,626; Germany 54,498, Spain 59,445; Italy 40,330; Denmark 89,813; Belgium 126;202; Netherlands 136,795; Poland 4,402; Hungary 12,678; Iceland 10,096; Norway 101,002; Switzerland 176,746. And I think the US is about 40,000.

So what picture does this all draw? Well Ireland, simply speaking, is the most indebted nation on this beautiful spinning planet. Should the Irish government "socialize" this debt by taking loans to bail out private banks and companies that default in an effort to save jobs, you will be left paying the tax. Look at the stability pact in the Lisbon Treaty. 3% of GDP is all we can take out. When this comes into force we're nutsed. Only outside of the EU, having repealed the Single European act by referendum, and issued our own money again, can we hope to stave off this debt from being heaped upon those innocent people who are already struggling to pay mortgages and had nothing to do with our corrupt goverment policies.

The chief problem I have with socialism/communism is that it says its OK for the government to take the money you earn, and hence to kill off the concept of human charity and the enterprising spirit.

To whom to we have to thank for this economic miracle? Charlie Haughey and his initial deals with international banking establishments in the IFSC? Bertie Ahern for his involvement with the Council on Foreign Relations? The IRA for their involvement with the Anglo Irish Bank? Tony O'Reilly for giving handouts to Ray Bourke so that he would reduce our oil and gas reserve profits from the Norwegian inspired model of 50% State Ownership / 50% take of revenue in 1987 down to 25%/25%? Or Bertie for reducing them to 0%/0% a few years later (No Bank account - cant prove anything) and his subsequent meteoric rise to fame assisted by O'Reillys papers.

Think of the revenues lost by the state from loss of oil and gas revenues since 1992. How can a socialist state like ours survive this burden while keeping the doors of immigration open and the nanny social system that we have coupled with the endemic corruption associated with all socialist regimes?

No. Its us. We, collectively through our lack of moral courage and non adherance to Moral law (Dont steal, beat women, take sunday off, dont lie...etc) are to blame. Had we but the insight to see that the Communist subversion of the West is actually reaching fruition through the deliberate destruction of our values and the anethesising affect of the mass media, we might have staved off the European Soviet.

Where does that leave us now? The Government desperatly want to get us into the EU and are prepared to do anything to get this done. Even if by some miracle of provedance the government were ousted and a decent crowd ran the show for the benifit of all Irish people, we would still be left with the massive pro-EU / Globalist legislative, legal and psychological apparatus that moves us all inexorably towards the homogenization of the most diverse Continent on the Planet.

Unless you can identify the Dialectic or Hegelian Materialist ideology that underpins our society, we will forever flail at the sides of the passing juggernaut. Ireland is the lynchpin of this approaching collosus. You can be sure a battle plan has been prepared that will ensure victory over the Irish people. I am amused that we are left with Socialist, Marxists and the Christian Right on the No camp. Try explaining to the Socialists and Communists that Communism is just a movement of the economic elite designed to control and consolidate the wealth and they will fall over themselves with mirth. Try explaining to the Yes camp that the EU was designed by such notable communists/socialists as Spinelli. Monet, Weber, Kojeve and Rockerfeller and they will call you mad yet not consult their own biographies.

Only one solution comes to mind. Get out into your neighbourhoods and start canvassing and creating your own opposition groups to the EU. Dont align yourselves with Shinners or Christian Right. Be Constitutionalist. Expose the endemic corruption in the EU to the public and tell them what Fianna Fail have done if they still believe they are good for this country. When the time comes for Lisbon 2, and it will, you wll need a veritable army of volounteers to oppose this Treaty and ensure that there is an palpable distaste for the EU in everyones pallete, as there should be. The EU has granted its representatives total immunity from prosecution under the Soviet system they propose. No effort is too small. 10,000 leaflets can be delivered in 5 days by one man. 2 million can be delivered by 200 men. Remind people that what they will have to pay in increased EU taxes to fund their corrupt government will be more than offset by the sacrifice of a weeks wages.

Getting kicked out is not an option. We will have to vote ourselves out by referendum. Will we become like Cuba if this happens? I bet not. I bet desperate Europeans will be swimming here from Cherbourg to escape the opressive monstrosity that awaits them. We will gather unto ourselves only the finest and not a few subversives that will attempt to get us into the Eu so we dont break the illusion that the EU is a collectively approved progressive movement. The crooks in Europe and Ireland will scurry for their EU posts. We can buy tickets for all the weakminded masons and the "post democracy" trained Common Purpose apparatchiks on the CAT to Le Harve and tell them to take every copy of communist/marxist/globalist claptrap literature with them.

We can then get on with yapping, working, fishing, farming, drinking, fighting, showing deference to the Man, and being blissfully politically incorrect, like we've done for millennia.

Long live Ireland!

Long Live Diversity!

Long Live the European Nation States!

by Yippie ! Tue Jul 01, 2008 06:58

who refused last night to sign the Treaty of Lisbon on the basis of our Irish No Vote, we are not on our own. Buy a drink for every Pole you see !!

Now it only remains for the Czechs Republic to blow it clean out of the water !

Twas the wisdom of the Irish People that has gained this repriieve for Europe.

It is also the best thing the Irish Left has ever achieved in its history !

The entire apparatus of the State and Big Business, the Catholic Church too, was taken on by the people and shattered.

Things will never be the same again here - just watch the Local and European election results in eleven months time, FF, FG, Labour and PD councillors are already scared shitless, they are facing the Wrath of the Risen People.

The people won through their own innate wisdom, people of all political hues and colours and none -

to be fair what the Left contributed was not numbers, but planning, organisation and direction -

Shows what you can do when you get up off your butts and get out there into the Real World.

Sinn Fein deserves great credit too, again not for the numbers of voters it provided, but for the machine they provided that was the envy of many, and still is, in N.I. since partition.

Note that many Sinn Fein campaigners vary from Left to Right in orientation. What they and the Left gave is Leadership on the ground.

Libertas was not at all active on the ground, but, love em or hate em, Ganley and Mary Lou were a winning unbeatable team on TV , where it counts - they made a handsome couple too !!

And FF Director of Campaign Minister Micheal Martin, was probably the most miserable political performer on TV since RTE set up 47 years ago back in 1961.

The Irish Left displayed what it can do - and without the New Labour Party too ! - when it gets Real.

Joe Higgins threw all his Stalinist books in the fire and performed out of his skin, so much so that he must have surprised himself.

De Rossa showed himself to be the Greatest Traitor of the entire referendum, he can forget right now about ever being elected to anything ever again. He is scorned by Left, Right and Centre alike, the only politician to ever face such unanimous derision - with massive rejection on the way - even the PDs would run if he crossed the road and tried to join them.

Might see him in Comhair Criostai, the tiny Far Right Christian Party yet, about the only crowd that will have him, but I believe that the 'Hail Mary', the 'Our Father' and the 'Glory Be' are obligatory at all meetings, with a decade of the Rosary at their AGM in the Knights of Columbanus HQ in Ely Place -

Hear that Frank !

by Sceptic Tue Jul 01, 2008 21:47

"It is also the best thing the Irish Left has ever achieved in its history !"

Don't get carried away just yet. It was not even mainly a left victory. Libertas convinced enough centre ground middle class people that there was a respectable case for voting no. Young people voted no not because they are leftists - they are more likely to be interested in working for Goggle than Joe Higgins – but because they take prosperity for granted and have a euroscepticism born more of pride and ignorance than analysis. Libertas also advertised heavily in Facebook.com and other similar sites. Fishing and many rural people were opposed for there own reasons and the Dublin working class was opposed to immigrants. Ask any Dublin taxi man or ask around in a north Dublin pub if you don’t believe me on that last one.

by Barometer Wed Jul 02, 2008 00:21

It's amazing how people who failed to predict a NO result now believe they know exactly what it was based on.

The fact they are so sure of something which is not true doesn't bode well for their chances of even securing a re-run, and if they do, and they lose again...

Look at the Eurobarometer survey to why Ireland voted no

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/flash_arch_...m#245

by Jacob Ite & The Minty Teas Fri Jul 04, 2008 18:42

You'd scarcely believe it but I was strolling past the Dail the other day when I almost tripped on a coal hole. To my surprise when I looked in there was a piece of paper lodged under it. At the top it was printed boldly, PLAN B: Plug in the voting machines, just like Nice 2.

by Sceptic Fri Jul 04, 2008 20:09

The problem is very few people will admit to a pollster or reporter that they voted for reasons of race. Thus an invalidity in the Eurobarometer finding albeit one impossible to verify. Anecdotally people tended to be more angry at asylum seekers gaining entry in large numbers than EU immigrants though the asylum seekers are admitted under the Geneva Convention not the EU legal framework. There are low barriers of entry to the taxi trade and thus an increasing number of foreign taxi drivers. The native ones are annoyed by this and these guys are classic opinion leaders.

by Jacob Ite & The Minty Teas Mon Jul 07, 2008 20:09

Just stoke it up there Skeptic!! Plant those seeds of racial tension like the good little farmer you are. You are as persistant and predictable as ever. What does a goon like you get paid anyway? It cant be enough.

by Damien Mon Jul 07, 2008 21:43

"* LIE NO.3: ....... It is nonsense to suggest that the enhanced cooperation provisions of one Treaty, viz. Nice, can be used to bring into force the far wider provisions of another Treaty, viz. Lisbon."

Wasnt this one of the central arguments of the no campaign ???? I.e. that the provisions of Lisbon could be used to bring into force the far wider provisions ? How come Nice could not bring wider items into force, yet Lisbon could let anything come into force? Sounds duplicitous to me.

by Sceptic Mon Jul 07, 2008 22:10

I am not stoking up anything. It is a matter of fact that many people voted no because they felt there were too many immigrants in Ireland. I am not saying I agree with that proposition. I don't at all. But it ought to be possible to rationally address working class people's concerns without being accused of stoking up xenophobia. The problems arise when for PC reasons these matters can not be discussed or even raised. If people feel they are being ignored they can act less than rationally like voting no to Lisbon because of refugees admitted under the Geneva Convention which has nothing to do with the EU. Personally I met half a dozen taxi drivers annoyed at Nigerian and other taxi drivers coming into the trade. They felt like protesting in some way. And so they did.

by Jacob Ite & The Minty Teas Tue Jul 08, 2008 00:01

Oh , please God, how I wish the poll booths were overrun with Taxi Drivers. We'd never have entered the EU in the first place and Lisbon 2 would be a dead duck.

You should really arrest this Sceptic deception, and call yourself Skeptic, or are you ashamed of your own heritage? True to form, you are as incorrigible as ever; your innocence defended with the less than opaque candor of our Eurocrats. I could forgive them for theirs, for on the balance they know no different. Plausible deniability would hold some weight, given their charge.

At least your early rising friend, Wageslave, has a sense of humour and can express a perception of his own temporal existence. I can even picture him in another life, a devoted follwer of Zeno of Citium. Truly, you must lean towards the devotee's of Pyrrho. It must pain you to turn off your computer. But I would posit that your skepticism is only a keypad deep, for there surely is a sphere in your mind that holds to a rational belief. Something must put food on the table.

It is curiously interesting that whenever a Common Purpose or Bukovsky thread pops into your view, that your wisdom invariably follows. Too bad it followed a Coughlan article. Alas, unable to request a pull-it manouvre, you have had to commit your thoughts to a post-post, to discredit a man that has been through what you have not. Relentless counter pointing must surely must tire you at this stage. But I suppose that sort of thing is all ahead of us.

You could take a holiday in Cornwall!! Have cucumber sandwiches and tea, while its still known as such.

So, I'll off to oblivion, and humble my soul before, but will leave you with a favoured quote:

Being the largest and most powerful supra-national institution, the EU is so undemocratic that even the German EU Commissioner Gunter Verheugen admitted: "If the EU were applying for accession here, we would have to evaluate it as 'democratically insufficient'".

Case Closed..................

On with the Pantomine.