Ireland rejects treaty / a setback for EU totalitarianism

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10031
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Ireland rejects treaty / a setback for EU totalitarianism

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 1 year ago (Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:28 am)

European Union totalitarianism is in further trouble as more and more sensible Europeans are figuring out that the EU and it's non-elected parliament and officials are an all controlling, totalitarian, anti free speech body. Also recall the rejections of the EU 'Constitution'.

Ireland has just rejected the 'Lisbon Treaty', and those that tried to buy the yes votes just keep lying, see:
'EU referendum: Ireland rejects Lisbon Treaty'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... reaty.html
excerpt:
All 27 European member states have to ratify the treaty for it to go come into force next year. So far it has been approved by 18 members including Britain, but Ireland is the only country to put it to a public vote.

also see:
'Ireland rejects European Union reform treaty'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080613/ap_ ... referendum
excerpts:
"This is a very clear and loud voice that has been sent yet again by citizens of Europe rejecting the anti-democratic nature of Brussels governance," said Declan Ganley, leader of Libertas, the most prominent anti-treaty campaign group in Ireland.

Anti-treaty groups from the far left and right mobilized "no" voters by claiming that the treaty would empower EU chiefs in Brussels, Belgium, to force Ireland to change core policies ...

and:
'Voters in Ireland firmly reject European Union reform treaty'
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 6243.story

Image

For more on the non-elected EU Thought Police see:
'Zypries seeks "Holocaust Denial" EU ban'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=3978
excerpt:
... the EU Constitution has been rejected soundly of late. Where it hasn't been defeated by public vote, (recently France, The Netherlands) it has been pulled from scheduled vote before it could be defeated again.

Of all the countries that have entered the EU, only Spain (very early on), and Luxemburg were admitted by citizen vote. The 'parliaments' of the member nations put their countries in, not the citizens.* What we have then is unelected EU officials who never competed for office, with legal authority, who answer to no one. Where's the 'democracy' in this? No where.

The EU as it stands now is in trouble. The member populations, and non-member populations are realizing the totalitarianism that is part & parcel to the EU.

Imagine, you are 'represented' by people you were never allowed to vote for, and as usual, they take your money and tell you what you should think. Orwell is rolling over in his grave.

see:
Less than half show support for EU / significant?
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=729

see here for EU Constitution ratification table:
http://www.euractiv.com/en/constitution ... cle-130616

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Arrow Of Truth
Member
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 6:32 pm

Postby Arrow Of Truth » 1 decade 1 year ago (Fri Jun 13, 2008 5:05 pm)

Anti-Lisbon campaigner Declan Ganley is bankrolled by various American industrialists linked to neoconservative circles. Ganley himself made his fortune supplying parts to the military industrial complex in America. The other two thirds of the coalition was made of more honest leftists & sound centre right anti-abortion, Catholic groups.

The mood in Ireland is upbeat and defiant. ALL of the establishment parties campaigned for a "Yes" vote. This was a sledgehammer hit against them.

I anticipate that the European bureaucrats will press on with this treaty regardless leaving Ireland in a twilight zone.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10031
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 1 year ago (Fri Jun 13, 2008 5:26 pm)

Anti-Lisbon campaigner Declan Ganley is bankrolled by various American industrialists linked to neoconservative circles

Indeed, some industrialists and those who sell and buy their products would probably oppose the EU and it's outrageous taxes, but it would seem to me that the judeo-supremacist neo-cons would love the unelected EU. What with the EU kowtowing to Israel and the EU's desire to have those who question the absurd 'holocaust' arrested.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

KostasL
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:27 am

Postby KostasL » 1 decade 1 year ago (Fri Jun 13, 2008 7:11 pm)

Ireland is the only country to put it to a public vote.

I am happy that this was a loud NO.

Most people in Europe Union countries would say NO too.
That's why they forgot to put it to a public vote.

Our own Greek parliament did not choose to put it to a public vote. They never do so because they know that Greek people will say No to their plans.
I am just mad with the kind of prostitute our democracy is becoming as time passes.

User avatar
ASMarques
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:07 am)

As a native of the city that unfortunately gave its name to the -- now hopefully defunct -- Lisbon Treaty, I can only thank the Irish for their stand. What a lesson they give to the whole of Europe!

Just to give you a measure of the on-going comedy, our own Portuguese Parliament actually performed a revision of the Portuguese Constitution in order to accommodate the possibility of a referendum on such an important international agreement involving a partial transference of sovereignty.

Then, as the French and Dutch rejections of the 1st version of the attempted European Constitution became known, all the talk about having a national referendum of our own on the subject was dropped and both the Government and the main opposition party agreed that such an exercise should be unnecessary for the 2nd version -- in fact very much the same European Constitution project under a different name and a complicated disguise...

So now we have a national Constitution that would allow for such a referendum, but we'll have no referendum at all, since our "representatives" know best, and the matter is deemed "too technical" for the rabble that elects them to public office...

What a bunch of deceivers! Thank god for the Irish, and let's hope that now the project gets definitely shot down in the British Parliament, or else they may still be marginalised within the EU and punished for their defiance. And we'll all end up with this undemocratic body of law imposed on us by a bunch of power-hungry bureaucrats, without public debate or a single popular consultation. Or -- let me add this -- any really significant Bill of Rights that would place restrictions on the power of the State instead of nominating it the "guarantor" of whole cornucopias of "rights" never to be enforced...
Last edited by ASMarques on Sat Jun 14, 2008 2:37 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
ASMarques
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sat Jun 14, 2008 2:07 am)

Arrow Of Truth wrote:Anti-Lisbon campaigner Declan Ganley is bankrolled by various American industrialists linked to neoconservative circles.The other two thirds of the coalition was made of more honest leftists & sound centre right anti-abortion, Catholic groups.


Yes, all of that may be true, and the political alignments are odd, with strange bedfellows for a plurality of reasons. But the issue is much wider than the occasional alignments. A lot of "justifications" for the Irish results that I saw in the media are rubbish. Some of them claim the Irish voted out of unjustified fear and were misled by the "No" campaign, because allegedly there is no actual danger at all of them losing their neutrality or being coerced into an European army into the wars decided by their would-be EU overlords.

Well, I for one happen to think they are absolutely right to fear just that. I still don't know what are Portuguese soldiers or policemen -- even without a central European super-state to order them about, and after having fought three simultaneous Vietnams in Africa for over a decade in the 60s and 70s -- doing now in Afghanistan, of all places, or why should it be a task for a few of them to cooperate in covering the backs of the Israeli occupiers at the Lebanese border...

I think the traditional Irish attitude is wise. It was very eloquently expressed by Eamon de Valera in response to Churchill, in the aftermath of the WW2 catastrophe, and this is how he put it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emerge ... rld_War_II

De Valera's reluctance to recognise a difference between World War II and previous European wars was illustrated by his reply to a radio broadcast by the British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill on V-E Day. Churchill praised Britain's restraint in not occupying Ireland in order to secure the Western Approaches during the Battle of the Atlantic:

"...the approaches which the southern Irish ports and airfields could so easily have guarded were closed by the hostile aircraft and U-boats. This indeed was a deadly moment in our life, and if it had not been for the loyalty and friendship of Northern Ireland, we should have been forced to come to close quarters with Mr. de Valera, or perish from the earth. However, with a restraint and poise to which, I venture to say, history will find few parallels, His Majesty’s Government never laid a violent hand upon them, though at times it would have been quite easy and quite natural, and we left the de Valera Government to frolic with the German and later with the Japanese representatives to their heart’s content."

De Valera replied to Churchill in another radio broadcast, which was popular in Eire:

"Allowances can be made for Mr. Churchill’s statement, however unworthy, in the first flush of victory. No such excuse could be found for me in this quieter atmosphere. There are, however, some things it is essential to say. I shall try to say them as dispassionately as I can. Mr. Churchill makes it clear that, in certain circumstances, he would have violated our neutrality and that he would justify his actions by Britain’s necessity. It seems strange to me that Mr. Churchill does not see that this, if accepted, would become a moral code and that when this necessity became sufficiently great, other people’s rights were not to count… that is precisely why we had this disastrous succession of wars -- World War No.1 and World War No.2 -- and shall it be World War No.3? Mr. Churchill is proud of Britain’s stand alone, after France had fallen and before America entered the war. Could he not find in his heart the generosity to acknowledge that there is a small nation that stood alone not for one year or two, but for several hundred years against aggression; that endured spoliations, famine, massacres, in endless succession; that was clubbed many times into insensibility, but each time on returning to consciousness took up the fight anew; a small nation that could never be got to accept defeat and has never surrendered her soul?"


I am by no means anti-EU if we can make it a peaceful confederation of nations with commonly enforced guarantees against government, but I think British MEP Nigel Farage puts the current problems of unaccountability well here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4e4t3vqP4c

One of the most revolting results of EU undue interference on the internal affairs of small members is the pressure to have censorship imposed on them. Well, this small country had to live under it for more than four decades, and I'm afraid the Lisbon Treaty wouldn't make the current prospects any better...

Arrow Of Truth
Member
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 6:32 pm

Postby Arrow Of Truth » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sat Jun 14, 2008 7:31 am)

ASMarques wrote:As a native of the city that unfortunately gave its name to the -- now hopefully defunct -- Lisbon Treaty, I can only thank the Irish for their stand. What a lesson they give to the whole of Europe!

Just to give you a measure of the on-going comedy, our own Portuguese Parliament actually performed a revision of the Portuguese Constitution in order to accommodate the possibility of a referendum on such an important international agreement involving a partial transference of sovereignty.

Then, as the French and Dutch rejections of the 1st version of the attempted European Constitution became known, all the talk about having a national referendum of our own on the subject was dropped and both the Government and the main opposition party agreed that such an exercise should be unnecessary for the 2nd version -- in fact very much the same European Constitution project under a different name and a complicated disguise...

So now we have a national Constitution that would allow for such a referendum, but we'll have no referendum at all, since our "representatives" know best, and the matter is deemed "too technical" for the rabble that elects them to public office...

What a bunch of deceivers! Thank god for the Irish, and let's hope that now the project gets definitely shot down in the British Parliament, or else they may still be marginalised within the EU and punished for their defiance. And we'll all end up with this undemocratic body of law imposed on us by a bunch of power-hungry bureaucrats, without public debate or a single popular consultation. Or -- let me add this -- any really significant Bill of Rights that would place restrictions on the power of the State instead of nominating it the "guarantor" of whole cornucopias of "rights" never to be enforced...


The "yes" side had to sell something the "yes" side didn’t understand. The Taoiseach that headed the "yes" campaign admitted he hadn’t read it. The commissioner kept giggling mischievously that he hadn’t read it either. Even the finest legal minds on and off the continent where split on what the damn thing meant.

The people where getting presented with an incomprehensible treaty that was supposed to (wait for it!) “simplify” :roll: the incomprehensible EU bureaucracy! People don’t like to be treated like fools with such arrogant chicanery and then when the only “dialogue” from Brussels was dark threats and vulgar abuse, a “no” was a done deal.

Regardless of Lisbon, the EU’s trajectory is to concentrate powers and harmonise all levels of European society into one single standard whether that’s in the area of crime or social policy. Rivals for now, the gangs in charge of America and Europe will eventually align themselves. That was reason enough to vote “no”. That it pays Irish farmers not to produce, bringing that community to its knees was another reason, neutrality, abortion are more vital reasons and on it goes.

Nigel Farrage, an English MEP once made reference to a “self amendment” clause. I didn’t hear any more about that but if that is true all “debate” about Lisbon was superfluous. Making anything possible.

The only reason Europe and America haven’t made common cause already is that France and Germany had their goods invested in Iraq before the Americans stampeded their way through it.

Once the celebrations die down they’ll knock in Lisbon in the end. I’m not sure how but they’ll certainly find a way.

User avatar
ASMarques
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sun Jun 15, 2008 12:50 am)

Hannover wrote:European Union totalitarianism is in further trouble as more and more sensible Europeans are figuring out that the EU and it's non-elected parliament and officials are an all controlling, totalitarian, anti free speech body. Also recall the rejections of the EU 'Constitution'.


Just a correction. You got too carried away there, rather understandably, I would say. The EU parliament is actually an elected body, but the rest of it is true. The eurocrats in power are a bunch of power-hungry bureaucrats who would be quite happy without any popular vote at all.

Here is a good "explanation" of the (hopefully sunk) Treaty by a Danish MEP:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Kr0Foq3CQE

Some nice news (and excellent comments by the readers):
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p ... 138792.ece

And thank god for the English too!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw7XwexR2ec
[very funny stuff from 04:45 on]

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10031
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sun Jun 15, 2008 1:11 am)

ASMarques says:
The EU parliament is actually an elected body

You're splitting hairs considering how EU membership and the EU constitution are overwhelmingly not elected by the populations of the various countries. For a reality check, see below.

- Hannover

part I
Myth
The European Union is democratically controlled
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2004/0 ... -week.html

The Council of Ministers

In answer to the charge that "Europe is undemocratic and that power lies with unelected, faceless bureaucrats," the UK Representation of the European Commission is fond of reminding us that

The most powerful decision-making body, the Council of Ministers, is responsible through its members to parliaments and electorates in every EU country.

Furthermore, it states, "Each country decides how to make its ministers accountable." ref UKREC.

Thus, the Commission effectively argues, because Council members are responsible to their electorates, the European Union is democratically controlled. (It goes on then to describe the role of the European Parliament – we will deal with that in Part II of this piece.)

In order to explode this particular myth – that the Council somehow adds democratic legitimacy to the European Union – we simply need to look at what the Council is, and what it does.

Firstly, the Council itself. In fact there are many "Councils" each dealing with specific policy areas – like environment, transport, fisheries, agriculture, etc. Their members are the sectoral ministers from the member states, each council comprising the same number of ministers as there are member states.

So what do they do?

The answer to that is quite simple – they "legislate". That is, they receive proposals from the unelected Commission, asking them to take powers and/or responsibilities from their member state governments (or to impose obligations on their citizens).

They then turn these proposals into laws, giving the Commission the powers it asks for – often acting by qualified majority voting - thereby depriving their own governments (and/or citizens) of power.

That's it.

From then on, the Commission having been given the power, it keeps it, to exercise as it thinks fit. The Council has no further part to play in the process, unless or until the Commission comes back to ask it to amend or extend those powers (or both).

Does the Council maintain an oversight over how those powers are exercised? No.

Has the Council any power to call the Commission to account over the way it uses its powers? No.

Can the Council remove or modify those powers, if it is unsatisfied with the way the Commission is performing? No.

Does the Council even have the power to ask the Commission for information on its performance? Er… No.

So what is the Council?

In effect, it is a transfer station. On the basis of proposals from the Commission, it handles the process of taking powers from member states, packaging them up and shovelling them into the Commission, for them never to be returned.

Does it ask the electorate in advance - through an election manifesto - what powers it should hand over? No.

And is any record kept of which particular ministers vote for what, so that they can be taken to task by their electorates, if they vote the wrong way? No.

That's democratic?

part II
Myth
The European Union is democratically controlled
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2004/0 ... -week.html

Part II – The European Parliament

In Part I, we looked at the UK Representation of the European Commission’s answer to the charge that "Europe is undemocratic and that power lies with unelected, faceless bureaucrats," and dealt with the claim that the Council of Ministers conferred a democratic element to the European Union.

In this second part, we look at the European parliament, the only directly elected institution in the EU, and assess whether it confers any democratic element to the European Union.

All the Commission claims of the parliament is that “direct elections” have “created a body with a clear mandate from the electorate”. “MEPs”, it continues, “are accountable for their work on legislation and in scrutinising the other EU institutions”.

The use of the word “mandate” in this context is interesting. It is generally held to mean the sanction given by electors to members of parliament to deal with a question before the country. In other words, the candidates for the election set out their stalls, the electors look at the rival offerings and choose between them.

In national elections, this choice has some validity because the winning party – or coalitions – go on to form a government, which then (in theory at least) executes the voters’ mandate. But in the European parliament, this cannot happen.

For a start, the election does not produce a government, so the parliament has no power or authority to execute a mandate. It cannot, for instance, decide to repeal any EU laws – it cannot even initiate any laws. Those powers lie elsewhere. Therefore, the candidates – or the parties they represent – cannot produce manifestos in any meaningful sense of the word, as they have no means by which they can deliver on promises made.

Furthermore, in a parliament of 732 members, Britain elects only 78 MEPs, and then from different parties. But even if all were from one party and were clearly set on one course of action, they do not have the numbers to dictate terms. Even as a united bloc, they are swamped by the members from other member states.

Therein lies one of the central defects of the European parliament. The essence of a parliamentary system is that it is the core of a system of representative democracy, where the members go to parliament to represent their electors’ views (and safeguard their interests). But British MEPs cannot represent the interests of their electors – there are not enough of them to do so.

Furthermore – and this strikes at the heart of the concept of a supranational parliament – there is no commonality of interest in the peoples of the member states that would enable discrete blocs to emerge that could be adequately represented by a multi-national coalition of MEPs. In other words, there is no European demos and, without that, there can be no European democracy.

As for being “accountable for their work on legislation and in scrutinising the other EU institutions”, as the UK Representation of the European Commission claims, the suggestion that the EP is “accountable” begs the question of to whom? Without any meaningful manifestos, the electorates have no yardstick (metrestick?) against which to measure the performance of their supposed representatives, so there can be no way of holding representatives to account.

Further, due to the arcane voting system in the parliament, MEP voting performances in the main (plenary) sessions are most often not recorded. By far the bulk of votes are settled by a show of hands, which means there is no record kept of who voted for what. The average voter has no ready means of determining how their MEPs behaved.

But the ultimate indictment of the system is the way that legislation goes rolling on, even when a new parliament is elected. In the UK system, when parliament is prorogued prior to an election, all outstanding legislation – not yet passed – falls. Not so in the EP. Newly elected members can and do find themselves voting on the second or third readings of laws that were introduced to the previous parliament. The names and faces may have changed – the voters may have completely shifted their allegiances – but that makes absolutely no difference to the nature of the progression of legislation through the parliament.

Then there is the scrutiny of “other EU institutions”. In fact, there is no EP scrutiny of the Council, but the only scrutiny worth a light is, in any case, of the Commission. Here, commissioners do put themselves up for questioning by MEPs but, as recalled in an earlier Blog, anyone who has seen this done knows full well what a charade this is.

The strategy is well established and cynically transparent. First you have a sympathetic "chairperson", who is able to make sure the "right" people are picked to ask questions - and also allow for the token antis (just to prove they are "democratic"). Next you pack the committee with patsies who can be relied upon to "soft-ball" the commissioner. Then, you take questions in blocks of five, so the commissioner can "cherry-pick" the bits of the package he/she wants to answer.

You also impose a time limit on the whole session, and let the commissioner waffle on as long as he/she likes, until time runs out without any of the awkward questions from the token antis being answered. And, of course, supplementaries are either not allowed or severely curtailed. As a result of this, the questioning sheds light only on this issues which the commission wants to reveal, and no serious examination every takes place. Sessions end up as an opportunity for commissioners to propagandise or, as the case may be, evade accountability, while giving the appearance to the outsider of being open to scrutiny.

Some apologists for the EU, however, take a different tack when discussing the democratic legitimacy. They point to national parliaments, like Westminster, where most law is passed in the form of regulation, passed automatically through parliament without even a vote; where the government majority can ensure the passage of Bills without being troubled by the opposition.

But there is a difference. Individual MPs do represent their constituents and, if the nation really gets worked up about something, the House collectively can force a change. Even the mighty Thatcher government was forced to look again at the poll tax. Even at a minor level, with technical regulations that are causing problems, chances can be secured by the intervention of an MP, concerned at the loss of votes, or seeing the opportunity to attract some favourable publicity.

That difference tells the whole story. No matter what individual MEPs might think about an existing piece of EU law – and even if all 732 members wanted it changed (which is highly unlikely) – it cannot force a change. The unelected commission has the absolute right of initiative, and can ignore parliament completely.

This makes the parliament a toothless entity but – more to the point – its existence does not confer democracy on an essentially anti-democratic organisation.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
ASMarques
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sun Jun 15, 2008 1:36 am)

Hannover wrote:
ASMarques wrote:The EU parliament is actually an elected body

You're splitting hairs considering how EU membership and the EU constitution are overwhelmingly not elected by the populations of the various countries. For a reality check, see below.


Well, I didn't say -- or even imply -- the European Union was "democratically controlled." I was saying quite the opposite, in fact. What I said was simply that it was not accurate to describe the EU parliament as a non-elected body. That's all and it's not exactly "splitting hairs," regardless of the parliament's powers. I dont' think we have yet reached the stage when "elected" and "non-elected" mean the same.

And, of course, I'm glad the "European Constitution" is being resisted. I don't think there is a need for one. Or rather, what is badly needed is some sort of loose articles of confederation to provide "collective constitutional room," so to say, for an effective Bill of Rights (in the American sense of restrictions to government power) and the separation of powers in the member states, which I'm afraid would require a certain degree of interference with the national constitutions, but then membership should never be imposed.

I'm afraid all of that is quite unthinkable for the foreseeable future. However, I believe that the present Lisbon Treaty will be impossible to implement after the Irish "NO" and a probable rejection by the British parliament, and I see that as a good result.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10031
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sun Jun 15, 2008 9:53 am)

ASMarques,

Your points are well made, thanks.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Kiwichap
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 11:54 pm
Location: New Zealand

Postby Kiwichap » 1 decade 1 year ago (Wed Jun 18, 2008 3:57 am)

What is the Lisbon Treaty?
A politician will be chosen to be president of the European Council for two and a half years, replacing the current system where presidency is rotated between member states every six months. Another post to be created will be the EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy, combining the current roles of EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and external affairs commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner.

The Lisbon Treaty makes the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights a legally-binding document. The charter lists the human rights recognized by the European Union.
Thats scary.
The European Commission is the EU’s executive arm; it puts forward legislation and ensures that EU policies are correctly implemented. Since 2004, it has been made up of 27 commissioners, one from each member state. Under the new treaty, the commission will be reduced to 18 members from 2014, with membership rotating every five years. This means that only two-thirds of member states will have their own commissioner at any one time, and each country will lose its commissioner for five years at a time.

And Bingo!. you're gone. Welcome to your nightmare.

Under the Lisbon Treaty, the commission is obliged to consider any proposal signed by at least one million citizens from a number of member states.

Does that mean... If one million Jews scattered throughout the EU, decide that laughing at their fable makes them feel sad. Nobody in the EU is allowed to laugh anymore? - Ha ha ha.

The Lisbon Treaty for Dummies.
http://www.independent.ie/special-features/your-eu/the-lisbon-treaty-for-dummies-1376340.html
There was no holocaust.

Tit 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

Mannstein
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 7:50 pm

Postby Mannstein » 1 decade 1 year ago (Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:23 pm)

The Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel has been behind the project to push for this latest EU Constitution after the first one failed to pass. She has an interesting political career. This woman worked for the East German propaganda ministry before the wall came down. Then found religion, became a convinced "democrat", and joined the CDU. Chancellor Kohl took her under his wing. When he ran into difficulties due to a scandal she stabbed him in the back and took over the leadrship of the party. Now she has been implicated as being a STASI agent who spied on dissidents in East Germany. See last week's National Zeitung at

www.nationnalzeitung.de

Merkel (Das Ferkel) is nothing but an opportunist from the get go.

(Ferkel means little pig in German.)

Mannstein
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 7:50 pm

Postby Mannstein » 1 decade 1 year ago (Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:28 pm)


User avatar
ASMarques
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 1 year ago (Thu Jun 19, 2008 5:46 am)

ASMarques wrote:However, I believe that the present Lisbon Treaty will be impossible to implement after the Irish "NO" and a probable rejection by the British parliament, and I see that as a good result.


I was wrong. The UK has now ratified the treaty, instead of postponing the decision in the Lords as I was hoping. So here is a new prevision (I hope it will go wrong too).

The odds are the whole bunch of EU political gangsters will now try to submit the only country that has had a referendum by devising some sort of isolation that will hurt the Irish.

The Irish government will then allege to its people that the results of the "awkward" Irish position -- when in fact the only awkward thing here is the EU's disguise for its totalitarian behavior -- are hurting the country's prospects, and some sort of new referendum along different lines will be devised, offering the gangster racket a chance to allege, after the voting, that the Irish have reconsidered and are willing to come into the fold.

Of course, lip service to "democracy" and to "respect for all the Irish results" will be paid all along. The new referendum, presented as an answer to a "difficult situation for Ireland," will probably consist of a trick question that will boil down to something like this: "Do we go back on the previous result and ratify the Treaty with 'Irish devised' alterations, or do we accept a second track for Ireland within the EU empowering our leaders to defend the people's interests along the difficult way as they see fit with no need for further consultation?"


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests