éirígí say NO to Lisbon Treaty

by Gramsci Fri Dec 14, 2007 09:13

It appears to me that the EU constitution was rejected because it was moving towards exactly the kind of European level democratic forms that the poster is calling for.
I believe the left should reject this treaty at their peril. In a globalised economy where multi-national corporations wield such incredible power it seems to me that only by building democratic structures on a European level can we hope to effectively regulate and control these forces. I appreciate that a) the treaty is not properly democratic and b) these European level structures are currently controled by pro-business forces but this does not preclude the possibility of winning these structures for a progressive and democratic agenda.
A strong united Europe with its long socialist and social-democratic tradition can become a necessary counter-force to an increasingly reactionary and imperialist US.
I opposed many of the earlier EU treaties on exactly the grounds proposed but increasingly came to the view that the EU was the only game in town and rather than seek to reject it, the left should seek to win it.
[There is also the more simplistic gut-level reaction that if fundamentalist Christians, Fascists and the Tory Press are against it I should be for it!]

by observer Fri Dec 14, 2007 09:40

Well large elements of the "left" are already objectively on the same side as capital with regard to the aims of enlargement. Nice was designed to facilitate the mobility of capital and labour in the interests of capital. It did. And elements of the left are providing ideological justification for that in opposing any proposal to exercise national sovereignty by imposing restrictions on the free movement of capital and labour. So at least you are following your own logic!

That you are more concerned about being on the same side as marginal Catholic groups rather than the REAL right - the Sutherlands, Lochlainn Quinns, Bertie, Enda, et al says it all.

At least Eirigi understand what is fundamentally at stake here.

by Gramsci Fri Dec 14, 2007 09:48

The Murdoch Press is against the EU becuse it has the potential to fundamentally threaten US dominance and the interests of the Multi-national corporations which they serve. They would prefer to have small weak independent nation states which can be more easily manipulated than a strong Europe in democratic control. Sutherland & Bertie are minor players in this game.

by Observer Fri Dec 14, 2007 09:54

Sutherland is not a minor player! Nor is Lochlain Quinn.

As for Murdoch you are talking about one corporation that is in no way representative of EUROPEAN capital which is almost unanimously in favour of Lisbon as it has been for all previous proposals. Lisbon represents another step towards a European super state in which a country like Ireland - no matter who is in power - will have no more influence than the Venetii did on Rome.

And anyone who deludes themselves about turning the EU into a "workers Europe" is living in cloud cuckoo land. Empires only work for the Emperor and his Consuls.

by MichaelY - iawm Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:14

Good to see Eirigi take a clear and unambiguous stance on the Lisbon Treaty which, in Bertie's words, is 95% the Constitutional Treaty that was rejected by the French and Dutch people couple of years ago.
In the words of Sarkozy (Nov 14th 2007) : "There is a cleavage between people and governments....A referndum now would would result in having no Treaty....it would be defeated in France and then in the UK"!!

About 50 activists from PANA, the Peoples Movement, the IAWM, the CPI, the Workers Party, Sinn Fein, People Before Profit, the SWP, members of the Green Party, AFRI, the IRSP, Amnesty and independents have been meeting regularly over the last couple of months with an objective to putting together a progressive and coherent NO to the Lisbon Treaty Campaign.

Our next General Meeting is at 11.00 in the morning tomorrow Saturday , Dec. 15th, in Dublin's Teachers Club. This will be an important moment as the Labour Party has just come out for a YES vote.......all welcome, particularly our Eirigi friends.

by Gorgon Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:18

There are almost 200 states in the world with their own beaucratic infrastructure, legal systems and complex government machinary.
If international political and economic institutions and forums were not existent negotiating strategies to tackle poverty, issues of free trade, conflict, terrorism, climate change, nuclear ploriferation etc etc would be impossible.
In an age when modern communications, high speed transport and globalised capitalism have created a global village it is natural that political and economic links will be strengthen.
North American, South American, Asian, African, European countries are all discovering that regional alliances are in the interests of everyone - rich and poor alike - and as human species co-operation is in all our collective self-interests.
Human civilisation is converging, models of human rights, democracy, freedom and liberal capitalism are becoming the norm across the globe - human beings like never before see themselves as global citizens.
I do not believe in utopia or paradise or the kingdom of God on earth.
However it appears to me that an unstoppable process is in train and perhaps decades and centurues from now a global political and economic union is the ultimate goal.
Nations that have economic and political links and interdependencies are less likely to go to war with one another.
A strong European alliance means that the age old conflicts between Britain, France, Germany and Russia will be less likely to re-emerge.
If the system of government in a strong united Europe - which has created unparalleled living standards and the longest period of peace on the continent since the dawn of civilisation - can be transported to the ends of the earth and adapted by the third world not by force but when their government see iits success can be mimicked then that is surely a good thing?

by anon Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:24

there are 26 counties in the republic.we get it already

by tristram Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:18

I was wavering on this one.

Now that Jean Marie le Pen is joining his soulmates on the extreme left to oppose the treaty my mind is made up.

If nine out of ten fascist cats are against this treaty it must be OK.

There can be no higher recommendation.

by MichaelY - iawm Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:38

Your choice of handle should explain to a large extent your wavering on this crucial issue.
Tristram was, if anything at all, a waverer par excellence.
Now to your comment about Le Pen and his "soulmates" in the Left who oppose the Treaty in France, in the Netherlands, in the rest of the EU and in Ireland. Ask yourself why almost all Euopean Governments have decided not to hold a referendum....if the issue is so straight-forward what's the problem?
The problem.of course, is that there is a huge democratic deficit - governments are afraid of the peoples views (remember Nice I and II here Tristan?). Elections and referenda are OK when the power elites win....otherwise, as Brecht used to say, we cancel the people and their views.
The Irish Constitution imposes a referendum....and many many of us, from the left, the centre and everywhere else, who believe in local democracy, in workers rights, in womens rights will struggle for a NO vote......Le Pen or no fucking Le Pen!
As for u Tristan keep wavering......you have a perfect role model in Bertie himself. Watch this space.

Sir Tristan is one of the main characters of the Tristan and Iseult story, a Cornish hero and one of the Knights of the Round Table featuring in the Matter of Britain. He is the son of Blancheflor and Rivalen (in later versions Isabelle and Meliodas), and the nephew of King Mark of Cornwall, sent to fetch Iseult back from Ireland to wed the king. However, he and Iseult accidentally consume a love potion while en route and fall helplessly in love. The pair undergo numerous trials that test their secret affair.

by Roger Cole - Peace & Neutrality Alliance Fri Dec 14, 2007 15:46 pana at eircom dot net 17 Castle Street, Dalkey. Co. Dublin 01-2351512

The proposed treaty is the EU Constitution with a new name.
The only reason it was given a new name was to prevent the people in the different EU states from voting on it as it would have been defeated as Sarkozy has admitted. The only reason why Ireland is having a referendum is because Ahern was forced to because of the Irish Supreme Court Judgement in the Crotty case which said that power could not be transfered to the EU institutions from the Irish people without their agreement.
Those of us who believe in Irish Independence, Irish Democracy and Irish Neutrality will be campaigning for a no vote. The vast majority of those campaigning for a yes vote want to destroy the last vestiges of Irish Democracy. They are the same people who supported the invasion , conquest and occupation of Iraq. On one level his referendum will divide people between those people that support Imperialism and those that support Irish Democracy. However since the the people of the other states are not being allowed to vote it is also a European Battle between all those throughout Europe that support Imperialism and those that support a Partnerhsip Europe, a partnership of Independent Democratic states, legal equals, without a military dimension. Since 1996 PANA has campaigned against the integration of Ireland into the EU/US/NATO military structures and there is plenty of information of our campaigns on our web site:www.pana.ie
Win or lose, PANA will continue to oppose Imperialists wars. However, the latest polls show that we can win, and we will be giving it our best shot. A victory by PANA and all other groups that oppose imperialism will be a major victory, not only for the Irish peace movement, but for all peace movements in Europe and throughout the world.

by it's on the éirígí website Fri Dec 14, 2007 18:46

http://www.eirigi.org/campaigns/no_to_Lisbon.html

by Federast - EU4UZ Fri Dec 14, 2007 22:02

The people of Spain and Luxembourg democratically voted for the Constitutional Treaty. The people of France rejected the Treaty by a tiny margin and then elected a President who ran on a platform of no referendum. Would it not be anti-democratic for M Sarkozy to renege on his promise to the people of France? I know contributors to this site do not see national parliaments as legitimate voices of the people, but 19 EU member state parliaments had ratified the constitution before renegotiation.

Show me where in the text a super state is being created? All the cogent academic analysis that I have seen views the reform treaty as a move towards intergovernmentalism and away from the supposedly supernational treaties of the past. The reform treaty in fact, increases the powers of national parliaments to block EU legislation.

Show me militarisation in the text? All the solidarity clauses are optional. And don't deceive yourselves, the Irish Government fought to preserve our military neutrality in the negotiations process, but there are European nations that want enhanced cooperation in military matters. Should the people of Ireland deny them their sovereign right to choose how they defend themselves? Or should we, as the Government choose, seek to defend our position while allowing others to proceed?

It appears that the real problem is not the text of the reform treaty (which, in my view, is undoubtedly positive), but rather the mistrust of EU governments, big business and, more generally, parliamentary democracy.

It is a good text that makes sensible alterations to the structure of the union and should be supported. The unholy alliance of extreme left and right should not be allowed to dominate the debate.

by Federast Fri Dec 14, 2007 22:36

‘The only reason it was given a new name was to prevent the people in the different EU states from voting on it as it would have been defeated as Sarkozy has admitted.’

I think it has been broadly recognised by pro-Europeans across Europe that the name Constitution caused serious confusion among European electorates. The treaty was, of course, properly titled ‘A Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe’ - the key word being ‘Treaty’. It could never have been a constitution in the classical sense, so why call it one.

‘The only reason why Ireland is having a referendum is because Ahern was forced to because of the Irish Supreme Court Judgement in the Crotty case which said that power could not be transferred to the EU institutions from the Irish people without their agreement.’

Yes, there was a judgement in the Supreme Court and the Government is abiding by its terms. It makes little sense to start imaging hypothetical worlds where the Crotty judgement did not happen.

‘Those of us who believe in Irish Independence, Irish Democracy and Irish Neutrality will be campaigning for a no vote. The vast majority of those campaigning for a yes vote want to destroy the last vestiges of Irish Democracy.’

Scaremongering. Is there going to be any rational debate? Those of us who support the treaty (a larger number than those who currently oppose the treaty) hate Irish democracy and want to destroy it.

The best way, in my view, to safeguard Irish democracy and the Irish way of life is to share certain functions centrally in the Union. This will allow us to survive in an increasingly globalised world where a small nation can only gain influence through regional organisations. This must, of course, be done according to the principle of subsidiarity (which is enshrined in the new treaty) whereby decisions are taken at the lowest level possible. Of course you seem to want us to return to a world where Irish ministers lectured Johnny foreigner in the UN and nobody gave a toss. You hate the progress this country has made and you hate the influence we now bring to the table.

Your brand of scaremongering is easy to generate. The no side, for example, hates Irish jobs. They want us to loose our jobs by pulling us out of the Union. Ireland has had the longest boom in the history of the state and they want to destroy our good work. They hate our families. They want us to be an emigrant population again, constantly moving after jobs.

This is not rational debate.

‘They are the same people who supported the invasion, conquest and occupation of Iraq.’

Are they? All of them? Over 90% of the Irish public opposed the war in Iraq; if all the people who opposed the war in Iraq oppose the treaty a no vote is guaranteed. Hang up your hat, no need to campaign. This is one of the most scurrilous conflations that I have seen for some time and this from a so-called spokesman for the no vote – a member of the Forum on Europe.

‘On one level his referendum will divide people between those people that support Imperialism and those that support Irish Democracy.’

Ahh I knew it, the Euros are planning an invasion. You, as per usual, are doing a discredit to those rational members of the Irish electorate who oppose the treaty.

We should expect more from our elected leaders. Ohh wait…. nobody elected you

Eyes wide open

by We the People Fri Dec 14, 2007 23:36

Is it true that if this Treaty/Constitution is ratified , that Habeas Corpus , right to silence,double jeorardy will no longer exist?

by Roger Cole - Peace & Neutrality Alliance Sat Dec 15, 2007 01:35 17 Castle Street, Dalkey. Co. Dublin

In response to Federast I will make the following points:
1. The turnout of the electorate in France and Holland in their referendums on the EU Constitution was high and the No margin of victory was high. Sarkozy is on record as saying that if there was another referendum in France it would be beaten. In public opinion polls throughout the EU states 75% of the people have said they would like to have referendums on the proposed treaty.
When people vote in general elections they vote for a variety of different reasons. In our recent election for example the issue that dominated the first half of the election campaign was MrAhern and how he got the money for his house. In the election which Sarkozy won the issue of the renamed EU Constitution was a marginal one, and in the recent Danish election it was not an issue at all. In my experience it is very difficult to get elected and I do respect those that are voted to represent the people in Dail Eireann, but all the evidence shows from my first referendum campaign to defend the PR system in the 1960's of voting (which we won) does not mean the people will vote the same way in elections as they do in referendums.
2. There is a detailed analysis of the military dimension of the defeated EU Constitution in the document: "Yes to Europe No to Superstate" on the PANA website: www.pana.ie
The militarisation provisions in the renamed EU Constitution are essentially intact. An updated version of the PANA leaflet will be published in January 2008.
3. When Federast says the Government fought to defend Irish neutrality in the negotiations then I have to admit I am completely amazed. This Ahern Government has destroyed Irish neutrality. This is an absolute undisputable fact proved every day at Shannon Airport. The fact that RTE and the rest of the corporate media refuse to report on the number of planes using Shannon Airport does not mean they are not landing in Shannon.
4. The EU is being transformed into a centalised, militarised, neo-liberal Superstate, a European Empire and at a press conference on the treaty the President of the EU said so.

by 1-man sovereignty movement Sat Dec 15, 2007 10:41

Now we are promised the likes of Merkel and Sarkozy to tell us ignorant Paddies what to do. The all-round insecurity of our own politicians is really pathetic.

by Sceptic Sat Dec 15, 2007 11:24

Roger,
That position is totally at odds with that of the Labour Party of which you are (presumably) still a member and that you have stood for election as a candidate for in the not too distant past.

by World Weary Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:00

It is quite obvious at the outset that the new referendum has the support of all the Irish political organisation with the exception of Sinn Fein and ultra left socialists and the extreme right such as Youth Defence et al (after browsing through their websites).

Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the treaty (I am not discussing the merits or otherwise in this post) it is highly likely based on the success of the second Nice referendum result that it wil recieve a comfortable majority from Irish voters.

If Sinn Fein and socialists want to convince the Irish people not to accept this treaty they have their work cut out.

At this stage it is unlikely that they will be successful.

I may be wrong of course because nothing is certain.

by martin Sat Dec 15, 2007 14:52

as a socialist and an internationalist i will campaign for and vote for the lisbon treaty. even though i have opposed such treaties in the past. ive grown up and so should the so called left.

by 1-man sovereignty movement Sat Dec 15, 2007 15:27

First off, I don't agree with most of eirigi's views, nor with the likes of Le Pen. I'm middle of the road, middle brow, middle income (not yet a crime).

I am pro the EU for free movement of goods / labour / capital, between sovereign states, and
pro the richer members helping the poorer, and
pro the euro currency.

I am anti these:

1. The EU's accounts have not been audited and signed off by its own court of auditors for the last THIRTEEN YEARS in a row. (It's our money etc., one of us in that position would do a stretch in jail).

2. The feeling that the EU should push its weight around in places like the middle east... and then have its offices bombed by Hamas in Gaza... and then not mind about it... and then expect to be taken seriously (use the UN for the hardball stuff).

3. Our motor tax on imported used vehicles (free movement of goods, please). After 34 years that's taking the piss.

4. That VAT is 15-23% generally, while sales taxes in most of the world are about 6%.

5. Any idea of military commitments outside Ireland (see 2. above).

6. The EU expansion to the east was done too quickly; we should have helped them for 20 years, then invited them to join. Too much speed in expansion, unplanned, has led directly to the current undemocratic reform treaty. Too many egos needing something to put in their memoirs....

7. The argument that France and Germany / Germany and everywhere else etc. would suddenly want to fight each other if we voted no (insult to intelligence factor).

8. Ireland's voting weight and number of MEPs will go down (turkeys voting for christmas factor).

9. The 1937 constitution ensuring the 'sovereignty of the people' will be reduced.

10. Undue gratitude; the EU grants were a help to us, but also to those who gave. German and Italian money paying for motorways allows them to deliver their goods to us more cheaply. It wasn't a one-sided deal; they benefit in the long term.

11. The need for a second Nice referendum here (embarrassment factor).

12. Now we have to endure the likes of Merkel and Sarkozy here (insult to intelligence factor; you know they wouldn't ask Bertie to help in any of their elections. And no Gordon Brown? I wonder why not).

by Sharon. - Individual . Sat Dec 15, 2007 16:30

Hi !

In relation to Point 1 (above) :

The German magazine , 'Der Spiegel' , has claimed that the EU loses €1 million per day through fraud . At present , 400 investigations are on-going , including 70 into the activities of EU Commission Officials.
The magazine stated that the EU Commission itself admits that €1,155 billion simply 'disappeared' in 2006 , including €320 million that was 'stolen' !

I myself would be suspicious that those calling for a 'Yes' vote could be doing so in the hope that they can get a share of the gravy train.

Thanks ,

Sharon.

by Federast - EU4UZ Sat Dec 15, 2007 23:31

I provide the following responses to Mr Cole:

‘1. The turnout of the electorate in France and Holland in their referendums on the EU Constitution was high and the No margin of victory was high. Sarkozy is on record as saying that if there was another referendum in France it would be beaten. In public opinion polls throughout the EU states 75% of the people have said they would like to have referendums on the proposed treaty.’

I admit the Dutch vote was striking for the strength of the ‘no’ vote (61.54%), but equally striking was the strength of the ‘yes’ vote in Spain (76.73%). Furthermore, the French ‘No’ vote at 54.68% could hardly be described as a high margin of victory. During the French presidential campaign M Sarkozy went out of his way (making several set piece speeches and visiting both Brussels and Berlin – then EU president) to tell the French people that he was standing on a platform of no referendum on the EU Treaty. He won the backing of the French people, therefore, by implication, his policy was also supported. I ask again, would it be democratic for Sarkozy to now call a vote? The anti-EU side always point out that the UK Labour government reneged on its promised referendum and then, without any shame or hesitation, ask M. Sarkozy to renege on his campaign pledge.

‘When people vote in general elections they vote for a variety of different reasons. In our recent election for example the issue that dominated the first half of the election campaign was MrAhern and how he got the money for his house. In the election which Sarkozy won the issue of the renamed EU Constitution was a marginal one, and in the recent Danish election it was not an issue at all. In my experience it is very difficult to get elected and I do respect those that are voted to represent the people in Dail Eireann, but all the evidence shows from my first referendum campaign to defend the PR system in the 1960's of voting (which we won) does not mean the people will vote the same way in elections as they do in referendums.’

The same could be said of referendums. I think it is commonly accepted that the ‘No’ vote in France was often a vote against the incumbent Government rather than the Constitutional Treaty. Similarly, in the Netherlands the ‘No’ vote has to be understood against the background of anti-immigrant (particularly Muslim) sentiment. This is borne out by the fact that Turkey’s accession to the Union was a major issue in both campaigns even though it had nothing to do with the referendum.

‘2. There is a detailed analysis of the military dimension of the defeated EU Constitution in the document: "Yes to Europe No to Superstate" on the PANA website: www.pana.ie
The militarisation provisions in the renamed EU Constitution are essentially intact. An updated version of the PANA leaflet will be published in January 2008.’

As I noted in my previous on this subject, the military aspects of the Treaty are all optional. The Irish government sought to defend this at every turn thus protecting our right to remain a neutral state inside the EU. Other nations, and their elected governments, follow a different route. They actively choose to enhance and develop military and humanitarian cooperation in the EU. Ireland can opt in and out as it chooses, but to suggest that we dictate how other Member States seek to defend themselves and their people seems a little rich.

‘3. When Federast says the Government fought to defend Irish neutrality in the negotiations then I have to admit I am completely amazed. This Ahern Government has destroyed Irish neutrality. This is an absolute undisputable fact proved every day at Shannon Airport. The fact that RTE and the rest of the corporate media refuse to report on the number of planes using Shannon Airport does not mean they are not landing in Shannon.’

Shannon, as you are fully aware, is a totally separate issue and will be unaffected if you vote yes or no in the forthcoming referendum.

‘4. The EU is being transformed into a centalised, militarised, neo-liberal Superstate, a European Empire and at a press conference on the treaty the President of the EU said so.’

The President of the EU? Who’s that? The Portuguese Prime Minister who holds the rotating presidency perhaps? I would be very grateful if you could provide a link or a transcript of this faithful utterance.

by Sean Sun Dec 16, 2007 13:32

"as a socialist and an internationalist i will campaign for and vote for the lisbon treaty".

In spite of the patronising tone of your post I would be interested in hearing how a socialist and internationalist can campaign for the Lisbon treaty beyond any agrument of people coming together through the EU but more in real terms about how will it change people's lives for the better and help lead to the end of capitalist exploitation.

by Roger Cole - Peace & Neutrality Alliance Sun Dec 16, 2007 14:58

In response to Sceptic I have to agree that the the Labour party of which I am a member supports the renamed EU Constition(the Lisbon treaty). The Labour Party is a large party with over 6,000 members and there is a difference of opinions on a variety of issues. On the issue of the REUC
I do not speak for nor have I ever claimed I speak for the Labour Party, I only do as Chair of the Peace & Neutrality Alliance. As it happens I regard myself as a Connolly Socialist and as such I think it as perfectly reasonable to be a member of a party founded as a consequence of a resolution supported by Connolly at the ITUC Congress in 1912. WhiIe I might turn out to be wrong, I am confident that as we approach our 100th anniversary, the values of Connolly will be restored as the values of the Party. An indication was the massive defeat of the right wing of the party at our conference when they sought to change the description of the party as a Democratic Socialist Party to being a Social Democratic Party.
In response to Federalist, it is good to see him quoting the actual turn out figures in Holland and France which show they wer not "tiny". It therefore seems to me that Federalist is committed to an honest debate, as I certainly believe that many of the advocates of the REUC do so out of honest conviction rather than opportunist reasons. While Sarkozy was elected having publically said he supported the REUC, my point remains that when people vote in elections they do so for a variety of reasons. Having camaigned in referendums and in elections in Ireland for over 40 years I believe I can say with conviction that the people vote for candidates because they have a good track record on local issues, or because they have large extendend families, or because the have provided one to one help on individual concerns, or they are the candidate for a party that their family has always voted for. Whether they are for or against the REUC is only on and in my opinion a very small one as to why they vote for a candidate for the Dail.
I do not accept that the use of Shannon by the US is a separate isssue. The Ahern Government destroyed the policy of Irish neutrality by turning this country into a US Airforce base in his support for what President Bush or the "great President" as Ahern called him. It is therefore just not credible for you to state that the Ahern Government supports neutrality. The reality is the links between NATO and the EU are institutionalised by the REUC and it commits the EU to deveoping a defence policy that is compitable with NATO's, the core of which is based on the first use of nuclear weapons. It is not "optional", and I would recommend those people folling this thread to go to:www.pana.ie of a more detailed analysis of the militarisation of the EU.
The President of the EU Commission did say that at a press conference on the REUC that a Empire was being built. If people want to be part of an Empire they should vote yes. If they support Irish Independence, Irish Democracy and Irish Neutrality they should vote No. It is as straightforward as that.

by Frank Fri Jan 04, 2008 17:44

Can anyone definitely state that if Lisbon is ratified here and elsewhere and is enacted will all subsequent amendments to it require an Irish referendum to ratify the changes or is our right to referenda on future changes to Lisbon forfeited by its adoption?

by typo Fri Jan 04, 2008 19:28

Dick Roche has been getting his tights in a twist and is at the point of asking the
AG if we can bypass referendum and go for a parliamentary ratification. this is par for the
course FF/Green are going to push it through cos it guarantees wealth and they ignore
poverty created by EU policy.

check out Bali- they went in suits and disallowed the NGO's and civil society reps to speak.
[on trade and sustainability]

The only developed country on the globe which has stayed within its carbon figures is Cuba btw...

http://ww.forumoneurope.ie

the legal stuff is indexed therein but be aware that it represents for us FF/FG brand politics
which disavows debate on issues pertinent to irish people and best thing to do is follow
the Commons debates for elucidation. cos nothing gets elucidated here.

by G.D.Flynn - International Republican Sat Jan 05, 2008 14:23 flynnfacultasliterum at hotmail dot com 188 burghsliussingel 3086 vg Rotterdam

Frank, you have got it in ONE, that is the Dishonesty of the whole thing,if we don,t get the Constitution, we get the Treaty, this has being going on for years,its almost a fourth Reich by Osmosis, when one day you wake up and you won.t be able to change anything, and that which you thought you had has been eroded.Even now the Media is being loaded in favour of the Treaty, thats what makes it frightening, almost Book Burning by design, or Fahrenhiet 451, burning temperature of paper.
Flynn

by Frank Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:39

I've seen various Irish and European quotes intimating that referenda are a basic nuisance to the development of the EU as they would wish it. Invariably these Treaties are long and technical and I was wondering is their anything definitive in its text on this issue or is it subterfuge, a process of hairsplitting to achieve their political ambition of removing the need for referenda for change to its content?

by davekey Sun Jan 06, 2008 15:21

The eu has finally shown it's true face - undemocratic, unaccountable elites trying to control every aspect of our lives. National governments are all tripping up over each other to sell their people out to this monstrosity, it's sickening to watch. It's time for us to get the hell out and stand up on our own two feet. We can trade and co-operate with Europe without being continuously stifled by their rules and regulations. Beaurocrats and politicians don't create wealth or real jobs, don't create positive social change and don't live in the real world, yet they think they have the right to dictate to the rest of us. So it's time to get out before it's too late.

"Along with real democracy comes responsibility which is why most men fear it"
- Mark Twain

by Toby Mon Feb 25, 2008 09:13

EU parliament votes not to take any notice of the people's wishes.

'Last Wedenesday in Strasbourg as the European Parliament prepared to ratify the Lisbon Treaty by a huge majority..., it was proposed that the parliament "would respect the result of the Irish referendum", only 129 MEPs supported it while 499 voted that the wishes of the Irish people should not be respected... It is good to know that our democracy is in such reliable hands.'

Christopher Booker

by Sonya Sat Mar 08, 2008 08:56

I shall be voting No without too much regard to any debate as the simple fact is if this treaty is to enhance democratic rights why are people not being given the basic democratic right of a referendum??
There seems to be a bit of gap between the proposal and reality.
1. If this was truely about democracy why aren't the other nations being given a vote?
2. Why do we the people of Ireland actually really know nothing about the Lisbon treaty which we are ebing asked to vote on??
3. If we vote against it will it actually make any difference?
If we knew anything about this treaty, everyone was going to vote and the results upheld, maybe this would be about democracy but so far i cannot find any evidence of such!

by davekey Sat Mar 08, 2008 20:20

Here's an excellent new documentary on the Lisbon Treaty:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-42917704894725...dex=1

by some one who cares - ireland Fri Apr 25, 2008 12:05

As members of the E.U we have a common currency , common market and open borders , what more do we need or want.Europe is already a functional state.This is the last treaty we will be able to vote on in europe if we say yes, this is a vote against democracy .The yes people will have nothing to worry about anyway , Bertie has already signed it and we havent even voted yet, if by mircale the treaty gets rejected whats he going to do, tipex out his name.No it will simply be put to us time and time again (like Nice) till we accept (how very democratic).All you YES supporters may the lord have mercy on your souls for ye truely do not know what ye are doing.Listen to your conscience.

by VOTER Sat Apr 26, 2008 06:11

Yeserday the government booklet on the Lisbon Treaty was delivered to the house.

After having read it all through I am convinced that the authors
of the booklet must be educational rejects, either that or that they themselves are not in support of the treaty. It being so badly written.

On that basis alone I reverse my previous decision from being in favour of the EU to a NO vote.

by NingúnOtro - Use your brain, don't borrow someone elses. Sat May 03, 2008 13:53 ningunotro at hotmail dot com

Dear friends,

As we all know, the Irish People shall be the only one that will be consulted by a binding referendum about the coming into force of the Reform Treaty on the European Union.

Those people that had their say on the former Constitutional Treaty, have been robbed of their right to do so on this occasion by ruthless political and economical elites that follow their own agendas independently of their peoples will, silencing it actively if necessary.

Those same political and economical elites from across Europe will be ruthlessly campaigning for a YES vote among the Irish voters in the forthcoming referendum, spending enormous amounts of money to move their representants to Ireland to campaign actively and coping almost all the available advertising space.

Though it is without any doubt your referendum, it will also be the only referendum held on the Reform Treaty in the whole of Europe, and we, the European peoples that have been robbed of our sovereign right to decide for ourselves if we want such a treaty or not, feel that the Irish people are PEOPLE, just as we are, and that they should think about what the possible victory of a YES vote would mean not only for the Irish, but also for the rest of us peoples.

Already the sovereign decision of the french and dutch people in 2005 is being ignored and an almost identical text is being proposed to the Irish.

A text that can deny us our sovereign rights in europe, as anyone can see is being done, if voted YES, will have superior powers than the Irish Fundamental Law that still grants you this right as the only people left in Europe. You would be voting away your right to the next referendum!!!

While we can't have our say about it in our own countries anymore, we can still do all what is within our hands as peoples and citizens of Europe to help the Irish cope with the bureaucratic assault on their right to decide by themselves, and help counter the institutional campaigns of those treacherous politicians that sold us out.

All over Europe resistance is rising, but we fear it might be futile if it doesn't focus its efforts towards what is still a crucial battle that can be won, give it some hope that there is still something positive they can do, help the Irish people win their referendum against all odds and repeat what the french and dutch did in 2005.

Manifestations are being organised across Europe, and a grassroots initiative led by Étienne Chouard, plain citizen but well-known for his influence in the french referendum, is recently starting to organize small locally-focussed manifestations in every town on wednesdays at 18h. The idea is to have them very close to the people that are to participate, and repetitive...

I thought that perhaps they could be given a more positive meaning than just protesting against what they can not easily change anymore if their efforts could have some influence on the outcome of a battle that has not yet been lost... the Irish Referendum.

At this moment they are distributing leaflets and identifying themselves through the use of white balloons, and they have also "borrowed" the star-eating citizen of the European Citizen's Initiative as their logo, and I thought that perhaps they could be convinced at this early stage of their movement to redesign their leaflets so that a part of them can be torn off and used as an conventional postcard to be sent to some unknown citizen of Ireland, "Mr. Voter". As the message they want to transmit to their local population is similar as what they might want to say to their irish comrades that have yet to vote, either in english or through appropriate graphical and wordless representations... their leaflets could serve both purposes if they allow likeminded recipients of those leaflets to join in the campaign with their small personal effort by affixing the appropiate post stamp to the postcard and send it off to some unknown Irish citizen. Adresses could be gathered from street maps on the internet, tourist brochures, etc., or if possible provided by interested parties as Sinn Fein on a more rational and strategy-oriented basis.

Just imagine the possible impact... against the mass-media campaign and money-based effort of the professional politicians massively asking for a YES vote, suddenly and almost out of nowhere an unstoppable flood of postcards coming from simple individuals and citizens from across the whole of Europe, adressed to simple and ordinary citizens of Ireland, asks them to consider the way they were sideranged and ignored since the french and dutch referenda of 2005, and how the Irish could be sideranged and ignored after 2008 if they vote into force a treaty that assumes a higher priority than the Irish Constitution and thus ignore the only law that grants them today the right to be the only people in Europe still to be consulted by referendum.

If only a few percent of the 450 million europeans that feel themselves stabbed in the back by their governments can spare the cost of a post stamp to send a postcard to an Irish citizen... our campaign might even reach first page mass-media coverage simply by collapsing the Irish postal office facilities under the avalanche.

These postcards could not only be distributed at the different manifestations throughout Europe, but their design and instructions could be made available for download and selfprinting from any web simpathising with the NO movement.

Only 50 days to go untill the occasion is lost and the less time we waste the more momentum the campagne could build up before the referendum is there.

Nothing is lost as long as we have brains and do not run out of ideas.

Another good idea might be to take some chosen extracts from the film that won the Cannes Film Festival in 2006, Ken Loach's "The wind that shakes the barley", adapt the dialogues to the possibility of loosing the fought-for Constitution or whatever message seems appropiate to stress in the wake of the referendum, and spread them like wildfire through You-Tube, DailyMotion and similar services.

Good chance.

Sincerely,

A pissed off European Citizen with some brains left.

P. S.: Having also read all the previous interventions, there are also a point I would like to comment:

1.) Someone has opposed the results of the French and Dutch referendum, big populations, high participatio, heated debate, and a clear NO, to the other referenda which resulted in a victory of the YES. It is nowhere near my intention to discredit those YES referendums as such, BUT... most of them involve small populations in somewhat priviledged countries, and in the specific case of the spanish referendum, being a spanish national myself... I have some more to say: Both biggest parties (out of 4 or 5, depending on if you count national minoritary representations of regional nationalist parties in or out), accounting for > 90% of parlamentary representation were not presicely campaigning for the yes... they organised a propaganda campaign worthy of Goebbels. The media, being all corporate or politically controlled, was obvoiusly all-YES. The referendum was only consultative, NOT BINDING. Against all these odds, the NO obtained only 25%. But what they never say is that people turned their back on such a flawed ¿referendum? and participation was ONLY 40%. 75% on 40% of the electorate is still less than 1/3 i.e. 33% support for the yes.

Still the fact that the spanish referendum was the first one to be organised was no casuality... the results were foreseeable, statistically unavoidable given the circumstances... and this WAS used to fuel the results of the next referenda... a plan that lucky for us miserably failed.

by eire Thu May 08, 2008 21:07

In short, should the Irish people vote "yes", then this will be the last time the Irish or European people will be able to vote on any issue regarding the EU.

Look at how much the EU respects the voice of the people right now; Ireland is the only country holding a referendum, and only because it is required to constitutionally.
Well if the Lisbon Treaty passes, they will have a self-amending powers, and will not have to refer to the people in order to do anything. On top of that, EU law will supercede national laws, and constitutions, so the Irish's constitional provision for referendums can be overruled.

Vote yes, if you want to never vote again.
Vote NO, to preserve democracy.

by Alain Sun May 11, 2008 09:24

Ireland has the unique chance to impose democracy in Europe by voting "no". The way Lisbon treaty has been imposed in the other countries is a shame for Europe. The true nature of the european construction is revealing itself by refusing democracy (such as the negation of the referendum that happened in France).

For a stronger and more democratic Europe, it must be NO.