Upcoming Events

National | EU

no events match your query!

Blog Feeds

Irish Left Review
Joined up thinking for the Irish Left

offsite link New Books Worth Reading Mon Sep 19, 2016 23:25 | Seán Sheehan

offsite link 13 Billion ? Lucky for some? Mon Sep 05, 2016 13:04 | Tony Phillips

offsite link Rebuilding Ireland: Long on Promise, Short on Detail Mon Aug 29, 2016 22:20 | Eoin O'Mahony

offsite link Brexit and Other Issues: Comments on the Current Situation Mon Aug 29, 2016 21:52 | Brendan Young

offsite link Bin Charges: From Private Circus to Public Service Tue Jun 21, 2016 12:38 | Michael Taft

Irish Left Review >>

Cedar Lounge
For lefties too stubborn to quit

offsite link Stockpiling ,Supply Chains and Brexit 10:35 Thu Mar 21, 2019 | irishelectionliterature

offsite link That technological border fix? 09:18 Thu Mar 21, 2019 | WorldbyStorm

offsite link ?what the political and military struggle for [Irish] independence was all about.? 08:16 Thu Mar 21, 2019 | WorldbyStorm

offsite link Too much rhetoric, not enough substance? 07:22 Thu Mar 21, 2019 | WorldbyStorm

offsite link Comic genius 19:38 Wed Mar 20, 2019 | WorldbyStorm

Cedar Lounge >>

Dublin Opinion
Life should be full of strangeness, like a rich painting

offsite link Some Thoughts on the Brexit Joint Report 11:50 Sat Dec 09, 2017

offsite link IRISH COMMONWEALTH: TRADE UNIONS AND CIVIL SOCIETY IN THE 21ST CENTURY 14:06 Sat Nov 18, 2017

offsite link Notes for a Book on Money and the Irish State - The Marshall Aid Program 15:10 Sat Apr 02, 2016

offsite link The Financial Crisis:What Have We Learnt? 19:58 Sat Aug 29, 2015

offsite link Money in 35,000 Words or Less 21:34 Sat Aug 22, 2015

Dublin Opinion >>

NAMA Wine Lake

offsite link Test ? 12 November 2018 Mon Nov 12, 2018 14:28 | namawinelake

offsite link Farewell from NWL Sun May 19, 2013 14:00 | namawinelake

offsite link Happy 70th Birthday, Michael Sun May 19, 2013 14:00 | namawinelake

offsite link Of the Week? Sat May 18, 2013 00:02 | namawinelake

offsite link Noonan denies IBRC legal fees loan approval to Paddy McKillen was in breach of E... Fri May 17, 2013 14:23 | namawinelake

NAMA Wine Lake >>

The Lisbon Treaty: Ireland Speaks For Democracy

category national | eu | opinion/analysis author Saturday March 01, 2008 19:04author by Darragh Aiken, Civil Engineerauthor email darraghaiken at gmail dot com Report this post to the editors

In the run up to the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, there is much that is unsaid as regards our electoral history and the behaviour of the EU towards its honest politicians. This article sets out to give voice to those Europen politicains that have been ignored by Irish media and provides perspective on the proposed referendum. Suggestions for future referendums and laws are proposed that would serve the common good.

THE LISBON TREATY: IRELANDS SPEAKS FOR DEMOCRACY

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act", or so said George Orwell many years ago. Orwell left a comfortable job in London at the age of 36 to fight in the trenches in Catlonia, Spain. Were he alive today, what would he write about and what opinion would he have on our political landscape. Yet we did not live in pre WW2 Europe, and we might not be able to recognise the characteristics of emerging states so perspiciously presented in his writings at that time.

As we stand on the brink of the creation of a new Federation of European states, the Lisbon Treaty referendum here in Ireland in May 2008 might rubber stamp this emerging colossus. How Hitler would have swooned in joy at such luck, had he been handed the Lisbon Treaty and the proposed organisational structure of the EU. There would is no Reichstag to burn, no opposing parties to expel, and all of Europe's nuclear weapons will soon be at the disposal of a group of unelected and unacountable officials. With unification of Europe under his belt, he would likely look farther a field. With this stark reality now evident, should we not pause to contemplate what implications this association might have for us?

While seeking clarity on the proposed benifits of the Lisbon Treaty (EU Constitution) it would be folly to forget that the masters of “spin” have told a few “turkeys” and are not capable of doing so again. It was claimed that weapons of mass destruction were in Iraq. The result of that lie has cost over 600,000 deaths. Let us remember these distortions and their conseqences as the Government and associated parties (national media) pick up the pace to laud the virtues of the Lisbon Treaty.

Our recent voting record

Voting machines were first introduced into Ireland between the time we voted No to Nice in 2001 and the time a yes vote was declared in 2002. Analysis of the figures show that voting machines were used to collect 18.5% of the total votes in the densely populated areas of Dublin, Cork and Meath (Department of Environment and Local Government Website/Referendum Results). Given the collossal overstatement in the register by 500,000 and allegations of fraud in our last general election (Sunday Tribune, 11 November 2007) it may not be necessary to “plug the machines back in”.

Electoral hygene and the EU should occupy our thoughts and efforts in coming months, as we weigh up the pro's and cons of the proposed referendum issues. Some will faithfully look to our leaders, whom have gained the most air time in the national media, to utilise our taxes promoting the yes vote. Let us not succumb to the Helsinki sydrome as we battle to gain a reasoned answer on the issues.

The Opinion Poll

Others will read with intent the opinion polls. The Irish Times TNSmrbi opinion poll has sagely noted since 5 November 2007 that 25% say yes, 13% say no, and 62% say they dont know. Readers may notice that this poll is repeated a lot. The discerning electorate knows the Lisbon Treaty was only signed on 13 December 2007 and hardcopies copies have not been available to the public until mid February 2008. Yet this same figure has been repeated in the Irish Times, on the 4 & 27 December 2007 and others have latched onto it in articles since then. So who read what in November? Will these statistics be repeatedly displayed up to the referendum date?

Arguments for the Treaty

Through the papers our politicians tell us to do the "right thing for Europe", and not to "cut us apart", or else we’d be the “laughing stock of Europe", by going against "our common sense" and that there would be “no sector of Irish society would not be dramatically affected in a negative way if we were to vote no" (Irish Times). Two politicians from France and the Netherlands have arrived to our country to advise us we should vote yes (Irish Times December 4, 2007). However the discerning electorate will know that France and the Netherlands voted NO to the EU Constitution in 2005 and that the Lisbon Treaty is virtually the same as the EU Constitution. If the Lisbon Treaty was such a virtuous and progressive tract of legislation that effectively nullifies the superiority of Irish Law, surely explanations, rather than threats are in order?

The EU press coverage trend

The EU has not been shy in reminding us in national radio broadcasts that we have been in receipt of 55 Billion Euro from them. Our Ombudsman has since rapped their knuckles for the overt suggestion that we in some way “owe” them something. And what has the ECB gained from us in our use of their money via the banks et al? How will the interest payments and the mortgages from our citizens benefit the ECB? It would be interesting to see an estimate of what this single currency has really cost us.

The EU has been getting pretty good coverage in our papers. No scandals, just business as usual. There have been some regrettable policies such as demanding 19 pieces of personal information including credit card details and retaining them for 13 years for boarding all flights to the EU and back. Theres also the unnecessary microchip implants for farm animals at heavy costs to farmers. And then there’s and the retention of all of your emails, calls, and even the location of your mobile phone. We are all aware now of the "rising cost" of water, our lifeblood. Thankfully the water charges have nothing to do with our government, as their reasoning for suggesting such a notion is along the lines of "that's what the EU said". Schools must pay too and it doesnt matter that water consumption is decreasing per capita due to innovations in technology and water saving devices.

But all is not well in the EU, and the media are lacking in the goings on in their politicar circles. It is becoming increasingly difficult to read between the lines to discern what might be amiss. The reality is that there is, has and will continue to be ommissions in the media regarding the corruption that is now endemic in the EU body politic. Cases of fraud, corruption, mafia links, arrests, interrogation of EU officials, firing, intimidation and death threats to honest politicians who speak out have reached such a crescendo that more than a few whistleblowers have declared that the EU is "unreformable".

The calm before the storm

Before we vote away our ability to control our taxes, our laws, our health and education systems, our jobs, fair wages, our immigration policy, our security policies, our civil service policies and the bulk of our Constitutional independance, we could review the “character” of the EU as reported in the European and International media that you may not have come accross. It may give an indication of what's in store.

EU Accountability and Structure

Continuing from here it is important to realise that under the Lisbon Treaty and the new European Union Federation of states, we will not be able to vote for or vote out EU Commissioners and Councillors nor their policies if we do not like them. Even if all 4.2 million Irish Citizens unanimously petitioned a law that came out of the EU commission, the EU commission is under no obligation to change its policy. The proposed structure of the new EU will have unaccountable EU Commissioners and unelected Councillors, and Presidents. The unnacountability goes more so for the European Central Bank. The politicians you are allowed to vote to represent you at European Parliament level, the MEP’s are effectively toothless because it will be the Council that initiates the legislation and the Commission that will approve all laws. This style of governance is modelled closely on the Soviet Politburo as discussed my many sources, Vladimir Bukovsky to name one, who was incarcerated by the Soviets for 12 years for being a dissedent. His book, “EUSSR, The Soviet roots of European Integration” (ISBN 0-9540231-1-0) reveals the machinations of European politicians and international financial groups such as the Trilateral commission form the 60’s through to the 90’s and their interactions with Russian policy makers.

Bernard Connolly: Senior European Civil Servant

In 1995, Bernard Connolly, a senior European civil servant, took a leave of absence from his job as head of the European Commission's monetary affairs department, to write a polemical book. The product of his working holiday, "The Rotten Heart of Europe: The Dirty War for Europe's Money", still stands as the most intellectually persuasive, economically coherent and politically prescient account yet published of the development of European institutions in the 1990s, and remains "One of the most important books ever written about Europe" according to some. Mr Connolly was the top official within the European Commission directly responsible for EMS affairs. We include here an excerpt from the preface of his book so written by him:

"My crime, apparantly was serious indeed: I harboured fears that the European Monetary Union project was not the Heavenly City that relentless propaganda had made it out to be. 'If I had fears like that' said Jaques Santer's spokesman, 'I would resign this afternoon'.

At any rate, the Commission, after suspending me from my job as head of the Commission Unit responsible for the EMS and monetary policies, countenancing a smear campaign against me, denying me access to Commission buildings, posting photos of me at entrances to buildings and garages as if I were a dangerous terrorist bearing semtex and armalites, 'inviting' me not to leave Brussels, communicating with me through night-time visits from its little known Security Service, and engaging in a disciplinary procedure that disregarded all the rules of natural justice, inflicted the penalty it had in effect decided five months earlier. At the end of January 1996, I was sacked."

Paul Van Buitenen: European Commission Auditor

Many were concerned with the goings on in the heart of the EU, and particularly in the Commission. Hans Tillack, an award winning journalist writing for Germanys Stern magazine was investigating the EU Commission in the run up to 1998 as was Paul Van Buitenen, a European Commission auditor. As reported in the Daily Telegraph (26 August 2002), Mr Van Buitenen exposed the worst scandal in European Community history by disclosing endemic abuse at the top of the Commission, mostly through use of fictitious contracts to outside consultants. For being a decent human being, a dedicated professional and a conscientious citizen he was suspended, had his salary halved and ordered to face disciplinary action. He fought on and his exposures triggered the collapse of Jacques Santer's Commission. The entire Commission, all 20 of them, had to resign. However the officials accused, none of whom has spent a day in prison as a result, were suspended on full pay.

The Dutch Euro-civil servant was named 'European of the Year' by Reader's Digest magazine. He says he will donate his prize money to a fund in the Netherlands for helping other whistleblowers. Paul Van Buitenen's book reveals the whole story. He "believes that the European Union's secretive machinery is inherently unreformable as long as it remains beyond the control of an elected parliament". His resignation in 2002 was a setback for Neil Kinnock the administration commissioner, who promised "root and branch" reform of EU institutions".

Marta Andreasen: Chief EU Accountant

Mr Kinnock then dismissed Marta Andreasen, the chief EU accountant in 2001. As reported in the Daily Telegraph (14 October 2004), she was fired for breach of "loyalty" for exposing fraud and corruption. She said "I encountered evidence of structural fraud embedded in the European Commission systems. High officials knew this was the case and still is the case. I am the one who has behaved as a real European - and I have paid for it with my job". This was probably Mr Kinnocks last act before stepping down as the commissioner "fighting fraud". Mr Van Buitenen resigned in disgust at the draconian treatment of Ms Andreasen. The heart of Mrs Andreasen's complaint is that the Commission lacks "double-entry" book-keeping, now routine in the private sector, allegedly making it possible to divert large sums of money without leaving an electronic fingerprint. She found a £130million discrepancy between two sets of books for 2001. This has never been fully explained.

Mrs Andreasen was suspended from her £85,000 job in May 2002 for breaking "hierarchy lines". She contacted the Court of Auditors and Euro-MPs after superiors ignored her warnings, later telling the press that the EU's £63 billion budget was "an open till waiting to be robbed". For her trouble, Miss Andreasen claims to have been followed in the streets by a team of men, apparantly in a crude attempt to intimidate her.

There appears to be little or no recourse for scrutiny nor accountability in the EU. OLAF, the EU's anti fraud department, appears to be getting in the way of serious investigation into these abuses rather than doing anything about it. Mr Van Buitenen believes that OLAF has shut down much of the inquiry into the dossiers that he had forwarded to Mr Kinnock's office, shielding what he calls the "core of power" in Brussels.

Mr. Hans-Martin Tillack

As reported in the Telegraph on 20 April 2004, Belgian police arrested Mr. Hans Tillack, a leading investigative journalist, on the orders of the European Union, seizing his computers, address books and archive of files in a move that stunned Euro-MPs. Hans-Martin Tillack, the Brussels correspondent for Germany's Stern magazine, said he was held for 10 hours without access to a lawyer by the Belgian police after his office and home were raided by six officers. "They asked me to tell them who my sources were. I replied that was something I would never do. Now they have all my sensitive files, so I suppose they'll find out anyway," he said and added "The police said I was lucky I wasn't in Burma or central Africa, where journalists get the real treatment".

Mr Tillack said the raid was triggered by a complaint from the EU's anti-fraud office, OLAF. He was accused of paying money to obtain a leaked OLAF dossier two years ago, which he denies. The European Ombudsman has already come to his defence, issuing a harsh criticism of OLAF's campaign to silence him.

Mr Tillack, who describes himself as a "pro-European federalist", has been OLAF's most vocal critic, accusing it of covering up abuses within the EU system. As the author of a recent book on EU corruption, he has the greatest archive of investigative files of any journalist working in Brussels.

OLAF was created to replace the old fraud office UCLAF, which was accused of covering up abuses by the disgraced Santer Commission. Many UCLAF staff were transferred to OLAF.

As reported in BBC news online, 4 October 2006, Tillack wrote two articles for Stern magazine in 2002 on alleged fraud at Eurostat, where large amounts of money were siphoned off into secret bank accounts. OLAF then publicly accused "a journalist" of bribing one of its officials to obtain an internal memo. In 2008, 4 years after the confiscation of his personal equipment, the Belgian police returned his files to him. Mr Tillack has been cleared by the courts of any wrongdoing. It has been noted bt the Washington Post that by others that this was retribution for the Eurostat affair, and is more in keeping with totalitarian governments than a democratic system of justice.

Dorte Schmidt Brown

As reported by Alex Hawkes in Accountancy Age 6 July 2005, the whistle blower Dorte Schmidt Brown who helped expose the £3million looting of funds from Eurostat was denied redress for the difficulties she suffered as a result of her efforts. She has been effectively hung out to dry, having been on sick leave since exposing the fraud and has fled her home after threats and harassment (Daily Telegraph 6 July 2005). No Eurostat official has been punished for the fraud which occurred in 2002/2001. Schmidt-Brown was ordered to pay her own costs.

Robert Dougal Watt

On 22 April 202, Robert Dougal Watt who was employed as an auditor by the European Court of Auditors in Luxembourg since 1995, "blew the whistle" to the European Ombudsman on systematic corruption and abuse in the European Court of Auditors. As reported on "Just Response" his claims were backed up by 205 of his colleagues (40% of the institutions staff) by secret ballot organised by the Court. He now fears for his life claiming that OLAF has been shielding the suspicious death of a mafia related death of Antonio Quatauro. He claims that the bodies charged with safeguarding the public interest from such corruption - the European Court of Auditors, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the European parliament's Budgetary Control Committee, the Ombudsman - are indolent, if not actively corrupt. However there were no rewards for Watt, "he was simply fired" (International Herald Tribune, 23 June 2004).

Dawn Raids decend on EU buildings

In case you think that things have changed since Tillacks intimidation and silencing by the European Union, just last year on 20 March 2007, Times Online reported that the EU Commission offices were raided en masse the previous day. In more than 40 dawn raids over 150 officers in Belgium, France, Italy and Luxembourg, police officers swooped on the homes of European Commission officials, banks, companies and an office of a member of the European Parliament. The raids came just days after a lavish party in Berlin and other capitals to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the founding of the EU. The prosecutor's office said "The investigation involves suspected bribery of European civil servants, forming a criminal organisation, violating professional secrecy, breaches of public tender laws and forgery". The International Herald Tribune reported that those arrested were an official in the European Commission's external relations department, Giancarlo Ciotti, and assistant to an Italian member of the European Parliament and a third man who was a director of several property companies.

Times online reported on 29 March 2007 that Jos Coplin, spokesman for the Belgian prosecutor, said "There were bribes of millions of euros for more than 10 years". A spokesman for the European Parliament tried to play down the fraud.

And yet again this year BBC news reports on 21 February that a confidential audit reported to have found that MEP's had not accounted properly for the £100million a year allocated of staff costs. British MEP Chris Davies, who has seen the report, said he was shocked by the scale of the alleged fraud.

"This report is Dynamite" said Davies. He told the BBC that the document had to be placed in the public domain and legal proceedings should follow. "Let's be honest. I think the allegations within this report from our own auditors should lead to the imprisonment of a number of MEP's. I think its embezzlement and fraud on a massive, massive scale.

However the report is being hushed up and European Parliament spokespeople are declining to comment until the report is "published". As reported in the Gates of Vienna, a source close to the decision "We want reform but we cannot make this report available to the public if we want people to vote in the European elections next year"

In viewing the "confidential" report Davies was asked to sign a confidentiality agreement which he did not in order to view the document which is being kept in a biometrically sealed room. The Daily Telegraph noted that last night, after an emergency meeting of senior officials including Mr. Romer and Mr Pottering, triggered by the Daily Telegraphs investigation, a spokesman for the parliament denied a cover up.

"The document is not secret. It is confidential." He said. "It can be read by Euro MP's on the budget control committee, in the secrete room but not generally. That is not the same as a secret document nobody can read".

We think the time has long come to express our concerns over the EU's contempt for European citizens. The EU has no citizens at the moment. Now the EU wants you to hand over more areas of our laws, beginning with water carges and Carbon Tax. It doesn't matter that many scientists say that all of the planets in our solar system are heating up too. Perhaps there are SUV's on Mars. Are martians charging their citizens Carbon taxes?

The European Unions Accounts

The running joke in the EU is that it has not been able to sign off its accounts in the last 13 years. With a budget of in excess of £100 Billion, which is set to increase if the EU becomes a federation of states, it is unlikely that the accounts will ever become balanced considering that the oversight and accounting structures are so deeply fraudulent and there is no political will to reverse this trend.

Why rubberstamp corruption when we can see so clearly how governmental corruption destroyes faith in leadership and creates an apathetic, disenchanted electorate. A NO vote is a vote against corruption. If the EU can reform itself to a status of political co-operation while respecting national values and laws, then it may be worth supporting. At present this is not the case because the EU was not designed to respect nation states, it was designed to subvert them. The authours of the EU and its constitution voice this reality openly as quoted by them.

The duplicitity of Loyalty in a European Alliance

Article 9-3 of our Constitution states:

"Fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State are fundamental political duties of all citizens"

It is our duty to be loyal to Ireland and to our people and one which the authour is proud to uphold, not for some “outdated” sense of nationalism, but because the principle upon which the duty is undertaken; the democratic instinct, to support an accountable system of governance.

Although some have made a mockery of it in recent years, there is the possibility of change should a NO to the Lisbon Treaty be secured. Under the EU structure, there is no possibility of changing those who control the laws nor of accountability for those in power which has repeatedly been proven to all whom have eyes to see.

In stark contrast to our fundamental political duty as Irish citizens is the oath the EU Commissioners swear to the EU "over and above" their loyalty to their own nations, and to act “Only” in the interests of the European Union (EU Official Directory).
Any politician who has taken this oath, will not promote the interests of Ireland or its people. On the contrary, they will act against Irelands interests and the interests of the Irish people should they be required to. Such is the case with the Lisbon Treaty.

The Irish and European MEP’s respect for the Irish Referendum

In the European Parliament on Wednesday 20 February 2008 the following motion was put forward:
"The European Parliament undertakes to respect the outcome of the referendum in Ireland".
499 MEP’s voted not to respect the outcome of our referendum, our opinion. Only 129 voted for. Proinsias De Rossa voted not to respect our rule of law.

Charlie McCreevey, our EU Commissioner, was quoted in the Irish Times on December 4, 2007 saying:
"The referendum is not a time for self-government, for putting the two fingers up at a member state government or at the EU institutions towards which people may well have some heart felt grievances".

With Mr. McCreeveys “Oath” at the forefront of our minds, we are asked by him not to consider self government in the upcoming referendum. Yet the referendum is in place precicely to consider self government and to improve upon it. The assertion that we could possibly be putting the “two fingers” up at Europe by voting NO is preposterous considering that the EU has gagged every other national electorate by refusing to allow a referendum in their respective nations.

Anyone who votes NO to Lisbon can do so in the full knowledge that they will be supporting the democratic majority of people that have been allowed to vote in 2005. A NO vote supports democracy and a yes vote will circumvent it. A NO vote allows the individual states of Europe time to pressure their governments to hold referendums. In Denmark, the government is being taken to court over the unconstitutional actions they have taken by refusing a referendum. Any demorcratic thinking Irishman should support this type of action in the member states, because it is following the rule of law.

There are blogs and video diaries of stranded and desperate Europeans that have been gagged by their governmants at the insistence of the EU and dont have a vote on European Constitution or the Lisbon Treaty. They call out in desperation for Irish people to vote NO.

Keep Corruption at home

Corruption is a fact of political life, and has been since people congregated in larger societal groups. However the larger the social grouping the more avenues for corruption and less accountable political leaders become. It is in Irish interests to “keep corruption at home” so that we may deal effectively with it at a national level. There are some whom are under the spotlight at the moment that would wish for nothing more than to be immune to prosecution for actions taken while in government. There are articles in the European Treatys that provide immunity for politicians who infringe on areas of law while in the service of their duties. If you were under such scrutiny, it does not take a stretch of the imagination to realise which side you would be rooting for.

This article we hope has set out in the clearest possible terms why the EU Federal State should not be supported, and the negative implications this will have on not only Irish lives, but on a democratic Europe also.


The EU: Its origins and destination

Vladimir Bukovsky: Former Soviet Dissedent

Giscard d'Estaing is commonly known to be the author of the European Constitution. The idea of a constitution for Europe, a legal status that replaces or supersedes all national sovereign states in the European Community is not a new concept. Tracing its history one exposes a trail of deception and subterfuge since the inception of the initial trade deals in post world war Europe. As far back as 1989, ever since d'Estaings visit to Russia with David Rockerfeller and Henry Kissinger to entreat Gorbachev to fold up the USSR, d'Estaing maintained even then that the EU would be federalised "in about 15 years" (Interview with Vladimir Bukovsky, Former Soviet Dissident and political prisoner of the Soviet Union, February 2006).
Bukovsky’s book “EUSSR” is not an irony about possible communisation of the European national states. Bukovsky had spent 12 years languishing in Soviet detention centres having spent the better part of his life studying Soviet ideology and political objectives. His book is a fact based expose of the intensions of Russian and world leaders decisions many years ago to bring the sovereign nation states under a communist dictatorship. The apparatus was to be put in place over time so as to imperceptable until it was too late to turn back the tide of integration. He now works closely with independance parties in the UK urging them to resist this emerging “monster”, because he has witnessed firsthand the devastation and deprivation that totalitarianism has caused in his own country.


Paul Van Buitenen

As mentioned earlier, Mr. Van Buitenan’s mission to reform the EU is ongoing although he was ready to throw in the towel a few years ago. He is now taking on OLAF, the EU’s anti-fraud department. He wrote a bok called “Blowing the Whistle - One mans fight agains fraud in the European Commission” (ISBN 1-90230-146-3). To be fair to EU politician’s, Van Buitenen acknowledges that there are many hardworking men and women in the EU that believe fervently inthe Europen project, and he praises their efforts and their good intentions, noting that corruption is the exception and not the rule. However he argues for a more limited role for the EU and to reduce the democratic deficit embedded within it’s political structure. It would be unfair of this authour not to note the many virtuous deeds made by these people and to brand the whole of the EU with a corruption brush. Yet it is a reality that we have a vote, and our vote can either support democratic rule in Europe or negate it as a yes vote would.

The EU Politicians: In their own words

Rather than attempt to convince you that the proposed Lisbon Treaty or Reform Treaty is based on a stealth like deception, we will let others tell you.....in their own words:


Giscard d'Estaing, Former French President "Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly" ... "All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way." (Le Monde, 14 June 2007 and Sunday Telegraph, 1 July 2007).


Jean Claude Junker, Prime Minister of Luxembourg "Of course there will be transfers of Sovereignty, but would it be wise to draw the attention of the public to this fact?" (Daily Telegraph 03 July 2007).


Czech President Vaclav Klaus "This is crossing the Rubicon, after which there will be no more sovereign states in Europe with fully-fledged governments and parliaments which represent legitimate interests of their citizens, but only one state will remain. Basic things will be decided by a remote 'federal government' in Brussels .... We are against a European super state." (Mlada Fronta Dnes).

Hans Martin Bury, the German Minister for Europe, "This Constitution is, in spite of all justified calls for further regulations, a milestone. Yes, it is more than that. I think, the EU Constitution is the birth certificate of the United States of Europe." (Source Die Welt, 24th February)

Karel de Gucht, Belgian Foreign Minister "The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable... The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success." (Flandreinfo, 23 June 2007).


Guiliano Amato, Italian Prime Minister and later vice President of the EU Convention which drafted the Constitution, interview with Spinelli, La Stampa, 13 July 2000 “In Europe one needs to act ‘as if’ - as if what was wanted was little, in order ro obtain much, as if States were to remaign soverign to convince them to concede sovereignty...The Commission in Brussels, for example, should act as if it were a technical instument, in order to be able to be treated as a goverment. And so on by disguise and subterfuge”

CONCLUSION

The idea that Ireland can not function in a way that serves the Irish people without the intervention of a foreign government is preposterous. A sumilarly preposterous suggestion is that the EU needs the support of 4.2 million Irish citizens out of a total of 450 million Europenans in order to function.

After an independence war and then a bloody civil war the Iish have managed their own affairs adquately, and for people to attribute this solely due to the intervention or assistance of a foreign entity, is being liberal with the truth. Trade in a global economy is synonamous with modernity and technological innovation and not with civil rights nor national sovereignty. We can manage our own affairs, trade with our neighbours and make our own laws and respect our own environment. We can do it as well or better than our European counterparts. No one can say the Irish are isolationists by remaining a sovereign nation with a straight face.

The EU has over 110,000 regulations, which will become laws if the EU becomes a state and it will be able to implement any and all of them should it so wish. That we would be more prosperous without membership of the EU is not a popular discussion topic, and usually meets with irrational opposition and trading of guilt type arguments, name calling and unsubstantiated claims. There are countries in the modern world, of comparable size that are not in the European Union and their worlds have not fallen apart. One could ask those functioning countries such as Norway, Switzerland, and Iceland who still remain sovereign. Switzerland has voted 5 times to stay out of the EU.

Alternate proposals for referendum

As a proposal for the next referendum in place of the Lisbon Treaty we would proffer the following amendments to our Constitution and various acts that could be passed to the government for implementation in the common good:

1. Repeal the 3rd amendment on the European Communities membership. We will never get closer or farther away to Europe than we currently are. We cannot “cut ourselves adrift” of Europe. Managed trade is not a free market. We should be competing with the larger Europen markets and not be subject to their manipulation of our national laws through “qualified majority voting” in the European Union’s political structure.

2. Repeal the 17th amendment on Government secrecy act of 1997. The government needs more oversight and public scrutiny not less.

3. Repeal the Electoral act to allow the ballots and registers to be kept longer than 6 months before they are destroyed so that we can check that the signed registers tally with checks of the people that were supposed to have come in to vote. At present, the electoral register is hugely overstated by 500,000 (Sunday Tribune, November 11 2007, and the CSO's bland pandering to this article (2 December 2007) does not explain the possible fraud in last Mays general election. If the EU wants to keep our personal details for 13 years, what possible reason can there be for destroying evidence of possible electoral fraud after 6 months.

4. Demand an official investigation into last Mays general election results immediately before the referendum.

5. Demand that a law be passed whereby the electoral register cannot be overstated by a certain percentage, and if it is found to be so, elections should be suspended until the register has been satisfactorily compiled.

6. Send the voting machines back whence they came. Give all monies to charity.

7. Send formal complaint to the EU that their accounts have not been signed off in the last 13 years and that this as unacceptable to us as it is to other European nationals.

8. Talk to our top economists who advised against joining the Euro, and listen to what they were saying then and listen to their suggestions as to how to move out of the we are now in order to protect teetering loans. We are one of the most indebted nations in Europe and many are facd with unnacceptable risk.

9. Discuss openly the possibility of issuing our own money again with a specific moral and ethical review of fractional reserve banking practices which have become the norm. There was a very good reason why usury was outlawed in the past. These reasons should be brought to the fore again in light of the public welfare. This action is in full accord with Article 45 of our constitution.


Let us not forget all those men who died attempting to wrest our country from an unaccountable government whom had little or no regard for the lives of the men and women on this Island.

Our right to vote is because of their sacrifice.


Related Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWSYMpuCFaQ

PDF Document Sunday Tribune 11 November 2007 Election Fraud 1.6 Mb

author by cropbeyepublication date Wed Mar 05, 2008 20:26author email cropbeye at yahoo dot comauthor address Corkauthor phone Report this post to the editors



Over stating some of the possible interpretations of the Lisbon Treaty

can do as much damage to the No campagain as the Yes bully boy tactics or the

general public apathy.

Some of the issues like the currency mentioned above are indeed non issues at this stage (except in the United Kingdom)

Issues have to be brought back down to real life experiences and how peoples lives can be affected by European decisions

such as the case in Sweden carried out by a Latvian contractor wanting to hire labour on the cheap.

You have to talk to people in ways that are realistic and not go out on a limb with horror stories.

We need to show we are made of better stuff than the Yes Camp.

author by Darragh Aikenpublication date Thu Mar 06, 2008 16:35author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Cheers Cropbeye,

But I believe the only interpretation of the Lisbon Treaty I gave was in the section entitled "EU Accountability and Structure" and it was an understatement if nothing else. The purpose of the article is to call into question the European project in its present form. The Lisbon Treaty serves only as the focus of that attention, and I make little attempt to explain what it is about, only its consequences. Were I to propagandise on the streets on the Treaty, there would be little point banging on about the corruption and the manipulation of our elections/referenda, and in that vein we are in agreement. The Irish for some reason are under the missapprehention that electoral fraud is not possible here, regardless that electoral fraud in other countries is rampant and is reported in our papers on an almost weekly basis.

I get your point about horror stories, however the piece is obviously for those who bother to seek out information. In my search to see why we are under a relentless drive for unification of Europe I have looked at many things. Not all of the information that comes up would be recognizable to the avereage Joe, because the average Joe is under the delusion that the ruling class acts in the interests of the common good. The revenues that we would have got from our natural resources had our politicians not screwed the people by changing the laws in favour of private buisness interests back in the late 80's and early 90's, our health service could have been top notch. Instead people are dying needlessly. That is a horror story and is just not repeated enough.

There would be little point ranting in public about EUSSR and the communisation of Europe because Joe in his false interpretation of modern history has been conditioned otherwise. One of the most interesting pieces I have read about the source of European integration was written by a Jesuit Preist, Fr. E. Cahill, from the Milltown Institute here in Dublin. I came across his books from my research into our own constitution. Cahill was a contributor to the Irish Constitution, and had a group of Jesuits working in the backround on articles that were submitted to DeValera, with their basis in Catholic Social Theory as espoused by Pope Pius XI.

Not being a practicing Catholic, I treated such ecumenical contributions with suspicion. But the Pope's are not ones to withhold their punches, and no greater punch was ever thrown by them then at Freemasonry. In a recent book I read called "The Making of the Irish Constitution" by Keogh and McCarthy, the authours note the involvement of Cahil, the Jesuits, the Catholic Church and their contributions. From there I picked up Cahills book and reference is made to the Peace of Versailles and the League of Nations. It appeared to Cahill and many others that Masonry, operating under the veil of secrecy and subversion had been relentlessly pushing for a form of Masonic Super government since their form of paganism reappeared on the European scence in the late 1700's.

Cahill quotes from a letter of invitation sent to different Masonic jurisdictions which was published in l'Alpina (May 31, 1917). He notes the object of the congress is declared to be "To prepare the way for the United States of Europe; to set up a supra-national authority, whose purpose will be to settle the disputes between nations. Freemasonry will be the agent of propaganda in favour of this conception of universal peace and happiness, viz., the League of Nations".

According to Cahill and many others Freemasonry has been the source and well spring of socialist movements, revolutions, and forms of secular government for the last 200 years. Although not a pupular topic, and at the risk of sounding like a "conspiracy theorist", I would have to say that from the sources I've come across, there is indeed a conspiracy. Probably many conspiracies on many different levels. Anyone whom refutes this hasnt attended the Europen Parliament where charges have been laid point blank at the EU commission whom are making up the rules as they go along in secret and behind closed doors. That there is a conspiracy couldnt be more obvious. Even Patricia McKenna has said publicly that there is a Political conspiracy here in this country as regards the Lisbon Treaty. I agree with her. How is it possible for so many politicians to go to bed one night green and then wake up yellow? It is not possible. Only by pressure from others, behind closed doors, can these politicians do such an about face. So the mask has been pulled away and the emperor has no clothes. One minute there's war with Oceania, the next its Eurasia. Frankly, the carry on now is frightening if you are to play it out a bit. This carry on is what we are voting for.

Regarding the money issue, it is really the only issue. Your line of reasoning and claim that the currency is a "non issue at this stage" is false. Have you actually read the economic issues in the Treaty? If you had you would realise that the ECB dictatorship is enshrined by the Lisbon Treaty in Article 97a, as is economic policy harmonisation and punishment. We could form whatever associations we wished as a country, but as long as the control of credit and economic policy is in the hands of an unnaccountable elite in a foreign country, the common good cannot be served. All other protestations on social formulas and articles of the proposd treaty are moot as long as money is controlled by others. This is as true now as it was before we joined the euro or when the ERM was introduced. It will still hold true when the country decends the economic ladder which it surely will by being in the grip of the EU and euro. We need an out clause for our money even more so than an out clause from the EU.

Again though, there is little point propagandising on this during the treaty because people simply dont understand how money works, nor how credit is artificially controlled. I mention it because it needs mentioning. The way I see it, there is no point arguing for sovereignty nor independance if the meduim of exchange is not freed up. Arguments to to the contrary are either by people that know exactly what you are talking about and seek to delude the observer by negating the claim, or by those that dont understand money because they have been bamboozeled by economics sounding jibberish. The meduim of exchange is simply what people agree it to be.

I sincerely believe the Europen project is a horror story in the making, and for many other reasons that I have not mentioned. It would be a lie for me to say otherwise, and I find little comfort in attempting to butter up the truth. All the claims in the article are fact based, not theory and I dont agree with talking to people on "their level" all the time. We're all adults now. Yes there are immediate and identifiable issues that can be esposed by the NO camp, but that doesnt go far enough. In order to introduce a concept such as fiscal independance, you have to talk about it. It is THE most relevant topic, and people are ignorant of it simply because it has never been discussed with them. If there was an elective you could take in school or in college on sovereignty or monetary independance, the euro would never have been adopded here. But these courses dont exist by design and not because of percieved irrellevance. Anyone whom says the Euro has been good for Ireland and the Irish is simply deniying the facts repeated by top economists, whom unfortunatly dont have a paper or TV station of their own.

I'll be getting everyone I know to vote NO, and I hope to let them know what the issuses really are, in addittion to those that are repeated in the press. The main problem with the campaign is the playing field. The mass media have set the playing field and the topics, and as long as the public are distracted from the only issue that can serve the common good, ie - money, the userers and dodgy politicians win. You are in fact assisting in their devious plot by attempting to imply that the money we use is not an issue. Please do your homework if you are just an apologist , and if you know what you are talking about, all I can say is that you are building a fine coffin for civil liberties.

Obviously my article doesnt fit with the accepted consensus trance everyone seems to be to engaged in, however I like to call a spade a spade and make no apologies for it. If as a result you feel mild forms of cognative dissonance, I can only say that it is a good thing.

Related Link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936
author by Seán Ryanpublication date Thu Mar 06, 2008 18:20author address author phone Report this post to the editors

This I believe will be my first comment on the Lisbon Treaty. I haven't commented before this as the whole subject makes my blood boil.

I'm obviously against the treaty.

I tend to agree with Cropbeye and the assessment given above. Before I go into why I agree with Cropbeye allow me to point out that I'm neither an apologist nor am I trying to take from what is essentially a good article.

In the article itself we have: the control and issue of currency, voting fraud, sovereignty, our Constitution and many other areas. Whilst these are undoubtedly important issues, voting NO in the Lisbon Treaty will not solve a singular one of them. It seems to me, and I'm open to correction, that the author is using the Lisbon Treaty to vent against all that he feels is wrong with the EU. The ills the author speaks of, for the most part, are already implemented and thus the most the Lisbon Treaty can do is to copper fasten this and make it harder to drag ourselves out of it. I take the author's point regarding the understanding of issues and indeed that these issues are rooted in the substance of the author's article. However, I don't feel that complexifying the NO position aids the cause, especially when the YES position will be quite simple. Propaganda works in strange ways and it would be very easy to nullify a complex NO position in favour of a straight forward (not necessarily true) YES position.

I do not for a moment believe that the average Joe believes that our social elites work towards the common good. I reckon the author is not giving enough credit to his fellow citizens. I'm confident that the average Joe is well aware of what goals our social elites work towards, but has too many issues and indeed is too caught up in financial traps to be in a position to do anything about it.

Whilst we're on about it - the Constitution - it sould be pointed out that before ever an average Joe caught sight of it, that it was sent to Rome for the Pope's approval. The Pope didn't officially approve it but it wasn't outrightly rejected either. My point here is that despite the merits of the Constitution, and there are many, the Constitution is a very deeply flawed document. I reckon any argument that promotes sovereignty and the viability of our Constitution with regard to a NO vote should be very aware of the limitations and flaws of the Constitution. So how does one argue the viability of national Sovereignty without using the Constitution as a prop? It's difficult, but in my opinion it can be argued without reference to Bunreacht. If we struggled for some 800 years for sovereignty and then give it up willingly at the first opportunity, we are not capable or worthy of it to begin with. Fightin' words, I know, but they put the opposition in quite a precarious position.

In the author's response to Cropbeye, he brings the masons into the picture. In truth, I dunno is this a conspiracy theory or not. I do know that any credible argument for a NO position, will refrain from blaming masonic goals for being behind the scenes in making Europe a single nation. The chances of being nailed as a lunatic are much greater than the chances of convincing the masses on this and to act otherwise would be suicidal with regard to a genuine attempt at facilitating a NO vote. King Canute did not stop the waves.

Common ground is the best way forward in strategising for a NO vote. My way or the highway is an isolationist's methodology and is doomed to both failure and fracture.

OK that's my two cents. An interesting and thought provoking article. With that I'll once again bow out of the Lisbon Treaty debate.

author by W. Finnerty.publication date Thu Mar 06, 2008 20:20author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"Equipped with such limitless resources, the directors of the New Underworld Order have now amassed sufficient finance to bribe every leader, ruler, policymaker, intelligence operative and political figure worldwide, for the rest of this century, in pursuit of their aims. The New Underworld Order addresses the greatest crisis the world has ever faced namely, the globalization of criminalism. What this means is that governments, and the revolutionary New World Order cabal seeking global governance (or control), are increasingly in the hands of criminal gangs and corrupt power cliques that hide behind formal government positions."

Related Link: http://www.europeancourtofhumanrightswilliamfinnerty.com/Leaders/4October2006/Email.htm
author by Brianpublication date Fri Mar 07, 2008 23:28author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Don't mind them its a first class article, as Sean half concedes anyway. Its great too that the politics.ie refugees get to read such high end stuff. I printed it out for my father - no fan of 'conspiracy theories'! - and he thought it was great as well.
I don't agree at all with the concept that the NO campaign should be narrow, and focus on some specific clauses of the treaty. It seems perfectly logical that if we are going to concede more soverignity to the EU then we should look at the EU in general to see what kind of people we are entrusting our future to.
I think you absolutely highlight some of the important issues, and have brought together the testimony of a persuasive list of EU dissidents. You are right too to highlight that Sunday Tribune article on vote fraud. As you say its a big issue worldwide and why not here? Speaking for myself the result of the last election surprises me, I really dont think that Ahern is that popular or was at the time of the election. (And actually a kind of unofficial exit poll conducted at the time gave a very different result for FF http://www.indymedia.ie/article/82387#comment195592 . On that score I wonder if the NO campaign could organise some kind of volunteer exit poll for this referendum, just to make sure of the result?)

"In the European Parliament on Wednesday 20 February 2008 the following motion was put forward:
"The European Parliament undertakes to respect the outcome of the referendum in Ireland".
499 MEP’s voted not to respect the outcome of our referendum, our opinion. Only 129 voted for. Proinsias De Rossa voted not to respect our rule of law."

Isn't that well nigh incredible though when you think about it? When has the Irish electorate being so explicitly insulted in any international forum? Look too at the nature of Irish civic society in its response to that motion: silence. We have lots of politicians in this country, opposition ones, govt ones, left, right, political opponents of De Rossa etc and can anybody recall any public statement from them referring to that motion? The same could surely be said of the Irish media. Surely any self respecting country would have some kind of public debate about that and hopefully would condemn it in the strongest possible terms.

To clarify too about the monetary issues (without in any way cutting across the more in depth criticisms that are out there and that you are highlighting): Obviously before we gave up monetary independence many economists said that that was a mistake because we no longer had the capacity to set interest rates according to the stage the Irish economy was at, from then on interest rates would reflect the overall state of the big european economies and we would have to take that whether we liked it or not. Then in the years since it turns out that we had a huge property boom at the same time that Germany etc were in a semi recession. So interest rates were kept artificially low to aid those economies but disastrously low for us because it balloned the poperty bubble to disaStrous proportions. We are now clearly coming out the other side of that boom and it is showing clearly that huge numbers of Irish people have become disastrously indebted because of this vastly overinflated property market. That bubble could have been prevented if the Irish Central Bank was able to push up interest rates when it saw an asset bubble in the offing, as would have been the normal practice before we joined the Monetary Union. Hence its a serious and perfectly reasonable criticism of throwing away our economic independence?

Actually I was thinking that maybe if No campaigners wanted to hand OUT some leaflets after meetings or something like that then maybe this should be the article to print out and distribute. Maybe if you agreed you could give them permission and stuff, because its the best single article on the subject that I know of.

author by Darragh Aikenpublication date Sun Mar 09, 2008 19:51author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Brian,

An exit poll would be a great idea. I'd be open to suggestions.

darraghaiken@gmail.com

author by G.D.Flynn - International Republicanpublication date Mon Mar 10, 2008 15:21author email flynnfacultasliterum at hotmail dot comauthor address 188 burghsliussingel 3086 vg Rotterdamauthor phone Report this post to the editors

I have been following this European Experiment from the sixties when I was a student here in Holland under my good friend the late and learned Dr Proff, Aime Van Santen
"Molitor" who is no longer with us. I agree and admire nearly all of the above statements
and its leading article which is well written and concise . I have been writing on the Telegraph Blogs for weeks and the battle isnt won in the UK either. As a Republican and having my roots in Eire,England,Holland and France (even met Vd.Estaing once,my Proff said this would never work in this form) The Structure of Europe as it stands is volatile inso far as it can be purloined by the extreme Right or the extreme left
equally as odious because both leads to a form of TOTALITARIANISM which takes centuries to unravel unless by a "Bloody Convulsion" and no one wants that !
The way I see it therefore is that which I suggested a couple of years ago to print out the
Bureacht na h'Ereann and deliver it in numbered form, to as many of the people of Eire that you can,with an appendage and summary,to the effect of a YES VOTE would mean the end of all our precious won Republic and this Constitution,and its Natural Resources,and your Pensions,Schools,Hospitals,Universities, Tech Colleges etc,and Natural Resources ,also the immigrants voting issue? not allowed !
Farmers what they can and cannot grow,and the Fishermen what they can and cannot fish (European Fisheries Minister was an Austrian,and lived 1000 km from the sea) emphasis the point YOU are the CUSTODIANS of this CONSTITUTION,the land,the Rivers,the Sea and fish,for your Childrens, Childrens,Children as I have been for you therefore treat it with reverence and wisely before you change anything,and one more thing this TREATY is going to prove the harbinger of a Van Allen shower of Amendments that you will lose by majority voting.
Copies to the Unions,The Universities,The Shell to Sea, The Farmers,The Fishermen, The Churches, Its YOUR CONSTITUTION,Its YOUR REPUBLIC, no one has the RIGHT, or GOD given AUTHORITY to wrest it away from you,and you have no right to give it away on your Childrens or Grandparents behalf.
Thank you for your time
I remain yours Respectfully
G.D. Flynn
Upsilon
Omicron
Molitor
Flynn O Flynn
International Republican

Number of comments per page
  
 
© 2001-2019 Independent Media Centre Ireland. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Independent Media Centre Ireland. Disclaimer | Privacy