People's News - No. 139 7th Feb 2016 22:58 Feb 10 0 comments
Peoples News issue No. 110 Date: 21 – 9 – 14 22:01 Oct 01 1 comments
Peoples News issue no. 108 Date: 8 – 8 – 14 09:19 Aug 15 0 comments
PEOPLES NEWS ISSUE NO. 106 DATE: 22 – 6 – 14 16:38 Jun 23 0 commentsmore >>
Why is my rent so high? Mon Oct 31, 2016 18:51 | Gavin Mendel-Gleason
Review of Capitalism: Competition, Conflict, Crises by Anwar Shaikh Sun Oct 30, 2016 16:21 | Gavin Mendel-Gleason
Electoralism vs Abstentionism (Or: Why You Should Run For Office) Fri Aug 26, 2016 17:07 | Slyvia Smith
Centrism extremism: how horseshoe-politics silences brutality Sat Jul 02, 2016 18:25 | yeksmesh
Of Tankies, Trots and Social Democrats Thu May 12, 2016 23:41 | Gavin Mendel-Gleason
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
Brian Cowen: A political idiot Anthony
A bird's eye view of the vineyard
His own man ? or someone?s puppet? Wed Dec 07, 2016 18:05 | mod editor
The World SITREP December 7th, 2015 by Baaz Wed Dec 07, 2016 17:47 | Scott
Syrian War Report ? December 7, 2016: Washington Attempts To Save Militants From Total Collapse Wed Dec 07, 2016 16:48 | The Saker
Russia SITREP December 06, 2016 by Scott Wed Dec 07, 2016 03:19 | Scott
Wesley Clark Jr apologizes to the Lakota nation (UPDATED 2x) Wed Dec 07, 2016 00:02 | The Saker
Notes on Judge Harding-Clark?s Report on the Symphysiotomy Payment Scheme. Thu Nov 24, 2016 17:50 | Máiréad Enright
The Practical Implications of Miller v SSEEU for Brexit: Nine Reflections Thu Nov 03, 2016 16:30 | Fiona de Londras
Having Our Voices Heard ? the Official Languages Act foreshadowing the Recognition of Irish Sign Lan... Wed Nov 02, 2016 09:35 | admin
Benefit Sanctions and Coercion Within the Irish Welfare System Thu Sep 22, 2016 13:38 | Cliodhna Murphy
The rights of the unborn: a troubling decision from the High Court? Wed Aug 10, 2016 12:42 | Máiréad Enright
Our future under a ratified Lisbon Treaty – III.
“Democracy means having the choice. Dictatorship means being given the choice.” (Jeannine Luczak)
In the former parts of this study it has been demonstrated that the pro-Lisbon European political class has transformed the system considered “parliamentary democracy” into constitutional dictatorship. The parliamentary offices of the elected have become ineffective as democratic institutions and are maintained for a purpose opposite of democracies: to serve the interests of a small political oligarchy.
4. Our future under a ratified Lisbon Treaty: no sovereignty, no freedom
It concludes from the former discussions of this study, that - by accepting a new constitution and accordingly transferring the competencies delegated to the elected representatives to another political leadership that has NOT been elected by the same electorate base - the parliamentary ratification of a new constitution is also an act of eradicating the very basis of democracy by contradicting the principle of meaningful elections.
6) The act of overthrowing a constitution can also be carried out by means of deceit. In Ireland, where the decision on ratifying the constitution of the EU federal state (Lisbon Treaty) is to be made by referendum, the Irish government’s act of keeping the voters ignorant of the actual meaning of the referendum is in effect the same as not holding a referendum on a new constitution but on something else. By the current misinformation campaign led by the EU and the Irish government to urge the Irish citizens to replace their democratic and functional constitution with the undemocratic and flawed federal constitution called Lisbon Treaty, the grand-scale misinformation reducing the Lisbon constitution into a harmless ‘reform treaty’ is used by the government to perform the act of overthrowing the constitution.
However, a constitution by its own definition never allows the act of overthrowing it. Not even a sovereign parliament with elected representatives and legislative supremacy has been authorised by the electorate to overthrow and invalidate the constitution under any circumstances, unless such parliament and the domestic law specifically claim to foster a system of “rule of man” rather than “rule of law”. By overthrowing the constitution that has been the basis of their mandates with electorate legitimacy, the elected representatives have invalidated the basis of their legitimacy, thus terminated their mandates and elected status. 
As for the future of Europe, there is no justified reason to assume that the current status quo would change if a “yes” vote on the Irish referendum would enable the pro-Lisbon leadership to enforce the treaty as of the 1st of January 2009. On the contrary, once the Lisbon Treaty would be ratified EU-wide, the current antidemocratic trend in Europe would intensify and accelerate. If the Lisbon implementation process would receive an assumed “green light”, the political leadership of Europe would have no reason to respect even the last remains of the principles of parliamentary democracy. Through millions of fallacies they will gradually shift from their pre-Lisbon statements about “harmless and insignificant EU-reforms” to the requirements for a profound transformation of Ireland to make it fit into the federal EU.
Following the patterns of the present, once the politicians would acquire their mandates they would continue perceiving their elected status as an office of absolute power. Even when the elected would lose the support of their electorate, there would be no opportunity to restore the link between the representatives and the represented, i.e. the voters would not be able to recall their MEP’s and other nationally elected politicians from the EU institutions, even if they do not pursue the goals projected in their political agenda.
While at present the primary reason for the broken link between the electorate base and the political representation is to clear the way for the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, in the future the reason to maintain the antidemocratic status quo in all over Europe would be the implementation of the Treaty as fast as possible. The very same political class, which has unanimously agreed to the dictatorial pre-Lisbon process, would unanimously agree to implement the Lisbon Treaty at an accelerating speed to stabilise the EU federal state before the voters will realise the full meaning and the consequences of this process. The other main reason why they would have to act very fast and very efficiently is to stabilise the EU federal state powers within the first 5 year term by exploiting the existing agreement reached among the national parliaments and the federal leadership of Europe. (Specifying the duration of the EU office terms as 5 years rather than 4, evidently serves the purpose of lengthening the time given for accomplishing the strategic goals within two elections.) Accordingly, the national political leaders - degraded to province governors of the empire  - would rapidly transfer the national parliament competencies to the federal EU.
The stabilisation of the federal state powers is a direct consequence of the strategic political direction and central priorities of the EU specified by the Lisbon Treaty as to promote “economic, social and territorial cohesion and solidarity between Member States” with shared competences. (Art 2-3)
The territorial cohesion of the Union is a novelty of special importance as evidenced by the following Lisbon instructions:
“PROTOCOL ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL COHESION
One of the top fallacies widely used in the pro-Lisbon campaign has been a statement to redefine the meaning of the above provision into its opposite. The statement: “the Lisbon Treaty is far from paving the path of a European ‘superstate’” is a refined way of telling the truth by lying about the essential point to make in the statement. This statement is true in the sense that the Lisbon Treaty is indeed far from paving the path of a European ‘superstate’, partly because the term ‘superstate’ can be substituted with a more adequate expression “federal state”, and because the process of paving the path for a European federal state has already been accomplished by the former EU-treaties. The Lisbon Treaty is indeed far from paving the path of a European ‘superstate’, because the ‘superstate’ - or federal state - is already in place; the Lisbon Treaty is merely needed to retrospectively seal its legality.
The popular fallacy denying the foundation of a superstate under Lisbon, serves the evident purpose of denying its consequence, the loss of national sovereignty. However, denying the loss of national sovereignty as an ultimate implication of ratifying a treaty that is “to provide the legal basis for consolidating and further developing the Union’s action in the field of economic, social and territorial cohesion” is merely an act of arbitrarily omitting the appropriate dictionary definition of a given concept. Furthermore, denying that Ireland, although will lose its sovereignty, “will keep its military neutrality and tax regime”, is the same as saying that any non-sovereign region of Ireland – or of any country in the EU - may freely decide to introduce its own local tax, military or any state policies, and is free to deny complying with the national-level tax-, military-related or other obligations.
In order to fulfill the mission of Lisbon “to provide the legal basis for consolidating and further developing the Union’s action in the field of economic, social and territorial cohesion” the bottom line will be to force all the EU-states onto a shared macroeconomic and monetary ground applying the same monetary and budgetary policies EU-wide. Tax harmonisation, as a main element of a common budgetary policy to regulate the Union as a single economical unit, is a prerequisite of the projected economical cohesion of the Union; therefore the establishment of a unified tax regime can be expected be one of the first strategic goals to achieve within the first 5-year term.
As one of the direct consequences of the lost national sovereignty, under a ratified Lisbon treaty there will be no independence for the people of Ireland to demand restoration of neutrality, when it is lost:
“Earlier today, Sinn Féin Dublin MEP Mary Lou McDonald said any political party that suggests Ireland’s position as a military neutral will not be affected by the Lisbon Treaty either doesn’t understand the document or doesn’t care.
After Lisbon there would be no responsible national lead to resolve human rights conflicts either. What we can expect is the exact opposite:
“Professor Schachtschneider has pointed out repeatedly, that with the adoption of the EU Treaty, the death penalty is to be reintroduced. This is because by accepting the treaty, we are also accepting the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Charter states that no one is to be condemned to death—but this has been revised in the annotations, to say that the ban on the death penalty and execution is not in effect during times of war or the imminent threat of war, or in periods of rebellion and revolt. And what could be more efficient than the threat of a death sentence, to ensure that soldiers do what they have been ordered to do? Schachtschneider stresses that a treaty which makes the death penalty possible once again, cannot be approved under any circumstances.” 
All the further sore effects of loss of national sovereignty: the loss of democracy, loss of political freedom, loss of military neutrality, loss of independent tax system, loss of independent powers to control the general macroeconomical tendencies in the country, etc, and all the other harsh consequences of the transfer of all essential state powers into the hands of a Machiavellian leadership in Brussels would only be experienced later, after the Lisbon Treaty would be ratified in all member states and would come into effect in 2009.
5. Our future under a ratified Lisbon Treaty: no choice of systems = system of no choices
When comparing the observed facts of the pre-Lisbon political scenery of Europe with the promises laid out in the Lisbon Treaty regarding “democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, efficiency, security” along with other luring promises on the façade of the Treaty - numerous other questions can be raised. This chapter will highlight several of these.
Among the many fallacies widely used in the pro-Lisbon campaigns, "the increased efficiency in decision making", as a widely advertised novel “asset” of the Lisbon Treaty, is an especially brilliant trick to sell a dictatorial feature as a seemingly democratic advantage packaged in the Lisbon paper.
First, the question is: what sort of “efficiency” is the sort that is not sought through an agreement with the people’s will, but an “efficiency” sought in making decisions against the expressed will of the people? Democracy is a system where efficiency is achieved in a genuine representation of the people’s will rather than streamlining the rulers’ decisions to enable them to work against the will of the people.
Second, with respect to the assumed ‘advantage’ of an advanced decision-making process, imagine, for example, if a party or parties democratically delegated into a parliament by the majority of a society, would decide to streamline the procedure of the parliamentary decision making and for such reason would voluntarily switch to accomplishing the political agenda of the parties in minority. If you find the idea entirely absurd, consider that the Lisbon Treaty in effect is aiming at the same anomalies, with the difference that the treaty would streamline the process of making political decisions over Ireland by political forces that are entirely outside the elected national parliament of Ireland, are outside Ireland as well. at a rate of 1.6% of influence by the nationally elected MEP’s , while the rest 98.4% of the decisions over Ireland will be originating mostly from the leading superpowers of Europe: the UK, France, Italy and Germany. (Note: even the 1.6% influence will be diluted by the fact that the voting rights to elect EU representatives will be given for all who reside in Ireland, NOT only to the Irish citizenry.)
Third, leaving Ireland without a commissioner in every third of the 5-year terms will also greatly enhance the EU’s central decision making power over Ireland. The streamlined decision mechanism is therefore an evidently huge disadvantage for Ireland and - as the strategic goal of excluding the country representations and pulling the whole of Europe under the central command of Brussels - a blatantly obvious advantage for the centralised federal state of EU.
Fourth, the EU fails to attach the comment to its glorious promise of the “enhanced efficiency in decision making”, that the increased effectiveness in decision making is a distinctive characteristic of dictatorships rather than of democracies. Its only “advantage” is to ensure the peace of mind and to reduce the work load of the political class.
To further demonstrate the conceptual link between the notion of “enhanced decision making” and ruling a territory by dictatorial means: the former Soviet Union was managed with utmost efficiency by unquestionable decisions of a central unaccountable ruling class and with absolute cohesion and consensus among its leaders. Decisions regarding the 5-year “plans” have been unanimously reached by a streamlined central leadership of the Soviet Central Commission and the Council. Keeping even the very same names of these leading bodies and by extending the virtual election terms to 5 years, the EU is apparently aiming at rendering Europe under a similarly unaccountable and non-recallable leadership as the former Soviet regime. 
To achieve the targeted full cohesion within the Union (see former chapter), what is needed in the first place is that the leaders would maintain unanimity by consensus at all times. The Lisbon Treaty would ensure that the necessary cohesion and consensus within the Union will be maintained to streamline the decision process. The highest decision making bodies and individuals of the EU, the non-elected Commission-members and other appointed high EU-officials will be forced to resign in the case of diverting from the mainstream politics of the EU-leadership:
“ARTICLE 9 D: member of the Commission shall resign if the President so requests. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy shall resign, in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 9 E(1), if the President so requests.”
The full cohesion and consensus among the political leaders, is indeed perceived as an obligation in fulfilling all political offices in the EU – as evidenced by the following paragraphs as well:
"ARTICLE 9 B-5: The European Council shall elect its President, by a qualified majority, for a term of two and a half years, renewable once. In the event of an impediment or serious misconduct, the European Council can end the President's term of office in accordance with the same procedure.
Note that the above provision is already in effect as the overwhelming pressure on an EU-wide ratification of the Lisbon Treaty is apparently the result of the full cohesion and consensus among the members of the European Council and of the other EU-institutions.
The bottom line to be expected under a ratified Lisbon Treaty is that the country leaders would maintain the same consensus among them at the expense of contradicting their electorate and accordingly would continue their current practice of warning any “disobeying” or “misbehaving” politicians , i.e. those who would attempt to restore the democratic settings in Europe.
In the Communist regimes the very same techniques, with special regard to constant threats, have been used to prevent deviation from the central decision line. The only difference between the former Soviet Union and the pro-Lisbon EU is the façade of maintaining the European Parliament with “elected” members. With respect to the elected status for Ireland however, what the term “elected” actually means in the context of Lisbon is “elected by other EU-countries”, leaving ca 1.6% for the representatives elected by the Irish voters to influence the overall decisions of the EU. 
We find that the insignificant 1.6% influence of the nationally elected EU-representatives is further discounted to a virtual level, if we consider that the European Parliament has become a virtual institution since the EP president tailored the house rules to enforce the representatives’ full obedience to the mainstream Union politics. Those members of the EP who voted against the Treaty and expressed their justified protest against the European Parliament when it accepted the Lisbon Treaty and thus abandoned the former French and Dutch referendums, have been penalised, terrorized, humiliated, ridiculed and were disgraced as those “behaving like Nazis” from the 30’s. (“Power Grab by EU Parliament President (updated)”
If we assume that after a successful misinformation and intimidation campaign the ruling class of Europe will surrender Ireland and all member states under the central control of Brussels, we should also paraphrase the main question highlighted earlier:
What sort of further undemocratic methods will the new rulers resort to in order to suppress the very likely subsequent protests in the member states, when the nearly 500 million voters will realise that they have been fooled and deprived of their voting rights under a constitutional dictatorship imposed on them? When the likely sore economical and social effects of the forceful integration, such as increasing poverty and intensifying ethnical and social tensions, will become more and more evident and will burst out in a series of protests, similar to those of Tibet, what exactly will be the response of the heavily militarised EU, which will be reinforced by the highest internal security measures and licensed for all violence by the Lisbon Treaty to act as a typical police state?
There will not be multiple countries among which one could provide asylum for those who are unlawfully prosecuted and imprisoned in another country. What will be then the incentive for the EU’s political leadership to refrain from the most profound violations of human rights and freedoms?
Democracy is a system of diversities, discussions and choices, a reflection of the heterogeneity of interests, in which the ultimate result is the outcome of a real conversation between the represented and those in whom the powers of the represented have been vested. While diversifying is the very basis of choices, the Lisbon Treaty, which is “to provide the legal basis for consolidating and further developing the Union’s action in the field of economic, social and territorial cohesion” requires homogenisation of the affected countries in every sense - political, social, economical, legal, territorial, etc. The very process of homogenisation, an assumed ‘asset’ brought by Lisbon, is in fact the act of abolishing the differences, the basis of the choices.
As opposed to a system of choices, what kind of “democracy” is the kind that the EU has in mind when shamelessly advocating that “there is no plan B”, if the Lisbon Treaty would fail? In genuine democracies, there is always a plan B, and if both plan A and plan B would fail, there is a plan C. On the other hand, all forms of dictatorial systems - Nazi, Communist or any other kinds of the present and the past - may only emerge from a precondition of no choices, which is admittedly the starting point of the politics of the EU and of all national governments promoting the Lisbon Treaty.
The ongoing accusations against anyone maintaining an anti-Lisbon stance also reveal the pro-Lisbon position to advocate a system of no choices. The neo-Nazi argument, aligned with other fallacious accusations like “xenophobia”, is also based on the false premise of reversing the subject and object of political aggression, and serves as a blackmail to force us to accept the given only choice. However, the act of protecting one’s national freedom and our rights to maintain or restore a democratic system in a sovereign country is a far cry from these accusations, and the concept of democracy itself is not subject to political preferences, party politics or ideologies. It is the fulfillment of the objective political concept of democracy that determines if a country is given the political freedom to maintain different party politics, preferences or any choices at all.
It is ultimately the precondition of no choice of systems that always leads to a system of no choices. “Democracy means having the choice. Dictatorship means being given the choice.” (Jeannine Luczak.)
6. Our future under a ratified Lisbon Treaty: spinning into the dark
What Ireland can “gain” by transferring its political-economical decision powers to an unaccountable, non-elected and non-transparent group in Brussels, is the opportunity of blind obedience to whatever Brussels will decide about its member states.
Under a ratified Lisbon Treaty the tasks and competencies of the nation-state functions would be transferred to the federal EU. The national parliaments would retain only virtual roles to maintain an ongoing political circus for the national citizenry; while all essential decisions relevant to our life would be made upon the central commands of Brussels.
If the EU-countries would become one federal legal-political unit under the current pro-Lisbon European ruling class with expressly revealed ambitions to build a modern empire based on a ruthless political philosophy, in which the organised trickery and deceit of the voters is a self-evident element; with a leadership that has unlawfully granted itself the right to abolish the contractual basis and the guiding principles of international laws, the future of all EU countries and the peace of the free democratic world would be fatally endangered. For a single federal state positioned above the whole of Europe, there would be no incentives to foster a functioning system of a democratic rule of law and to provide the safety for its citizens by securing political liberties and human rights in the region.
The governments of Europe – forming one federal government - would no longer be able to compete in achieving the highest economical and political performance. The elected politicians would be deprived of their power and the motivation to demonstrate their competence in achieving and maintaining peaceful, tension-free social settings with enforced human and political rights. There would be no basis of comparison to evaluate a national economical leadership by their specific monetary and budgetary (e.g. tax) policies to handle any economical issue present in a certain economical unit at any given time, simply because the national parliaments will not have the effective sovereign powers to fulfill such tasks. In the case of any grave economical, political or other issues, the national parliaments will have the easy way out by playing the ball to Brussels, to any of the non-transparent and powerful federal state offices founded by the Lisbon Treaty, which however for the same reason of non-transparency will have the very same easy way to play the ball back to the national parliaments. Then after several unsuccessful undertakings of the national parliament to protect Ireland’s interests, the citizens of Ireland may endeavour to collect one million signatures for an initiative to influence the decisions in Brussels. However on such occasion the federal EU leadership can easily argue that there is no provision in the Lisbon Treaty to guarantee that a civil initiative will be taken into consideration. This provision of the treaty is merely the same as reinforcing the current rights of the citizens to submit a petition to the EU officials. In the end there will be no political obligation and no way to resolve any issues in any of the EU-states.
By excluding the civil sphere from the decisions of the EU – starting with excluding the voters from the very act of founding the federal EU - the etymological meaning of democracy is lost as well, in which “demos” =people and “kratos” = power, control. Without the power of the citizens to control the political and economical performance of the state officials the final pillar of any democratic construction is collapsing:
“As Maravall and Przeworski suggest, political officials must have the incentives to honour law. Diamond (1999:70) puts it this way with respect to democracy: “Only when citizen commitment to police the behaviour of the state is powerfully credible...does a ruling party, president, or sovereign develop a self-interest in adhering to the rules of the game, which makes these constitutional rules self-enforcing”. Citizens must have the ability to defend principal institutions of the rule of law.” 
A short paraphrase of the above: “The will of the people is the best law.” (Ulysses S. Grant)
Amid an increasing uncertainty under a ratified Lisbon Treaty what we can base our predictions upon with certainty are the following:
- Any time when an issue is raised neither side of the national or the federal lead will ever take the responsibility for inducing and/or resolving the issue, which will result in a complete lack of accountability on all sides of the politics of EU.
- The main reason of all economic downturns and political suppression is the loss of democratic transparency, responsiveness and accountability of the political and economical leadership.
- The bigger the size of the territories of an empire, over which centralised state powers are established, the less transparent and less accountable the ruling system becomes. The greater the economical-cultural-ethnical diversity within a political unit, the more social conflicts and cultural tension will necessarily prevail; more interests will be suppressed by force rather than reconciled by democratic means.
- The main reason why the Union under Lisbon is prepared to be heavily militarised is to empower itself to violently suppress the internal conflicts which are to be expected within a large heterogeneous empire forced to become “homogeneous”. It is a contradiction in terms to guarantee a region of democracy, security and rule of law, - as does the Lisbon Treaty – and to establish a new political system in the respective region by the very act of abolishing the voters’ ultimate right to have a say on the system to be implemented.” 
- The overall consequence of the erosion of social balance will be the acceleration of economic downturns, which in turn will trigger more conflicts to be handled by force. The forceful EU-integration under Lisbon is therefore a self-reinforcing downward process, a vicious cycle spinning into a self-strengthening dictatorial police-regime.
- In any empire of great size and heterogeneity an “efficient” decision-making mechanism can only be realised through a top-down approach, which however is the exact opposite of the structures assumed in democracies.
- The very objectives of democracy, on the other hand, can be most efficiently realised in societies with a structure of leadership allowing for transparency, accountability and responsiveness with manageable economical units of a manageable size of territory, for and by its citizens with mostly shared interests, potentials, cultures and languages. These functioning political-economical units are currently known as the nation-states of Europe.
What the Lisbon Treaty attempts to undermine is the mission of the nation states to safeguard the interests of their citizens: “Small wonder that Europe's monarchies are particularly enthusiastic about the EU Treaty: a Europe of regions and cities, without sovereign nation-states to defend the general welfare, but rather an imperial structure, a new Middle Ages, with a life expectancy, population, and poverty to match. No, thanks!” 
The current constitution of Ireland, which has enabled the country to realise its highest potentials, is taken for granted by most of us, therefore its value would only be really seen and appreciated if it would be lost. Accepting a new constitution with Lisbon, which holds the key to our and our children’s future in every sense, is a choice that will determine not only the kind of choices we can ever make in the future, but it will determine if we can make any choices at all.
Switching to a new constitution is a decision of a unique historical relevance shaping our life down to the very roots of all that will determine everything else. It is therefore a decision that would need the most profound knowledge of the full text of the Lisbon Treaty and would require our most far-reaching understanding of all the future consequences this new constitution will deliver for us and for our children. Each of us may individually answer the question: how many of us can be expected to have such a profound knowledge of the constitution "Lisbon Treaty", the full and readable version of which has not even made available for the public either by the EU or the Irish government? ?
In the final analysis a NO vote to the Lisbon Treaty would result in maintaining the current status quo and our chance for asking for a reasonable EU-treaty and restoring the conditions for a genuine democracy in the countries of Europe . A NO vote would give more time for the citizens and politicians to argue, rethink and outline a workable system to fulfil the principles of democracy in Europe. However, a “yes” vote would essentially mean giving up the current constitution of Ireland, which used to support a well-functioning democratic system before the transformation under the pressure of Lisbon, and would mean accepting an undemocratic federal constitution depriving almost 500 million citizens of their most basic democratic rights. Even at the current stage of its implementation the Lisbon Treaty is abolishing something the loss of which is unknown for most of us: political freedom. Without political freedom and without the choices given in real democracies, under Lisbon we will be thrown into the dark: at the mercy of the further commands of a leadership which is committed to developing a system of no choices.
Considering the magnitude and the historical relevance of the consequences of a ratified Lisbon Treaty, a “yes” outcome on the referendum would inflict much more than an essential change in the current political, social and economical state of matters of Ireland and of Europe. The ratification of the Lisbon Treaty would trigger a major tragic turn in the history of mankind.
A NO vote however, would be our last chance to save ourselves and the world from such a turn.
(Everyone - any individual or organisation - is encouraged to forward this document to other individuals, campaigns and organisations, distribute and/or publish with or without reference to or acknowledgement of its source.)
Our future under a ratified Lisbon Treaty – I.
Our future under a ratified Lisbon Treaty – II.
 “What does the government hide by hiding the Lisbon Treaty?”
 Helga Zepp-LaRouche: “Abolishing Democracy by Stealth:
Constitution for Feudalism in Europe”
 Comparison of the Lisbon Treaty and the former EU Constitution:
Jens-Peter Bonde’s book on the Lisbon Treaty:
Index with more than 3,000 alphabetical entries to search the Lisbon Treaty by topics:
 “Ireland: a vital fact proven; the Lisbon Treaty is a constitution”
(Conceptual map: the Lisbon Treaty is a constitution)
 “These Boots Are Gonna Walk All Over You”
An analysis by Prof. Anthony Coughlan
 “Summary of the Lisbon Treaty research”
 Adam Przeworski, José María Maravall: “Democracy and the Rule of Law”, Cambridge University Press; 1 edition, p. 96, Jul 21 2003
 Larry Jay Diamond, Leonardo Morlino: “Assessing the Quality of Democracy” Johns Hopkins University Press, November 2005
 Helen. Desfosses, Abdo I. Baaklini: “Designs for Democratic Stability: Studies in Viable Constitutionalism” (M.E. Sharpe, February 1997)
 Giovanni Sartori: “Dittatura, in Elementi di teoria politica”, Il Mulino, Bologna, 1987, 51–87.
 “Assessing Alternative Indices of Democracy” by Axel Hadenius from the Uppsala University and Jan Teorell from Göteborg University, (The Committee on Concepts and Methods, International Political Science Association Teaching and Research in the Social Sciences, August 2005)
 "The main constitutional aspect of constitutionalisation"
 “Cowen to kick out FF treaty ‘rebels’”
 Encyclopædia Britannica
 “Lisbon Treaty explained by political science: an equivalent of coup d’état”
 The institutional construction and decision mechanisms of the EU are similar to the ex-communist regimes, such as the former USSR:
“Former Soviet Dissident Warns For EU Dictatorship”
 “Lisbon campaigners clash on neutrality”
 “Top Reasons to Vote NO to Lisbon Treaty”
“Defend Sovereignty - Neutrality - Democracy: Vote No to Lisbon!”
“Voting No for a reason: Lisbon Treaty OR a Europe of democracy”
Bonde’s Briefing 19.12.07: Born in sun and sin
"The EU’s Prime Ministers met Thursday 13 December 2007 11.30 in Lisbon to solemnly sign the Lisbon Treaty which none of them has had time to read.
The text has on purpose been made totally unreadable, and the numbering system has been changed time and time again, Bonde, who was present at the signing ceremony, writes."
Leading politicians on the identity between the Lisbon Treaty and the former EU Constitution:
“EU Empire - Lisbon Treaty / EU Constitution”
Popular sovereignty is abolished and the principle of unanimity is breached by the EU - by dropping the results of the former referendums of the French and the Dutch peoples:
“European Parliament: Members’ Protest - 12.12.2007”
Parliamentary democracy and rule of law are abolished by the EU:
“Power Grab by EU Parliament President (updated)”
Nigel Farage’s speech in the European Parliament after the power-grab:
“Ireland’s call - Vote no to Lisbon”
Movie on the Lisbon Treaty: “End of Nations - EU Takeover & the Lisbon Treaty”
“Video on the Irish campaign by the ERC2:”
Nigel Farage reveals the past of the Commission members:
“Nigel Farage on who’s who in the EU commission”
“The Lisbon Treaty: Ireland Speaks For Democracy”
“Too COSI: what are they hiding? (on the EU’s Standing Committee on Internal Security)”
“Demand a Referendum on EU Lisbon Treaty”
article by Helga Zepp-LaRouche
The Lisbon Treaty is the milestone of a gradual process of absorbing the sovereignty of Europe’s nations, according to the professors of Vienna University:
“EuropeNews: “10,000 demanding referendum on Lisbon Treaty”
“Wrong Man, wrong Europe”
An article by Susan George, the board chair of the Transnational Institute and honorary president of Attac France
BBC UK: The European Parliament’s decision on not publicising the audit report on a series of abuses of staff allowances:
“MEPs keep ‘fraud’ report secret”
“The Result of European Unification Will be War”
“A Business View: A Bad Deal for Ireland and Europe”
“Data Watchdog Questions EU’s Controversial Fingerprint Plan”