Upcoming Events

National | EU

no events match your query!

User Preferences

  • Language - en | ga
  • text size >>
  • make this your indymedia front page make this your indymedia front page

Blog Feeds

The Saker
A bird's eye view of the vineyard

offsite link How Russia Implements the Minsk 2 Agreement, by Scott Humor Mon Feb 20, 2017 05:03 | Scott
A few years ago, I was having coffee with my then-business partner. He happened to be in the middle of a process called “enrolling your child in a private school.”

offsite link Moveable Feast Cafe 2017/02/19 ? Open Thread Sun Feb 19, 2017 23:00 | Herb Swanson
2017/02/19 23:00:03Welcome to the ‘Moveable Feast Cafe’. The ‘Moveable Feast’ is an open thread where readers can post wide ranging observations, articles, rants, off topic and have animate discussions of

offsite link National Anthems ? a comparison Sun Feb 19, 2017 20:51 | The Saker
by Christine Marais Although involved in many wars, there is no indication that Greece, Persia, Rome or the Ottoman Empire ever had or needed national anthems.  When we look at

offsite link Trump dreams vs Trump reality ? hopes still permitted! Sun Feb 19, 2017 05:09 | The Saker
This article was written for the Unz Review: http://www.unz.com/tsaker/trump-dream... For a lot of Trump supporters the past week has been a painful one. Whether we chose to react with abject

offsite link Iran and Hezbollah respond to Donald Trump Sat Feb 18, 2017 21:59 | The Saker
by Sayed Hasan Since his election campaign, Donald Trump has not hidden his fierce hostility to the international deal on Iran’s nuclear program, calling it the worst of the agreements

The Saker >>

Human Rights in Ireland
www.humanrights.ie

offsite link Hague Justice Journal: Call for Papers Mon Feb 20, 2017 11:13 | GuestPost

offsite link Reflections on the Citizen?s Assembly (3): The Presentation of Dr. Joan McCarthy Tue Feb 14, 2017 14:01 | GuestPost

offsite link Reflections on the Citizens Assembly (2): The Presentation of Bobbie Farsides Tue Feb 07, 2017 05:44 | GuestPost

offsite link Languishing in Direct Provision: Rights in ?Reasonable? and ?Unreasonable? Times Mon Feb 06, 2017 18:10 | Liam Thornton

offsite link The Story of King Tex: A Modern Allegory Fri Feb 03, 2017 06:20 | GuestPost

Human Rights in Ireland >>

Cedar Lounge
For lefties too stubborn to quit

offsite link is it me or are ?leadership? contests in parties like FG generally very very dull. 20:01 Mon Feb 20, 2017 | WorldbyStorm

offsite link Policing stories 14:47 Mon Feb 20, 2017 | WorldbyStorm

offsite link Poll projections? 12:45 Mon Feb 20, 2017 | WorldbyStorm

offsite link Left Archive: RSYM Position on Recent Developments (IRSP) ? c.2009 02:21 Mon Feb 20, 2017 | leftarchivist

offsite link The Fine Gael leadership race? Who much cares? 13:00 Sun Feb 19, 2017 | WorldbyStorm

Cedar Lounge >>

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

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

offsite link THE WRATH OF KANE: BANKING CRISES AND POLITICAL POWER 09:32 Fri Jan 30, 2015

offsite link ALWAYS THE ARTISTS: WEEK THREE OF THE BANK INQUIRY 23:11 Thu Jan 22, 2015

Dublin Opinion >>

Questions for the far-wrong side of Lisbon

category national | eu | opinion/analysis author Thursday June 19, 2008 22:25author by Howard Holby Report this post to the editors

As we all know by now, the imperial classes of Europe are busy looking for new creative ways to continue to impose the Lisbon Treaty on the member states, regardless of its rejection by Ireland. The very same philosophy that drives them doing so can be captured in the following highlights.

Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen said that it did not matter if people had not read the treaty (he had not read it either, he admitted) and did not understand it because they should trust their elected leaders.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said: “Naturally [the Lisbon Treaty] is still far from the clarity of our constitution on how powers are really delineated.”

Former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing said: “The difference between the original Constitution and the present Lisbon Treaty is one of approach, rather than content ... the proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary ... But lift the lid and look in the toolbox: all the same innovative and effective tools are there, just as they were carefully crafted by the European Convention.”

D’Estaing said: “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.”

Italian President Giorgio Napolitano said: “Those who are anti-EU are terrorists. It is psychological terrorism to suggest the specter of a European superstate.”

D’Estaing said: The approach “is to keep a part of the innovations of the constitutional treaty and to split them into several texts in order to make them less visible. The most innovative dispositions would pass as simple amendments of the Maastricht and Nice treaties. The technical improvements would be gathered in an innocuous treaty. The whole would be addressed to Parliaments, which would decide with separate votes. The public opinion would therefore unknowingly adopt the dispositions that it would not accept if presented directly.”

Juncker said: Fears connected with the treaty “most often stem from the fact that we use a language incomprehensible for ordinary people.”
Belgian Foreign Minister Karel de Gucht said: “The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this [Lisbon] treaty is to be unreadable… The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success.”
Barroso said: “If a referendum had to be held on the creation of the European Community or the introduction of the euro, do you think these would have passed?”
Barroso said: “Referendums make the process of approval of European treaties much more complicated and less predictable…every member state [considering a referendum should] think twice”

Irish Foreign Minister Dermot Ahern said: “The substance of what was agreed in 2004 has been retained. Really, what is gone is the term ‘constitution’.”
Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker said: “Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?”


Source of the quotes:
"Why Irish Voters Rejected the Lisbon Treaty"
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3340

In view of the above and the post-referendum statements of the pro-Lisbon leaders of Europe, here are some questions for them:

1) Who and why is to be blamed for the incomprehensibility of the Lisbon Treaty? The Irish voters or those from the EU who deliberately designed the treaty to be unreadable? [1] If the incomprehensibility of the treaty is to be 'blamed' for the outcome of the referendum, why did the EU designed the treaty that way and why did the Irish government fail to offer a readable version before the referendum? [2]

2) Why should Mr. Cowen be 'embarrassed' by the Irish referendum outcome? Why would he assume it is the people who should represent their leader? In a democracy it is the leader who should represent his people. [3]

3) Will there be a second referendum in Ireland on the same treaty? How many times should a EU-treaty be rejected by one member state - and by Europe - before it is considered rejected?

4) Would the Lisbon process transfer Ireland's sovereignty to Brussels or not? Is it considered (see Napolitano's statement above) "psychological terrorism" to suggest the spectre of a European ‘superstate’ when sovereignty is transferred to Brussels [4]?

5) Cowen said: "Irish voters have endeared themselves to "misguided" far-right groups"
How would Mr. Cowen substantiate this severe accusation and crude generalisation against the people of Ireland? What exactly does it mean "far-right" in a pro-Lisbon politician's dictionary? Which statement of Libertas, National Platform or Sinn Féin can be categorised as "far-right" and/or "misguided"? Do prime ministers in democracies have the right to falsely accuse their people without even attempting to substantiate their statements?

6) Will there ever be an end to the unprecedented arrogance and the repetitive blatant cyinical lies sustained by the pro-Lisbon lobbies?

References:

[1] 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."

http://www.bonde.com/index.php/bonde_UK/article/bondes_...91207

[2] What does the government hide by hiding the Lisbon Treaty?
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87595

[3] Is there a democratic life after a dead Lisbon Treaty?
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/88033

[4] Lisbon Treaty: national level competences to be transferred to the EU
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87923

[5] Cowen: Ireland's future with Europe
http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hwi0ZSgJWB4QxII...afubA

Related Link: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3340
© 2001-2017 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