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

forward

Irish Left Review
Joined up thinking for the Irish Left

offsite link Syriza?s Victory: Turning Hope into Reality Thu Jan 29, 2015 04:11 | Michael Burke

offsite link From Alpha to Omega Podcast #059: Test Those Theories Thu Jan 29, 2015 03:57 | Tom O'Brien

offsite link The Very Real Cost of Rising Inequality Thu Jan 29, 2015 03:43 | Michael Taft

offsite link Cead Mile Failte Thu Jan 29, 2015 03:35 | Michael Corrigan

offsite link Always the Artists: Week Three of the Bank Inquiry Fri Jan 23, 2015 03:31 | Conor McCabe

Irish Left Review >>

Human Rights in Ireland
www.humanrights.ie

offsite link Health, Gender-Based Violence and the Right to Reparations in Ireland. Sat Jan 24, 2015 16:06 | Máiréad Enright

offsite link Mental Disorder and Punishment in Criminal Law ? Seminar Wed Jan 21, 2015 14:22 | Yvonne Daly

offsite link Protection against Cross-Examination by the Accused in Sexual Offence Trials ? The Criminal Law (Sex... Wed Jan 21, 2015 06:30 | GuestPost

offsite link Update on the Northern/Irish Feminist Judgments Project. Fri Jan 16, 2015 09:00 | admin

offsite link Seminar 5th Feb 2015 (Trans)Gender Recognition in Germany: The Role of the German Courts Thu Jan 15, 2015 08:30 | Liam Thornton

Human Rights in Ireland >>

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
© 2001-2015 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