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

Public Inquiry
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005

offsite link Formal complaint against RTE for bias

offsite link Water protester convicted on trumped up charge Anthony

offsite link The people now know what you are Mr. Ross Anthony

offsite link Independents must decide: The people or the corrupt political system Anthony

offsite link Independent Alliance TDs must decide: The people or the corrupt regime Anthony

Public Inquiry >>

The Saker
A bird's eye view of the vineyard

offsite link Superficiality as a Path to God: on conflating contemporary violent groups with historical Sunnism Mon Sep 26, 2016 14:05 | The Saker
Note by the Saker: I was recently contacted by a reader of this blog who, while praising the overall contents of the blog, also expressed regret at what he perceived

offsite link The U.S. Removed the Truce in Syria Sun Sep 25, 2016 22:55 | The Saker
by Anna Jaunger On Monday, Sep 19, there was an attack on a joint convoy of the UN and the Syrian Arab Red Crescent (SARC) near the area of Urum

offsite link A Muslim police officer dies a hero?s death and receives Russia?s highest honorary title ?Hero of Ru... Sun Sep 25, 2016 21:00 | The Saker
The video below is an excerpt of a recent one hour long tribute on Russia TV to a 30 year old officer of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Magomed Nurbagandov. 

offsite link Moves and Counter Moves Sun Sep 25, 2016 13:17 | Saker-Admin
This comment was chosen by Mod-FK from the post “Why the recent developments in Syria show that the Obama Administration is in a state of confused agony” Mod-FK had this

offsite link The US and Syria SitRep September 24th, 2016 by Auslander Sat Sep 24, 2016 19:51 | Scott
The war in Syria is in fact a war between US and RF in microcosm. Russia Armed Forces have demonstrated masterful tactical skill and her diplomats have shown they are

The Saker >>

Human Rights in Ireland
www.humanrights.ie

offsite link Benefit Sanctions and Coercion Within the Irish Welfare System Thu Sep 22, 2016 13:38 | Cliodhna Murphy

offsite link The rights of the unborn: a troubling decision from the High Court? Wed Aug 10, 2016 12:42 | Máiréad Enright

offsite link Progress Report on the Northern/Irish Feminist Judgments Project. Mon Jul 11, 2016 13:40 | admin

offsite link The UN and the Eighth Amendment Thu Jun 23, 2016 09:46 | admin

offsite link Call for Papers: State Accountability for Vulnerability Mon Jun 20, 2016 12:29 | admin

Human Rights in Ireland >>

Cedar Lounge
For lefties too stubborn to quit

offsite link A fake choice? 12:01 Mon Sep 26, 2016 | WorldbyStorm

offsite link Saoradh? 10:58 Mon Sep 26, 2016 | WorldbyStorm

offsite link Tip-offs 08:24 Mon Sep 26, 2016 | WorldbyStorm

offsite link An Teoiric ? Theoretical Journal of the Republican Movement (Official Sinn Féin), No 1, Summer 1971. 06:54 Mon Sep 26, 2016 | WorldbyStorm

offsite link The greatest record sleeves? 13:44 Sun Sep 25, 2016 | WorldbyStorm

Cedar Lounge >>

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
© 2001-2016 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