Thank you Ireland..

ktex2

Thank god ireland voted no on this. Firstly unfortunately many people perhaps the majority are unaware about what the lisbon treaty is really all about. Ever hear of the new world order?

Its a theory many people believe to be true and happening right now that elite persons all over the world seek to create a one world government whereby national rights and sovereignties are non existant.

In this one world government the persons rights is non existant and the people are there to serve the state controlled by the elite. Anyone who speaks out against the state is instantly silenced. Its a fact that ifthe lisbon treaty was passed provision would have been made for the death penalty in it.
Article 2 of the Protocol No 6 to the ECHR:
'A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or (of imminent threat of war) such a penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions..." what provisions exactly ?

People seem very unaware of what is going on and the real purpose behind the treaty. We are on a road to totalitarism it would seem on a global level. The same thing is happening in the states with NAFTA, patriot act. If the lisbon treaty had been passed we would have unelected officials in europe calling the shots and they would not be held legally accountable for any reprecussions of their actions. If you think this is untrue it is within the text of the treaty. So thats all i have to say there is reams of information about the nwo on the internet and it would be a good idea to check it out.

vibe666

Cuckoo much?

Mena

I'll start passing out the tin foil hats.

ktex2

a better idea would be to read the contents of the treaty

zig

ktex2 wrote: »

Ever hear of the new world order?

Its a theory many people believe to be true and happening right now that elite persons all over the world seek to create a one world government whereby national rights and sovereignties are non existant.

people like you helped changed me over to a yes vote

IamBeowulf

Maybe. Maybe not. I can't help but feel like any freedoms we were born with are slowly being taken out of our hands by the upper echelons. The future might just turn out as those mad dystopian films predicted: tough laws, faceless leaders, etc...

ktex2

zig wrote: »

people like you helped changed me over to a yes vote

people like me made you change over? Not the actual contents of the treaty? lol

galwayrush

Mena wrote: »

I'll start passing out the tin foil hats.

Scary to think that so many people are not aware how important they are.:D

tolosenc

ktex2 wrote: »

If you think this is untrue it is within the text of the treaty.

Really, I've read the whole thing, and Section 1, Article 3a, Paragraph 2 would suggest the exact opposite:

Lisbon Treaty wrote:

The Union shall respect the equality of Member States before the Treaties as well as their national identities, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional,inclusive of regional and local self-government. It shall respect their essential State functions, including ensuring the territorial integrity of the State, maintaining law and order and safeguarding national security. In particular, national security remains the sole responsibility of each Member State.

This paragraph alone rubbishes almost everything Libertas had to say, aswell.

marco_polo

Come on lads, ten posts in and no mention of Jim Corr yet. :rolleyes:

ktex2

Its good to see democracy in action though in europe... Nice to see that the elitist leaders in europe accept the decision of the masses

reuters

'As long as Prime Minister Gordon Brown defies domestic calls to suspend ratification, the onus is on Dublin to salvage a treaty already rubber-stamped by 18 of the bloc's 27 states.
"We will be looking to Brian Cowen to indicate whether he thinks there is the possibility of a second vote, and if so, when," said one EU source who stipulated anonymity.

They like to remain anonymous. Lisbon is just a rehash of what was presented and rejected by the french and dutch people. Now the irish have rejected it too. Is that not a clear sign to the leaders of europe the general population are not in favour of this plan?. Nope it would appear not after all what do the general public know. I guess they'll just presenting rehashed treaties to the public until they' learn' to vote the right way in 'their' interests

Mr.Nice Guy

obl wrote: »

This paragraph alone rubbishes almost everything Libertas had to say, aswell.

I don't know how you come to that conclusion when Barroso essentially said that the result was irrelevant and ratification must continue - BEFORE THE OFFICIAL RESULT HAD EVEN BEEN ANNOUNCED - and thus highlighting that the European Union did not "respect the equality of Member States before the Treaties".

marco_polo

ktex2 wrote: »

a better idea would be to read the contents of the treaty

Perhaps you could point us in the direction of the relevant articles?

ktex2

marco_polo wrote: »

Perhaps you could point us in the direction of the relevant articles?

sure

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/cg00014.en07.pdf

Mena

ktex2 wrote: »

a better idea would be to read the contents of the treaty

If that was aimed at me, I have, cover to cover, and I'm a ) not Irish and b ) not European!

ircoha

If I recall correctly, all the treaties Hilter signed had similair wording: this war is economic.

If it said 'recognise', or 'be subservient to' perhaps, but not respect: they faceless 'crats in Brussels dont know what it means

tolosenc

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I don't know how you come to that conclusion when Barroso essentially said that the result was irrelevant and ratification must continue - BEFORE THE OFFICIAL RESULT HAD EVEN BEEN ANNOUNCED - and thus highlighting that the European Union did not "respect the equality of Member States before the Treaties".

I never said anything about Barosso. What exactly should have stopped me coming to that conclusion?

zig

ktex2 wrote: »

people like me made you change over? Not the actual contents of the treaty? lol

if you read my post again, people like you helped me change over. I was one of those "vote no if you dont know" voters, then I started reading about claims like yours and jim corrs. This triggered a bit of disappointment for me in the no campaign. Then I started cross checking the "no" bullet points with the treaty itself to discover massive exaggerations. Then I decided to read the treaty and voted yes.

Mr.Nice Guy

obl wrote: »

I never said anything about Barosso. What exactly should have stopped me coming to that conclusion?

Because the reaction from the EU to our vote confirms everything Libertas and others claimed and rubbishes the so-called democratic values featured in the Lisbon Treaty. Judge on actions, not on words.

marco_polo

ktex2 wrote: »

sure

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/cg00014.en07.pdf

I didn't see the New World Order section the first time around and I can't see it there either?

Are you going to back up your rant with any facts?

Mr.Nice Guy

zig wrote: »

if you read my post again, people like you helped me change over. I was one of those "vote no if you dont know" voters, then I started reading about claims like yours and jim corrs. This triggered a bit of disappointment for me in the no campaign. Then I started cross checking the "no" bullet points with the treaty itself to discover massive exaggerations. Then I decided to read the treaty and voted yes.

Yes whenever I'm about to vote on a massive issue I always think to myself, what would Jim Corr do? :pac:

ktex2

Maybe you should do some more research before you come to conclusions. I don't mean that sarcastically i mean it in all seriousness. Im not trying to force anyone to believe in this just say that all the evidence points to the fact this is actually happening.

Ive heard the jim corr tape and yes he does come across as a madman bascially because he's not very good at explaning things and rants on and on.

But if your interested in getting some research for this i suggest you look up a guy called aaron russo and see his interviews on youtube. He pretty much explains in a nutshell whats going on.

zig

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Because the reaction from the EU to our vote confirms everything Libertas and others claimed and rubbishes the so-called democratic values featured in the Lisbon Treaty. Judge on actions, not on words.

Please, at least give it a week, and wait for them to talk to brian cowen before you start carrying on like this.

Mr.Nice Guy

zig wrote: »

Please, at least give it a week, and wait for them to talk to brian cowen before you start carrying on like this.

Um, why?

marco_polo

ktex2 wrote: »

Maybe you should do some more research before you come to conclusions. I don't mean that sarcastically i mean it in all seriousness. Im not trying to force anyone to believe in this just say that all the evidence points to the fact this is actually happening.

Ive heard the jim corr tape and yes he does come across as a madman bascially because he's not very good at explaning things and rants on and on.

But if your interested in getting some research for this i suggest you look up a guy called aaron russo and see his interviews on youtube.

Youtube references for a tax dodger? That is the best you can do? You'll be posting wikipedia links next.

zig

ktex2 wrote: »

Maybe you should do some more research before you come to conclusions. I don't mean that sarcastically i mean it in all seriousness. Im not trying to force anyone to believe in this just say that all the evidence points to the fact this is actually happening.

Ive heard the jim corr tape and yes he does come across as a madman bascially because he's not very good at explaning things and rants on and on.

But if your interested in getting some research for this i suggest you look up a guy called aaron russo and see his interviews on youtube. He pretty much explains in a nutshell whats going on.

Ill do that with open ears so but regarding research, I think reading most of the treaty is better research than any youtube videos

ktex2

marco_polo wrote: »

Youtube? That is the best you can do. You'll be posting wikipedia links next.

Yes because its an interview where hes recorded on camera and youtube generally shows recorded videos which were done in the past and not the present, you know?

cbreeze

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I don't know how you come to that conclusion when Barroso essentially said that the result was irrelevant and ratification must continue - BEFORE THE OFFICIAL RESULT HAD EVEN BEEN ANNOUNCED - and thus highlighting that the European Union did not "respect the equality of Member States before the Treaties".

My hairdresser thinks Barroso is a dictator.

marco_polo

ktex2 wrote: »

Yes because its an interview where hes recorded on camera and youtube generally shows recorded videos which were done in the past and not the present, you know?

Could someone translate that for me? Thx.

Still avoiding backing up your arguments with references to the treaty text?

zig

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Um, why?

because the votes were counted on friday, it is not even monday, i know there has been statements that people are quoting on this board, which to honest annoyed me as well, almost a betrayed feeling having voted yes. BUT, all Im saying is give it a week or so to get a proper more official reaction before comfirming declan ganleys(a rich entrepreneur) claims.

ktex2

marco_polo wrote: »

Could someone translate that for me? Thx.

Still avoiding backing up your arguments with references to the treaty text?

I just posted a link to the entire document. Im not going to bore persons to death with the intricate details of a document which was purposely designed to confuse people. See its easier to pass it by if people don't understand it. I think thats what they were thinking when they made it up. If they made it so confusing then they could get the politicans to explain it to the people and hey presto it would pass. Too bad half the poiliticans didn't understand it themselves.

But thank god the irish people are not that easily fooled. See if they put the real contents of this treaty down in simple plain english it would be rejected time and time again. Hiding things from the public is their game. This is all about creating a superstate, taking power from people and putting it into the hands of unelected people. The road to hell is paved with gold you know. I have no doubt they will water it down somewhat throw out a rehased version to meet the irish concerns and ask the irish to vote on it again.

Their vision of a militarised europe is incompatible with the irish neutrality issue.

marco_polo

ktex2 wrote: »

I just posted a link to the entire document. Im not going to bore persons to death with the intricate details of a document which was purposely designed to confuse people. See its easier to pass it by if people don't understand it. I think thats what they were thinking when they made it up. If they made it so confusing then they could get the politicans to explain it to the people and hey presto it would pass. Too bad half the poiliticans didn't understand it themselves.

But thank god the irish people are not that easily fooled. See if they put the real contents of this treaty down in simple plain english it would be rejected time and time again. Hiding things from the public is their game.

Well you are in a politics forum, people tend to be interested by this sort of 'boring' stuff like. Bore me away, I don't mind.

Their vision of a militarised europe is incompatible with the irish neutrality issue.

Which is why we kept our veto on defence matters.

ktex2

marco_polo wrote: »

Well you are in a politics forum, people tend to be interested by this sort of 'boring' stuff like. Bore me away, I don't mind.

Your comments smack of a singular viewpoint. I think that would be pointless to be honest but feel free to read it yourself. Im open to the fact this may be a grand scale experiement for europe to work better in a global environment but outside that it just stinks of totalitarianism. The fact that they are asking brian cowen to go and 'explain' how to progress this situation so they can implement the treaty shows (a)they aren't listening to the people or (b) they don't care what the people think because they are pressing ahead with their plans regardless of the people. See that is fascism to me.

The same politicans in france who said during the referendum that a no vote would mean the end of the treaty are now saying no we don't respect their opinion lets go ahead and do it anyway and hey i know lets keep asking them until they say yes.



If you asked someone whether they thought something was a good idea 3 times and every time they told you no why would you continue to ask them?.

marco_polo

ktex2 wrote: »

Your comments smack of a singular viewpoint. I think that would be pointless to be honest but feel free to read it yourself.

I have but it seems that I forgot to print out the New World Order section.

I repeat, which articles in the treaty are you using in support of you arguments that Lisbon is moving us closer to a single world government?

zig

ktex2 wrote: »

Your comments smack of a singular viewpoint. I think that would be pointless to be honest but feel free to read it yourself.

I dont think you get it... marcopolo is asking you to point out your theories by using references to particular parts of the treaty, anyone can post a link to the treaty

ktex2

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.” - in Flandreinfo, 23 June 2007.


The Economist of 9 August 2007 quoted some revealing remarks by the former Belgian prime minister, and former Vice President of the Convention which wrote the EU Constitution, Jean-Luc Dehaene. The Economist said that in an interview in Le Soir, he said it was “dangerous talk” to want “too much transparency and clarity” in the EU. On 17 October 2007 European Voice quoted him as saying, “The paper [the Reform Treaty] is incomprehensible. Good! We need incomprehensible papers if we are to make progress . . . We have to be realistic.”


This policy of non-engagement with the European people was taken even further by Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister and the other former Vice President of the Convention which wrote the EU Constitution. His remarks on the writing of the Reform Treaty show contempt for eurocitizens. He said, at a meeting of the Centre for European Reform on 12 July 2007 that EU leaders “decided that the document should be unreadable. . . In order to make our citizens happy, to produce a document that they will never understand!”
"The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it." - 21 February 2007.


On 26 October 2007, Valerie Giscard d’Estaing, President of the Convention which wrote the EU Constitution said, “The Lisbon Treaty itself cannot be understood by ordinary citizens since it can be understood only by also reading the treaties which it amends. . . The institutional proposals of the constitutional treaty – the only things which mattered for the members of the European Convention – are in the Lisbon treaty in their entirety but in a different order and inserted into previous treaties. - What is the purpose of this subtle manoeuvre? First and above all to escape from the constraint of having to hold a referendum by dispersing the articles and by renouncing the constitutional vocabulary.”

Wasn't it eamonn dunphy who said he wouldn't vote on something he couldn't understand. The question he should have been asking is why did they make the document so complex and unreadable for the lay person..

marco_polo

ktex2 wrote: »

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.” - in Flandreinfo, 23 June 2007.


The Economist of 9 August 2007 quoted some revealing remarks by the former Belgian prime minister, and former Vice President of the Convention which wrote the EU Constitution, Jean-Luc Dehaene. The Economist said that in an interview in Le Soir, he said it was “dangerous talk” to want “too much transparency and clarity” in the EU. On 17 October 2007 European Voice quoted him as saying, “The paper [the Reform Treaty] is incomprehensible. Good! We need incomprehensible papers if we are to make progress . . . We have to be realistic.”


This policy of non-engagement with the European people was taken even further by Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister and the other former Vice President of the Convention which wrote the EU Constitution. His remarks on the writing of the Reform Treaty show contempt for eurocitizens. He said, at a meeting of the Centre for European Reform on 12 July 2007 that EU leaders “decided that the document should be unreadable. . . In order to make our citizens happy, to produce a document that they will never understand!”
"The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it." - 21 February 2007.


On 26 October 2007, Valerie Giscard d’Estaing, President of the Convention which wrote the EU Constitution said, “The Lisbon Treaty itself cannot be understood by ordinary citizens since it can be understood only by also reading the treaties which it amends. . . The institutional proposals of the constitutional treaty – the only things which mattered for the members of the European Convention – are in the Lisbon treaty in their entirety but in a different order and inserted into previous treaties. - What is the purpose of this subtle manoeuvre? First and above all to escape from the constraint of having to hold a referendum by dispersing the articles and by renouncing the constitutional vocabulary.”

Wasn't it eamonn dunphy who said he wouldn't vote on something he couldn't understand. The question he should have been asking is why did they make the document so complex and unreadable for the lay person..

Granted they are ill judged comments alright, I have no doubt that some countries had a vested interest in getting the treaty passed as easily as possible. But the treaty was negotiated by 27 democratically elected leader of EU states including our own Three of four stupid comments does not a worldwide conspiracy make.

Cow Moolester

I'm still not seeing the references to particular text which back up your New world order babble which Marco Polo has asked for twice now. Instead you choose to dodge the request just like you will most likely do to my post.

tolosenc

@Mr. Nice Guy

My Portugueese isn't great, but I'm pretty sure he didn't mention that he was disappointed that we couldn't all have abortions.

IMHO, he showed honest concern that a good thing had been derailed by a misled Irish public, who had been force fed a pack of lies, for some as yet unknown reason...

limklad

ktex2 wrote: »

The road to hell is paved with gold you know. I have no doubt they will water it down somewhat throw out a rehased version to meet the irish concerns and ask the irish to vote on it again.

They probally will not watered it down, or at best make the font smaller :eek:so it looks like they took things out of it.:(

free-man

I find it incorrigible that people can talk of how the Treaty is moving us towards a more democratic era when I see polls like the below:

If the treaty was a good thing, why was it rejected by Holland and France and why was it re-worded and re-titled so that these Nations could not hold a referendum on it?

Also why is it that the EU elite were afraid to put it to public vote in their member states, the evidence shows that the public wanted to vote.. why were they not allowed?

Check the financial times poll that states:

Quote:
A substantial majority of voters in five large European Union countries want a referendum on the bloc's new reform treaty.

and:
Quote:
According to the poll, 76 percent of Germans, 75 percent of Britons, 72 percent of Italians, 65 percent of Spaniards and 63 percent of French wanted a referendum ...

Please explain now how the EU is in step with it's public? And why is it that despite overwhelming public demand this has not been put to vote?*


*in countries where it is constitutional to do so

zig

free-man wrote: »

I find it incorrigible that people can talk of how the Treaty is moving us towards a more democratic era when I see polls like the below:

If the treaty was a good thing, why was it rejected by Holland and France and why was it re-worded and re-titled so that these Nations could not hold a referendum on it?

Also why is it that the EU elite were afraid to put it to public vote in their member states, the evidence shows that the public wanted to vote.. why were they not allowed?

Check the financial times poll that states:

Quote:
A substantial majority of voters in five large European Union countries want a referendum on the bloc's new reform treaty.

and:
Quote:
According to the poll, 76 percent of Germans, 75 percent of Britons, 72 percent of Italians, 65 percent of Spaniards and 63 percent of French wanted a referendum ...

Please explain now how the EU is in step with it's public? And why is it that despite overwhelming public demand this has not been put to vote?*


*in countries where it is constitutional to do so

maybe because despite the fact that they might think the treaty is best for their people they genuinely still believe the people will vote no for various reasons like giving two fingers to their own government. not saying they are right to act like this, im just giving a probable reason.

turgon

zig wrote: »

maybe because despite the fact that they might think the treaty is best for their people they genuinely still believe the people will vote no for various reasons like giving two fingers to their own government. not saying they are right to act like this, im just giving a probable reason.

The Yes side politicians know best I suppose. :rolleyes:

zig

maybe not but I would say they think they know best

turgon

marco_polo wrote: »

Which is why we kept our veto on defence matters.

A militarized EU can hardly be a fully neutral one. And because Ireland is apart of that, well...

turgon

zig wrote: »

maybe not but I would say they think know best

Yes well at least they dont have the full means to do what they want. Dev saves the day!

free-man

zig wrote: »

maybe because despite the fact that they might think the treaty is best for their people they genuinely still believe the people will vote no for various reasons like giving two fingers to their own government. not saying they are right to act like this, im just giving a probable reason.

I'm sorry?

Are you saying that the reason why the citizens weren't allowed vote is because they can't be trusted to vote yes?

Sounds like a dictatorship to me?

zig

free-man wrote: »

I'm sorry?

Are you saying that the reason why the citizens weren't allowed vote is because they can't be trusted to vote yes?

Sounds like a dictatorship to me?

Its one of the main reasons I was considering a no vote. But I decided I would use my own judgement of the treaty to decide whether to vote yes or no.

free-man

zig wrote: »

Its one of the main reasons I was considering a no vote. But I decided I would use my own judgement of the treaty to decide whether to vote yes or no.

Your vote which you are entitled to..

Im glad you used your own judgement and of the treaty and democracy prevailed.

zig

free-man wrote: »

Your vote which you are entitled to..

Im glad you used your own judgement and of the treaty and democracy prevailed.

So am I beleive it or not. I fully respect the result and am proud to be a citizen of the only country that actually got to vote. But despite the way the politicians behaved in these countries it doesnt change my view of the treaty itself.

Admittedly I cant think of any excuses for that behaviour only that they probably worked very very hard on negotiating the document to suit every country, and realised it will get a yes vote eventually(with alot of explaining, promotion, campaigning).

However Maybe after all that it will still get a no vote,And if so Why? Because the treaty is also a compromise for everyone to work together, if it took that long to get the politicians to agree on it. How long do you think it would take to get the people to agree on each compromise and each small little thing they might not have been too keen on. Throw that in with no campaigns that have no agenda with EU,just with their own government and this would go on forever.
As I said its not an excuse, just a reason I justified to myself.