Armed Rebellion in YOUR Lifetime ?

Phototoxin

With all the talk of the superstate/lisbon seeming to rear its head again (well AH had a thread about the cardinal on about some paper!) , in additon to our own government continually screwing the average punter do you think that you will see armed uprising in an EU country within your lifetime. I'm not talking about a riot, more a total revoultion of ordinary people against future semi-nazi-like governments?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dresden8

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And that's the saddest part of it all. It's not really FF's fault, it's ours. Or more specifically everybody except me.

djpbarry

Phototoxin wrote: »

...do you think that you will see armed uprising in an EU country within your lifetime. I'm not talking about a riot, more a total revoultion of ordinary people against future semi-nazi-like governments?

Armed revolution? No. Riots? Yes. As donegalfella has already said, there are plenty of small interest groups who are just waiting for an excuse to 'Fight da Powa'. But the general populace overthrowing a government by force? I don't think so. I don't see any governments in Europe that are that unpopular, nor are we likely to see one any time soon, in my opinion. Take Ireland for example; why go to all that trouble when there's always a general election just around the corner (relatively speaking)?

dresden8 wrote: »

And that's the saddest part of it all. It's not really FF's fault, it's ours.

Absolutely; people get the government they deserve.

Fratton Fred

Membership of the EU requires an accepted level of democracy, therefore why have an armed rebellion when you can just vote the government out in a few years time?

Anyway, people power is the way of doing it these days, mass strikes, protests, civil disobediance that sort of thing. Armed uprisings are so last century:)

ChocolateSauce

Phototoxin wrote: »

With all the talk of the superstate/lisbon seeming to rear its head again (well AH had a thread about the cardinal on about some paper!) , in additon to our own government continually screwing the average punter do you think that you will see armed uprising in an EU country within your lifetime. I'm not talking about a riot, more a total revoultion of ordinary people against future semi-nazi-like governments?

The only country I can imagine it happening in is Turkey, and then a long shot. So no, I don't see it happening because it is inconceivable that the conditions would arise.

dresden8

What if Croatia comes in? What about all those former Yugoslav Republics?

Only fifteen years ago they were committing war crimes and had war crimes committed against them to break out of an unpopular confederation of states.

We're all only one atrocity away from taking up the gun. Even Bertie, if his life story is to be believed.

luckyfrank

Without the EU we'd all be driving on the pot holed 3rd class roads we use to drive on

We'd have no luas, no fantastic motorways, no jobs, no nothing........ never forget or bite the hand that feeds you

qwertplaywert

No, but I can see many riots over the years as the E.U. becomes more and more totalitarian.

djpbarry

qwertplaywert wrote: »

No, but I can see many riots over the years as the E.U. becomes more and more totalitarian.

Totalitarian:

• characterized by a government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control
• of or relating to the principles of totalitarianism according to which the state regulates every realm of life

Hmm. Methinks the EU has some way to go before it could be considered "totalitarian".

BenjAii

I am always puzzled by those that see the EU as some totalitarian-wannabe bogeyman.

Structurally its no where near as strong as they make out, and unlikely ever to be more than the loose federation it is now, precisely because national governments don't want it to be.

The real power in the EU is with national governments & not the EU superstructure.

The reality of modern life is that European countries are interdependent, if there wasn't an EU now, it would have to be invented.

mumhaabu

I am becoming increasingly concerned by the rhetoric of the Gardai blaming private gun ownership for crime and with wiretaps on private individuals this is moving closer Ireland closer to a Totalitarian state. I firmly believe every individual should have the right to keep and bear arms and as much ammunition as they require. The private militia would keep the Central Government of Ireland under control. Worrying moves include Lisbon MkII and other pieces of Left leaning legislation. It is high time that either Fine Gael or Libertas formed a useful political entity and impeach the Fianna Fail government out of office and if they refuse take the Dail by force either in a coup or in open armed combat, Fianna Fail would find the Irish Army quick to desert them and the way they have treated them.

Ireland is now closer to civil war than at any point since Arms Crisis in the 70's. Every man for himself.

Biggins

qwertplaywert wrote: »

No, but I can see many riots over the years as the E.U. becomes more and more totalitarian.

I agree. I can see a number of frustrated new groups arising seeking their individuality back as separate nations and wishing to retain their cultural identity and non-interference from powers outside their own borders.

I suspect that the powers that be also know this and is currently introducing tighter laws to watch us, spy on us in our emails and net use as a means of contacting one another - a method being of increasing use in the organising of protests against the Lisbon Treaty/Constitution for example.

djpbarry

Biggins wrote: »

...a method being of increasing use in the organising of protests against the Lisbon Treaty/Constitution for example.

Which protests are these?

Biggins

djpbarry wrote: »

Which protests are these?

The subject matter is open conjecture at the moment but any that might happen in the future, which I hope and pray will be peaceful ones.

Eurosceptic2008

It will only happen if the politicians impose European integration without consulting the people in referenda. If you are going to create a United States of Europe, then the least you should do is ask your people if that's what they want. Many European nations spend centuries fighting for their independence, including the Irish, Dutch, French (against the English in the Hundred Years War) etc. and as such, creating such an entity is no small matter. If we give it all away then what was it all for? What did all those people die for? We can't let it all have been in vain in my opinion. In that context, I think the fact that we are the only country that had a referendum on Lisbon is very disturbing, and the haste with which the other EU member state governments except us ran away from their promises to hold referenda on the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty after the Franco-Dutch no votes was nothing short of indecent.

oscarBravo

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

If you are going to create a United States of Europe, then the least you should do is ask your people if that's what they want.

Luckily, a United States of Europe isn't on the cards, so we don't need to worry about it.

Eurosceptic2008

oscarBravo wrote: »

Luckily, a United States of Europe isn't on the cards, so we don't need to worry about it.

Well with all due respect I disagree. They won't call it a USE in this country, but in fact they are incrementally creating one. And after 10 years of Tribunals, we know enough about the truthfulness of politicians to take what they say with a pinch of salt.

If Lisbon goes through, the EU will share the following characteristics with the USA:

An executive/cabinet (EU Commission).
A federal legislature/parliament (European parliament).
A supreme court (the European Court of Justice - the Charter of Fundamental Rights will expand its jurisdiction to practically all areas of human rights).
A currency.
An army (EU Battlegroups).
A President (President of the European Council who will be chosen by the Council of Ministers without us having a direct say).
A Federal legal-system. This is provided for in terms of the office of the European Public Prosecutor, which Lisbon allows to be created if there is unanimity among the member state govts. The Treaty also provides for the creation of "specialised courts" by the Council of Ministers. These are federal courts which will overrule national ones.
An embryonic federal police-force - Europol. Germany has called for it to become a federal police force.
An embryonic justice ministry - Eurojust.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Remember that Joseph Goebbels said that the more a lie is repeated the more people will believe it. The politicians in this country won't admit this is about creating a USE - if they did they know we wouldn't vote for it. It's slowly, slowly, catchy monkey.

See what the other EU leaders are saying about where the EU Constitution/Lisbon takes us:

Former French President V.Giscard D&#8217 wrote: »

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.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy,EUobserver, 14 November 2007 wrote:

France was just ahead of all the other countries in voting No. It would happen in all Member States if they have a referendum. There is a cleavage between people and governments … There will be no Treaty if we had a referendum in France…

Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister, recorded by Open Europe, The Centre for European Reform, London, 12 July 2007 wrote:

They decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception. Where they got this perception from is a mystery to me. In order to make our citizens happy, to produce a document that they will never understand! But, there is some truth [in it]. Because if this is the kind of document that the IGC will produce, any Prime Minister - imagine the UK Prime Minister - can go to the Commons and say 'Look, you see, it's absolutely unreadable, it's the typical Brussels treaty, nothing new, no need for a referendum.' Should you succeed in understanding it at first sight there might be some reason for a referendum, because it would mean that there is something new.

Commission President J-M Barroso, The Brussels Journal, 11 July 2007 wrote:

Sometimes I like to compare the EU as a creation to the organisation of empires. We have the dimension of Empire but there is a great difference. Empires were usually made with force with a centre imposing diktat, a will on the others. Now what we have is the first non-imperial empire.

oscarBravo

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

How many of the member states of the USA have their own diplomatic relations with other countries?

Eurosceptic2008

oscarBravo wrote: »

How many of the member states of the USA have their own diplomatic relations with other countries?

None but the Lisbon provisions for the EU to become a "legal personality" may lead to that being centralised in Brussels too with a single seat on the UN Security Council.

oscarBravo

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

None but the Lisbon provisions for the EU to become a "legal personality" may lead to that being centralised in Brussels too with a single seat on the UN Security Council.

It "may"?

You think France and the UK are going to give up their permanent seats?

djpbarry

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

If Lisbon goes through, the EU will share the following characteristics with the USA:

An executive/cabinet (EU Commission).
A federal legislature/parliament (European parliament).
A supreme court (the European Court of Justice - the Charter of Fundamental Rights will expand its jurisdiction to practically all areas of human rights).
A currency.
An army (EU Battlegroups).
A President (President of the European Council who will be chosen by the Council of Ministers without us having a direct say).
A Federal legal-system. This is provided for in terms of the office of the European Public Prosecutor, which Lisbon allows to be created if there is unanimity among the member state govts. The Treaty also provides for the creation of "specialised courts" by the Council of Ministers. These are federal courts which will overrule national ones.
An embryonic federal police-force - Europol. Germany has called for it to become a federal police force.
An embryonic justice ministry - Eurojust.

Most of those comparisons are tenuous at best. I don't have time to go into too much detail, but comparing the position of EU president to US president, the commander-in-chief, is ridiculous. And what's this "EU army" that you're comparing to the US war machine?

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

See what the other EU leaders are saying about where the EU Constitution/Lisbon takes us:

Hmm. That looks awfully familiar.

Scofflaw

oscarBravo wrote: »

It "may"?

You think France and the UK are going to give up their permanent seats?

It would not be possible for the EU to change the composition of the UN Security Council in any case, the UN being a separate body governed by its own treaties. The only change in Lisbon is that the members with permanent seats agree to invite the EU High Commissioner to present the EU's position (if the matter is relevant, and if there is an EU position).

A good analysis is presented here.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Eurosceptic2008

oscarBravo wrote: »

It "may"?

You think France and the UK are going to give up their permanent seats?

Well the EU External Relations Commissioner in 2005, Benita Ferraro-Waldner called for it. That's clearly where we're headed with this Treaty.

Hitman Actual

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

Well the EU External Relations Commissioner in 2005, Benita Ferraro-Waldner called for it. That's clearly where we're headed with this Treaty.

Yes, but from the same link:

Her comments were rejected almost immediately by Germany - a country which is itself pushing for a seat in the Security Council once it is reformed.

Speaking in New York on the same day, German foreign minister Joschka Fischer said the idea was "unrealistic".
He said that Germany would agree to creating a single EU seat if France and the UK would give up their own seats. He added, however, that "this will not happen in the near future, so the debate is over before it has even started".

So I think it's clearly not where we're headed with this Treaty.

Eurosceptic2008

lenny_leonard wrote: »

Yes, but from the same link:



So I think it's clearly not where we're headed with this Treaty.

We can't really take solace from what Fischer said given he is now in Opposition while Waldner remains in the Commission.

oscarBravo

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

We can't really take solace from what Fischer said given he is now in Opposition while Waldner remains in the Commission.

We can take solace from the fact that it's something the EU member states are not going to agree on, so it's not going to happen.

Did you read Scofflaw's post?

Scofflaw

oscarBravo wrote: »

We can take solace from the fact that it's something the EU member states are not going to agree on, so it's not going to happen.

Did you read Scofflaw's post?

I'm sure he doesn't need to - I think he has an opinion already.

cordially,
Scofflaw

turgon

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

Well the EU External Relations Commissioner in 2005, Benita Ferraro-Waldner called for it. That's clearly where we're headed with this Treaty.

Thats totally dodging the question. Yes or No, would Britian and France be willing give up their permanent seats? The answer is No. Deal with it.

Despite all the amount of snaking and doging your trying to pull, the fact is that there is not going to be a USE anytime soon, or at all. I think you should come to terms with that fact and then spend your time constructivly suggesting how the EU (of which you are self-admitidly skeptic of) can be improved.

I think most people like the EU and no amount of work is going to get rid of it.

turgon

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm sure he doesn't need to - I think he has an opinion already.

He had an opinion the moment he had to select a username, and nothing we say is obviously going to change his ideologically fuelled ideals.

Eurosceptic2008

turgon wrote: »

Thats totally dodging the question. Yes or No, would Britian and France be willing give up their permanent seats? The answer is No. Deal with it.

Despite all the amount of snaking and doging your trying to pull, the fact is that there is not going to be a USE anytime soon, or at all. I think you should come to terms with that fact and then spend your time constructivly suggesting how the EU (of which you are self-admitidly skeptic of) can be improved.

I think most people like the EU and no amount of work is going to get rid of it.

Most people includes me then. We like the EU as it stands now. Not as it stands under Lisbon, which is very close to a Federal State.

djpbarry

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

We like the EU as it stands now. Not as it stands under Lisbon, which is very close to a Federal State.

How exactly? How would Lisbon move the EU toward a federal state?

Eurosceptic2008

djpbarry wrote: »

How exactly? How would Lisbon move the EU toward a federal state?

Primarily because of the Charter of Fundamental Rights being enshrined in EU law. Under the terms of our entry to the EU/EEC in 1972, EU law supersedes national law - but until recently the broad spectrum of fundamental rights were relatively untouched by EU law in a way that would have conflicted with the Irish Supreme Court. The Charter covers areas ranging from the right to strike, freedom of speech, capital punishment, right to asylum, medical ethics etc. - greatly expanding the ECJ's jurisdiction. In effect, it makes the ECJ a kind of Supreme Court on human rights. A key difference between the Charter and the ECHR is that the ECHR (Convention and the Court) are not presently an EU institution/EU law, whereas the Charter will be. You also need to remember that only the 7 Big States have a permanent right to a judge on the ECJ, whereas the 20 smaller states have to wait their turn via rotation. As such, the voice of small countries is again being marginalised, as if we were a mere constituency of a federal Europe. The Charter is the big deal for me. Poland and the UK have protocols opting them out of it. The Irish govt should seek one too. If they do, and only if they do, I will reconsider my no vote. If they don't (as seems likely) then it's another no vote. I have communicated my concerns via email to Dick Roche.

Furious-Dave

Is it not the case though that these judges you mentioned would not in fact be a voice as such for their respective countries but those countries contribution to the combined voice of the ECJ? Much as the existing commissioners for each country don't represent their countries but rather the commission itself.
Surely the voice of each country would remain with their ministers for foreign affairs?

Scofflaw

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

Primarily because of the Charter of Fundamental Rights being enshrined in EU law. Under the terms of our entry to the EU/EEC in 1972, EU law supersedes national law - but until recently the broad spectrum of fundamental rights were relatively untouched by EU law in a way that would have conflicted with the Irish Supreme Court. The Charter covers areas ranging from the right to strike, freedom of speech, capital punishment, right to asylum, medical ethics etc. - greatly expanding the ECJ's jurisdiction. In effect, it makes the ECJ a kind of Supreme Court on human rights. A key difference between the Charter and the ECHR is that the ECHR (Convention and the Court) are not presently an EU institution/EU law, whereas the Charter will be. You also need to remember that only the 7 Big States have a permanent right to a judge on the ECJ, whereas the 20 smaller states have to wait their turn via rotation. As such, the voice of small countries is again being marginalised, as if we were a mere constituency of a federal Europe. The Charter is the big deal for me. Poland and the UK have protocols opting them out of it. The Irish govt should seek one too. If they do, and only if they do, I will reconsider my no vote. If they don't (as seems likely) then it's another no vote. I have communicated my concerns via email to Dick Roche.

The Charter comes with a legal notice, though, that it cannot be used to extend the competences of the EU, create new powers for its institutions, or expand the jurisdiction of the ECJ. I think you'll find that when the ECJ came to consider whether one of the rights in the Charter should expand the ECJ's jurisdiction, the fact that it would be illegal to use the Charter to do so would rather prevent the ECJ ruling that it did. The rights in the Charter apply only in respect of EU legislation and national law transcribed from that legislation. They are inapplicable in any other case, and cannot be extended.

Something of an open and shut case.

amused,
Scofflaw