Lisbon Treaty: Thoughts on Round 2

ilivetolearn

Many conspiracy theorists view the European Union to be the predecessor of the North American Union towards a globalized centralization of power. What are your thoughts on a second vote on the Lisbon Treaty in relation to this.

Here's the new video from Libertas:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKBFn4iL2Yo

Can anyone explain to me what Declan Ganley's interest is on this? Is it out of the goodness of his heart? My friend suggested that there may be an ulterior motive at hand (i.e. the treaty might negatively impact his business interests).

ilivetolearn

I’ve found a video that highlights Mary Lou McDonald MEP GUE NGL Group (European Left). It’s interesting to say the least.

LINK

On the 20th February 2008 in Strasbourg she states (paraphrased):

• There is an evident fear of referendum in other estates. The treaty gives powerful EU institutions a free hand to further militarise our union. The people of Europe would not support this and this is why there not being asked. Anyone who believes in peace, democracy and public services cannot support the Lisbon Treaty. The treaty is not about reform or efficiency. It is a carte blanche for self-eroding democracy and its self amending clauses alone are evidence of this.
• In this chamber we speak the language of peace and yet Lisbon commits us to further increases in union military spending and to the continuing support of the armaments industry in Europe. Why do we insist on emulating the United States? Do we really believe that promoting its European equivalent will promote a peaceful world?
• We continue with the myth that the EU values public services and workers rights when all of the evidence on the ground contradicts this. Ask the people at Vauxhall or the workers at Irish Ferries about the EU’s commitment to the vindication of workers’ rights. The Lisbon Treaty is a bad deal for Ireland, Europe and the wider world.

On the 21st April 2008 in Strasbourg she states (paraphrased):

• The commission and committees of the European Parliament are actively colluding to surpass information. Commission Vice President states that the commission is willing to tone down or delay messages that may be unhelpful in advance of the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Reports have been carried in the press of a letter that have been sent to parliamentary committees urging them not to deal with sensitive political issues that might arise from Lisbon until the treaty has been ratified. These types of tactics are unacceptable. The Irish people should have their debate with full information. They deserve the full and unvarnished facts whether it’s in relation to corporation tax, the outworking of the defence and security provisions of the treaty

I believe this belongs in the conspiracy theory forum rather than political forums because some might argue tamer conspiracies other than globalism may emerge from the above statements (conspiracy to subvert democracy, conspiracy to subvert information from the public etc. ). Personally I'm not too sure whether the conspiracy claims in relation to globalism are valid because I haven't seen enough for or against it though I'm wary of how Mary Lou McDonald describes how the committee rolled the treaty in. I acknowledge that the source is a year old information contrary to this may have arisen since. What do you all think?

This took me a while to type out. Does anyone know of a site where I can find documented political dialogues?

DubTony

ilivetolearn wrote: »

Can anyone explain to me what Declan Ganley's interest is on this? Is it out of the goodness of his heart? My friend suggested that there may be an ulterior motive at hand (i.e. the treaty might negatively impact his business interests).

:D Funny Video. Oscar winning stuff from that actress. :D

As for Ganley? Here's an idea that's been suggested to me.

Ganley made his millions from US defence contracts. His paymasters are the Pentagon and their buddies. Is it possible that powers that be stateside might see a Lisbonised Europe as a more powerful entity and are trying to prevent it? Is he somebody's puppet?

That kind of backing could also explain where the EU election campaign money comes from. Isn't Libertas running candidates in every constituency? Getting those people together and actually putting them all in place is a massive task costing a fortune. Did he really do it in 2 years, or has the election thing been on the cards for years? I'm talking about the cost of finding the people as opposed to the actual campaign. I don't imagine that the cost of setting up the "party" will be part of election spending rules.

ihatewallies

ilivetolearn wrote: »

Many conspiracy theorists view the European Union to be the predecessor of the North American Union towards a globalized centralization of power. What are your thoughts on a second vote on the Lisbon Treaty in relation to this.

Here's the new video from Libertas:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKBFn4iL2Yo

Can anyone explain to me what Declan Ganley's interest is on this? Is it out of the goodness of his heart? My friend suggested that there may be an ulterior motive at hand (i.e. the treaty might negatively impact his business interests).

Ganley is an extreme 'free marketeer'/libertarian/thatcherite/reagomic ideologue.
do I need to point out that this dogma has delivered the greatest financial fiasco in history...........?

he sees the EU, with it's politico-liberal socio-economic outlook as being decadent, as an evil.
But in a nub.........it interferes with his thirst for unfettered scope to pursue business.

he's truly mad and dangerous - being so apparently reasonable.

480905

DubTony wrote: »

:D Funny Video. Oscar winning stuff from that actress. :D

As for Ganley? Here's an idea that's been suggested to me.

Ganley made his millions from US defence contracts. His paymasters are the Pentagon and their buddies. Is it possible that powers that be stateside might see a Lisbonised Europe as a more powerful entity and are trying to prevent it? Is he somebody's puppet?

Daniel Estulin on Bilderberg 2009featues ireland

Check out this video. listen to the part that specifically mentions Ganley and THe Lisbon treaty.

480905

ihatewallies wrote: »

But in a nub.........it interferes with his thirst for unfettered scope to pursue business.

Thats what being a businessman is about. Unless I'm mistaken . "Unfettered scope to pursue Business"..... Now thats a good one.

WakeUp

I dont really trust Ganley but if he helps defeat Lisbon suppose he can be tolerated for the time being anyways.

humanji

But if you don't know why Ganley is campaigning against it, how do you know that voting no is not playing right into his hands? We're all told that the NWO is run by shifty business men who cannot be trusted, and here we have a shifty business man who has shown he can't be trusted.

derry

I normally go the Labour line until the Lisbon Treaty came along

I don't know enough for Sinn Fein or Ganley and all the other NO campaigners

Yes I don't like Thatcher and Thatcher policies.However it seems Thatcher doesn't like Bilderberg and they got her kicked out from power for this .

Trying to mix up all No Voters with Thatcher lovers or Ganely extreme capitalizm or Sein Fein goose stepper is part of the way to deter deter us from seeing the reality a yes to Lisbon no matter what guarantees we get will make a goose steeping military no human rights low wage Europe called Stallig 99
" Arbeit maken sie frie"

So I vote NO every time

The Yes vote from EU headed up with the Bilderberg group best I can figure are making this rumor Ganley that is linked to arms dealers to weaken the No vote

For me Sein Fien will vote yes if they get their suitable trinklets as selling thier grandma for them comes easy

This is why for the Irish forget you parties FF FG Labour SF Ganley the lot just vote no as all of the parties will be OK PAL no matter which way the vote goes as the Bilderberg throws cash at all politicians to shut them up

What I am certain is a yes vote will make ROI a military base for the EU and we will lose neutrality and be forced to allow foreign armies to billet in Ireland and that could include armies like USA or Pakistan or Indonesian or Mexican and in number that exceed the Irish army and the Irish army could be posted to war zones for wars which we dont agree with Iraq or Afghanistan and forget the EU guarantees that's not worth the paper its written on



Derry

derry

derry wrote: »

What I am certain is a yes vote will make ROI a military base for the EU and we will lose neutrality and be forced to allow foreign armies to billet in Ireland and that could include armies like USA or Pakistan or Indonesian or Mexican and in number that exceed the Irish army and the Irish army could be posted to war zones for wars which we dont agree with Iraq or Afghanistan and forget the EU guarantees that's not worth the paper its written on



Derry

And which part of the Lisbon Treaty allows this?

WakeUp

humanji wrote: »

But if you don't know why Ganley is campaigning against it, how do you know that voting no is not playing right into his hands? We're all told that the NWO is run by shifty business men who cannot be trusted, and here we have a shifty business man who has shown he can't be trusted.

We dont. I just feel personally that Lisbon is a bad deal for Ireland and Europe aswell regardless of Declan Ganley.

Diogenes

WakeUp wrote: »

We dont. I just feel personally that Lisbon is a bad deal for Ireland and Europe aswell regardless of Declan Ganley.

Could you please point out the specific sections of the Lisbon treaty that are bad for Ireland.

Me I think that video perfectly encapsulates the entire No argument perfectly. Mass hysteria, and screaming without a substantive argument or coherent argument to support their ludicrous fearmongering.

ilivetolearn

Diogenes wrote: »

addressing Wakeup: Could you please point out the specific sections of the Lisbon treaty that are bad for Ireland.

I think Diogenes has inadvertantly encountered a significant issue that precedes his request for citation. The Lisbon Treaty isn't at all reader freindly for the average Joe. It references external texts (this is just my understanding, I could be wrong here) which prevents any one reader from interpreting the treaty based on its own text alone.

(Diogenes: FYI this issue is touched on in the video link I provided in the second post of this thread.)

bonkey

ilivetolearn wrote: »

I think Diogenes has inadvertantly encountered a significant issue that precedes his request for citation. The Lisbon Treaty isn't at all reader freindly for the average Joe. It references external texts (this is just my understanding, I could be wrong here) which prevents any one reader from interpreting the treaty based on its own text alone.

While this may be fair criticism*, surely its only relevant for people who point out that they have difficulties understanding teh implications. People who make claims about the negative implications of the Treaty are implicitly saying that they understand the content.

Asking someone who implicitly indicates a knowledge of and understanding of the content to point to the content which underlies their specific complaints would - to me at least - seem reasonable.

* I amn't convinced that it is fair criticism, in that the Lisbon Treaty is little different to any other international treaty in this regard. Treaties are, in general, not written to be accessible to the common Joe. That it may be difficult to read or understand would only seem reasonable grounds for rejection if one took the stance that all treaties that were difficult to read or understand should be rejected.

If, for example, the UN were to propose a revision Human Rights Convention, which was a vast improvement on the existing morass but still written in similar language, one would equally advocate its rejection on grounds of its inaccssabilitiy.

ilivetolearn

ilivetolearn wrote: »

I think Diogenes has inadvertantly encountered a significant issue that precedes his request for citation. The Lisbon Treaty isn't at all reader freindly for the average Joe. It references external texts (this is just my understanding, I could be wrong here) which prevents any one reader from interpreting the treaty based on its own text alone.

(Diogenes: FYI this issue is touched on in the video link I provided in the second post of this thread.)

It's a complex legal document that has to accommodate the laws of several different countries and previous treaties, it would have to reference other documents.
There are plenty of resources out there that explain exactly what the Lisbon Treaty entails.

But if it so complex that an average joe can't understand it, how can some people claim stuff like what derry is claiming?

Unless of course there is no basis at all for the stuff derry is claiming.

ilivetolearn

King Mob wrote: »

It's a complex legal document that has to accommodate the laws of several different countries and previous treaties, it would have to reference other documents.

I agree with your justification for its complexity. This still doesn't make it any easier to read for the average working class Joe.

King Mob wrote: »

There are plenty of resources out there that explain exactly what the Lisbon Treaty entails.

Such as? I'm not contesting this though I would be interested in obtaining these documents for either but preferably both sides of the campaign. I'd apreciate any links that your willing to reccomend.

King Mob wrote: »

But if it so complex that an average joe can't understand it, how can some people claim stuff like what derry is claiming?Unless of course there is no basis at all for the stuff derry is claiming.

Your question already seems to be eluding to a specific answer. I'll leave that one between derry and yourself though I do see your point. What are your thoughts on what Mary Lou had to say (as outline in the second post of the thread)?

ilivetolearn

ilivetolearn wrote: »

I agree with your justification for its complexity. This still doesn't make it any easier to read for the average working class Joe.

The treaty doesn't have to be accessible to the average Joe. It does however absolutely has to use exact and specific legal language.

ilivetolearn wrote: »

Such as? I'm not contesting this though I would be interested in obtaining these documents for either but preferably both sides of the campaign. I'd apreciate any links that your willing to reccomend.

Wikipedia is always a great place to start. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon

ilivetolearn wrote: »

Your question already seems to be eluding to a specific answer. I'll leave that one between derry and yourself though I do see your point. What are your thoughts on what Mary Lou had to say (as outline in the second post of the thread)?

Well she seems to run into the same problem. Which parts of the treaty back up her points exactly?

Diogenes

ilivetolearn wrote: »

I agree with your justification for its complexity. This still doesn't make it any easier to read for the average working class Joe.

And thats the paradox, it can't be a legal document streamlining the internal working relationship between 2 dozen countries and be easy to read for the working class Joe.

it's a document for constitutional and international law makers.

Such as? I'm not contesting this though I would be interested in obtaining these documents for either but preferably both sides of the campaign. I'd apreciate any links that your willing to reccomend.

I'd like the people who claim it destroy Irish neutrality, and make us part of an EU army to highlight that section. Or that EU law will supercede the Irish Constitution. Or...

thebman

480905 wrote: »

Daniel Estulin on Bilderberg 2009featues ireland

Check out this video. listen to the part that specifically mentions Ganley and THe Lisbon treaty.

There are inaccuracies in that video about the Lisbon treaty. I don't think there is any evidence for the rest of it.

I'm think its safe to assume its in this guys interest to promote the Bilderberg agenda and pretend like he is some sort of authority on it since it is probably great for his career.