LISBON CONSPIRACY MEGA THREAD - threads merged

roosh

I discovered is that there is indeed a lot of doubt over the legal guarantees that Ireland received, both with regard to their legality and what is actually guaranteed.

Now the guarantees are actually an international agreement among politicians, that state, that the legal guarantees received by Ireland will become legal if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified. This sounds perfectly acceptible, until one delves a little deeper.

First, we have to examine what is actually guaranteed. Upon closer examination it is not actually Irelands right to veto over the areas mentioned that is guaranteed. No, what is actually said, and what is the thing that will supposedly become legally binding, is a guarantee to make the other guarantees legal, at a later date, namely when the next new treaty is ratified. Which of course, when you consider Lisbon gives the EU the power to amend existing treaties, might not actually happen.

One also has to question, what will actually make this guarantee to make the other guarantees legal, at a later date, actually legal itself. What will make it legal is the fact that it will be lodged with the UN. But of course it is the the European courts that will be charged with interpreting EU legislation.

"The Government is giving a totally misleading significance to the promise that these ‘guarantees’ will be incorporated as a protocol to the EU treaties at some future date “This promise of a ‘protocol’ at a future date is irrelevant because once the new EU established under Lisbon comes into force then no protocol can pull back from what Lisbon has established and it will be the EU Court of Justice that will decide what the Treaty means once it comes into force.” - Patricia McKenna

The whole thing is a farce, designed to con us into ratifying the Treaty. It is the exact same political manoeuvreing that saw the EU Constitution renamed the Lisbon Treaty and snook through the back door.

meglome

Maybe you should take it to feedback?

Or you could read the link I posted for you from an expert in EU law in that thread (Below). Or you could consider that our guarantees are being handled the same way as the Good Friday Agreement which strangely Sinn Fein thought was 100% legally binding. Funny how they change their tune when it doesn't suit their agenda.

'No' claims have no basis in law
Monday September 28 2009

THROUGHOUT the referendum campaign certain groups advocating a 'No' vote have been making statements regarding the Lisbon Treaty that have no basis in law or in fact.

Certain 'No' groups claim that the guarantees secured by the Government in June are worthless. This is wrong.

The outcome of the deliberations in June could not be any clearer regarding the guarantees on taxation, abortion and neutrality. These decisions give legal guarantees to the Irish people, are fully compatible with the Treaty of Lisbon and are legally binding.

To suggest otherwise is to mislead the Irish people.

...
Declan J Walsh
Lecturer in Eu Law
University College Cork

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/no-claims-have-no-basis-in-law-1898157.html

bonkey

meglome wrote: »

Maybe you should take it to feedback?

As long as the thread remains about the legal guarantee claim, and not about the moderation in Politics, it can stay here.

Consider that a warning to all concerned, though. No discussion of Politics moderation in this thread.

p.s. meglome - no back-seat modding either, thanks.

humanji

I'm confused. What's the conspiracy then? If we're talking about the status of the guarantees, shouldn't this be in Politics?

Anyway, what do people who claim the guarantees are worthless saying is going to happen? Is the EU (that we're apart of) going to wait for us to sign the treaty, then jump up from behind a table and shout "HA! Got ya suckers!" then force abortion on us? Do you not think that maybe, just maybe, someone will notice that these guarantees are being ignored? And if they are, would you not expect the government to do somethign about it? And if you're of the opinion that the government are just EU lackeys, then your problem isn't with the guarantees, it's with your lack of faith in our governments ability to stand up for itself and it's people. So your solution is to get them out of government and get in yourself, or elect someone you do trust.

waitinforatrain

Thank you mangaroosh for that baseless post with no reliable sources

meglome

waitinforatrain wrote: »

Thank you mangaroosh for that baseless post with no reliable sources

That sums up most of the entire No campaign.

Run_to_da_hills

meglome wrote: »

That sums up most of the entire No campaign.

Except for the absence of democracy bit. :rolleyes:

humanji

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Except for the absence of democracy bit. :rolleyes:

Where does he talk about that?

roosh

the “legal guarantees”
What we have is a single guarantee, that the EU will make legal, the guarantees we actually asked for, at the ratification of the next accession treaty. The thing is though, that under the Lisbon Treaty, the EU will be able to amend existing treaties, including the accession ones, so no new treaty need actually be ratified. Meaning that we still have a guarantee to make the guarantees legal, but that the actual guarantees directly concerned with taxation, abortion, etc. are not legally binding.

It took me fooking ages to get my head around it, until someone gave me this analogy:
It would be like agreeing a pay-rise with my employer, which states that they will be legally bound to give me a pay-rise at the time of the next blue moon. Here we have a legally binding agreement to give me a pay-rise, but I have to wait until the next blue moon to actually get the pay rise.

roosh

meglome wrote: »

Maybe you should take it to feedback?

I took it too the help desk, but after making my case abundantly clear, I received no feedback whatsoever.

meglome wrote: »

Or you could read the link I posted for you from an expert in EU law in that thread (Below).

You must've posted it after I got banned, and so I couldn't access it.

meglome wrote: »

Or you could consider that our guarantees are being handled the same way as the Good Friday Agreement which strangely Sinn Fein thought was 100% legally binding. Funny how they change their tune when it doesn't suit their agenda.

Or perhaps you should consider that Sinn Féinn actually know they are not legally binding, having first hand experience with such things, but instead ot call into question the validity of the Good Friday Agreement, they chose to re-iterate their stance.

Also, upon the comparison of the guarantees to the Good Friday Agreement, we should look at what exactly is being compared, namely the negotiations between a colonial oppressor and one of its remaining colonies. If this is the sort of relationship that Micheáil Martin suggests we accept, after claiming that the EU helped the Rep. of Ireland to get away from what was a much less opressive relationship with Briatain, and indeed merely one of economic reliance, then I would question seriously, what it is we are being asked to accept

If people want to justify their indefensible position on the clearly anti-democratic behaviour of the european governments, with respect to this treaty, based on economic promises and their disdain for those proposing a No, then I suggest they truly consider what it is they are standing for, because it is clear they are supporting coercion, propoganda, deception, anti-democratic principles and lies. Not only that, but they are clearly indicating that this is a perfectly acceptible means of running a continent, not to mind a political party.

humanji

That's hardly a fair analogy at all. I think it's quite simple. People voiced fears over subjects that weren't in the treaty. Guarantees were made that these subjects weren't in the treaty. Now, regardless of whether the guarantees are legally binding or not, what do you think is going to happen?

If the EU suddenly turns around after a yes vote and says "Abortions for all!" we're still going to have to have a referendom on it as it's against our constitution. The treaty doesn't change that at all. And think of it this way, if the EU did suddenly turn round and go back on the guarantees, why would Ireland let them? If they told us that abortions are now legal in Ireland, we'd tell them to f*ck off.

The guarantees are a red herring. They've nothing to do with the treaty itself and are used to direct attantion away from it.

If you want to use an analogy, imagine you've been working in your company for a few years. You boss tells you that they are renewing your contract. There are two lines in this contract: one says that you work for the company, and the other says you earn X amount of money (for comedy's sake let's say €1.84 per hour). You're asked to sign it, but someone comes along and tells you that you'll be forced to have an abortion if you sign it. Even though you read the contract and don't see where it says you'll be forced to have an abortion, you don't see it say you won't be forced to have an abortion. You bring the contract back to your boss who gets the company lawyer to give you signed and notorised letter pointing out that you won't be forced to have an abortion if you sign the contract.

That's the gist of it. You can either sign the contract, knowing what's in it, or you can worry about things that aren't in it and don't come under the remit of the contract.

uprising

For what it's worth I never believed the "guarentee's" were worth the paper they are written on, if in fact they are actually even written anywhere.
They are a scam, to scam us, then if lisbon is passed, they'll slidder away from the "guarentee's".
People shouldn't be fooled into believing these worthless guarentee's from a pack of lying fukkers.

humanji

A pack of lying fukkers is the reason we had to get guarantees in the first place. But if they do ignore them, what do you think will happen? How will they force these things on us without us knowing?

roosh

humanji wrote: »

I'm confused. What's the conspiracy then? If we're talking about the status of the guarantees, shouldn't this be in Politics?

Anyway, what do people who claim the guarantees are worthless saying is going to happen? Is the EU (that we're apart of) going to wait for us to sign the treaty, then jump up from behind a table and shout "HA! Got ya suckers!" then force abortion on us? Do you not think that maybe, just maybe, someone will notice that these guarantees are being ignored? And if they are, would you not expect the government to do somethign about it? And if you're of the opinion that the government are just EU lackeys, then your problem isn't with the guarantees, it's with your lack of faith in our governments ability to stand up for itself and it's people. So your solution is to get them out of government and get in yourself, or elect someone you do trust.

What I am suggesting is going to happen, is that slowly but surely, we will see newer and newer legislation being passed that will contravene those guarantees - ever so gradually.

Remember, that the Lisbon Treaty was specifically drafted so as to avoid the constitutional right to referenda in every single country in the EU bar this one. They are fairly adept at bypassing constitutions.

Also, if one were to believe that the government are just the EU lackeys, then their only concern is not with changing government, but equally about the governments ability to have negotiated a deal that was in the best interests of the people of this country - which is a very fundamental, valid, logical and highly rational reason to vote No.

Remember that this government agreed that the people of Ireland should shoulder the burden of the Churches legal costs pertaining to the child abuse cases. Then the church spokes people come out with a resounding backing of the Lisbon Treaty. It makes one wonder if those costs are being factored in when considering the campaing costs of the Lisbon Treaty. This is further reason to doubt whether or not this is the best deal for the Irish people - indeed it is almos a guarantee that this is a bad deal for the Irish people, and amounts to nothing more than the purchase of a ringing endorsement for the treaty, from a group who will carry major clout when it comes to the very real concern of some people, for the rights of the unborn.

Just tell me at what point any of this sounds acceptible to any of you, because you will have to point it out to me.

Then we have the Unions, or should I say their leaders. These people have to back the yes vote, because it is in their direct interest. If they were to back the No vote and the likes of IBEC back the Yes vote, I wonder who will curry more favour when it comes to round table discussions - remember that the next government will be made up from those pushing a Yes vote. Those union leaders could lose their jobs if they fail at the negotiating tables, and indeed they would be weakened if they were to back a No vote.

This is why it is in their own and their members interests, to publicly back the Yes campaign, but why it is not necessarily in their interests for it to go through - EU case law with regard to workers rights vs the rights of business to provide services, which could be enshrined in law by the Lisbon Treaty is the reason why.

The Business interest groups have the same motivation, however they also have the added motivation of being able to influnece political spheres through party political donations. Their primary concern is to their shareholders, whose sole interest is profit, and when it comes down to a straight choice between profit, and the jobs of Irish people, I'm afraid there are no prizes for guessing which comes first.

Of course our guarantees, our oh so wonderful guarantees, do little to protect us because the only thing that would become legal with the ratification of the Treaty, is a subsequent guarantee to enter the actual guarantees into law at some point in the future that does not have to happen, due to the powers that Lisbon grants.

So when we take our case to the UN - which of course we will never do, because by the time that those guarantees are actually required, they will long since be forgotten about, and there will be more political monoeuvring - they will rightly tell us, yes your guarantee is legal, but the other ones are not, at least not until the next treaty is ratified. As Lisbon gives the power to amend existing treaties, bang goes the need for a new treaty.

OF course if we have any problem with what we have agreed to in the Treaty, then we can by all means take it to the European courts to have it interpreted by them (no one else). But who needs to listen to us anyway, we cannot veto a god damn thing any more because we have only 0.8% of the 35% population requirement.

It all sounds very sinister, but it isn't really, all that has happened is that we had people negotiating on our behalf who either didn't know what they were doing, came up against better negotiators, who reminded them of how much we have gotten from Europe, and that it is now payback time.
Perhaps they knew exactly what they were doing and honestly felt it was in our best interests not to have a say in the decisions that affect us.

Also, remember that when it comes time to the passing of legislation that is in conflict with our constitution - legislation that will be driven primarily by the French and German politicians (not people) - the EU has a crack team of professional treaty drafters on the pay roll, who just so happen to be adept at circumnavigating constitutional requirements for referenda - just ask the French, the Dutch and every other country in the EU.

I mean who wouldn't trust the germans with the power to "push the button", peace loving and friendly as their history proves them to be. Who wouldn't trust the French to act as their conscience, and stand up to them when the time comes?
Of course we can run the risk that none of this will ever happen, its not like there is any historical evidence to suggest it would.

On the other hand, we can, for now at least, take action, and not even give this the slightest opportunity to materialise, by voting No.

History is always used as an indicator of how the future will go, this is not just the case when it comes to financial projections, but when it comes to human behaviour - as any psychologist will tell you.

How will the history books record the actions of the Irish? Will it be "the land of the saints and scholars" which provides guidance and direction to a Europe on the brink?

Or it will be of an Ireland split by their decision to accept a treaty, that is not in the interests of each and every one of them?

History will be made on Friday October 2nd, but it will not be recorded until some years later.

Vote No

meglome

I'm too tried for this shíte. You're voting No and you decided that long before you tried to confirm the details. And nothing will change your mind as you're not interested in the facts. Why keep up the bullshít discussion?

roosh

waitinforatrain wrote: »

Thank you mangaroosh for that baseless post with no reliable sources

A highly ironic post coming from someone advocating the Yes vote, where the constant retort seems to be, there is ample sources out there for you to educate yourself.

Seeing as how we cannot rely on some people to do this, I suggest you follow this link:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62310647&postcount=6

and the subsequent links and follow the conversation

roosh

meglome wrote: »

That sums up most of the entire No campaign.

Funny, I have yet to see any hard economic data that suggests that Lisbon will lead to any form of economic recovery, job creation, flight of capital, or diminishing of Irelands ability to provide a return on investment.

All we have seen is predictions, based on presumptions, that fail to take into account the wider political implications of a british referendum, a Czech rejection, and indeed Ireland's clear position of bargaining strenght, as the only nation where a referendum is required to grant the kind of power the EU is so desparate to attain.

Not one piece of hard economic data has been provided to back up the spurios claims, that voting Yes will be the tonic to this economic situation. And if anyone believes that economic recovery will come so easy, then they are very much mistaken.

Ireland will remain an attractive place of investors as it will still have all the access to the open markets, it will still be the only english speaking country in the Euro-zone, and it will still have one of the lowest corporation tax rates in Europe, oh, and might I add, that while we may be devoid of many saints (I include myself in that), we will still have a well-educated and highly-skilled work force.

The politicians know that this is the same EU Constitution that was rejected by the French and Dutch people, and indeed the people of Ireland. They know it, we know it, hell I'd be willing to guess that our politicians might even have an inkling. They did not get left behind, we will not get left behind, becuase in order to get the kind of power that the EU leaders want, they need us.

If we vote No, Ireland will become a very strong ally in Europe, because the people of Europe, will see that we are championing their cause, and it is they who will decide their future governments. We will retain a strong right to Veto, and agian, we will have the uniquely strong position of being the only country that requires a referendum to approve such pieces of legislation.

Now grow a pair, Vote No and Irleand actually will be central to the decision making in Europe, otherwise, its to the back of the class with us.

And if you are relying on our legal guarantees to help us out, think again!

humanji

I've said it already, the guarantees are red herrings to trick you into ignoring the treaty. And it's worked. Hundreds if not thousands of people actually believe that they are important. The EU cannot, and I repeat CANNOT pass anything that is against our constitution without us voting on it. It will be like that until either the EU crumbles apart like history has taught us, or until the Irish people hold a referendum to stop having referendums. Anyone can claim that they can creep in bits and pieces of changes and they can harp on about the fictional "self-amending treaty", but they're all lies designed to stop you thinking about what is actually important, ie the actual contents of the treaty.

This is the conspiracy that I find it hard to believe that so few here can see. Everyone seems so eager to condemn the EU and the government, but when groups of shadowy figures blatantly manipulate democracy for their own gain, you applaude them because they currently want the same immediate goal, regardless of their future purposes. I hate the term sheeple, but it's very apt in this situation. People are just being led astray and not even questioning why.

Black Uhlan

The position of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights is set out in Article 6 of the Lisbon Treaty i.e they are EQUAL.

1. Lisbon Treaty

[/QUOTE] 1. The Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, as adapted at Strasbourg, on 12 December 2007, which shall have the same legal value as the Treaties. [/QUOTE]
http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-u[/COLOR]nion-and-comments/title-1-common-provisions/8-article-6.html

2.Charter of Fundamental Rights
[/QUOTE] In this context the Charter will be interpreted by the courts of the Union and the Member States with due regard to the explanations prepared under the authority of the Praesidium of the Convention which drafted the Charter and updated under the responsibility of the Praesidium of the European Convention.[/QUOTE]
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/32007X1214/htm/C2007303EN.01000101.htm

3.Notes To The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
[/QUOTE] The provisions of Article 2 of the Charter (2) correspond to those of the above Articles of the ECHR and its
Protocol.

They have the same meaning and the same scope, in accordance with Article 52(3) of the Charter (3).

Therefore, the ‘negative’ definitions appearing in the ECHR must be regarded as also forming part of the Charter:

(a) Article 2(2) of the ECHR:
‘Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the
use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.’

(b)Article 2 of Protocol 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 penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in
accordance with its provisions…’[/QUOTE]
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2004:310:0420:0464:EN:PDF

So picture the scene - you vote yes, they militarise the EU as will be faciltated by Lisbon. Another Iraq war is created, YOUR President Tony Blair is lying to you about WMD again...You go to war in your name and kill innocent civilians. You protest, the protest becomes violent, deemed a riot - You are executed.

Black Uhlan

Evidence of EU collusion and confusion tactic

the Lisbon treaty also states that any explanations on the Charter of Fundamental Rights (ECHR) of the European Union which have been adopted from the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms “have the same liability as the basic text itself”11 (ECHR). What does this mean?

Evidently the plain truth is only seen in the explanations given on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and not in the Charter itself, claims Professor of law K. A. Schachtschneider: (Bio here: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FK._A._Schachtschneider%3Ftitle%3DK._A._Schachtschneider%26redirect%3Dno)



Death penalty in times of war and perils of war and ...
The fact that, besides the duty of the member states to arm, (see here for the future militarisation plans of the EU http://www.iss.europa.eu/uploads/media/What_ambitions_for_European_defence_in_2020.pdf ) for it says in a comment on a footnote that the death penalty will be feasible again – and not just in times of war and perils of war (Germany and Austria are at war), but also in times of insurrection and upheaval, is a blatant scandal.

Brussels says: „Nothing in the EU Treaty of Lisbon (…) affects in any way the need for protecting the right to live (…) as foreseen in the Irish Constitution.”14

Yet in the Lisbon Treaty it says: Contrary to the right to live (Art. II-62 VV) the death penalty, killing and execution in the event of war or imminent threat of war in accordance with the detailed provisions of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights is to be introduced by Council decisions on the general rules of missions (Article 43 paragraph 2 P. l TEU. 43 Abs. 2 S. l EUV).15 In the explanation on Fundamental Rights it says: “A state may forsee the death penalty in its rule of law for deeds that are committed in times of war or imminent threat of war. This penalty may only be applied in those cases which are foreseen in the rule of law and are in accordance with its regulations.”16



In other words, the death penalty is possible in times of war or imminent threat of war, without there remaining any protection by Fundamental Rights. It is true that the death penalty is not listed in any law as yet, at least in Germany. But if the EU issues detailed rules for missions (Article 43 paragraph 2 P. l TEU) i.e. i

But, as stated before, the actual explanation on the Fundamental Rights would apply, and not the Right itself!17

... Death penalty in times of riot and insurrection

In the notes on explanations it states: “3. a) Art. 2 para 2 of the ECHR: A killing is not considered a violation of this article when it results from the use of force which has been absolutely necessary to a) protect any person from unlawful violence; b) lawfully arrest or prevent the escape of someone who is lawfully deprived of liberty, or c) to lawfully fight a riot or insurrection.”18



So even in case of revolt or rebellion the death penalty would be possible if it accurately reflects the explanation. And because it is a European act of law it cannot be measured against either the Irish, German or any other national constitution, even if it states that the death penalty has been abolished.



Since European law overrules national law, the death penatly would be possible.19 Well, somebody will ask: Who defines what is an insurrection or a riot? The EU is entitled to interpret ad libitum what and how it deems. Could this apply to situations as we used to have in Leipzig (the Monday demonstrations) or riots like we had recently in Latvia etc.? I.e. demonstrations accompanied by violence which could be interpreted as insurrection? Or when people gather because they do not agree with something and then some “black bloc” is smuggled in from somewhere? Will Brussels interpret the social disturbances expected even by Germany on the grounds of the economic crisis as upheavels or riots? And who, in that event, will be responsible for measuring the extent of violence?

http://www.currentconcerns.ch/index.php?id=866

gerrycollins

even though I'm a committed yes voter(dont hate me) ill quote you a most famous guarantee of all time.

"peace in our time" by Prime Minister Chamberlain of Great Britain in 1938 when he went to speak to Hitler to put his countries fears of a german army and potential war at ease. What happened next?

On a little side note arent we lucky to have in our constitution the right to vote on this matter not many countries are getting the chance. at least get out and vote.

macshadow

Thank you Black Uhlan, i've been searching the lisbon treaty site all day and couldn't find that info.

Black Uhlan

macshadow wrote: »

Thank you Black Uhlan, i've been searching the lisbon treaty site all day and couldn't find that info.

Pleasure . Thank you for arousing my interest. I didn't make clear as I should would be that when you are voting for the treaty then you are voting for the charter and its amendments which include potential for the death penalty. (as best as i can understand)

Here is some further reading from Anthony Coughlan retired Senior Lecturer Emeritus in Social Policy at Trinity College: http://www.pana.ie/idn/20080925.html

It would reintroduce the death penalty "in time of war or of imminent threat of war" for the European Army it envisages by providing for the post-Lisbon EU acceding as a corporate entity to Protocol 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which permits use of the death penalty on these occasions, instead of to Protocol 13, which bans the death penalty in all circumstances and which most EU Member States have acceded to (Explanation attached to Art.2 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights). This item is in a footnote of a footnote in the Lisbon Treaty and has caused much controversy in Germany and Austria, although most people in Ireland and Britain have never heard of it.

Exetutive Intelligence Review: A summary of reports by 4 European Proffessors: http://www.larouchepub.com/hzl/2008/3510referendum_lisbon.html

Red Hand

Oh my God, oh my God, oh my God!!!!
:eek::eek::eek:
Are we going to have eat our forcibly aborted fetuses as well???:eek:

meglome

Black Uhlan wrote: »

(a) Article 2(2) of the ECHR:
‘Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the
use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.’

So let's imagine you join the police and whilst going about your lawful duties someone tries to kill you. (Or actually does kill you, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_McCabe). Now what if you saw them coming and defended yourself and you kill them instead. Why on god's green earth would that be a crime?

It's already legal in the EU to defend yourself, and why the hell wouldn't it be.

Black Uhlan wrote: »

(b)Article 2 of Protocol 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 penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in
accordance with its provisions…’
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2004:310:0420:0464:EN:PDF

Some country's (i.e. Latvia) allow for the death penalty in times of war. This is the case now and will be after the Lisbon treaty is passed. You can't be saying the EU will control us all and then proving they can't force even one country to change this.

And besides...

The EU strongly opposes the death penalty in all circumstances. or how about this, or maybe let's try this one.

Black Uhlan wrote: »

So picture the scene - you vote yes, they militarise the EU as will be faciltated by Lisbon. Another Iraq war is created, YOUR President Tony Blair is lying to you about WMD again...You go to war in your name and kill innocent civilians. You protest, the protest becomes violent, deemed a riot - You are executed.

How will it create another Iraq war?

There is no EU president, not now not after Lisbon (you need to stop listening to the No campaign there really is no such post). Show me the part of the treaty that does this?

How many innocent civilians have been executed since those laws already exist?


I love that you guys have an imagination but why pick on something that's actually good for your country.

Run_to_da_hills

Good thread and it is calling a spade a spade.

It is so important and must be made known to everyone in the country before they vote tomarrow. .

For this reason it is necessary to included an image to grab peoples attention.



I would also like to know how the EU would enforce it in times of riot or war? hanging, guilitine, firing squad, lethal injection?

I have it in my signature along with the correct link in the EU Charter that NO one can deny. We can be damn sure the United States has the same equal provisions for the death penalty so that they can streamline legislation when forming this universal Global totalitarian government when fighting terrorism. :rolleyes:

They will be deporting and executing subversives to death camps left right and center during civil strife, riots snd disputes over forced vaccinations and martial law. :eek:

The Volt

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Good thread and it is calling a spade a spade.

It is so important and must be made known to everyone in the country before they vote tomarrow.



I have it in my signature along with the correct link in the EU Charter that NO one can deny. We can be damn sure the United States has the same equal provisions for the death penalty so that they can streamline legislation when forming this universal Global totalitarian government when fighting terrorism. :rolleyes:

They will be deporting and executing subversives to death camps left right and center during civil strife, forced vaccinations and martial law. :eek:

You are truly the Goebbels of the Boards Reich

Run_to_da_hills

Voltwad wrote: »

You are truly the Goebbels of the Boards Reich

Its my duty to educate people about the Lisbon Treaty.

This discussion is about Article 2 section 2 of the European Court of Human Rights which permits the putting to death of individuals. :eek:

The Volt

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Its my duty to educate people about the Lisbon Treaty.

This discussion is about Article 2 section 2 of the European Court of Human Rights which permits the putting to death of individuals. :eek:

Ah hello referendum commission *waves*

roosh

So many reasons to vote No!

I just want to point out that the following is simply the issues concerning the Lisbon Treaty, as I see them, it is just my opinion. Outlined below are just some of the reasons I believe that we should vote No to the Lisbon Treaty.
Personally, I was largely undecided because I had this nagging fear that perhaps I should vote yes, just for the sake of the economy. It was then I realised that the scaremongering from the Yes campaign was working. This isn’t snazzy, it isn’t going to dazzle you, it is plain and it is simple, but it is truthful – I have nothing whatsoever to gain by advocating a No vote, except perhaps vindication.
Below are the many reasons that I believe there are to vote No, and remember, you only need one.

Fear: the only reason to vote Yes?
All the major political parties in this country, have lied to us about why we should ratify the treaty. In order to get this treaty passed, they have sought to play on our fears for economic recovery, and scare us into doing what they want us to do. The question is, do you feel that this is acceptable politics from ALL of the major political parties? Do you feel that it is perfectly fine for all the major political parties in this country to try and scare you into voting the way they want you to? Lisbon has absolutely nothing to do with economic recovery, it is to do with decision making power, being shifted from the people of Europe, entirely to the politicians.
In fact the Lisbon Treaty, which is 95% the same as the EU constitution rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005, was negotiated before the economic downturn. So it was actually negotiated based on projections made during “the good times”. This is a post-economic downturn world, and the negotiators of the Lisbon Treaty did not have the concerns of a post-downturn Europe in their minds. This has absolutely nothing to do with economic recovery. The only changes made to the EU Constitution, was to rename it [the Lisbon Treaty] and change a few legal terms, so that referenda in the rest of the European countries could be avoided.
The political parties of this country are trying to play on our fears, for economic recovery, and one might be surprised how effective it is. If your only reason for voting Yes is because you feel it will be good for the economy, then question why you have that fear, and what concrete financial evidence the Yes campaign have shown to back up their spurious claims. The Lisbon Treaty is not Europe’s last chance at economic recovery, and certainly not Irelands, Europe will continue to work together to improve the economic outlook for everyone, because it cannot afford not to. In fact the G20 was meeting this week to discuss economic recovery, and from the report in the Financial Times at the weekend, the Lisbon Treaty was not on the agenda.
Personally I believe that any decision based on fear is usually going to be the wrong one. Again, however, the question is, is this approach to politics, from ALL the major political parties (not just Fianna Fáil) acceptable to you. If you vote Yes, you give a big thumbs up to this approach.
Vote No to intimidation
Vote No to coercion
Vote No to this kind of politics


Compare the lies
We are being told that those on the No side are guilty of scaremongering and lying, while those on the Yes side would try to paint themselves as pristine, knights in shining armour championing the truth. If we actually examine both sides, we will see that the No sides arguments are actually based on real facts while the claims of the No side have no basis in reality whatsoever:

What the No campaign actually say
"€1.84 Minimum wage after Lisbon?". This can, and has been misconstrued by the yes side to mean that the No campaign is suggesting that our minimum wage could plummet to €1.84 if we Vote Yes to Lisbon. It is not claiming that at all. The slogan is in the form of a question, asking will this be the case? Why? one might ask could it ever be the case. This refers to a case in Sweden (the Laval case), where Latvian workers, working in Sweden, were being paid the Latvian minimum wage of €1.84 - despite the fact that Sweden has a much higher cost of living. The Swedish court ruling was overturned, and it was found by the EU courts, that paying workers €1.84 an hour, was perfectly acceptable. If you are being asked to consider the EUs track record, then consider that for a track record of profit over people – is it any wonder we have businesses backing the Lisbon Treaty

"Lisbon = Increased military spending". Lisbon does indeed mean an increase in military spending, in fact it makes it a legal requirement, all over Europe, and guess who is going to have a major say in how much to spend and what to spend it on? Those in the Arms industry. So we have the yes side trying to play on our fears for economic recovery, as well as calling for increased militarisation. Some may point to the “legal” guarantees we received – those are addressed below.

"Lisbon = less power in Europe". Under the Lisbon Treaty, Ireland will indeed have less power in Europe, the reason is two-fold. The current right to veto that we currently have, that actually gives us the opporunity to block legislation such as the Lisbon Treaty, will be reduced. This is because in future a 35% population quota will be needed in order to veto decisions, as above. The thing about this, is that Ireland has nowhere near 35% of the population – we have 0.8% - so it will not be sufficient to just get 3 other countries who agree with us to vote the same way. Remember also, that the Franco-German alliance, which is in operation, will have very close to the blocking majority, so they can veto any legislation that is not favourable to them, while it will be very difficult for even a raft of other small countries to veto legislation. This coupled with the fact that Germany and France will be powerful allies in Europe, means that countries will largely be unwilling to go against them, because if those countries want to veto future legislation, they will almost certainly need the backing of France and Germany to do so - thus giving France and Germany a clear advantage in dictating future EU policies.

"Trust EU assurances - vote on their Lives". Now, I am not for one second condoning this attempt to play on people’s emotions with regard to abortion, I merely want to point out what the poster actually says. This poster does not claim anything about abortion being legal, if we vote Yes, rather it is imploring us to consider the EU's track record when it comes to such issues, when casting our vote. It also refers again to the EU assurances that Ireland received, that aren't legally binding until the next treaty that is ratified. As Lisbon gives the EU the power to ratify treaties itself, which I presume includes accession treaties, then the need for new treaties to be ratified, is greatly reduced, and so too the chances of having those legal guarantees actually become legal.


What the Yes campaign actually say:
"Yes to Jobs" - The Lisbon Treaty has nothing to do with the creation of Jobs, there is nothing in Lisbon that will make your job safer, or that will create new employment for you. This is an attempt to get you to vote yes based on fear. Does a No vote mean that you are voting against Jobs? No it doesn't. It is not in anyone’s interests, not least the EU's not to work on solving the current global economic crisis, indeed many world leaders are meeting in G20 to do this at present. Your vote on Lisbon will not affect employment. This is a blatant attempt to play on people's real fears and concerns about the economy. Surely we should be holding our political leaders to a much higher standard than this? If we vote Yes, we endorse this kind of politics. If we vote No, send a clear signal that this simply is not acceptable.

"Yes to Recovery" - for the same reasoning above, the Lisbon Treaty has nothing to do with economic recovery. In fact the Lisbon Treaty was developed long before the global economic downturn - remember this is just the EU Constitution with a few changes, designed to get it through the back door. This is a pre-recession treaty in a post recession world. Vote No if you won't accept this farcical scaremongering from every single one of the major political parties in this country.
Remember, the next government will be formed from one of these parties, this is our only hope to let them all know what is and what isn't acceptable.

"Its simple, I want a strong voice in Europe - Vote Yes". This is just an outright lie. Under the Lisbon Treaty our voice, both that of the country and of the people will be weakened. They try to maintain that under QMV we actually gain strength, but what they fail to tell you is that QMV is already in use as is the double majority system, under Lisbon the QMV and double majority is re-drawn to favour France and Germany - and not the people of France and Germany, their politicians. Also, due to the 35% population quota for vetoing, our voice is further weakened. The fact that Lisbon gives the politicians the power to amend treaties themselves, and the fact that Lisbon creates a constiutional entity, of which we become citzens, means that we will no longer be given referenda on matters that affect us. One need only look at how they have tried to ratify the Lisbon treaty to see how things will proceed in future. The self-amending clauseallows the EU to bypass our need for a referendum, because it can amend Treaties already accepted by us, so long as the political leaders agree through QMV, which as we know favours Germany and France.

"Yes to Europe", another insult to the people of this country, especially those of us who are generally pro-European. This is not a vote for or against Europe, this is a vote on what kind of Europe you want. Again, we will not be left behind if we vote No, it is not in the EUs interests. We are already in the common market, this will not change if we vote No. We are not voting ourselves in or out of Europe, just as the Dutch, the French and the Danes weren't, they were merely voting on what kind of EU they wanted, and it is clear, that the EU that the people of Europe want, is somewhat different to the one that the politicians seem to want. Vote No and have a say as to what kind of Europe you want to live in.

Foreign Direct Investment
There are claims that Ireland will no longer be attractive to Foreign Direct Investment, if we vote No, because it will signal our intent to break away from Europe. I personally am willing to give those looking to invest their money, a little more credit when it comes to deciding where to do that. I believe that they will recognise that Ireland remains a country with a low corporation tax, an educated workforce, and is still the only english speaking country within the Eurozone.
To suggest that voting No will all of a sudden turn investors off Ireland is again an attempt to scare us into voting yes. When it comes to investing, investors are interested in one thing, and that is return. Ireland will be just as attractive or unattractive after Lisbon as it will be before, regardless of the outcome. Also, bear in mind that once we vote No, nothing actually changes, there is no end of the European road for us. In fact, it is probably more attractive for a company to be in Ireland if they wish to influence the future of economic policy in Europe, because as it stands, we are the only country that will get a referendum on Treaties. Look at how Intel are seeking to benefit. Take this altogether with the consideration that the treaty will not become law in any other country, so there will be no advantage, on the basis of Lisbon, in terms of FDI.
As for the ECB viewing us as riskier, there will be no basis for that in real terms, as we will be in the same position before as after. If we were to try and go in the opposite direction to Europe, then, and only then would become riskier – a No vote does not affect this.
Vote No if you know that investors are only concerned about potential returns
Vote No if you believe that investors have a little more intelligence than that
Vote No because you are being manipulated on your genuine concerns about the economy

Those backing the Yes campaign
There has been much made of the fact that many businesses have come out supporting a Yes vote in this referendum. That businesses should openly step into the political sphere and actually take out advertising campaigns in order to do so, is itself highly questionable. One must remember where the allegiance of these companies lies, first and foremost, and that is to their shareholders, not the people of Europe, and not the people of Ireland. If a business in Ireland is backing the Lisbon Treaty, it is not necessarily because it will be good for the Irish people, you can bet your bottom dollar that it is because they stand to profit from it. Intel is no different. At present they are in the EU courts appealing against hefty fines for anti-competitive practices, I’m sure that an expensive advertising campaign advocating giving more power to the politicians who run the EU, might perhaps curry some favour when it comes to the appeals process. Intel also stand to gain massively from the increased militarisation drive, as the chips the produce can, and will be used in the weapons developed by the arms industry. Some may point to the fact that this could lead to jobs in Ireland. It may very well do, but again I would point to the propensity of technology companies to outsource to countries that offer a lower production cost, and highlight again, that Intel’s allegiances lie with their shareholders, not the good people of Ireland.

Some prominent members of the Catholic Church have come out backing the Yes campaign, and why wouldn’t they? They did after all receive quite a hefty bail out from one of the biggest proponents of the Yes campaign, the current government. One can only speculate what was agreed, when our “negotiators” (the guys who negotiated on our behalf in the Lisbon Treaty) decided that we the tax payer should shoulder the burden of the Churches crippling legal fees.
Then you have the unions, another body that engage in negotiations with the Government on a regular basis. Is it possible that their bargaining position might just be weakened if they were to call for a No vote, when all the major political parties of this country are calling for a Yes vote. Remember, that even if Fianna Fáil are removed from Government in the next General election, the next government will certainly be made up of those calling for a Yes vote.

Vote No to self interest dictating matters that affect you
Vote No to this approach to politics
Vote No to having your tax Euros being spent to buy political endorsements

Compare both the Yes and No campaigns
On the on hand we have the Yes campaigners, made up mostly of all the political parties in Ireland, and backed somewhat by their European counterparts (who didn't let their people vote), trying to make claims that are in no way impacted by the Lisbon Treaty, claims designed to, directly, play on people’s fears of economic recovery, when Lisbon has nothing to do with it. The statements suggest a direct correlation between a Yes vote and economic recovery - when no such correlation exists. Again, bear in mind, this is from the political leaders of this country, both the incumbent government and, in all likelihood the next one (as the Next government will likely be made up of those parties).
On the other hand, we have the No campaign, who make some claims of direct correlation, such as that of military spending and a weakened voice, which are completely true. They have other campaign posters that do not draw a direct correlation between a No vote and other things, such as the question about minimum wage, or the suggestion to consider the lives of the elderly and the unborn when voting. Now, if we consider that none of these people make up those that are asking for more power, that they will not be making up the next government, that they, in actual fact, have no real obligation to the Irish voter whatsoever [save one] and yet they are infinitely more factual, more clever and apparently more informed than our political leaders. Ask yourself who would be held to the higher standard of behaviour? Surely our political leaders? Who has exhibited a higher standard of behaviour? Everyone but our political leaders. Vote No and tell them this is not on.
Vote No if you demand more honesty
Vote No if you refuse to be conned by the political leaders of this country
Vote No if you refuse to be conned by the political leaders of Europe



The Lisbon Treaty is the European Constitution
The Lisbon Treaty is just the EU constitution in disguise. In 2005 French and Dutch voters went to the polls to reject the EU Constitution. It was this rejection of the EU Constitution, that lead directly to the Lisbon Treaty. The Lisbon Treaty was supposed to address the concerns of those French and Dutch voters. If these concerns were so well addressed, then surely the acid test for it would have been to put this to referendum again in those countries, to let the people decide for themselves.
This didn't happen, instead, the changes that were made to the document merely allowed the EU Constitution to be ratified through the back door of every country in Europe except for Ireland. It is because it is no longer called the Constitution, that there is no legal requirement to hold a referendum on it. The only exception to this is of course Ireland, where it had to be fought to be inserted into the constitution, to ensure that we, the people of Ireland, get to have some say when it comes to what the EU can and can't force upon us. So now we have the ludicrous situation where the French have said No, the Dutch have said No, and we have already said No once, yet here we are again. This is a question of whether you think this is an acceptable way to run the EU? Is it acceptable to take a piece of legislation that has been rejected by three countries, change the wording of it, so that you don't have to give the majority of them a say again, get it through the back door in all but one country, and when that country says NO, then try and scare them into ratifying it? If you Vote Yes, you again give a great big thumbs up to this kind of behaviour, and indeed give the green light for this kind of behaviour to continue. Vote No, and let the governments that want to dictate what you can and can't do in the future, know that you want to have a say.
Vote No if you want to retain a say in matters that affect you
Vote No if you believe the people of Europe deserve to be heard
Vote No if you believe that it is the people who make Europe what it is and not just the politicians


Qualified Majority Voting
Are you familiar with the 35% population quota required to block legislation under QMV? This is just one glaring ommission from the supposedly independent referendum commission booklet. The No side have claimed that our voting strength in the EU will be weakened, and they are correct, however, they used the population rule to make that point - partly because they could not go into the intricacies of QMV on a poster, so they had to make the point as forcefully as possible. They were of course not factually incorrect, our population will be the reason we have less voting power. Under QMV what is required in order to block legislation, is not simply four opposing countries, rather four countries representing at least 35% of the population of Europe. It just so happens that the populations of Germany and France almost total 35%. All they would require in order to block legislation, is a couple of smaller countries to vote with them, and considering that under QMV they will both be very powerful allies, I don't think they will find that hard. So therefore, we will have a situation where no legislation will be passed that is unfavourable to the already existing Franco-German alliance. This means that this partnership will be the most powerful ally in Europe, if countries want to get something rejected, then they pretty much have to side with them on anything they want approved. This leaves us in a clear situation where Germany and France have infinitely more control over dictating the direction of the EU and therefore, the lives of me and you. We already know that harmonisation of taxes, especially corporation tax, is more favourable to both Germany and France.
Vote No if you feel you weren’t reliably informed
Vote No if you feel there wasn’t enough openness and honesty surrounding this referendum
Vote No if you want to make up your mind based on the facts, all the facts

The not so legally binding Guarantees
The guarantees, the oh so famous guarantees. One of the biggest issues surrounding the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, is the legality of the guarantees that Ireland received. Indeed there is good reason to question their legality, they are after all simply an international agreement. Now, I will not question whether or not an international agreement is binding or not, personally I believe it could be, but it is not absolutely set in stone. Indeed, if they were reneged upon (or simply forgotten about), then they would have to be challenged in court. The question is which court? The European courts of course.
To understand the guarantees, we need to look at two things. Firstly lets look at what is actually guaranteed. The guarantees that Ireland receive that are supposed to become legally binding upon the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, is not a guarantee specifically concerning the issues raised, no. Instead, the guarantee that is actually supposed to become legally binding, is a subsequent guarantee, to make the guarantees (that specifically address our concern) legal at a later date – namely at the ratification of the next new treaty. So it is a guarantee to make the other guarantees legal at a later date. Which makes the actual guarantees specifically concerning taxation etc., not actually legally binding until the ratification of the next treaty. The thing about Lisbon is, that there may not be the need for any new treaties.
The next thing we need to look at, is what actually makes the guarantee (to make the other guarantees legal) legal. The thing is, that the agreement, that supposedly makes this [farcical] guarantee legal, won’t actually be entered into law, until the ratification of the next treaty either, which means that it cannot actually become legal if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified. Effectively making them little more that a politicians promise.
Also, with the powers that the Lisbon Treaty gives the EU, there may not be a need for subsequent treaties, as the EU will have the power to amend other treaties, even the accession ones. As we can see, they already have a propensity for ratifying legislation without consulting the people of Europe. So when will the legal guarantees become legal guarantees? Will the ever become legal instead of guarantees? Remember those French and Dutch voters whose concerns were listened to, the concerns which gave rise to the Lisbon Treaty, that was never put to the French and Dutch voters to see if their concerns had actually been addressed? Now how certain do you feel about our legal guarantees?
Vote No, if you are not willing to have the wool pulled over your eyes by those that want you to give them more power over you. The guarantees were compared to those received by the Irish in the good friday agreement, if we look at what is being compared here, is it reasonable that we should receive the sameguarantees from a political union of which we are supposed to be an equal part, as those who were negotiating with their colonial oppressors? This isn't a cry for nationalism, this is taking the comparison to its natural conclusion. Vote No if you don't want to swap one kind of subserviance for another!
Vote No if you are in doubt about these “guarantees”
Vote No if you refused to be conned by this attempt to pull the wool over peoples eyes
Vote No if you question our government’s ability to secure the best deal for us

Will we be left behind?
We are being told that if we vote No to this then we run the risk of being left behind in Europe, that this will be taken as a clear signal of our intent to move in a different direction. This again is an attempt to scare us into voting Yes. If we vote No we won't be left behind in Europe, the French people voted No and they weren't left behind, the Dutch voted No and they weren't left behind, hell the Danish voted no on the Maastricht Treaty, which is commonly referred to as the pillar structure of the European Union, and they weren't left behind, it wasn't taken as a signal to move in the opposite direction. This is being said to scare us into voting yes. If we look at the actual situation as it exists, if we vote No, then the decision to ratify the treaty could go to a referendum in Britain, and we will get to hear what the people there say, also the Czech president is refusing to sign off on the ratification (decided on by parliament, not the people), until the result of the Irish referendum is known. Take this with the fact that the French and the Dutch have already voted No, then the picture looks entirely different, instead of being left behind in Europe, we will actually be leading the way. Remember, we are speaking for the people of Europe, because they were denied a voice. Vote No if you refuse to be bullied and scared into doing what your told. Vote No if you refuse to accept such deplorable leadership from the political representatives of this country - and I don't just mean Fianna Fáil.
Vote No if you want to lead the way not get left behind
Vote No to being threatened
Vote No to coercion (again)

Take some responsibility
We are told that we should vote Yes, because we have prospered under the EU, that we have some unwritten obligation to the politicians of Europe to give them more power, by way of thanks. Fair enough, we have done well while in the EU, but hasn't everyone? Are we alone in those countries that have done well? Also, does it not smack as somewhat insulting to suggest that the only reason we have prospered is because we joined the EU. Is it the EU that worked hard to gain qualifications, is it the EU that works 40hrs a week, is it the EU that makes loan repayments on your behalf? We are the EU, we are the reason that the EU functions, it is the people who are the EU, not just the politicians. Without the people of Europe there is No EU, there is no EU money, there is No common market, there is No Euro. It is the people of Europe who have helped us prosper, and it is us who have taken the opportunity with both hands. It is the people of Europe that make the EU and they should be given the right to have a say, not denied it by their political leaders. Vote No if you feel you don't owe everything you have to the EU, if you feel you have worked hard for what you have earned. If you feel that the other people of Europe who have worked hard, and whose money it is that helped Ireland prosper, should be given the right to have a say in how the EU will be run, then vote No.
Vote No if you worked hard for everything you got
Vote No if you feel it is the people of Europe we owe a debt of gratitude to – whose taxes helped to develop our economy
Vote No if you want the credit you deserve
To ratify or not to ratify, that is the question
How about the great Irony of the Lisbon Treaty? Lisbon is being sold as the great Treaty that will lead to unprecedented openess, honesty and transparency. Surely if this were the case then the people of Europe would be in favour of this and could show this by voting on it. Unfortunately they won't be given the chance. The Irony is of level that it could almost be classed as shakespearean. Here we have the political elite, the Eurocrats, call them what you will (labels are irrelevant), taking the EU Constitution, having been rejected by two countries, changing a few legal terms in it, so as to allow them to sneak it through the ratification process of their respective countries, without having to give the citzens they are supposed to represent, the chance to vote again on it. Here we have the utmost attempt at deviousness in the attempt to ratify something that is claimed will bring transparency. Bear in mind, the ones telling usit will bring transparency are those trying to con us in the first place. Do you know what, they would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those pesky irish [and their pesky constitution].

The funny thing about Lisbon, is that it will actually bring transparency, in the form of a window where we can look in, but not have say in what is going on. In an attempt to give the illusion that we can have some real impact on what goes on, they tell us that we can suggest new policies and legislation, however they neglect to mention that they are under no real obligation to seriously consider them. Oh, yeah, and we have to collect one million signatures too. Surely if those in power were to seriously consider every petition put forward by every crackpot that goes off and gets a million signatures, this would be a highly inefficient manner of operating.
They also speak of national parliaments having more say, what that actually means is that our parliament will have an input relative to the size of our voting rights, which as we know under the Lisbon Treaty will be reduced, while those of Germany and France will be increased.
Vote No if you demand openness, honesty and transparency Now
Vote No if you want a say in the major decisions that affect you
Vote No if you don’t want to be on the outside looking in

Militarisation and the actual effect on neutrality
How about increased militarisation, driven by the arms industry? Is this in your best interest, to let those who develop weapons decide what weapons we need? Surely there is a conflict of interest here. We have people who stand to make substantial profits from telling us to buy more expensive weapons, deciding whether or not we should buy more expensive weapons? There are of course dangers in this regard that extend far beyond possible conflict of interest situations. The Lisbon Treaty gives the EU (which will become a separate legal state, of which we will become citzens), powers to make decisions based on the "threat of war". Cast your minds back to the reasons that the US and Britain used to lie to their citzens, in order to convince them that there was a terrorist threat in Iraq. What better way to test our new weapons than by using them, and what creates demand for more weapons, the need to replenish stocks of old weapons that have been used. We create the threat of attack on our own soil by painting ourselves as a military aggressor. Why would there be need to attack a benevolent EU, that has no real interest in War, whose focus is on improving the lives of the people not just within its borders but all over the world? How can we call for other countries to lay down their arms when we are building our own? If you are wondering how our neutrality will be effected, it won't be through the fact that we may be called to defend our neighbours (which we would be "obliged" to do), it is because by being part of a militarised Europe we, like every other state, could be painting a target on ourselves. Vote No and lets re-examine our priorities.
http://www.tni.org/detail_page.phtml?page=reports_militarism_bigbrosummary
Vote No if you don’t want a militarisation agenda driven by the arms industry
Vote No if you prefer peaceful conflict resolution
Vote No if you don’t want the same situation to arise in Europe, as happened in the US and Britain – where the need for war was justified by appeal to fear

Our trusted leaders
We have to remember that the Lisbon Treaty is a complex legal document that has been negotiated on by all the various countries, so it has taken into account the interests of everyone involved. The one thing we have to remember too though, is who we had negotiating on our behalf. The self-same people who agreed that the state, that is the taxpayer, should pay millions in compensation instead of the churches. Funny now that we have the church leaders coming out and backing the Lisbon Treaty. Can we really be confident that those who negotiated the Treaty on our behalf either had our best interests at heart, or indeed actually knew what they were doing? When you think about it, we have a fairly strong negotiating position as the only country in Europe with the power to stop this treaty being ratified, and the best that our negotiators could manage were a set of non-legally binding guarantees. Surely it would not have been that hard, if of course these guarantees were negotiated, to stick them in and say they were part of the treaty? How can you trust the negotiating skills of people that fail to secure even that? If you are not overtly confident, then vote No.
Vote No if you doubt our government’s ability to have negotiated the best deal for us
Vote No if you want to retain some of the say over the matters that affect you
Vote No if you think you know what your best interests are, better than some politician


If in doubt, kick it out
Finally, if you are in any doubt whatsoever, that ratifying the Lisbon Treaty is the correct thing to do, then vote No, because voting Yes will change things, and there will be no going back. If the only reason you are going to vote Yes, is because you are fearful that a No vote will be bad for the economy, then ask yourself, is it good to base your decision on fear, aroused by claims that have not been substantiated, with anything other than speculation. Vote No, if you feel there wasn’t enough openness and honesty surrounding this referendum.
If you’re not sure, then Vote No, because there is no going back if we vote Yes.

If you feel that voting No is the correct thing to do, then be sure to inform people as to why, perhaps there is something that they have not considered.

dRNk SAnTA

I stopped reading when you tried to defend the €1.84 minimum wage posters.

And you started off with "In order to get this treaty passed, [the yes side] have sought to play on our fears...". How painfully hypocritical!