LISBON CONSPIRACY MEGA THREAD - threads merged

mysterious

humanji wrote: »

I said jobs had been announced. They have. There's even one company directly accrediting the treaty to their decision. That's all I'm saying.

Now I ask you, where it this EU army we're being conscripted into? Where's these forced abortions? Where's this totalitarian one world government that has enslaved us?

You're finding offence at one bullsh*t campaign slogan but seem to have no problem with others. Why is that? They're all just a load of populist rubbish. Only a fool would blindly believe them.


Do they?

lol...

Paddy power jobs has nothing to do with Lisbon. I can't even come to take this even serious anymore. This is just the funniest skit ever. It would be even funnier if any of the European elite knew about this job announcement!


I laughed out loud.

rameire

humanji wrote: »

I said jobs had been announced. They have. There's even one company directly accrediting the treaty to their decision. That's all I'm saying.

Now I ask you, where it this EU army we're being conscripted into? Where's these forced abortions? Where's this totalitarian one world government that has enslaved us?

You're finding offence at one bullsh*t campaign slogan but seem to have no problem with others. Why is that? They're all just a load of populist rubbish. Only a fool would blindly believe them.


Do they?

why do you ask questions,
you do realise they will never be answered with factual information or documented evidense.
the answers you will get are....
only i know because i was on i higher plane and i spoke to the beings that created the life that i look upon, and they hold within me the answer to all questions that i shall answer.

humanji

mysterious wrote: »

lol...

Paddy power jobs has nothing to do with Lisbon. I can't even come to take this even serious anymore. This is just the funniest skit ever. It would be even funnier if any of the European elite knew about this job announcement!


I laughed out loud.

You seemed to have laughed so hard you missed where Citrix stated that Lisbon directly influenced their decision. Therefore the slogan didn't lie. I'm sure it's coincidental, but it's been made a reality. So it's simply a matter of Yes side promises = 1, No side promises = 0. That's all I'm pointing out.

6th

mysterious wrote: »

lol...

Paddy power jobs has nothing to do with Lisbon. I can't even come to take this even serious anymore. This is just the funniest skit ever. It would be even funnier if any of the European elite knew about this job announcement!


I laughed out loud.

If someone took that tone with you you'd be the first to complain. Its patronising and beneath you. Cop on.

bonkey

rameire wrote: »

why do you ask questions,
you do realise they will never be answered with factual information or documented evidense.
the answers you will get are....
only i know because i was on i higher plane and i spoke to the beings that created the life that i look upon, and they hold within me the answer to all questions that i shall answer.

Stop making this about other posters. Offer your own opinion, or stay out of things

condra

What's the deal with the new EU President proposing an EU-wide tax to fund bureaucracy?

I find that very creepy.

namloc1980

condra wrote: »

What's the deal with the new EU President proposing an EU-wide tax to fund bureaucracy?

I find that very creepy.

He can suggest it all he wants...any sort of EU wide tax would require the unanimous support of all 27 EU states. The Tories for one, who should win the election in the UK next year (barring a Labour miracle), will shoot any EU tax proposal down faster that you can say "EU tax".

uprising2

The ink is barely dry on the paper and already there's talk of changes to the Lisbon treaty, this is the treaty that was to make us stronger in europe.
The EU is a big pawn shop and we're in the window, we are literally PAWN'D.

If you go back through this thread you will see the pro lisbon side making amazing claims about how this complicated pawn ticket will make us as a nation stronger, how it wouldn't be changed, maybe now we will find out that we don't actually need to have another referendum for changes to be made.
I have said all along that once Lisbon got in, small changes or stepping stones would come along and it seems there may be one already.

But tweaking the Lisbon treaty is not good enough. The Merkel-Sarkozy statement demanded two treaty changes: one permitting the establishment of a permanent crisis mechanism, and another allowing the suspension of a country’s voting rights if it persistently violates eurozone rules.

Theres our strenght great EU strenght gone out the window.

Now, if these changes are to be made, will we have a say in it?, will there be a referendum?, because surely we wouldn't sign our own debt warrant, would we?

It gets better.

Both changes would represent a serious curtailment of national sovereignty for eurozone countries. Under the first change, a country applying to restructure its debt in return for financial aid would be handing control of its financial policies to other European countries. Under the second change, the EU would abrogate the hitherto sacrosanct principle of equal treatment for all member states under EU law.

[/QUOTE]
In the case of Ireland, and perhaps other countries such as Austria, the Czech Republic and Denmark, it is doubtful in any case whether such changes could be introduced without approval in a national referendum.
[/QUOTE]

"it is doubtful", I thought it was written in stone, but will Germany and France bow to our rights?, surely they knew before publicly saying this that "we" needed to be asked and we would probably say "no".

Here's the article
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2173abb2-e285-11df-9ea3-00144feabdc0.html

Tensions likely over plans to change Lisbon Treaty

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/tensions-likely-over-plans-to-change-lisbon-treaty-479441.html#ixzz13fGcXPUw

"Germany and France launched their bid today to convince the rest of the European Union member states that the bloc's main treaty should be changed to help avert new financial crises."
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1028/breaking3.html

gizmo

Luckily for us we voted yes to the Treaty which gives us the ability to remove ourselves from the EU if we disagree with the new terms.

K-9

Unfortunately, even if we weren't in the EU or Euro, we'd face a similar predicament, just different lenders, rules and terms. The IMF would probably be in by now.

As for Referendums, nothing has changed on that front. We are still bound by the Crotty judgement, so if these new proposals contravene that, we'll need a referendum.

meglome

We are screwed because we fukked up. Thankfully the EU and Euro has been backing us or we'd be already bankrupt.

uprising2 wrote: »

"it is doubtful", I thought it was written in stone, but will Germany and France bow to our rights?, surely they knew before publicly saying this that "we" needed to be asked and we would probably say "no".

If we needed a referendum before the Lisbon treaty we still need one now, there is no doubt about that.

Though generally I'm not sure I see why the EU should accept any country that continually breaks the rules. (We haven't but nothing wrong with the principle).

Brown Bomber

uprising2 wrote: »

The ink is barely dry on the paper and already there's talk of changes to the Lisbon treaty, this is the treaty that was to make us stronger in europe.
The EU is a big pawn shop and we're in the window, we are literally PAWN'D.

If you go back through this thread you will see the pro lisbon side making amazing claims about how this complicated pawn ticket will make us as a nation stronger, how it wouldn't be changed, maybe now we will find out that we don't actually need to have another referendum for changes to be made.
I have said all along that once Lisbon got in, small changes or stepping stones would come along and it seems there may be one already.


Theres our strenght great EU strenght gone out the window.

Now, if these changes are to be made, will we have a say in it?, will there be a referendum?, because surely we wouldn't sign our own debt warrant, would we?

It gets better.

In the case of Ireland, and perhaps other countries such as Austria, the Czech Republic and Denmark, it is doubtful in any case whether such changes could be introduced without approval in a national referendum.
[/QUOTE]

"it is doubtful", I thought it was written in stone, but will Germany and France bow to our rights?, surely they knew before publicly saying this that "we" needed to be asked and we would probably say "no".

Here's the article
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2173abb2-e285-11df-9ea3-00144feabdc0.html

Tensions likely over plans to change Lisbon Treaty

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/tensions-likely-over-plans-to-change-lisbon-treaty-479441.html#ixzz13fGcXPUw

"Germany and France launched their bid today to convince the rest of the European Union member states that the bloc's main treaty should be changed to help avert new financial crises."
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1028/breaking3.html

[/QUOTE]

Nice post.

Shocked that Sarkozy the former :rolleyes: Mossad asset is fukkin people over.

Literally caught the this on the last 2 seconds of the news today so I don't know what it is about but check out this logo:

meglome

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Shocked that Sarkozy the former :rolleyes: Mossad asset is fukkin people over.

Huh? mossad asset?

And anything Sarkozy supports would have to be voted in by the EU. The very same EU that we and all the other members states are in. So unless what is being proposed has some advantage for all of us then it won't happen.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Literally caught the this on the last 2 seconds of the news today so I don't know what it is about but check out this logo:

Very nice.. and?

DrumSteve

meglome wrote: »

Huh? mossad asset?

And anything Sarkozy supports would have to be voted in by the EU. The very same EU that we and all the other members states are in. So unless what is being proposed has some advantage for all of us then it won't happen.



Very nice.. and?

I think he's saying it looks like an eye

meglome

DrumSteve wrote: »

I think he's saying it looks like an eye

Ah I see. Does kinda, though I'm not hung up on eye symbolism so neither here nor there to me.

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

Huh? mossad asset?

Yep, in the 80's at least according to Le Figaro. He was a sayanim - if you don't know what that is google "ostrovsky" "sayanim". I'm getting tired of having to explain every detail.

meglome wrote: »

And anything Sarkozy supports would have to be voted in by the EU. The very same EU that we and all the other members states are in. So unless what is being proposed has some advantage for all of us then it won't happen.

Forgive me for being facetous but that is the funniest thing I've heard in a while.

meglome wrote: »

Very nice.. and?

If you don't know what the eye symbolises then you really shouldn't be trying to debunk CT's. Of course it could be a top hat under a rotated crescent moon.

meglome

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yep, in the 80's at least according to Le Figaro. He was a sayanim - if you don't know what that is google "ostrovsky" "sayanim". I'm getting tired of having to explain every detail.

Sorry maybe I should be been clearer. I understood you were saying he was a mossad operative but is there any proof of this.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Y
Forgive me for being facetous but that is the funniest thing I've heard in a while.

So I'll tell you what. Why don't you tell me one thing the EU has forced anyone to do? What has the EU voted on that was bad for us?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If you don't know what the eye symbolises then you really shouldn't be trying to debunk CT's. Of course it could be a top hat under a rotated crescent moon.

Oh I know exactly what it supposed to symbolise. However I just don't assume that every eye-like image means something sinister.

PanchoVilla

I wonder if the troops we have in Afghanistan are there because of EU requirements. Surely that would prove that the guarantees of keeping our military neutrality are complete bullshít.

meglome

PanchoVilla wrote: »

I wonder if the troops we have in Afghanistan are there because of EU requirements. Surely that would prove that the guarantees of keeping our military neutrality are complete bullshít.

I think i read there is 10 people from the Irish Army over there.

The troops are there as the Irish government wanted them there. If you don't like that vote in a different government. This blaming the EU for everything is really fukking tiresome.

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

I think i read there is 10 people from the Irish Army over there.

The troops are there as the Irish government wanted them there. If you don't like that vote in a different government. This blaming the EU for everything is really fukking tiresome.

...because all good things come through the EU and all bad things are your own fault. The worshipful master tells us so, such is the EU cult.

meglome

Brown Bomber wrote: »

...because all good things come through the EU and all bad things are your own fault. The worshipful master tells us so, such is the EU cult.

Why don't you describe what bad things they did to us since you are making the claim.

PanchoVilla

meglome wrote: »

The troops are there as the Irish government wanted them there.

You have a source for this?

This blaming the EU for everything is really fukking tiresome.

Nobody is forcing you to participate in this conversation...or are they? Should we start a new thread about the guy holding a gun to your head, forcing you to read this forum?

meglome

PanchoVilla wrote: »

You have a source for this?

I believe your claim is the EU made our government send troops. So the onus is on you to prove this. If you can't prove the initial claim why would I prove my counter claim.

PanchoVilla wrote: »

Nobody is forcing you to participate in this conversation...or are they? Should we start a new thread about the guy holding a gun to your head, forcing you to read this forum?

It's my full time job sorry, no stopping.

PanchoVilla

meglome wrote: »

Why don't you describe what bad things they did to us since you are making the claim.

APPLICATION FOR A DECLARATION THAT , BY TAKING MEASURES TO PROMOTE IRISH GOODS WITHIN IRELAND , IRELAND HAS FAILED TO FULFIL ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 30 OF THE EEC TREATY

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&numdoc=61981J0249&lg=en

The EU banned Ireland from promoting Irish goods in Ireland. That's pretty bad if you ask me. Now that was back in 1982, when our country wasn't doing so well, but the EU decided we should be forced to buy foreign goods instead of supporting our own economy by promoting Irish goods.

PanchoVilla

meglome wrote: »

I believe your claim is the EU made our government send troops. So the onus is on you to prove this. If you can't prove the initial claim why would I prove my counter claim.

I made no claim whatsoever. I said I wonder what Irish troops are doing in Afghanistan and if it had anything to do with the EU. You said it was the decision of the Irish government to do so. I asked a question, you gave an answer. I asked you to provide evidence and you failed to do so.

It's my full time job sorry, no stopping.

Then stop complaining. If we didn't criticize the EU or stopped posting in this forum you'd be out of a job.

Yitzhak Rabin

PanchoVilla wrote: »

I wonder if the troops we have in Afghanistan are there because of EU requirements. Surely that would prove that the guarantees of keeping our military neutrality are complete bullshít.

Its not an EU requirement. It is part of the NATO pfp(partnership-for-peace) agreement, which Ireland are members of.

The mission we take part in is called ISAF (International Security Assistance Force). That mission is backed by a UN security council resolution. Irelands contribution is a tiny commitment, 7 personnel AFAIR. They help oversee the integration of the new police force and to assist the transitional authority in conducting free and democratic elections.

So basically, for the purpose of this discussion, it has nothing to do with the EU.

FWIW, personally, I think neutrality is a silly position for a small country like ours to adopt. But thats beside the point...

meglome

PanchoVilla wrote: »

I made no claim whatsoever. I said I wonder what Irish troops are doing in Afghanistan and if it had anything to do with the EU. You said it was the decision of the Irish government to do so. I asked a question, you gave an answer. I asked you to provide evidence and you failed to do so.

Lisbon Guarantees - Section C is a clarification that Ireland’s traditional policy of military neutrality will remain unchanged and unaffected by the Lisbon Treaty, and a reiteration of Irish sovereignty in relation to other areas of EU security and defence policy.

You're right. See attached file.

PanchoVilla wrote: »

Then stop complaining. If we didn't criticize the EU or stopped posting in this forum you'd be out of a job.

Well I wasn't serious, I'm in the web business all right just not the propaganda business.

uprising2

K-9 wrote: »

As for Referendums, nothing has changed on that front. We are still bound by the Crotty judgement, so if these new proposals contravene that, we'll need a referendum.

It now seems to be the case that BIG changes need a referendum, small changes don't?
Most big changes come in small steps, this is no different, a small change here, a small change there, a few more here or there and we got a big change and no say in it.

Most leaders opposed big changes to a charter that took eight years to negotiate and became law only 10 months ago because it could involve referendums in some countries, but they agreed on the need for small amendments.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE69R1FF20101028

The Crotty Judgement is often misinterpreted as meaning we have to have a referendum on every treaty. A careful read of it shows this is not the case. It is more accurate to say that only major transfers of sovereignty or changes in the nature and reach of the EU require referendums. As the Government has never published or really commented on the AG’s advice in this area it is hard to know the precise reasons for each referendum.
http://www.voteyes.ie/tag/crotty-judgement/

meglome

uprising2 wrote: »

It now seems to be the case that BIG changes need a referendum, small changes don't?
Most big changes come in small steps, this is no different, a small change here, a small change there, a few more here or there and we got a big change and no say in it.

It's not about small or big changes. Any change that needed a referendum before the Lisbon treaty still needs it now. And we have to vote on any changes outside of this anyway.

squod

They want to include bail-outs in Lisbon 3.