The EU is the Fourth Reich

meglome

My name is URL wrote: »

Of course they weren't probable, but that doesn't excuse the opposing side from preying on peoples fears too, surely? The entire campaign from both sides was ludicrous. And throwing up the outrageous claims made by COIR & Libertas whenever someone mentions the empty promises made by the Yes side doesn't mean anything really.

No one in the campaign covered themselves in glory, I agree with you there. I still maintain there is a big difference in saying 'Yes for jobs' or 'Yes for investment' and saying the EU will abort your babies or will cut you wages or will make you join an EU army. These no side things are completely untrue, but the yes slogans were at least probable. The shít were in isn't the EU's doing so maybe you can take it as...
Yes for Jobs
As long as we don't destroy the country ourselves

Superlativeman

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." David Rockefeller

The E.U is most likely a step towards world government. Along with the North American Union.

My name is URL

meglome wrote: »

No one in the campaign covered themselves in glory, I agree with you there. I still maintain there is a big difference in saying 'Yes for jobs' or 'Yes for investment' and saying the EU will abort your babies or will cut you wages or will make you join an EU army. These no side things are completely untrue, but the yes slogans were at least probable. The shít were in isn't the EU's doing so maybe you can take it as...
Yes for Jobs
As long as we don't destroy the country ourselves

It may have been a lot more believable, but I don't think they were any truer in terms of what the treaty contained. Many people on the Yes side, and I really hate to generalise; were all too quick to question what the No side was saying, and asking those on the No side to show where in the document it mentioned anything about abortions etc.

'Yes to Job Creation' amounts to 'No to No Job Creation' and nowhere in the Treaty did it mention that no jobs would be created in Ireland should there be a 'No' vote. The entire thing was loaded and fallacious on many levels

meglome

My name is URL wrote: »

It may have been a lot more believable, but I don't think they were any truer in terms of what the treaty contained. Many people on the Yes side, and I really hate to generalise; were all too quick to question what the No side was saying, and asking those on the No side to show where in the document it mentioned anything about abortions etc.

Sure there's nothing in the treaty about creating jobs. Did anyone actually say there was? Yet it wasn't unreasonable to surmise that jobs would be created by voting Yes. It's completely unreasonable to say babies will be aborted or wages will be cut.

My name is URL wrote: »

'Yes to Job Creation' amounts to 'No to No Job Creation' and nowhere in the Treaty did it mention that no jobs would be created in Ireland should there be a 'No' vote. The entire thing was loaded and fallacious on many levels

Putting my more cynical hat on for a moment 'Yes for jobs' is a crappy slogan, nothing more, nothing less. I'd personally prefer that this kind of stuff wasn't done at all. To be fair here though the No side came out of the blocks strongly with a series of slickly marketed and untrue claims. That opened the door for 'Yes for jobs' and the like from the Yes side. It was a dirty campaign but the No side created that situation. So while I disagree with the way things were done I don't see the crimes as being equal.

Run_to_da_hills

Di0genes wrote: »

No.

YES.

meglome

Superlativeman wrote: »

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." David Rockefeller

The E.U is most likely a step towards world government. Along with the North American Union.

So let's see...

Irrelevant quote, legally EU not a super or federal state and no North American Union exists. I'm convinced.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

YES.

Is there some point in that?

silkworm53

The Lisbon Treaty was passed second time around.
The majority of the electorate voted Yes.
It was rejected the first time because the majority voted No.
Clearly the majority of people changed their minds.
So how did that happen?
They listened to the arguments of the government and the largest political parties and they listened to the arguments of Coir, Sinn Fein, Socialists and others and they decided that the Yes campaign was more convincing and voted Yes accordingly.
But hang on why did they vote No the first time around?
Because Coir, Sinn Fein, Socialists and others put up a better campaign and most people listened to them rather than the government and the major political parties.
Did someone go around and put a gun to the heads of the Irish people?
Was there somebody there at the ballot box ordering them to vote Yes or else?
Did the Irish people collectively lose their senses?
Of course not.
The Lisbon Treaty is utterly democratic.
The European project was created by democratically elected government and the people of Europe vote in democratic elections to appoint the MEP's.
The leadership of the EU are in turn selected by governments and MEP's.
It is all totally democratic.
The people of Europe choose to participate in this democratic system.
It is all entirely voluntary.
There is no Fourth Reich - there is no dictatorship or massive army or police state bearing down on us all.

The only people or person or organisations who would claim that Europe is undemocratic are people who do not understand how democracy works or else are hostile to democracy and are playing a game of smoke and mirrors because they have a subversive ulterior undemocratic motive.

PanchoVilla

Ok, let's take a step back and ignore the actual Lisbon Treaty for one second. Let's instead look at the changes that were made to our constitution. I wonder if anyone can explain what article 28.4.11 actually means in plain English. I'll quote it for you:

"11: No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 10 of this section, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State.”

Superlativeman

meglome wrote: »

So let's see...

Irrelevant quote, legally EU not a super or federal state and no North American Union exists. I'm convinced.



Is there some point in that?

They just admit the NAFTA highway all over billboards in America. But, OK.

I love how you use the world "legally" as if that means anything in this world. When Bertie let Tony O'Reilly get knighted by that "thing" over there, that was treason. Not legal, but nothing done about it.

Just a tiny example.

meglome

PanchoVilla wrote: »

Ok, let's take a step back and ignore the actual Lisbon Treaty for one second. Let's instead look at the changes that were made to our constitution. I wonder if anyone can explain what article 28.4.11 actually means in plain English. I'll quote it for you:

Look I'm no expert and I doubt I'd explain this very well but this should help.

Scofflaw wrote: »

We don't incorporate the EU treaties in our Constitution. EU law takes precedence over national law where the EU has competence, and acts necessitated by EU membership are immune from Constitutional challenge - but what that produces is a body of law that is separate from the Constitution, not an extension of the Constitution. The only modification of the Constitution involved in the ratification of an EU treaty is the incorporation of the "permission to ratify" into Bunreacht.

This separate body of law is not governed in any sense by the rights in Bunreacht - it is governed by its own internal principles as specified in the EU treaties. Post-Lisbon, those principles will include the Charter, and the rights therein, but that will have no effect on Irish domestic law, or on the Irish Constitution.

In other words, we're going from a situation where we have two bodies of law applicable in Ireland - Irish domestic law (subject to Bunreacht) and EU law (subject to the EU treaties) - and updating it slightly to a position where the latter is subject to the EU treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The position of Irish domestic law doesn't change.

When we joined the EU in 1973 we obviously had to accept the rules of that organisation. Like you would joining any club. This has been the case since we joined in 1973. Any change to the constitution still needs a referendum.

Superlativeman wrote: »

They just admit the NAFTA highway all over billboards in America. But, OK.

Which road in the states is called the NAFTA highway?

Superlativeman wrote: »

I love how you use the world "legally" as if that means anything in this world. When Bertie let Tony O'Reilly get knighted by that "thing" over there, that was treason. Not legal, but nothing done about it.

And this proves what exactly?

namloc1980

PanchoVilla wrote: »

Ok, let's take a step back and ignore the actual Lisbon Treaty for one second. Let's instead look at the changes that were made to our constitution. I wonder if anyone can explain what article 28.4.11 actually means in plain English. I'll quote it for you:

You do realise that that provision has been in the Bunreacht since 1972 when the people voted to join the EC? I'll quote it for you:

Bunreacht 1972 Article 29.4.3

No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State necessitated by the obligations of membership of the Communities or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the Communities, or institutions thereof, from having the force of law in the State.

PanchoVilla

namloc1980 wrote: »

You do realise that that provision has been in the Bunreacht since 1972 when the people voted to join the EC? I'll quote it for you:

The "Communities" were not a legal entity like the EU is today. Thanks to the Lisbon Treaty, the EU now has it's own constitution and laws which can legally supersede our own laws.

meglome

PanchoVilla wrote: »

The "Communities" were not a legal entity like the EU is today. Thanks to the Lisbon Treaty, the EU now has it's own constitution and laws which can legally supersede our own laws.

It's doesn't have it's own constitution and it's laws have superseded ours since 1973.

PanchoVilla

meglome wrote: »

It's doesn't have it's own constitution and it's laws have superseded ours since 1973.

The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (TCE), (commonly referred to as the European Constitution or as the Constitutional Treaty), was an unratified international treaty intended to create a consolidated constitution for the European Union (EU). It would have replaced the existing European Union treaties with a single text, given legal force to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and expanded Qualified Majority Voting into policy areas which had previously been decided by unanimity among member states.

The Treaty was signed on 29 October 2004 by representatives of the then 25 EU member states. It was later ratified by 18 member states, which included referendums endorsing it in Spain and Luxembourg. However the rejection of the document by French and Dutch voters in May and June 2005 brought the ratification process to an end.

Following a period of reflection, the Treaty of Lisbon was created to replace the Constitutional Treaty. This contained many of the changes that were originally placed in the Constitutional Treaty but was formulated as amendments to the existing treaties. Signed on 13 December 2007, the Lisbon Treaty entered into force on 1 December 2009.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe

So I assume you don't really know what the Lisbon Treaty was really about then.

meglome

PanchoVilla wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe

So I assume you don't really know what the Lisbon Treaty was really about then.

So you've proven that the proposed EU constitution was rejected 6 years ago. All the constitutional elements were removed and what was left plus several new things were put into the Lisbon treaty. So you've also proven the Lisbon treaty has no constitutional elements in it since they were taken out. Nice of you to help prove my point.

PanchoVilla

meglome wrote: »

So you've proven that the proposed EU constitution was rejected 6 years ago. All the constitutional elements were removed and what was left plus several new things were put into the Lisbon treaty. So you've also proven the Lisbon treaty has no constitutional elements in it since they were taken out. Nice of you to help prove my point.

The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, previously known as the Treaty to Establish a Constitution for Europe. It is essentially a constitution for the EU, it's just not named as such.

meglome

PanchoVilla wrote: »

The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, previously known as the Treaty to Establish a Constitution for Europe. It is essentially a constitution for the EU, it's just not named as such.

em no.

The Lisbon treaty amends the Treaty on European Union (also known as the Treaty of Maastricht - 7 February 1992) and the Treaty establishing the European Community (also known as the Treaty of Rome - 25 March 1957). In this process, the Rome Treaty was renamed to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

I thought we'd established above that the constitutional one was dropped.

PanchoVilla

meglome wrote: »

em no.

The Lisbon treaty amends the Treaty on European Union (also known as the Treaty of Maastricht - 7 February 1992) and the Treaty establishing the European Community (also known as the Treaty of Rome - 25 March 1957). In this process, the Rome Treaty was renamed to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

I thought we'd established above that the constitutional one was dropped.

Following a period of reflection, the Treaty of Lisbon was created to replace the Constitutional Treaty. This contained many of the changes that were originally placed in the Constitutional Treaty but was formulated as amendments to the existing treaties. Signed on 13 December 2007, the Lisbon Treaty entered into force on 1 December 2009.

How is this so difficult to understand? The TCE was rejected so they went back, amended the existing treaties, and put them all into the Lisbon treaty which is effectively a constitution for the EU. It sets out very clear guidelines regarding policies of the EU and rights of EU citizens. They didn't call it The Constitution of the EU but that's effectively what it is. I can call an apple a banana but it won't change the fact that it's still an apple.

A constitution is a set of laws that a set of people have made and agreed upon for government—often as a written document—that enumerates and limits the powers and functions of a political entity. These rules together make up, i.e. constitute, what the entity is. In the case of countries and autonomous regions of federal countries the term refers specifically to a constitution defining the fundamental political principles, and establishing the structure, procedures, powers and duties, of a government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution

If the two treaties amended by Lisbon do not create a constitution, then please tell me what they are.

meglome

PanchoVilla wrote: »

How is this so difficult to understand? The TCE was rejected so they went back, amended the existing treaties, and put them all into the Lisbon treaty which is effectively a constitution for the EU. It sets out very clear guidelines regarding policies of the EU and rights of EU citizens. They didn't call it The Constitution of the EU but that's effectively what it is. I can call an apple a banana but it won't change the fact that it's still an apple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution

If the two treaties amended by Lisbon do not create a constitution, then please tell me what they are.

It's really not difficult to understand. In your own link it explains it above. The constitutional treaty was rejected so they took out the constitutional elements of it, then they put forward the Lisbon treaty a few years later minus those bits. So if I understand what you're saying... even though they removed these constitutional elements and amalgamated two existing treaty's we now have an EU constitution. But that makes no sense, the existing treaty's weren't a constitution and what became the Lisbon treaty had all those elements removed years earlier so there is no EU constitution.

From your own link.

A supranational constitution is possible (e.g., proposed European Union constitution - the one that didn't happen) but not always probable, depending on the structure of government to be laid out. The traditional absolute sovereignty of modern nations assumed in a constitution is often limited by binding international treaties such as ... the European Convention on Human Rights which binds the 47 member countries of the Council of Europe.

The EU set up has many elements that could make up a constitution but it also lacks many of these elements. The international treaty's limit what the EU can and can't do, these limits would not be in place in a true constitution.

Torakx

Back during the second vote i read the treaty and did a fair bit of reading up about it.
I dont remember half of what i read the bloody thing was massive!
But i do remember getting a very very strong impression that the second amended treaty was not being ratified afterwards and that when the vote was done it would be the original treaty.
I cant remember where i "learned" this but if anyone here knows what im talking about i would appreciate them jumping in to refresh my memory.
Im not going to spend a few weeks again reading up about it to find that unfortunatly.

Also, meglome do you think its possible hypothetically that they could have manouvered the treaty so the word constitution was not there but had the same effect? If not i would like to know why this is impossible.Sorry i try to be open to both sides of an arguement but my suspicions from the last vote are very high after all i had read on it back then.

namloc1980

PanchoVilla wrote: »

The "Communities" were not a legal entity like the EU is today. Thanks to the Lisbon Treaty, the EU now has it's own constitution and laws which can legally supersede our own laws.

Wrong. The EC had a legal personality since it's foundation. That is clear to see and even our Bunreacht says as such since 1972. Article 29.4.3 from 1972 says that nothing in our Bunreacht can invalidate laws done by the Communities. Clearly the Bunreacht is saying that the EC is a legal entity with the ability to make laws. You are totally wrong saying that only Lisbon brought these things in. They have been there since the establishment of the EC/EU.

From the Treaty of Rome 1957 Article 210:

The Community shall have legal personality.

namloc1980

Torakx wrote: »

Back during the second vote i read the treaty and did a fair bit of reading up about it.
I dont remember half of what i read the bloody thing was massive!
But i do remember getting a very very strong impression that the second amended treaty was not being ratified afterwards and that when the vote was done it would be the original treaty.
I cant remember where i "learned" this but if anyone here knows what im talking about i would appreciate them jumping in to refresh my memory.
Im not going to spend a few weeks again reading up about it to find that unfortunatly.

Also, meglome do you think its possible hypothetically that they could have manouvered the treaty so the word constitution was not there but had the same effect? If not i would like to know why this is impossible.Sorry i try to be open to both sides of an arguement but my suspicions from the last vote are very high after all i had read on it back then.

The Treaty did not change between vote 1 and 2. It was the exact same thing. What did change were the legally binding declarations made by Ireland that were annexed to the Treaty to clarify some of the issues that arose out of the first vote.

hinault

Johnny Utah wrote: »

This is a conspiracy theory which I believe in and it's happening right now. The powers that be are taking control, not through armed force, but through economic control. Ireland is not the only EU country which is at the mercy of the ECB right now. Even the UK is in dire straits. Eventually, the entire EU will be taken over and we will effectively be slaves in our own country.

Anyone agree?

Nein:D

sligopark

Johnny Utah wrote: »

This is a conspiracy theory which I believe in and it's happening right now. The powers that be are taking control, not through armed force, but through economic control. Ireland is not the only EU country which is at the mercy of the ECB right now. Even the UK is in dire straits. Eventually, the entire EU will be taken over and we will effectively be slaves in our own country.


Anyone agree?

I think Declan Ganley agreed with you but the Irish Sheeple voted eh ok second time, rounded up by their elite lying political parties - we deserve this - let's get ready to get rode

meglome

sligopark wrote: »

I think Declan Ganley agreed with you but the Irish Sheeple voted eh ok second time, rounded up by their elite lying political parties - we deserve this - let's get ready to get rode

Sorry I think I'm confused... who was it that wrecked the country?

digme

Johnny Utah wrote: »

This is a conspiracy theory which I believe in and it's happening right now. The powers that be are taking control, not through armed force, but through economic control. Ireland is not the only EU country which is at the mercy of the ECB right now. Even the UK is in dire straits. Eventually, the entire EU will be taken over and we will effectively be slaves in our own country.


Anyone agree?

British House of Lords: 1 Nov 2010

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z69JQY929vY

meglome

digme wrote: »

British House of Lords: 1 Nov 2010


[YOUTUBE...snip.../YOUTUBE]

Em what has this got to do with the EU?

digme

watch it and find out

sligopark

meglome wrote: »

Sorry I think I'm confused... who was it that wrecked the country?

oh this again - your gombeen politicians voted in and followed around by sheeple who then come on here and try and blame us - and before someone wisely states we need to riot and bring a new level of communication to bear on politicians as they doorstep - I agree.

Torakx

I guess you would have to read between the lines alot.
Mainly the corruption that is going on and the idea that corruption is not just national or isolated to one area but possibly connected in many ways globally.
Britain is heavily involved with the EU as they are between Ireland and the rest of europe.