Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

A YES vote for Lisbon is a YES vote for ushering in the New World Order.

Options
1…1617181921

Comments

  • Options
    #602
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    King Mob wrote: »
    So now we've established in the time since the treaty has been proposed you have made no effort to read or try to understand it.
    Way to fight for the truth against the NWO lies.

    Since this is the case, how in the hell can you possibly make the claims you do about the Lisbon Treaty?

    Or will you finally be honest and admit you're making them up?

    How can you counter his claims if you dont understand all the information contained in the treaty?..or do you understand it…


  • Options
    #603
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    King Mob wrote: »
    Because it is readable?
    And because there is several resources online that make it more accessible to laypeople?

    But if he hasn't read it and claims to not be able to understand how can he possible make claims like that one about it?

    Have you read it yourself did you understand what you read. These resources you speak off, are they government based or just third party online information? just trying to get an idea of what you mean by that.


  • Options
    #604
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    King Mob wrote: »
    That's how international treaties work.

    It has to reconcile with the laws and constitutions of all the countries involved as well as all the previous European Treaties.
    It's not a surprise it's a complicated document.

    But there are several resources online line that make it acceptable.


    [font=&quot]Would you mind explaining what you mean by acceptable please[/font]


  • Options
    #605
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    K-9 wrote: »
    What do you mean?

    Plenty of No voters did read it and can give their opinions on it.

    Maybe your point is most No voters didn't read it as really they don't have the time, same as most politicians don't have the time to read every subsection of the Treaty?

    Ok is it fair to say that your admitting yourself then that most of these same politicians who are trumpeting the virtues of the Lisbon treaty and telling us to vote for it, didn’t bothering reading the document or subsections themselves, regardless of any “advice” they may or may not of received?..

    K-9 wrote: »
    Do you really expect Cowen to spend weeks reading the minutae of Lisbon for weeks, thus neglecting his responsibilities on other issues? He has highly paid, qualified EU law experts to do that for him.

    [font=&quot]Yes. I personally expect him to read it, a few times actually. And then some[/font]


  • Options
    #606
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    Apologies for the Bold on your questions OscarBravo, after typing it out quote function didnt work for all of them, so I just highlighted them instead.

    edited by bonkey - fixed that for you

    oscarBravo wrote: »
    If the treaty is so complex, and you haven't read it, how can you state with confidence that it will remove our "veto"?


    “No provision of this [Irish] Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by membership of the European Union, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union”

    Those are the two key sentences of the proposed amendment, my understanding of the above is that if this treaty is passed, then the EU has constitutional supremacy making laws binding in this country no matter what they are or what purpose they serve and we have to suck it up, if we like it or not. My use of the word “veto” means our ability as a country to refuse to pass these laws into legislation. Maybe your understanding of this is different if it is maybe you could explain it to me please.


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Can you reference the text in the Lisbon Treaty that will have this effect? **with regard to the treaty turning the EU into a federal superstate*** emp/added


    No I can not that’s my personal opinion, on the basis that if you have one authority this being the EU parliament combining the various departments, drafting and passing laws that are binding to all the member nations of the EU, and these laws & decisions can not be challenged by individual member states in any way shape or form, the EU parliament having the first and last say on such important matters, then in my opinion that makes individual member nations part of a federation or a federal EU,as I stated before.


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Tell you what: why not search the text of the Treaty (it's available online) for the word "Federal" and tell us what you find?


    That word is not in the treaty, obviously.


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Can you reference the section of the Treaty that would end our position as an independent sovereign state?


    No I cant. If the vast majority of our laws are drafted and passed by an EU parliament, unchallenged, and not by the Irish people, we would hardly be an independent sovereign state in my opinion.

    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You have it backwards. We were only asked to vote on whether we should amend our constitution: a constitutional amendment is deemed to be necessary to allow the government to legally ratify the treaty.


    I personally don’t see how I have that backwards maybe you could explain what you mean by that please.

    In my opinion it doesn’t matter if its necessary or not to legally ratify the treaty. It still amends the Irish constitution and in doing so removes our ability to refuse to pass laws decided by an EU parliament, if we choose to do so.


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Are you familiar with article 29.4.10 of the Irish Constitution?



    Third amendment to the Irish constitution, enacted 8 June 1972 (originally article 29.4.3 the predecessor of what is now article 29.4.10)

    The State may become a member of the European Coal and Steel
    Community …, the European Economic Community…, and the European
    Atomic Energy Community…
    No provision of this Constitution invalidates law enacted, acts done or
    measures adopted by the State necessitated by the obligations of
    membership of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted or acts done or
    measures adopted by the Communities or the institutions thereof, from
    having the force of law in the State

    Ok see this is where it gets technical and a little legally obscure. The above is article 29.4.10 currently binding in the Irish constitution as it stands.

    And these two sentences are from article 29.4.11 which are the proposed changes to the Irish constitution should Lisbon be passed and our constitution amended…

    “No provision of this [Irish] Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by membership of the European Union, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union”

    So my understanding of the proposed article, that being article 29.4.11, is that if Lisbon is passed and this amendment is incorporated into our constitution then technically it has legal supremacy and is binding to this country, negating the legality of article 29.4.10?? maybe Im missing something....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #607
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Lets simplify that legalese a bit, but cutting out some of the "multi=clause" stuff...and see if it makes what's happening any clearer

    first up...the old.
    No provision of this Constitution invalidates law enacted (...) by the State necessitated by the obligations of membership of the Communities,

    or

    prevents laws enacted (...) by the Communities (...) having the force of law in the State


    Now, the new...

    “No provision of this [Irish] Constitution invalidates laws enacted(...) by the State that are necessitated by membership of the European Union,

    or

    prevents laws enacted (...) by the said European Union (...) having the force of law in the State

    (I'm guessing you've missed part of the proposal in the second part, and have added it in underlined.
    So my understanding of the proposed article, that being article 29.4.11, is that if Lisbon is passed and this amendment is incorporated into our constitution then technically it has legal supremacy and is binding to this country, negating the legality of article 29.4.10?? maybe Im missing something....

    So, the change is that it replaces references to the (now-defunct) ECSC, EEC, and EAEC with a reference to the body which has replaced all of them - the EU. Other than that, it changes nothing.

    So its not a proposal to give up anything new, really. Its not about giving any "supremacy". Its about updating our Constitution so that it refers to the (current) EU rather htan the (defunct) Communities that the EU has replaced.


  • Options
    #608
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    bonkey wrote: »
    Lets simplify that legalese a bit, but cutting out some of the "multi=clause" stuff...and see if it makes what's happening any clearer


    (I'm guessing you've missed part of the proposal in the second part, and have added it in underlined.



    So, the change is that it replaces references to the (now-defunct) ECSC, EEC, and EAEC with a reference to the body which has replaced all of them - the EU. Other than that, it changes nothing.

    So its not a proposal to give up anything new, really. Its not about giving any "supremacy". Its about updating our Constitution so that it refers to the (current) EU rather htan the (defunct) Communities that the EU has replaced.


    Ta for sorting out my quotes, re, reply to OB.

    Maybe I didn’t give the reason why I think the proposed amendment is so important in my response to OscarBravo as clear as I should of I probably could of added some more to it….

    Your right when you say its purpose and wording is to bring things up-to-date with the current description of the EU but I believe its more than that to.

    In my opinion the Lisbon treaty is a European constitution in all but name. Article 29.4.10 enacted in 1972 served the purpose of addressing the institutions and mechanisms set up then, and any issues which may arise from our membership, but back then when the EC was originally envisaged then created, its purpose was for countries to cooperate on economic issues and to prevent wars.

    The Lisbon treaty or the Reform treaty as it also known is a whole new ball game, with different stated aims and covers a far wider set of issues than the original European communities treaties, Lisbon covers social and justice matters among others. The EU has evolved into something much bigger.

    Lets say Lisbon is passed which I personally hope does not happen and they start passing legislation we didn’t like and wanted to refuse. If article 29.4.10 was still the only amendment in our constitution pertaining to opt-outs for want of better words then In my opinion technically we might be able to legally challenge these new lets call them Lisbon laws and refuse them or whatever on the basis, article 29.4.10 of the Irish constitution refers only to the treaties comprised of the Euorpean Communities.(Paris&Rome).

    Inserting this new amendment, article 29.4.11 covers their arses so to speak and may pre-empt any legal challenge which might arise if we don’t agree with something that is fostered upon as a result of the Lisbon treaty/constitution. By inserting this new proposed amendment into our constitution we may be legally bound to the treaty with no room for maneuver. Can you see what Im getting at?...


  • Options
    #609
    samson09
    Registered Users Posts: 426 ✭✭samson09


    d0gb0y wrote: »
    Humanity is a she:eek:

    Whats this ace up the sleeve?

    Yeah, I met her coming out of the womens changing rooms in Roches a few weeks ago, cracking pair of legs!

    This is the ace I'm talking about...

    ChuckNorris1.jpg

    A couple of roundhouse kicks and those Bilderbergers are toast.


  • Options
    #610
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    WakeUp wrote: »
    ...my understanding of the above is that if this treaty is passed, then the EU has constitutional supremacy making laws binding in this country no matter what they are or what purpose they serve and we have to suck it up, if we like it or not. My use of the word “veto” means our ability as a country to refuse to pass these laws into legislation. Maybe your understanding of this is different if it is maybe you could explain it to me please.
    The bit you're missing is that we as a nation have an input into the drafting of those laws, and we have a veto over many areas of lawmaking. In practice, the drafting of European legislation is a process of consensus, so yes: we have to implement EU legislation, but that's actually not a problem, because it's legislation that we've pretty much negotiated in the first instance.
    No I can not that’s my personal opinion, on the basis that if you have one authority this being the EU parliament combining the various departments, drafting and passing laws that are binding to all the member nations of the EU, and these laws & decisions can not be challenged by individual member states in any way shape or form, the EU parliament having the first and last say on such important matters, then in my opinion that makes individual member nations part of a federation or a federal EU,as I stated before.
    You're entitled to that view, but - with the greatest of respect - it's a view founded in ignorance of how the EU actually works.
    That word is not in the treaty, obviously.
    It actually is, just not in anything like the context you mean. Which goes to show just how important it is to, y'know, read the document you're arguing about.
    No I cant. If the vast majority of our laws are drafted and passed by an EU parliament, unchallenged, and not by the Irish people, we would hardly be an independent sovereign state in my opinion.
    Less than a third of our laws originate in the EU, and those that do have been agreed by us through the legislative process in the first place.

    Tell me this: how much EU legislation has been implemented in this country since 1973 that has been actively harmful to us?
    In my opinion it doesn’t matter if its necessary or not to legally ratify the treaty. It still amends the Irish constitution and in doing so removes our ability to refuse to pass laws decided by an EU parliament, if we choose to do so.
    That ability was removed in 1973. We can reinstate that ability anytime we want, by withdrawing completely from the EU. I personally don't think it's worth it.


  • Options
    #611
    Faith+1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,674 ✭✭✭Faith+1


    Things can only get so bad before they get better. I'm sticking it to those assholes in Europe by voting NO again!:P


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #612
    jotom
    Registered Users Posts: 22 ✭jotom


    meglome wrote: »
    I'm torn between laughing at you, feeling sorry for you or telling you to shut up talking absolute crap. Try starting with some evidence, you're currently like a dung spreading machine on a farmers field, spreading it in all directions. And I'm seriously wondering if you don't really want this new world order you continually bring up.
    the lisbon treaty is 3200 amendments to previous eu treaties. the reason you don't know anything about it is because the eu commision overruled the media rights to print, broadcast or telivise any information detailed. please check and inform yourself, it is a fraud.


  • Options
    #613
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    jotom wrote: »
    the reason you don't know anything about it is because the eu commision overruled the media rights to print, broadcast or telivise any information detailed. please check and inform yourself, it is a fraud.
    That is, quite simply, total fiction.


  • Options
    #614
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    jotom wrote: »
    the lisbon treaty is 3200 amendments to previous eu treaties. the reason you don't know anything about it is because the eu commision overruled the media rights to print, broadcast or telivise any information detailed. please check and inform yourself, it is a fraud.

    How did you find out?

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #615
    jotom
    Registered Users Posts: 22 ✭jotom


    check the eu parliment videos on youtube, le pen, nigel farage, daneil hannon. mep's are offered 120,000 euros per year to pay for admin staff that they do not need and it's not questioned or checked! it's a pay off for silence. check uk independent party website, one ex mep who did queston it got the boot.


  • Options
    #616
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    jotom wrote: »
    check the eu parliment videos on youtube, le pen, nigel farage, daneil hannon. mep's are offered 120,000 euros per year to pay for admin staff that they do not need and it's not questioned or checked! it's a pay off for silence. check uk independent party website, one ex mep who did queston it got the boot.
    This has what, exactly, to do with Lisbon?


  • Options
    #617
    jotom
    Registered Users Posts: 22 ✭jotom


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    That is, quite simply, total fiction.
    not from my understanding, was stated by mep's in parliment and not denied by sikorsky. time will tell, watch the papers and news for details, won't be much.


  • Options
    #618
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    jotom wrote: »
    not from my understanding...
    Your understanding is incorrect. It's completely, utterly and demonstrably false.
    ...was stated by mep's in parliment and not denied by sikorsky. time will tell, watch the papers and news for details, won't be much.
    Won't be much what?


  • Options
    #619
    jotom
    Registered Users Posts: 22 ✭jotom


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    This has what, exactly, to do with Lisbon?
    its the treaty that is the problem. less civil rights, more taxes, no borbers and add that to the eu commision threatening third world food crop farmers with they're grants in order to switch over to bio-fuel crops. 1 billion people are hungry and malnurished right now, thats 1 in 6.2 or 3, highest its ever been. wfp warehouses are empty, yet gordon brown has ordered the org, who reports to the un, to say that they have ampel food stocks. no money, no food, less rights, no neutrality and no borders equals?


  • Options
    #620
    polishpaddy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 377 ✭✭polishpaddy


    The united states of europe welcome aboard. :D
    Oh ya why do we need an eu army can anyone tell me?


  • Options
    #621
    jotom
    Registered Users Posts: 22 ✭jotom


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Your understanding is incorrect. It's completely, utterly and demonstrably false. Won't be much what?
    in depth information, and my understanding is avalible on video on youtube. it cannot be denied!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #622
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    polishpaddy wrote: »
    The united states of europe welcome aboard. :D
    Oh ya why do we need an eu army can anyone tell me?
    Do we have an EU army?


  • Options
    #623
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    jotom wrote: »
    in depth information, and my understanding is avalible on video on youtube. it cannot be denied!

    Your sources wouldn't inspire me with confidence. Its as bad as taking a Federalists view of Lisbon as the truth.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #624
    stevedublin
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭stevedublin


    polishpaddy wrote: »
    Oh ya why do we need an eu army can anyone tell me?

    To defend ourselves from anyone who may launch a military assualt against the EU, perchance?


  • Options
    #625
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    jotom wrote: »
    its the treaty that is the problem. less civil rights...
    What article of the Treaty does that?
    ...more taxes...
    What article of the Treaty does that?
    ...no borbers...
    What aspect of borders changes from Nice to Lisbon?
    ...and add that to the eu commision threatening third world food crop farmers with they're grants in order to switch over to bio-fuel crops.
    In the Lisbon treaty?
    1 billion people are hungry and malnurished right now, thats 1 in 6.2 or 3, highest its ever been. wfp warehouses are empty, yet gordon brown has ordered the org, who reports to the un, to say that they have ampel food stocks. no money, no food, less rights, no neutrality and no borders equals?
    What does any of that have to do with Lisbon?


  • Options
    #626
    polishpaddy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 377 ✭✭polishpaddy


    stevedublin wrote: »
    To defend ourselves from anyone who may launch a military assualt against the EU, perchance?
    Who's ourselves? And why would anyone want to attack ireland?


  • Options
    #627
    jotom
    Registered Users Posts: 22 ✭jotom


    GhostInTheRuins wrote: »
    I'm not expecting you to find the phrase "New World Order" in the Lisbon treaty :rolleyes:
    it won't be found in it because it is a term used by the people in power who want to bring it into existence. it has however been mentioned in public speaches by george bush senior, bill clinton, geogre bush junior, tony blair, gordon brown, hillary clinton and obama. it has been introduced to the history books in high schools in the states and it states that the new world order has been in the plans since 1970, another lie, it is a concept that was invented nearly 100 years ago by the freemasons and zionists whos beliefs and religion, respectively, is of a one world system, one government, one currency, one religion. argueably a fantastic idea except for the religious notions, the political adjenda and the rfid chips. how will one world religion be brought about? after 2000+ years of warfare over it already? well, same old story, "we're doing it because it's our belief." we all know that religion is an excuse used to go to war. another thought is the currency issue. if we do accept the currency and it comes in the form of the implanted chip then we as a race are locked in to the system. it will be managed in the same way as it is today, need money to buy a car, take out a loan to buy it and submit to more labour to pay it off, with interest. if one decides to object then the chip will be turned off, can't buy anything, can't get on a train, can't do anything or go anywhere. thats not freedom. anyway, the main and real reason for the chip is to lock us in place to protect they're system of capitalism. it's not working and they know it, and they also know about other projects coming live online in a bid to move from a monetary system to a resourse system, world wide. use technology to work for us, not the billions in india and china. use technology to elliminate scarcity. everything for everyone, world wide. as for the government, we won't really need one, not like todays anyway, they have to make decitions based on financial issues. no money, no issues.


  • Options
    #628
    jotom
    Registered Users Posts: 22 ✭jotom


    Dear oscarbravo,
    i don't know what page, article, paragraph or sub paragrph because i don't have a copy of the treaty and i don't think i could follow it any way since most meps and experts are having trouble with it and i'd need all the previous treaties that it is reforming. all i'm going on is points of opinion expressed by mep's. however, this thread is called "vote yes to the lisbon treaty is to vote yes to the nwo." to me this treaty looks like a major power grab by the eu commision, but for what end? it looks like it is pointing to a new world order. do you know any good links with info?


  • Options
    #629
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    jotom wrote: »
    i don't know what page, article, paragraph or sub paragrph because i don't have a copy of the treaty and i don't think i could follow it any way since most meps and experts are having trouble with it and i'd need all the previous treaties that it is reforming.
    Then, with the greatest of respect, you're arguing from a position from ignorance. I don't mean that in a pejorative, but in a literal sense.
    all i'm going on is points of opinion expressed by mep's.
    On the contrary, you're going on the opinions expressed by a small handful of MEPs, such as Jens-Peter Bonde, who don't want the EU to exist.
    however, this thread is called "vote yes to the lisbon treaty is to vote yes to the nwo." to me this treaty looks like a major power grab by the eu commision, but for what end? it looks like it is pointing to a new world order.
    First, the EU Commission has no hand, act or part in the Lisbon treaty; nor do any of the EU institutions. EU treaties are negotiated between the member states.

    As for it being a power grab by the Commission, the original intent of Lisbon was to reduce the number of commissioners (until we broke it), and it will greatly strengthen the role of the directly-elected parliament.
    do you know any good links with info?
    The EU sub-forum of the Politics forum has many threads where this topic is discussed in detail - but I strongly recommend reading as many threads as you can to get as full a view as possible before wading in with ill-informed opinions.


  • Options
    #630
    jotom
    Registered Users Posts: 22 ✭jotom


    dear oscarbravo,
    as for my literal ignorance i consider myself well informed enough to take a negative stance on the lisbon or reform treaty, and as for the small number of mep's, i completely agree with them. i have done other and enough research on the treaty and i always come to the same conclusion. as for the yes vote on this treaty pulling us out of the recession, is a false statement for if you understand the financial system you would know that the recession was engineered (because of the fractional reserve system) and has nothing to do with a common reform plan. every insitution in our society whether its private, public, political, financial or religious all have the same goal, self preservation, no matter the human or ecological cost. any one brought up in this system is going to have a distorted veiw on every one else, class systems, what neihbourhood you can afford to live in, whatever the circumstances. politicians are a product of this society and cannot possibly have a non-biased opinion on they're decisions and goals, national or international. therefore you can be assured that the treaty is not designed with the best interests of the citizens in mind.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #631
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    jotom wrote: »
    dear oscarbravo,
    as for my literal ignorance i consider myself well informed enough to take a negative stance on the lisbon or reform treaty, and as for the small number of mep's, i completely agree with them. i have done other and enough research on the treaty and i always come to the same conclusion. as for the yes vote on this treaty pulling us out of the recession, is a false statement for if you understand the financial system you would know that the recession was engineered (because of the fractional reserve system) and has nothing to do with a common reform plan. every insitution in our society whether its private, public, political, financial or religious all have the same goal, self preservation, no matter the human or ecological cost. any one brought up in this system is going to have a distorted veiw on every one else, class systems, what neihbourhood you can afford to live in, whatever the circumstances. politicians are a product of this society and cannot possibly have a non-biased opinion on they're decisions and goals, national or international. therefore you can be assured that the treaty is not designed with the best interests of the citizens in mind.
    Doesn't that mean also that you're voting no out of self interest and not with others best interests in mind?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement