nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

LISBON - What way will Clare vote this time?

drunken_munky52

The results of Lisbon 1, showed that Clare voted in favour of the treaty. That is likely to happen again... or is it?

Just like NAMA, Lisbon may be designed purely to put even more power in the hands of a few rich elite, and the it appears the masses are been scare mongered into thinking that voting yes puts the people first.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

fergusman

meglome wrote: »

Why do you keep changing tack and 'forgetting' to discuss points when you've been shown to be wrong? If you're so sure you shouldn't have to do that.

I found Mr Drunken_monkey had a similar attitude when i discussed NAMA with him on another thread in the clare forum.

Any time I pointed out inaccuracies or where he was just plain wrong/mistaken in his argument, he conveniently "forgot" to rebutt my points and just moved on to something else similarly obsurd.

Its kind of sad really, we need passionate people like him in our political and social arguments but he really cant accept that anything he says might be wrong when it is clearly exposed as such.

Constantly attacking or belittling people with an opposing view does not help your argument either.

drunken_munky52

fergusman wrote: »

I found Mr Drunken_monkey had a similar attitude when i discussed NAMA with him on another thread in the clare forum.

Any time I pointed out inaccuracies or where he was just plain wrong/mistaken in his argument, he conveniently "forgot" to rebutt my points and just moved on to something else similarly obsurd.

Its kind of sad really, we need passionate people like him in our political and social arguments but he really cant accept that anything he says might be wrong when it is clearly exposed as such.

Constantly attacking or belittling people with an opposing view does not help your argument either.

As far as I can remember fergus man, you were the one who failed to follow up on my definition of "fractional reserve banking".

Care to elighten me further, or did a cat get your tongue? The thread is still there, feel free to muscle up your agurments on why we should support Lisbon so the ECB will "get on our side" as you said and release all those lovely piles of crispy Euro notes into our banking system, thus giving us another shot of adreniline for a few years atleast

marco_polo

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Back on topic.

I was chatting to a heap of farmers on Tuesday and handing out the facts about Lisbon.

Before I even spoke to them most of them have decided on voting NO because they fear that the EU will rape them in the same way as they have desicrated the fishermen in this country. The smaller farmers feared the worst.

Have you got the calculations for the 200 billion handy? Or any sources for the figure that aren't from no campaign sites.

Put simply other EU countries have had about $8bn from our waters (EEZ) since we joined, and we've had about $4.5bn.

http://www.seaaroundus.org/TrophicLevel/EEZPricesRV.aspx?eez=372&fao=27&country=Ireland&Hasnote=1&typeOut=4&Tx=1
(Click show tabular data for the hard numbers)

Here is an analysis of the 2004 catch that shows a figure of 460,000,000 euro for 2004 from our Exclusive Economic Zone of which we had 140,000,000 euro. Add to that another 50,000,000 that we fish from other EU waters.

http://www.marine.ie/NR/rdonlyres/B274034C-8DCA-4CEA-ADD7-F0FC5652DA0B/0/Valueoflandings.pdf

Have our fishermen got a raw deal out of CFP over the years, of course. But the figures quoted but the no campaign are pure fantasy.

Run_to_da_hills

marco_polo wrote: »

Have you got the calculations for the 200 billion handy? Or any sources for the figure that aren't from no campaign sites.

Put simply other EU countries have had about $8bn from our waters (EEZ) since we joined, and we've had about $4.5bn.

http://www.seaaroundus.org/TrophicLevel/EEZPricesRV.aspx?eez=372&fao=27&country=Ireland&Hasnote=1&typeOut=4&Tx=1
(Click show tabular data for the hard numbers)

Here is an analysis of the 2004 catch that shows a figure of 460,000,000 euro for 2004 from our Exclusive Economic Zone of which we had 140,000,000 euro. Add to that another 50,000,000 that we fish from other EU waters.

http://www.marine.ie/NR/rdonlyres/B274034C-8DCA-4CEA-ADD7-F0FC5652DA0B/0/Valueoflandings.pdf

Have our fishermen got a raw deal out of CFP over the years, of course. But the figures quoted but the no campaign are pure fantasy.

If it was fantasy why are there so many very angry fishermen currently out of work with their boats tied up?

Why has the fisherman's union called its members to vote NO. Not for the fun of it, there guys were ridden and same will happen to the farmers. :eek:

Teadrinker

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Back on topic.

I was chatting to a heap of farmers on Tuesday and handing out the facts about Lisbon.

Before I even spoke to them most of them have decided on voting NO because they fear that the EU will rape them in the same way as they have desicrated the fishermen in this country. The smaller farmers feared the worst.

Rape them? Hard to get lower than posting Shinners posters but you have managed it.

marco_polo

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

If it was fantasy why are there so many very angry fishermen currently out of work with their boats tied up?

Why has the fisherman's union called its members to vote NO. Not for the fun of it, there guys were ridden and same will happen to the farmers. :eek:

Because they have not got a good deal out of CFP over the years. that is widely known and most understandable that they are angry about it.

What is not correct is the fantasy figure of 200 Billion that the no side is bandied about. Which is out by a factor of nearly 20.

meglome

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Back on topic.

I was chatting to a heap of farmers on Tuesday and handing out the facts about Lisbon.

Before I even spoke to them most of them have decided on voting NO because they fear that the EU will rape them in the same way as they have...

Ah Run _to_da_hills it's always a pleasure to show you're not telling the truth... again.

The EU props our farmers up, to suggest the EU is screwing them is bull****. Irish farmers 71% reliant on subsidies.

Now to your Sig, it's such bull I laughed.

"The Lisbon Treaty will introduce the EU International Military Police Force (EGF)and the EU wide Death Penalty." - Rtdh

Do you know the words International military police force don't appear in the Lisbon treaty at all. Also the Words death penalty don't appear either. It's very easy, you just load up the treaty and search.

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

Your constant lying is starting to annoy me though.

Edit: Sorry just read the part of your post again about you handing out the facts about Lisbon and I had another good laugh. I'm not sure I've ever seen to you tell the full truth on anything.

meglome

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

If it was fantasy why are there so many very angry fishermen currently out of work with their boats tied up?

Why has the fisherman's union called its members to vote NO. Not for the fun of it, there guys were ridden and same will happen to the farmers. :eek:

marco_polo wrote: »

Because they have not got a good deal out of CFP over the years. that is widely known and most understandable that they are angry about it.

What is not correct is the fantasy figure of 200 Billion that the no side is bandied about. Which is out by a factor of nearly 20.

Yup that figure is utter fantasy. It's worth remembering though that our own government made those deals. So rather than blaming the EU I'd suggest they stop voting for Fianna Fail instead. I would have thought the connection was obvious but in places like Donegal they still vote FF in droves.

drunken_munky52

Anything that supports more of this, should be rejected out right.

I may have the slightest bit of respect for Lisbon, if its military expansion provisions were dropped, or even replaced with provisions for the winding down of armies across Europe... certainly not expanding them... human nature me arse!

Run_to_da_hills

meglome wrote: »

Ah Run _to_da_hills it's always a pleasure to show you're not telling the truth... again..

I am telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

The European Union is an up and coming out of control monster that is ready to devour what ever it can, Iceland is next. :eek:

You can read all about it in the paper. The Lisbon Treaty is self amending, god knows what this organization will enforce on us in two years time if it gets through.

Agreeing to the Lisbon Treaty is like asking a building contractor to build you a house and leaving him a blank cheque. :eek:

meglome wrote: »

The EU props our farmers up, to suggest the EU is screwing them is bull****. Irish farmers 71% reliant on subsidies.

Now to your Sig, it's such bull I laughed...

My signature is 100% Correct just like the last one about Spain doubling its unemployment since it got ratified.

Lisbon will bring in the death penalty in times of war and riots and you cant dispute that. :eek:

meglome wrote: »

"The Lisbon Treaty will introduce the EU International Military Police Force (EGF)and the EU wide Death Penalty." - Rtdh

Then WTF is this about, If you dismiss the Wise up as rubbish heres the source. Talking about counting chickens before they hatch, the fu*ing treaty is not even passed and they are setting up an armed EU crack force made up of someof the most notorious European police forces. :eek:

meglome wrote: »

Do you know the words International military police force don't appear in the Lisbon treaty at all. Also the Words death penalty don't appear either. It's very easy, you just load up the treaty and search.

..

It will be one of those little self ammending extras that we will be forced to agree with several months down the line. :rolleyes:

meglome wrote: »

Your constant lying is starting to annoy me though...

Trying to hide the truth and say something isn't when in fact it really is really annoys me.

When I talk about the Lisbon Treaty I call a spade a spade.

fergusman

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

You can read all about it in the paper.

As the saying goes, paper never refused ink!!
I wouldnt use something that is written from a particular viewpoint as my primary source of information in any argument, this "paper" is not exactly written from an objective standpoint.
If for example you wrote an academic paper using this as a serious source, you'd be a laughing stock.
Doing a bit of your own research into some of the "facts" in this "paper" gives a more balanced view.
Statistics can often be manipulated to prove certain viewpoints, see Fox News they are brilliant at manipulating polls etc to advance their obviously biased political agenda. (albeit at the other end of the political spectrum to the "paper" you reference, it just shows both sides can do it)

On a lighter note I saw a shopkeeper in town today dump a large stack of them into the bin...wonder which way hes voting lol

drunken_munky52

fergusman wrote: »

Doing a bit of your own research into some of the "facts" in this "paper" gives a more balanced view.

And what paper do you get your information from??? Oh yeah... that Lisbon treaty... less useful than the phone books that Eircom still stuff in our letter boxes every 2 years... so written in riddles in places youd swear it was a comic book.

You no more read that fcuking waste of trees than Brian Cowen did... in fact if the politicians didnt bother their arses reading it (which they admitted)... what the hell is going to make me convinced you bothered to do so?... and if you did believe the shiite in it, you still wont be able to convince me that its good for you... not to mention me.

Balanced view... how about the image of a scales then. Since you are so convinced we are wrong, how about you come up with some statements to disprove us, instead of resorting to the "I'm telling teacher on you" attitude

Run_to_da_hills

fergusman wrote: »

As the saying goes, paper never refused ink!!
I wouldn't use something that is written from a particular viewpoint as my primary source of information in any argument, this "paper" is not exactly written from an objective standpoint.

Nor is any Broad sheet that is printed in this country at this present time. Even the Irish Times, a paper that I once highly respected has turned itself into an biased tabloid on the Lisbon Issue. People need to have an alternative news sours away from state controlled media.

fergusman wrote: »

If for example you wrote an academic paper using this as a serious source, you'd be a laughing stock.
Doing a bit of your own research into some of the "facts" in this "paper" gives a more balanced view.

The Greatest FACT will be the total loss of democracy across the EU where the privilege of voting is totally stripped and doctoral powers are in turn handed over to the powers that be. This is Soviet Era history repeating itself.

This was also the case with France and Holland on the same fu*king treaty, At least Ireland has a second chance but has a disadvantage with biased mainstream media EU backed propaganda shoved in every letterbox in the country. People are well aware of this and this in itself has back fired.

fergusman wrote: »

Statistics can often be manipulated to prove certain viewpoints, see Fox News they are brilliant at manipulating polls etc to advance their obviously biased political agenda. (albeit at the other end of the political spectrum to the "paper" you reference, it just shows both sides can do it)

fergusman wrote: »

On a lighter note I saw a shopkeeper in town today dump a large stack of them into the bin...wonder which way hes voting lol

I have warned distributors about leaving large stacks into shops without explaining what the material was about. Unless they personally know the owner. A lot of shops are also worried that it could take away sales from their own material while others may not want to get involved in politics.

drunken_munky52

Military spending is the most wasteful and one of the most destructive uses of resources in the world today. These resources could be put to much more constructive use, if we have the will to fully reject the military institutions.

The Lisbon treaty strenghtens the obligations on the nations of Europe to contribute more to military related expenditure... Ireland's neutrality is also questionable

It must be rejected also on these grounds alone. A call of arms (the non-lethal tpye) to the masses, rally and vote no to Lisbon.

marco_polo

It does not mandate that a single extra cent be spent on defence by any member state. Are you suggesting that all nations must increase their military spending?

meglome

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Military spending is the most wasteful and one of the most destructive uses of resources in the world today. These resources could be put to much more constructive use, if we have the will to fully reject the military institutions.

The Lisbon treaty strenghtens the obligations on the nations of Europe to contribute more to military related expenditure... Ireland's neutrality is also questionable

It must be rejected also on these grounds alone. A call of arms (the non-lethal tpye) to the masses, rally and vote no to Lisbon.

Will I wait for you to post the bit of the treaty that says this?

meglome

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The European Union is an up and coming out of control monster that is ready to devour what ever it can, Iceland is next.

Funny I'm still waiting for you to show me just one time the EU has tried to force any EU country to do anything. Are you going to do that at any stage?

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

You can read all about it in the paper. The Lisbon Treaty is self amending, god knows what this organization will enforce on us in two years time if it gets through.

Lisbon is not self amending that is bull. And it's very easy to show that.

I'll post this section from Article 48 for you.
"4. A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to the Treaties.

The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."

It's very clear since our constitutional requirements are we need to have a referendum then we will still have to have a referendum - nothing changes. Well it appears you were 'mistaken' again.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Agreeing to the Lisbon Treaty is like asking a building contractor to build you a house and leaving him a blank cheque.

Doesn't make much sense now that I just shown you to be 'mistaken'.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

My signature is 100% Correct just like the last one about Spain doubling its unemployment since it got ratified.

How could this be true since it's as obvious as the nose on your face the treaty hasn't been ratified. It really makes no sense whatsoever. It's just completely stupid.

Just show me the bit of the treaty that does what your signature says. I know you won't though since it's not in the treaty.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Lisbon will bring in the death penalty in times of war and riots and you cant dispute that.

Yawn... Some country's in the EU have a law that allow for the death penalty in time of war. The EU cannot force them to change that. But here IS NOTHING IN THE LISBON TREATY THAT ALLOWS FOR THE DEATH PENALTY. The EU is 100% anti the death penalty. It's actually funny it's like trying to convince people that the pope isn't a Catholic.

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

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Then WTF is this about, If you dismiss the Wise up as rubbish heres the source. Talking about counting chickens before they hatch, the fu*ing treaty is not even passed and they are setting up an armed EU crack force made up of someof the most notorious European police forces.

Okay so just post the section of the treaty that does this, it's pretty simple right? Again I know you won't since it's not in the treaty.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

It will be one of those little self ammending extras that we will be forced to agree with several months down the line. :rolleyes:

I showed you above using the actual treaty that it isn't self amending.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Trying to hide the truth and say something isn't when in fact it really is really annoys me.

And here we are with me showing that nothing you've said is true... again.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

When I talk about the Lisbon Treaty I call a spade[/URL] a spade.

It's more like comparing a spade to an elephant.

meglome

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Nor is any Broad sheet that is printed in this country at this present time. Even the Irish Times, a paper that I once highly respected has turned itself into an biased tabloid on the Lisbon Issue. People need to have an alternative news sours away from state controlled media.

Just a thought, but maybe they don't agree with you because you're simply wrong. In fact most of our politicians, our unions, our labour organisations, our media, our business organisations, our academics and our economists all disagree with you. I have to say in your position I might wonder if I wasn't getting it wrong. Why would we believe some internet nutjobs over all these people? And I suppose you could go mad and actually look in the treaty and see for yourself that stuff isn't in there.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

This was also the case with France and Holland on the same fu*king treaty, At least Ireland has a second chance but has a disadvantage with biased mainstream media EU backed propaganda shoved in every letterbox in the country. People are well aware of this and this in itself has back fired.

The only biased EU funded propaganda that has gone out in this country is from the UK Independence Party asking the Irish for a No vote. Since these guys are only a half a step removed from the BNP I'd be doing the exact opposite of what they asked for.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I have warned distributors about leaving large stacks into shops without explaining what the material was about. Unless they personally know the owner. A lot of shops are also worried that it could take away sales from their own material while others may not want to get involved in politics.

I wouldn't wipe my arse with these papers for fear I'd put more **** on than I'd take off. Sorry to be so crude about it but since there's not even a single factual thing contained within them I don't know how else I should put it.

meglome

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

And what paper do you get your information from??? Oh yeah... that Lisbon treaty... less useful than the phone books that Eircom still stuff in our letter boxes every 2 years... so written in riddles in places youd swear it was a comic book.

You no more read that fcuking waste of trees than Brian Cowen did... in fact if the politicians didnt bother their arses reading it (which they admitted)... what the hell is going to make me convinced you bothered to do so?... and if you did believe the shiite in it, you still wont be able to convince me that its good for you... not to mention me.

Balanced view... how about the image of a scales then. Since you are so convinced we are wrong, how about you come up with some statements to disprove us, instead of resorting to the "I'm telling teacher on you" attitude

Here's the link to the consolidated treaty or in Irish here. It's a pdf and is completely searchable.

So for example we take the poster from the Socialist Workers Party that claims the Lisbon treaty brings in more health privatisations. I searched for the words and I can't find anything that does this.

Or how about Rtdh's sig that says "The Lisbon Treaty will introduce the EU International Military Police Force (EGF)and the EU wide Death Penalty." Again just search for these words and low and behold they don't appear at all in the Lisbon treaty.

It's fairly easy to show that most No campaigners are telling a pack of lies.

Run_to_da_hills

meglome wrote: »

Just a thought, but maybe they don't agree with you because you're simply wrong. In fact most of our politicians, our unions, our labour organizations, our media, our business organizations, our academics and our economists all disagree with you. .

Thats what the media like us to believe.I have been canvassed around Dublin Limerick and Clare over the last few weeks particularly concentrating on factory, farmers and council workers. All I can say is that the large majority don't want the treaty. Most are pissed off with the Government, they are fed up with tax payers money used to shove Lisbon propaganda down their troths. Most believe if they reject Lisbon the Government will fall which makes a lot sense. I passed through many housing estates in Limerick, Clare and even Dublin where all the YES posters were removed. In Moyross and Thormond areas just a few Coir and Sinn Fein posters remained.

If you were to do the same as me and call around to the same people you would be more than likely politely told to fu*ck off. To the average working man the Yes crowd would be more at home with wealthy business men, fat cats. property developers, politicians and white collar workers.

meglome wrote: »

I have to say in your position I might wonder if I wasn't getting it wrong. Why would we believe some internet nutjobs over all these people? And I suppose you could go mad and actually look in the treaty and see for yourself that stuff isn't in there.
.

I bet you haven't even read it, It is full of EU Corruption, on how it has trampled all over democracy. The paper has had a huge success feedback. on line hits have been huge, Not alone that is that it has got people to think and look further into EU lies and deception.

meglome wrote: »

The only biased EU funded propaganda that has gone out in this country is from the UK Independence Party asking the Irish for a No vote. Since these guys are only a half a step removed from the BNP I'd be doing the exact opposite of what they asked for.

.

At least this material is not funded by Taxpayers money and backed by the EU like the rag pushed through our letter boxes. I thought I was the only one that saw these subliminal messages in the IRC and Dept of Foreign Affairs guide, but was surprised at the amount of people that were also aware of it. People are sick of it at this stage and want to know the truth.

meglome wrote: »

I wouldn't wipe my arse with these papers for fear I'd put more **** on than I'd take off. Sorry to be so crude about it but since there's not even a single factual thing contained within them I don't know how else I should put it.

I wouldn't wipe my arse with the self ammending Lisbon Treaty, it's so full of holes my finger would push straight through it. :pac:

On a seperate but similar note the Globalist Sarkozy is putting the gun to the head on the Chez president Klaus to sign Lisbon Treaty.

SO MUCH FOR [URL="EU DEMOCRACY.

drunken_munky52

They go on about "secuity policy" and awful lot in the treaty. It installs a council of security within the EU, effictively the the EUs very own Department of Defense.

Anything like this WILL increase spending on military... as I said, these institutions are outdated and only serve corporate interests nowadys... they must be outgrowned

bowsie casey

Do we really need another thread to hear about the OPs anti-Lisbon stance ? Surely one is enough...

As a poster on that other thread suggested, I think this is better discussed on the Politics forum.

Stuxnet

Clare voted YES if i remember correctly last time,
ill be voting yes again !!
and we'll keep voting till we get it right ! :pac:

Run_to_da_hills

bowsie casey wrote: »

As a poster on that other thread suggested, I think this is better discussed on the Politics forum.

It is not.

The the EU Political forum is run by biased moderators that favour the Lisbon treaty and the thread would not last pi**ing time before either he gets infracted or the thread gets locked.

I rarely bother with the EU Political forum.

It is up to the mods to merge this thread if they feel its necessary.

Turtwig

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Military spending is the most wasteful and one of the most destructive uses of resources in the world today. These resources could be put to much more constructive use, if we have the will to fully reject the military institutions.

The Lisbon treaty strenghtens the obligations on the nations of Europe to contribute more to military related expenditure... Ireland's neutrality is also questionable

It must be rejected also on these grounds alone. A call of arms (the non-lethal tpye) to the masses, rally and vote no to Lisbon.

Hi Drunken:)

Although I understand your fears, I think they're irrational to say the least. Would you mind showing us WHERE(quotations please) in the treaty it's possible that your fears may come to light?

Regards,
Malt

Run_to_da_hills

BOBBY wrote: »

Clare voted YES if i remember correctly last time,
ill be voting yes again !!
and we'll keep voting till we get it right ! :pac:

Maybe not this time.

Lisbon = Crushing family farms. :eek:

Hopefully this message will get across. :pac:

[IMG][/img]

fergusman

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

And what paper do you get your information from??? Oh yeah... that Lisbon treaty... less useful than the phone books that Eircom still stuff in our letter boxes every 2 years... so written in riddles in places youd swear it was a comic book.

So some "paper" which just appeared out of nowhere with no track record, no accountability and financed by some shady organisations is your idea of an impartial source? Seriously? Do you also believe everything you read on internet blogs/sites etc? because its the same thing.
Using sources like this in a serious argument is laughable.
BTW I agree that most of the press here is pro Lisbon but newspapers dont cast my vote for me.

Its a legal document of course its written in legalese, it has to be. Have you ever signed a contract of any kind? most are hard to read at best but thats just the way the legal system is.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

You no more read that fcuking waste of trees than Brian Cowen did... in fact if the politicians didnt bother their arses reading it (which they admitted)... what the hell is going to make me convinced you bothered to do so?... and if you did believe the shiite in it, you still wont be able to convince me that its good for you... not to mention me.

I havent read every paragraph of the treaty but i made it my business to read the areas highlighted by the No campaign, and guess what... most of your argument is not written anywhere in the treaty, or the no campaign have drawn conclusions that just dont exist!!
I dont have to convince you or anyone for that matter that I have read the treaty or not but I actually have read most of it at this stage.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Balanced view... how about the image of a scales then. Since you are so convinced we are wrong, how about you come up with some statements to disprove us, instead of resorting to the "I'm telling teacher on you" attitude

WTF is that supposed to mean?

How about this for a statement:
The implementation of the Europe wide Death penalty is a great example of complete and utter bull**** from the No side.
Do you and rtdh honestly believe that the EU wants to introduce the death penalty to Ireland and the rest of Europe?
If so why? what is to be gained for the "EU Elite" as you call "them"?

drunken_munky52

Malty_T wrote: »

Hi Drunken:)

Although I understand your fears, I think they're irrational to say the least. Would you mind showing us WHERE(quotations please) in the treaty it's possible that your fears may come to light?

Malty,

They go on about "security policy" and awful lot in the treaty. It installs a council of security within the EU, effictively the the EUs very own Department of Defense.

Anything like this WILL increase spending on military... as I said, these institutions are outdated and only serve corporate interests nowadys... they must be outgrowned

While I admit, I dont see anything that specifically says military spending is its goal, it sows the seeds within the contents framework putting a military enhancement project into the works...

I am totally opposed to any such strenghtening of military structures... it serves the interests of mainly defense contractors to sell their child maiming products... my two finger salute to them...

tear up that section of the treaty and you have my ears... until then, its a no go for me.

Turtwig

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

I am totally opposed to any such strenghtening of military structures... it serves the interests of mainly defense contractors to sell their child maiming products... my two finger salute to them...

tear up that section of the treaty and you have my ears... until then, its a no go for me.

Ok, but what about if green aliens were to land on earth, hostile ones, and you know, try to take over the world pinky and brain style. We need military for that, the more advanced our weapons, the better, Germans discover uranium isotopes..I'd love to see our alien 'friends' hit by something bigger and more powerful than a nuke. Don't you see, the EU want to research antimatter weapons; that's the whole purpose of CERN (which Ireland is not part of) to anticipate defense weapons for the arrival of the little critters in 2012. We're going to annihilate them, Dan Brown style.:)

drunken_munky52

Malty_T wrote: »

Ok, but what about if green aliens were to land on earth, hostile ones, and you know, try to take over the world pinky and brain style. We need military for that, the more advanced our weapons, the better, Germans discover uranium isotopes..I'd love to see our alien 'friends' hit by something bigger and more powerful than a nuke. Don't you see, the EU want to research antimatter weapons; that's the whole purpose of CERN (which Ireland is not part of) to anticipate defense weapons for the arrival of the little critters in 2012. We're going to annihilate them, Dan Brown style.:)

Haha

Yeah, but thats actually the one thing I do not believe is going to happen... You are on about Planet X are you not?

OK, build the big zapper yokima bus thing... but stop building shhite like cruise missles, cluster munitions, etc. An utter waste... the brains that went into making them, if only they had been used to develop solutions for real problems in the world, like water shortages, famine, etc

We cant use a need for "defence" as a justification to keep strenghtening the military... we are not stone age men anymore, we can control ourselves now... this whole notion that war is human nature is a myth

So a military now, serves corporations, as was the case with Iraq... the most obvious use of the military for corporate profit