Malty_T wrote: » Serioiusly, wtf are you on about, our constitution will still be as powerful as it is. We will still remain a sovereign, independent nation.
Malty_T wrote: » You're going to let a personal gripe which has nothing do with the treaty decide how you vote? Cowen has said that he will not resign if Lisbon is rejected, NAMA is going ahead anyway, if you really want to make a difference to either of those things then join a political party that opposed them.
theasylumkey wrote: » That old chestnut.....its always fired out there when someone opposes the mainstream line we are told to accept as being correct....... ... My theory is this & correct me if this sounds like an outlandish & nutty conspiracy. Europe has gone from being a whole group of completley indepedant countries slowly but surley to an interlinked, interdependant Union of european states with a common currency & freedom of movement for all member states across its borders with the aim to eventually becoming a fully united state of europe completley intergated in every way economically, militarily, financially etc.
Run_to_da_hills wrote: » Don't tell me to shut up and accuse me of spamming when I disclose FACTS about the EU controlling and invading our personal lives. Why should I have to show parts of the treaty when the subject of the EU invasion of our civil liberties is brought up in the mainstream media? :rolleyes: Anyway what is written in the Lisbon Treaty dose not hold one drop of water because it is self amending. In other words the EU Parlament can walk all over us with new evasive legislation in two years time and we can do jack sh*t about it. Again VOTE NO to something that is vague and full of holes and threatens the future of our civil liberties. .
lebowsky wrote: » Voting No not because of any anti european reason but the fact that Cowen would have to step down if the No vote wins. Nama will have killed off the country long before any negative effect of a No vote.
Run_to_da_hills wrote: » Again I would not trust swapping our watertight Irish Constitution for any self amending document that can be twisted and turned by future foreign governments. The Current EU Constitution is not worth the paper its written on.
Run_to_da_hills wrote: » ROFL. If that is the case why the f*ck are we having a national referendum. :rolleyes:
meglome wrote: » Why can't it be powerful and slightly different? why would those things be mutually exclusive?
theasylumkey wrote: » 41 billion for free from those EU Bastards.....its simple buisness figures really they give us 41 billion for this & that & we agree to allow the whole of the rest of europe (even land locked nations) to fish off our coasts which Nets the EU approx 200 billion back into the euorpean economy......not a bad deal turning 41 into 200 billion
Run_to_da_hills wrote: » .
That is not possible, the EU Constitution overides our constitution.
The EU is now providing itself with a police force which could in future be used to enforce these laws on us
Malty_T wrote: » Please enlighten us as to how... Notice the 'could' here, that's speculation. Where is it mentioned in the treaty about a police force, and more so where the heck did you hear that the EU is getting it's own police force?
drunken_munky52 wrote: » Anyone speak to the taxi drivers about Lisbon??? From what I gather, the few I have come across in Limerick ask will it keep out the "black chaps" better? Taxi drivers for me have to be one of the newest groups of workers to stoop to this level of thinking, coz alot of taxi licenses are been taken over by immigrant workers. I hear the British Independence Pattie's leader's view on the issue, and he believes that Lisbon will erode first preference to national workers... I do not think the taxi drivers favour this treaty... good... but unfortunately its for the wrong reasons...
drunken_munky52 wrote: » <snip> Image
drunken_munky52 wrote: » <image>
Run_to_da_hills wrote: » That is not possible, the EU Constitution overides our constitution. EU law overrules Irish law, and EU courts overrule Irish courts. The Dail can debate EU Directives and laws, but cannot amend a word of them. The EU is now providing itself with a police force which could in future be used to enforce these laws on us.
Run_to_da_hills wrote: » The EU has it's own elite and heavily armed para-military force (The European Gendarmerie Force). NOBODY in Europe "voted" for this planned totalitarian state !
Run_to_da_hills wrote: » I was given the unofficial figure of 90% of Taxi drivers in Dublin opposed to Lisbon. Many of them are utilizing their positions to canvas by handing out flyer's and stickers to customers. Two drivers I know have been handing out issues of the Sovereign Independent.
Mr E wrote: » I'm all in favour of representing both sides of the argument, but that is the single most moronic post you've made here to date (yes, even worse than the map with the swastika).
drunken_munky52 wrote: » It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
meglome wrote: » Yawn. EU law has superseded our own since 1972 and shockingly they haven't even attempted to take over. .
meglome wrote: » What would the point be if we agreed to laws which we then didn't need to follow. Imagine you joined the local club, agreed to follow the rules but you didn't want to follow the rules. We can either leave the club or follow the rules we all agreed in advance. Lisbon gives a path to leave the EU so I'd imagine all you anti-EU heads will be voting Yes.
meglome wrote: » So the EU has this police force or some of these country's have their own arrangement? You know like you posted over in the conspiracy theories forum. It's almost like these country's have the democratic right to go off and do stuff on their own. You are full of it btw..
meglome wrote: » It's funny the way you're trying to make people believe the EU is like North Korea, is anyone that stupid?
meglome wrote: » I heard 120% of bus drivers support Lisbon. I do love this making stuff up, you're an inspirational example.
meglome wrote: » And while I'm at it, what has any of this got to do with the Lisbon treaty? It just seems to be about your own personal conspiracy theory with the EU. Still waiting for those sections of the treaty that do the stuff you say... put up or shut up.
Mr E wrote: » Monkey is spelt with an 'o'. And an 'e'.
drunken_munky52 wrote: » And your name is an anagram of REM... now aren't we smart today! BTW, did you steal the E is Monkey? Looks like Malty got the M
Run_to_da_hills wrote: » Yawn on my part, do you honestly think that the EU would try to pull a fast one on this or any nation before a referendum? Read Article 52. If Lisbon is passed the European Charter of Fundamental rights will become legally binding on all Irish and EU citizens. This will allow the EU to do any thing it wants to in these areas. For it can limit and take away our rights any time it pleases.
Run_to_da_hills wrote: » It is not as easy as that after signing a legally binding contract. It would be like the state of Washington wanting to separate itself from the Unite States
Run_to_da_hills wrote: » Reading the Irish Times today we were Warned that Ireland could become police state by a top business man. This is nothing new to me as I have been warning people about the up and coming EU Police State for the last decade. Yawn.
Rath is a controversial figure. The Sunday Times (Johannesburg) has described him as an "international campaigner for the use of natural remedies" whose "theories on the treatment of cancer have been rejected by health authorities all over the world." On HIV/AIDS, Rath has disparaged the pharmaceutical industry and denounced antiretroviral medication as toxic and dangerous, while claiming that his vitamin pills could reverse the course of AIDS. As a result, Rath has been accused of "potentially endangering thousands of lives" in South Africa, a country with a massive AIDS epidemic where Rath was active in the mid-2000s. Rath's claims and methods have been widely criticized by medical organizations, AIDS-activist groups, and the United Nations, among others. Former South African President Thabo Mbeki and former Minister of Health Manto Tshabalala-Msimang have also been criticized by the medical and AIDS-activist community for their perceived support for Rath's claims. According to doctors with Médecins Sans Frontières, the Treatment Action Campaign, a South African AIDS-activist group, and a former Rath colleague, unauthorized clinical trials run by Rath and his associates, using vitamins as therapy for HIV, resulted in deaths of some participants. In 2008, the Cape High Court found the trials unlawful, banned Rath and his foundation from conducting unauthorized clinical trials and from advertising their products, and instructed the South African Health Department to fully investigate Rath's vitamin trials. In 2008, Rath expanded his advertising to Russia, a country where the incidence of HIV/AIDS has been increasing.
Run_to_da_hills wrote: » I would fear living in a modern EU Totalitarian police state with the advanced digital surveillance technology that they have far more than living in any backward communist block country like North Korea or the former Soviet Russia.
Run_to_da_hills wrote: » You must remember Lisbon will eliminate Trial by Jury...
Run_to_da_hills wrote: » ...and will also introduce the death penalty in certain circumstances where it never existed before.
Run_to_da_hills wrote: » How many discontented Taxi Drivers is there throughout the country that had their business almost wiped out by unchecked foreign immigration brought on by Nice? (Just like the fishermen that had their livelihoods wiped out) BTW you trip over Taxi drivers in Dublin these days.
Run_to_da_hills wrote: » I have provided links for just a fraction of that I have mentioned in previous posts. At this time of night I could not be bothered trawling through Google for the official media links however you will find links in most of the alternative news publications on the subjects.
meglome wrote: » So now you're trying to tell me the EU is just biding it's time until after the referendum, even though they've had the same rights since 1972. .
meglome wrote: » And worse you're saying that the Charter of Fundamental Rights which is there to protect EU citizens is out to get them. .
meglome wrote: » The Lisbon treaty makes the EU more accountable (see 10 reason to vote yes in my sig). So if you dislike a policy the EU is implementing then it will be easier to stop it after Lisbon. Of course these digital security directives are not in the Lisbon treaty in the first place and the Irish government has agreed to them. Maybe you should campaign in the correct place to get this changed..
meglome wrote: » The EU strongly opposes the death penalty in all circumstances. or how about this, or maybe let's try this one...
meglome wrote: » He he he he what? Our own government allowed these people to come into the country from the new accession states. Our own government introduced unrestricted taxi plates. What is this, is it blame the EU cause our government are useless day? Maybe people should have a long hard look at themselves and who they have been voting for over the last fifteen years. And P.S I don't like your implied racism.
meglome wrote: » You really have no respect for the Irish people, none whatsoever. You are happy to lie directly to people's faces to suit whatever you're own agenda is. .
meglome wrote: » I'm not sure if you just hate the EU or you are trying to cause chaos or what it is. One thing I can say is you are a liar.
Run_to_da_hills wrote: » The EEC was a simple trading block among nine nations back in 1972 and not the full blown monster that it is of today.
Run_to_da_hills wrote: » Again read the official EU charter for yourself. Art 2. Right to Life Definition 1. Everyone has the right to life. 2. No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed. Legal Explanations 1. Paragraph 1 of this Article is based on the first sentence of Article 2(1) of the ECHR, which reads as follows: 1. 'Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law …' 2. The second sentence of the provision, which referred to the death penalty, was superseded by the entry into force of Article 1 of Protocol No 6 to the ECHR, which reads as follows: ‘The death penalty shall be abolished. No-one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed’. Article 2(2) of the Charter is based on that provision. 3. The provisions of Article 2 of the Charter correspond to those of the above Articles of the ECHR and its Protocol. They have the same meaning and the same scope, in accordance with Article 53(3) of the Charter. Therefore, the ‘negative’ definitions appearing in the ECHR must be regarded as also forming part of the Charter: a) Article 2(2) of the ECHR: ‘Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: in defense of any person from lawful violence; in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.’ b) Article 2 of the Protocol No 6 to the ECHR: ‘A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such a penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…’.
Run_to_da_hills wrote: » These digital surveylance directives may not be specifically written in the European Constitution however they are a very worring concern for anyone residing in the EU.
Run_to_da_hills wrote: » Stop trying to shoehorn racism into the issue, NICE allowed unchecked immigration into Ireland and Lisbon will be far worse.
Run_to_da_hills wrote: » It’s in the interests of all the working people of Europe for Irish workers and trade unionists to vote ‘No’ to Lisbon again on October 2nd.
Run_to_da_hills wrote: » And my agenda is to support the NO campaign to preserve Democracy in this country of ours against this undemocratic totalitarian monster that has crept into every other country in Europe without a ballot.
Run_to_da_hills wrote: » Don't ever call me a LIAR people have got banned for less personal abuse.
theasylumkey wrote: » Strange that......its from the IFO (irish fishermens organisation)http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0320/1224243121561.html im finished debating this with moron's......keep your head up your ar.se chief;)
meglome wrote: » So you're saying when the countries of Europe were all completely independent states it was better? Someone should tell the 30 million people we managed to kill in Europe in the 20th Century. There's nothing in the Lisbon treaty that creates a federalist state, and the German constitutional court agrees with that.
meglome wrote: » So what has this 'monster' forced any EU country to do? I've been asking you that for a couple of weeks now and you still haven't come up with anything.
meglome wrote: » So what has this 'monster' forced any EU country to do? I've been asking you that for a couple of weeks now and you still haven't come up with anything
meglome wrote: » I don't see the problem, you're just proving my point and not to mention this text isn't in the Lisbon treaty. The EU are against the death penalty in all circumstances. But it cannot force EU members to change laws that allow the death penalty in exceptional circumstances, like times of war. How many people have been executed? None? You're saying the EU can force us all to do it's bidding on one hand then on the other hand showing they cannot force these countries to change those laws. And besides your claim was the Lisbon treaty brought in these things, but there is no mention of the death penalty in the Lisbon treaty. Which I have pointed out to you three times.
meglome wrote: » Sorry your post sounded like you were blaming immigrants for the taxi drivers not having jobs. Actually that's exactly how it sounded.
meglome wrote: » So the working people should vote against the organisation that brought in 80% of our workers rights legalisation? Well that would be clever now wouldn't it, talk about cutting your own hand off. Most trade unions are asking for a Yes vote, along with almost every other organisation with an opinion.
meglome wrote: » So all you need to do is show what the EU has ever tried to make an EU country do? I'm only waiting two weeks for it.
meglome wrote: » Tell you what to do, you come up with a word that describes someone who purposely misleads people and I'll call you that instead, as it's exactly what you've shown yourself to be.
PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: » 200,000,000,000 euros in fish taken from our waters! Atonishing! Have you got a link official figures for that?
theasylumkey wrote: » First off i want to offer an aplology for this :rolleyes: insult i laid at your door yesterday, various factors that led me to thhat out burst......i respect your opinion even if i think its misguided & naive. In reference to this part of one of your posts in reply to me......i never mentioned a federalist state......certainly dont think europe was a better place to be when we were all killing each other & i think you will find the 30 million figure death toll was higher you being a figures man. I simply was getting at the fact that there is no denying how the EU is & has always been moving to centralise & unify the entire continent more & more.........has it been good for all of us....YES....do you want it to move continuously in that direction.....NO.....Reason being it will ultimatley end with Europe taking precedence over the interests of any single nation & having the legal & political power to do so from the result of various treatys moving it ever closer in that direction. The Lisbon Treaty is the the river Styx if you want, that once crossed will give an inertia to the union unlike it has had before to proceed with closer unification across the various social & economic sectors & national identities will become more & more dissloved. To answer this again......Ireland has been pressurised into holding Lisbon 2......& dont hit me with this cr.ap that our politicians think it is in our best interest's when the peiople that have been in power for years now have all been proven to be liars, crooks & fraudsters. This treaty is being forced on us whatever way you want to paint up your words to defend it as being done democratically.
PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: » That's a 'No' then...
Originally Posted by PopeBuckfastXVI 200,000,000,000 euros in fish taken from our waters! Atonishing! Have you got a link official figures for that?
