End of Nations - EU Takeover & the Lisbon Treaty

Danuogma

End of Nations - EU Takeover & the Lisbon Treaty

Essential viewing:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4291770489472554607&hl=en

Overheal

3 minutes in - must say im intrigued. I'll keep you informed.

CCCP^

Jesus Christ Tony Blair as EU President...

humanji

Wait, Tony Blair is Jesus? F*ck me, politics just got interesting!

GhostInTheRuins

I watched this last night but really don't know enough information about the treaty to know if what they're claiming is true.

Monotype

Gasp! I think we're screwed.

D.T. Jesus wrote: »

I watched this last night but really don't know enough information about the treaty to know if what they're claiming is true.

I think that's one of the major points. It's deliberately misleading and difficult to obtain information.

Mahatma coat

watched most of this last night, crashed with about 10 min left, some very interestin points made in the video.

so when we elect MEP's it is basicly pointless as they have little to no say in how Europe is governed, accordin to these guys those who are elected to represent us are vetoed by a bunch of civil servants who's job is to decide whether the legislation being put forward is good or bad, we dont get to question the civil servants, or even know their names.

Ireland is the only country in europe having a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, but apparently france has already voted no to it in a previous incarnation.

I think a single constitution for Europe is probably a goo thing, I dont like the look of this one tho.

Qualified majority voting, well didnt we already concede this one when they forced the Nice Treaty to a revote, the way the video pitches it is exactly as was outlined in the No2Nice2 campaign, and the loss of our commisioner, tho y'll find that the population is so used to rollin over at this stage that this will pass, there will be a very hazy 'Just vote Yes, dont be askin Questions' campaign from the government and the usual bunch of 'Crazies' shouting out that we all need to open our eyes, which is true, but will be ignored by the masses in favour of the Govt's simple and catchy slogan


3000 Workin Groups tho, thats an awful lot of Lizzards:eek:

meathstevie

Folks, from a historical point of view : I don't realy understand what the big deal is with the power at "state" level being eroded. Even looking over the last couple of centuries we've had absolute monarchies, constitutional monarchies, republics, all sorts of dodgy dictatorships, etc, etc... .

What I do know for a fact though is that Europe has never been as prosperous or stable as it has been since the conception of NATO at the end of WWII and the construction of a European supra-national structure since the 1950's. Of course there's a serious problem with a "democratic deficit" in the EU in relation to the role of the commission and it's relation with the parliament but that's nothing that can't be fixed. In a way there isn't even a democratic deficit depending on the angle you take because all EU-member governments are elected through democratic elections and the structure and powers of the EU are negotiated by these governments.

Personally I'd reserve my worries for the extremely powerfull position a handfull of multinational companies and banks occupy. And as we all know they realy behave like deranged psychopaths for a couple of pennies more.

minidazzler

My main problems with this is that
a) It is just one more rung on the Ladder to a OWG (One World Government)
b) It could have a very bad effect on out neutrality. Our boys should not die for something so pointless.

is_that_so

minidazzler wrote: »

My main problems with this is that
a) It is just one more rung on the Ladder to a OWG (One World Government)
b) It could have a very bad effect on out neutrality. Our boys should not die for something so pointless.

If it's going to be OWG why do we need to be neutral?
The nation state is a 19th century notion which does not serve us well any more. History like everything else moves on.

Neutrality is an archaic convenience for governments not to have take any hard decisions.
In the 21st century it is akin to sticking your head in the sand. We cannot opt out of life any more and it is infinitely preferable to be part than to jump up and down and shout "conspiracy".

bonkey

is_that_so wrote: »

Neutrality is an archaic convenience for governments not to have take any hard decisions.
In the 21st century it is akin to sticking your head in the sand.

So thats why the Swiss have unarmed soldiers acting as observers on the Korean border, and why they often act as the intermediary between the US and Iran....

Its because they're ignoring the whole thing, sticking their head in the sand, avoiding any hard decisions and "opting out" of the world!!!!

Sometimes, mediators are needed, and mediators cannot pick sides.

Neutrality will become purely an 'archaic convenience' when there are no longer opposing sides.

Our man in Havana

Why are FF and FG supporting this crock o' sh1te?

oscarBravo

Why not? What's wrong with it?

Our man in Havana

An unelected president of Europe for starters.

oscarBravo

The treaty would create no such position. The existing position of President of the European Council, often referred to as the "President-in-Office", which is rotated every six months between the member states, would instead be elected every two and a half years by a qualified majority of the European Council.

In other words, the treaty converts an existing role from an unelected to an elected one.

Next.

Our man in Havana

However it is still not elected by the citizens of Europe which is the main issue imho. The European council is yet another unelected body. As stated earlier MEPs are a waste of time as they have no powers as the EU is really run by unelected civil servants.

This is really a matter for politics. But a big NO vote will be coming from me and a good few others I should think in May/June/whenever.

oscarBravo

Bond-007 wrote: »

However it is still not elected by the citizens of Europe which is the main issue imho. The European council is yet another unelected body. As stated earlier MEPs are a waste of time as they have no powers as the EU is really run by unelected civil servants.

As is so often the case, what I'm seeing here is someone voting "no" to the Lisbon Treaty on the grounds that although it's an improvement, it's an improvement to something they've already got a problem with, so they can't bring themselves to endorse the improvement.

Now, maybe it's just me, but I don't see the logic in voting "no" to a treaty that will make the EU more democratic, when your problem with the EU is that it's not democratic enough.

Bond-007 wrote: »

This is really a matter for politics. But a big NO vote will be coming from me and a good few others I should think in May/June/whenever.

There's already a thread on the topic in Politics, but if you want to discuss it there, you'll have to stick to the facts of the treaty itself rather than ill-informed scaremongering.

Jocksereire

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's already a thread on the topic in Politics, .

link?? i cant find it.

oscarBravo

It's here. I don't know why you couldn't find it, it's on the first page and clearly titled.

Feel free to participate in it, but bear in mind that Politics is a strictly moderated forum. Note especially that any claims about the catastrophic consequences of the treaty must be supported with reference to the treaty itself. Note also that the thread is discussing the treaty specifically, and general EU-bashing is not acceptable.

Jocksereire

aha now i know why i cant find it.....im banned surely that ban should be lifted by now OB? ill be a good boy i promise!

oscarBravo

I'd forgotten that I had banned you. Considering the original ban was as a result of promoting conspiracy theories in Politics, I suggest you think carefully about what you post there in future.

Oh, and next time you reply "You can piss off" to a ban notification, you can rest assured the ban will be permanent.

Trev M

Way to wield that mouse of justice!:D

Ekancone

Danuogma wrote: »

End of Nations - EU Takeover & the Lisbon Treaty

Essential viewing:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4291770489472554607&hl=en

Is there really eerie music to go with the movie and lots of shots fading in and out on the face of Tony Blair? Any connotaions of Nazism? Are the Jews involved?

oscarBravo

I tried to watch it, I really did. Three minutes in, I'd lost count of the factual errors and blatant lies. I can't suffer through any more.

Ekancone

oscarBravo wrote: »

I tried to watch it, I really did. Three minutes in, I'd lost count of the factual errors and blatant lies. I can't suffer through any more.

Is it that bad? I watched that Loose Change movie before. Not only factually inaccurate but the 'evidence' contrdicts itself over and over again.

jetski

Firm no from me.


if you dont have time to watch this whole video, atleast watch 1:18 till 1:21

oscarBravo

The bit about the Parliament holding a vote on whether to respect the outcome of the Irish referendum?

The parliament voted against that proposal, because it knew perfectly well that it had absolutely no authority to make such a determination. The outcome of the Irish referendum is binding, whatever the Parliament says. Thankfully, the majority of the MEPs realised this and voted against the ridiculous motion.

The only reason for the motion to have been put forward in the first place was to be able to say that it was voted down, so that gullible people would believe that the Parliament was trying to deny Ireland's right to a vote.

If this is your reason for a "firm no", I respectfully suggest that you should do a hell of a lot more research than simply watching a blatantly biased video that's packed with lies and falsehoods.

jetski

LOL @ oscarBravo

oscarBravo

Wow. I'm convinced.

jetski

goodman yourself

Ekancone

A classical CT debate...

jetski

No im not debating, to be honest i havent a clue what yourman is on about...

oscarBravo

I'll make a video next time.

oscarBravo

But seriously - if you don't understand what I said, you should refrain from voting, because - with all due respect - you haven't a clue what you're voting on.

jetski

:rolleyes:

oscarBravo

Another devastating argument.

Ekancone

oscarBravo wrote: »

Another devastating argument.

How can such elegant discourse be overcome? It's not possible. All hail The Great One!

jetski

Listen mate i dont know why you keep trying to talk to me

Ekancone

jetski wrote: »

Listen mate i dont know why you keep trying to talk to me

Silence, you fools! Our overlord speaks!

bonkey

oscarBravo wrote: »

If this is your reason for a "firm no", I respectfully suggest that you should do a hell of a lot more research than simply watching a blatantly biased video that's packed with lies and falsehoods.

Following on this, the issue isn't whether or not the video is blatantly biased or not, whether is an accurate account or not.

The problem is that too many people - pro- and contra- any issue take their information only from sources arguing one side of the argument, or make up their minds prior to reading/judging the arguments of both sides in the first place.

If you've decided its a scam before you do your research, then you're not doing research. If you've decided its a good thing before you do your research, then you're also not doing research.

Either which way...if you think that any one source is going to give you a fair and balanced account...you're not doing research.

Ekancone

bonkey wrote: »

Following on this, the issue isn't whether or not the video is blatantly biased or not, whether is an accurate account or not.

The problem is that too many people - pro- and contra- any issue take their information only from sources arguing one side of the argument, or make up their minds prior to reading/judging the arguments of both sides in the first place.

If you've decided its a scam before you do your research, then you're not doing research. If you've decided its a good thing before you do your research, then you're also not doing research.

Either which way...if you think that any one source is going to give you a fair and balanced account...you're not doing research.

Hear! Hear!

Our man in Havana

As currently proposed, the new President of the European Council would be elected for a two and a half year term. The election would take place by a qualified majority among the members of the body, and the President can be removed by the same procedure. Unlike the President of the European Commission, there is no approval from the European Parliament.

That makes the MEP's more impotent.

There have been some calls for direct elections to take place to give the President a mandate, this would strengthen the post within the Council allowing for stronger leadership in addition to addressing the question of democratic legitimacy in the EU.

+1

Mahatma coat

oscarBravo wrote: »

I tried to watch it, I really did. Three minutes in, I'd lost count of the factual errors and blatant lies. I can't suffer through any more.

Right, hows about you outline these factual errors and blatent lies, then post what you believe to be the actual truth of the matter?

maybe start with the 3 whole minutes you watched and go from there.

oscarBravo

I'll try to bring myself to watch it again later and do that.

jetski

Should be funny

oscarBravo

Why, are you planning to contribute something intelligent?

oscarBravo

Right, let's see.

First, the narrator's introduction:

1. "...[the drafters] made the treaty unreadable..." - no, it's not. It's not exactly in plain English, but it can be (and has been) read, and understood.
2. "...and deceptive..." - it's a treaty - a legal document - how can it be deceptive?
3. "Their actions to hide the true intentions of the treaty..." - a treaty can have no intentions other than those set out in it.
4. "...this treaty... will end democracy..." - hyperbole much? A ridiculous assertion.
5. "This is the biggest threat to Ireland since we won our independence..." - it's an amending treaty to a number of other treaties we've already signed up to. It streamlines the operation of existing institutions. It makes aspects of the EU more democratic. It confers no new exclusive competences on the EC. Biggest threat? Please.

Jens-Peter Bonde:

1. "They tried to avoid [a referendum] in Ireland..." - rubbish. Ireland can't ratify an EU treaty without a referendum, since the Crotty case. This is well-known, and nobody can "try to avoid" a referendum.
2. "...your courts are too independent..." - implying that other countries are not having referenda because the courts are under the thumbs of their governments.
3. "...the treaty has not been read by the prime ministers..." - excuse me? Hasn't been read by them? They wrote the damn thing!
4. "...it can't be read" - it can, and it has.
5. "This is not a treaty" - um, it is, actually.
6. This is 300 pages of amendments to 3000 other pages of treaties" - yes, it's an amending treaty. What was your point?
7. "...not allowed for any EU institution to print a consolidated version... before it was approved..." - so how come I've read a consolidated version?

That takes me up to the three minute mark.

jetski

LoL

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why, are you planning to contribute something intelligent?

jetski wrote: »

LoL

Question asked, question answered.

bonkey

oscarBravo wrote: »

First, the narrator's introduction:
"...[the drafters] made the treaty unreadable..."
"...and deceptive..."
"Their actions to hide the true intentions of the treaty..."
"...this treaty... will end democracy..."

Forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but does the second, third and fourth claim here not automatically invalidate the first?

How is the narrator able to tell us about the content of a treaty as well as claiming that it cannot be read???

Moving on to Jens-Peter Bonde, we see the same :

"...it can't be read"
This is 300 pages of amendments to 3000 other pages of treaties"

Yet another genius who is able to tell us what the content is of something they claim cannot be read. Is Mr. Bonde guessing at the content? Is he making up what he thinks the content might be? Or is he refuting his own claim that it cannot be read?

Mahatma coat

I took the 'it cant be read' statement to mean that its not as of itself a standalone document but just a list of reference points to other documents which make up the core of the legislation, this treaty is just supposed to consolidate all the other stuff,

# "...the treaty has not been read by the prime ministers..." - excuse me? Hasn't been read by them? They wrote the damn thing!

really, so Bertie and his mates from around Europe sat down one weekend and wrote this thing, not the thousands of faceless working groups.

the points of interest for me from the docco are Habeas Corpus and the loss of our EU comissioner