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
How will history record the Lisbon Referendum?
Options
Comments
-
-
No I'm pointing out that the sinister agenda and the subjugation of democracy exists only in your mind and it was placed there quite deliberately by people who hate the EU and want to see its destruction.
That sounds dangerously like the rationale George W. Bush used to fight the "war" on terrorism. The people out there who hate America and hate your freedom!The sad thing is that you can see that you're being lied to but you're siding with the people spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt about evil conspiracies, hidden military agendas and deliberate deceptions to steal power all without an ounce of proof and when someone presents you with actual proof that the EU is not an evil dictatorship you won't accept it because it contradicts the preconceived notions these people have implanted in your mind. The hardest thing in this world to fight is someone's preconceptions
you are being lied to but not by the people you think
You are making a strawman argument. He never once claimed that the EU was an evil dictatorship. If this is your honest perception of what he is claiming then calm down for a second and listen to the very rational arguments being put forward.
The politicians of the EU sought to ratify the EU Constitution by means of democratic referenda, this failed however, as the French and Dutch voters rejected it. What happened then, is that the "legal eagles", went back to the drawing board - suggestedly, so as to consider the concerns of the Fencha and Dutch people. This is what lead to the drafting of the Lisbon Treaty - a document which every single person on the Yes campaign admits, is 95% the same as the rejected EU Constitution. Which every impartial, legal mind in the country states is, in effect, the exact same thing as the EU Constitution. That means that the effects of both would be the exact same - indistinguishable from one another.
So the Lisbon Treaty is the exact same as the EU Constitution, in pretty much all but name - this is indisputable, there is no talking ones way around this.
Indeed, as it is, in effect the exact same thing as the EU Constitution, it means that in effect, it is the exact same thing as was Rejected by French and Dutch voters. Now, if the Lisbon Treaty had indeed, satisfactorily taken into account, the concerns of French and Dutch voters, then the logical and rational thing to do, so as to put it to the acid test, would have been to allow the French and Dutch people to vote on it again - so that they could confirm that this was in all actuality, correct, that their concerns had been addressed.
They were not given this right. In fact, it would have been overwhelmingly in the interests of those promoting the treaty, to see it pass this acid test, as public perception would have been overwhelmingly strong, in favour of the Treaty.
One must ask not only why? But how this was allowed to happen.
If we look at the how first, we can see that the EU Constitution requires a constitutional referendum in nearly every single member state, how then is this constitutional requirement avoided when attempting to ratify a document that is [openly admitted to be] in effect, the exact same as the EU Constitution?
The answer is by means of legal manoevring, and side-stepping, effectively the change of name from the EU Constitution to the Lisbon Treaty, together with a few more minor changes that does not change the actual effect of the legislation.
This is clearly an avoidance of the democratic right of the people. The fact that this was done in France and the Netherlands, after those people had rejected the exact same piece of legislation, through the democratic means of a referendum, makes the move anti-democratic, because the will of the people was heard democratically but ignored.
Also, there was a real and undeniable decision, taken by a majority of EU parliamentarians, to reject the result of the Irish referendum, ever before the people of this country went to the polls. This is the heighth of anti-democratic behaviour.
This is all undeniable, irrefutable and highly verifiable. There is no talking around this, this is fact, cold hard fact, and something that should have been researched, in the same manner as the contents of the treaty, so as to validate or invalidate the claims. Unfortunately however, it would appear that this has been rejected out of hand as lies and conspiracy theories, based on a particular subjective and personal perception of those that made the claims, without applying the same scrutiny to the other side of the debate.
Granted, the number of people may be diminishing, one questions however, if it is too little too late.
If there is any doubt about this, at this late stage of the debate, then it would be advisable to do some serious research, instead of rejecting out of hand the real, and serious claims that are being made, so that their future implications can be considered in a calm, logical and rational manner.
There is no getting away from this, this happened and is happening right now, just because the ramifications of the vindication of such behaviour is being speculated about, based on logical observation of past events to make realistic projections about future events, does not consign the actual real goings on to the realm of conspiracy theories.
If we ratify this treaty, and give legal status and acceptance to this form of anti-democratic behaviour, then the possible repercussions can be projected by looking at past history - just as future financial projections are made based on past economic data.
This of course does not mean that they will actually transpire, but there is real and logical information that suggests it is well and truly within the realms of reality.
The past does not repeat itself, but it rhymes.
Mark Twain
The question then, is whether or not one agrees with such anti-democratic behaviour and whether one is willing to give their ringing endorsement to it, to enshrine its legality in the very law one will have to live by.
OR
Whether one wants to stand up for what is right, and what is good, what is the essence of our freedom - the freedom to choose, the freedom to have our say on the matters that concern us, the freedom to be listened to by democratic means?
Dwight D. Eisenhower
The history of free men is never really written by chance but by choice; their choice!
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905
US (Spanish-born) philosopher (1863 - 1952)
The question can be posed in many ways (because the repercussions are many).
- Do you want to give all remaining power, over the real issues that affect you, to the political class of Europe?
- Do you trust those that would seek to ease the power from the people, anti-democratically, to always have your best interests at heart?
- Do you believe that people will always act in the best interests of others?
- Do you accept the anti-democratic (not undemocratic now) anti-democratic, means that have been used?
There are many many more.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Daftendirekt wrote: »I know I don't. But I do have to ask, why in hell would the member states have spent years drafting the Constitution and the Treaty, waste the time and money it takes to ratify it through their parliaments, and then go to the trouble of giving us legally binding agreements to make the Irish electorate more comfortable with it, if none of this was warranted? For the fun of it?
I don't think the issue of whether or not the treaty will lead to increased efficiency, has ever been denied - the need for it questioned yes, but not whether or not it will actually lead to increased efficiency.
The thing about increased efficiency, is that while in an idealistic sense it sounds good, it makes no inferences about the how good the decisions that are reached, will be. It merely states that they will be arrived at more quickly and with less waste. If the decisions that are being made are in fact bad ones, that merely compounds the situation, as it means that the negative effects will be felt sooner.
To paraphrase the Simpsons:
Homer: there are 3 ways to do things, the right way, the wrong way and the max power way.
Bart: yea, but isn't the max power way just the wrong way, only quicker
Homer: Yes
Therefore, when we consider the benefits of efficiency, we must also consider the track record when it comes to decision making and practical action taken. While indeed the track record shows a period of long and sustained economic growth, it does however culminate in a major economic crash. Now we can point to the fact that it was a global downturn, this of course is irrelevant, as we need to consider what part we played, and whether we were a help or a hinderance. I think it is obvious we didn't exactly help the situation. Now, we may indeed learn from this, but it is still a track record that must be considered - if we are being asked to consider the track record that is.
As the new, legal EU entity would involve a much greater level of legislation (due to increased efficiency), in a wider range of areas, apart from just economic ones, we must also examine its track record when it comes to those. For example, democracy. Again, we appear to have a very clear track record of strong diplomacy, and upholding of democratic principles, however, it all culminates in a rather worrying, and undeniable abdication to clearly anti-democratic actions. It appears to be in the context of desperate times requiring desperate measures, however, that would surely be a questionable justification for the abdication of democratic principles - and indeed one that has clear consequences, as can be seen with even the slightest consideration given to world history.
Also, its track record when it comes to business vs people, the rights of the unborn, and militarisation must be considered. Indeed for the track record when it comes to both, businees vs people and the rights of the unborn, EU Case history must be considered - I will not go into that here, as I am not well versed enough to discuss the various cases.
One interesting area however, is that of militarisation, as it would, for the first time, be given full legal status under a new political union, with the new decision making powers - namely residing fully and completely with the political leaders as opposed to having some power reside with the people. This would allow the political leaders to make decisions (more efficiently) in this regard, without the need to consult the people - as the right to change "the contract", after it has been signed, would be fully legal and in accordance with the constitutions of each member state - especially Ireland, as it would become the "will of the people".
Now, the EU does have a relatively good track record when it comes to its military, as its comptencies have largely been with regard to peacekeeping missions. This of course could bode well for the future development of military capabilites through out Europe.
We must of course hope that the track record of the EU, when it comes to economic decisions, wouldn't be repeated in relation to militarisation. It may be of concern to some people that much of the focus of the EDA appears to be on the arms market, even referring to its member states as "shareholders".
The Agency faces outwards. Its main “shareholders” are the Member States participating in the Agency; key stakeholders include the Council and the Commission as well as third parties such as OCCAR (fr. Organisation Conjointe de Coopération en matière d'ARmement), LoI (Letter of Intent) and NATO. The Agency has a special relationship with Norway (through an “Administrative Arrangement”).
http://www.eda.europa.eu/genericitem.aspx?area=Background&id=122
We must hope that given the very real power to act on "serious international tension, constituting a threat of war", that the same kind of liberal attitude, as was taken with regard to economic policies, wouldn't be taken with regard to the development of weaponry, and that it would be done a very pragmatic approach with the sole purpose being defence - although with a clear focus on the arms market this could again create some conflicts of interests.
Also, given the wording of the treaty, with the particular wording "serious international tension", one must take into account the seriousness in nature of the tension with Iran, and at what pooint they may "constitute a threat of war", or indeed if they do so already. The very hasty nature that the EU seems eager to adopt with regard to militarisation, as can be seen with the legal rquirement for bi-annual meeting to monitor the progress of the member states, one may also question whether this could all just be a fait accompli.
Either way, lets hope wouldn't lead us back to the EU's now established track record of abdicating from democratic principles, and applying desperate measures, in desperate times. One must also wonder, in the event that such a scenario were to develop, would we once again be asked to consider the EUs track records, when it comes to following common defence principles?
Fingers crossed!The Lisbon Treaty wrote:
Article 297
Member States shall consult each other with a view to taking together the steps needed to prevent the functioning of the internal market being affected by measures which a Member State may be called upon to take in the event of serious internal disturbances affecting the maintenance of law and order, in the event of war, serious international tension constituting a threat of war, or in order to carry out obligations it has accepted for the purpose of maintaining peace and international security.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDA2uk8cpVk
Advertisement