Upcoming Events

National | EU

no events match your query!

Blog Feeds

Spirit of Contradiction

offsite link The Party and the Ballot Box Sun Jul 14, 2019 22:24 | Gavin Mendel-Gleason

offsite link On The Decline and Fall of The American Empire and Socialism Sat Jan 26, 2019 01:52 | S. Duncan

offsite link What is Dogmatism and Why Does It Matter? Wed Mar 21, 2018 08:10 | Sylvia Smith

offsite link The Case of Comrade Dallas Mon Mar 19, 2018 19:44 | Sylvia Smith

offsite link Review: Do Religions Evolve? Mon Aug 14, 2017 19:54 | Dara McHugh

Spirit of Contradiction >>

Public Inquiry
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005

offsite link Elaine Byrne: Lacking moral courage to name names

offsite link Real democracies and referendums Anthony

offsite link Public Services Card: Some still forced to comply Anthony

offsite link Catholic Church: Dark influence still active Anthony

offsite link Tom Parlon launches new career in comedy Anthony

Public Inquiry >>

The Saker
A bird's eye view of the vineyard

offsite link The Coronavirus and Galileo Thu Apr 02, 2020 02:00 | The Saker
by Jimmie Moglia for The Saker Blog As the following content may be controversial, I do not pretend to truth, even to the truth of him whose thought and findings

offsite link Quick update from the Saker Thu Apr 02, 2020 01:52 | The Saker
Dear friends, I am rather exhausted (not COVID10-related) and I will take a couple of days off to recuperate and think about a number of issues. I will let you

offsite link Corona repeating 9/11 & Y2K hysterias? Both saw huge economic overreactions Wed Apr 01, 2020 19:25 | amarynth
By Ramin Mazaheri – for The Saker Blog Looking back, why was there such a huge, swift economic collapse after 9/11? Doesn?t it seem to have been totally unjustified? After

offsite link Oil Price Rises After Trump Phones Putin Tue Mar 31, 2020 23:26 | amarynth
by Gary Littlejohn for The Saker Blog The recent rapid decline in oil prices may now be coming to a halt as Trump and Putin agreed in a recent phone

offsite link Landlord class: Waive or donate rent-profits now or fear the Cultural Revolution Tue Mar 31, 2020 17:58 | amarynth
By Ramin Mazaheri for The Saker Blog While the concept of class warfare is verboten and greeted with expressions of bewilderment and fear in the West, at least now everyone

The Saker >>

Human Rights in Ireland
A Blog About Human Rights

offsite link Human Rights Fri Mar 20, 2020 16:33 | Human Rights

offsite link Turkish President Calls On Greece To Comply With Human Rights on Syrian Refugee Issues Wed Mar 04, 2020 17:58 | Human Rights

offsite link US Holds China To Account For Human Rights Violations Sun Oct 13, 2019 19:12 | Human Rights

offsite link UN Human Rights Council Should Address Human Rights Crisis in Cambodia Sat Aug 31, 2019 13:41 | Human Rights

offsite link Fijian women still face Human Rights violations Mon Aug 26, 2019 18:49 | Human Rights

Human Rights in Ireland >>

The Lisbon Treaty

category national | eu | opinion/analysis author Wednesday April 15, 2009 13:44author by Richard Whelanauthor email whelanno-1 at hotmail dot com Report this post to the editors

Why we should vote Yes to ensure Irish national interests- and how a second No vote would be at odds with Irish interests

The Lisbon Treaty was rejected by Irish voters last year, amidst the backdrop of an inept Government, a No campaign run by vested interests and a general level of ignorance as regards content of the Treaty. These are the reasons why we should vote Yes, why we shouldn't trust No campaigners and how the Lisbon Treaty is our ticket to a more transparent and democratic Europe, with Ireland at the centre of a stronger EU.

The day of June 12th last year was decision time for the Irish electorate on the Lisbon Treaty, a redesigned and updated version of the previous EU Constitution, created in large parts during the 2004 Irish Presidency of the EU but further rejected by the French and Dutch electorates. Ireland, the most Europhile country in the Union, was to be the only country to have a referendum on the Treaty and while this augered well for the possibility of the Treaty being passed, vested interests, an inept Government, and a simple lack of knowledge on what the Treaty entailed were to swing the result to a categoric No vote (winning by a margin of just under 8%).
The implications for such a decision are far reaching both for Ireland and Europe. As the recession grips tighter and trade and employment levels fall dramatically, it does Ireland no harm in being part of the largest economy in the world and part of the world's most stable currency, ensuring a bank solvency that would have not been possible under the old Irish punt (our banks would have went the same way as Iceland's- total collapse). For the European Union, it now means that as things stand, no candidate countries can be allowed membership. There is simply no scope for more countries due to the limitations of governance that are operated under the Nice Treaty. The EU is now at a standstill in relation to reform of major institutions such as the Commission and Parliament, with no way of rectifying this situation for the forseeable future.
There has been nowhere near the required level of debate on this huge issue up to date. The decision of 862,000 voters to speak on behalf of almost 500 million EU citizens, but who voted in huge numbers with ignorance as to what the Treaty entailed, must be viewed more critically. While I will be rightly reminded that this is the democratic will of the Irish people, democracy is surely not fulfilled by the decision of a tiny minority to vote for the vast majority of EU citizens, who's parliamentarians in 23 countries have ratified it already. The level of misinformation spread on the Treaty, and the degree of ignorance as regards the content of the Treaty among the Irish electorate, means that a second referendum is a must. After all, would anyone want to sign a contract with a final decision with no level of knowledge as to what they are signing on?
For anyone looking objectively on the Treaty, a Yes vote will ensure a fairer, more democratic Europe, with small countries like Ireland having a much bigger say in areas of defence and foreign policy. The European Parliament is to have a much greater role in creating EU legislation and will have greater control over the EU budget. A clause which allows for the inclusion of national parliaments in the decision making process at a European level will counter the current democratic deficit, along with the enhanced role of our elected European representatives. The Charter of Fundamental Rights would become legally binding, further enhancing the freedoms which we have grown used to in recent decades. It would lead to an increased level of cooperation between Member States in areas of energy, environment, security, transportation, social/economic policy. The provision for a European Defence Agency will lead to a greater role for European peacekeeping missions in the world's poorest countries suffering from conflict, in the face of the often inefficient and ineffectual UN missions.
So why say no? All of this makes for an Ireland in a far stronger EU that is more democratic, cooperative, and with a stronger role in world affairs. This of course is where the vested interests mentioned earlier come in. Libertas, the anti Lisbon advocacy group was at the centre of the No campaign in the run up to the referendum and it's charismatic founder Declan Ganley received much media attention, attention that should have been on the contents of the Treaty. Declan Ganley for many years has listed himself as a British citizen, and as CEO of Rivada Networks, has provided for many years cellular telecommunications technology to the US military. This network was also involved in bidding for a license to operate a cellular network in Iraq. Libertas has up to this date refused to disclose information on it's funding sources, and Declan Ganley has previously written for a conservative US policy think-tank which states that it is “devoted to bringing the insights of scholarship to bear on the development of policies that advances US national interests.” Can we honestly say that we trust this man and his organisation, in informing us of Ireland and Europe's best interests? I know that I certainly don't.
Other advocates of the No vote included Sinn Féin, CORI, the People Before Profit Alliance and the British media. Sinn Féin, I'm sure, were chuffed when they found themselves celebrating in the EU Parliament with the Eurosceptic British right wing, who of course find much in common with the Republican values of Sinn Féin. CORI gained support from mostly conservative, old rural voters by spreading outrageous lies regarding abortion rights and the Treaty, of which there is no clause as the EU Commission believe such issues to be the decisions of national governments and not the European Union. In the run up to the referendum, the People Before Profit Alliance stated that democracy would be eroded, with less decision making by the Irish people and an erosion of Ireland's neutrality. As already stated, the democratic process will be greatly enhance by the Lisbon Treaty, and any peacekeeping mission which Ireland is to participate in will require the permission of the Dáil. In our current state, our neutrality is already being eroded by the continued US military presence at Shannon and would be a much more worthwhile issue for People Before Profit to concentrate on. The British media of course have long had an anti EU agenda, which they see as detrimental to Britain's position as a world power. Britain has always had an arrogant attitude towards the EU seeing themselves as superior to the Continent. Considering our long history with this side of Britain, it would surely be a real irony and tragedy of Irish history that after so many centuries of struggle for independance, we get sucked in foolishly by the very people who opressed us beforehand, and who utilise us to further their own agendas.
The second referendum of the Lisbon Treaty gives us a chance to redeem ourselves both as Irish and European citizens. By voting Yes, we are ensuring our continued place at the heart of Europe, the largest economic market in the world and an increasing player around the world, acting as a counter to the dominant US in world affairs. We are ensuring cooperation with our neighbours in facing the ever mounting challenges of the 21st century world- terrorism, climate change, a looming energy crisis, conflict and demographic change. By voting No, we are ensuring our place as a small island off the coast of Britain, with very little say on anything (with credibility down to nil). The EU would bail us out if we became bankrupt- something that would not happen with our diminished role in Europe. By voting No, we are serving the interests of the right wing, who's interest lies in profit, the erosion of worker's rights and in some cases the pursuit of US national interests. It is of paramount importance for our nation's future that we are part of a stronger, more transparent European Union- something the Lisbon Treaty will ensure.

Related Link: http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/glance/index_en.htm
author by Jimbobpublication date Wed Apr 15, 2009 15:24author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Our credibility in Europe?

Yeah, right. the red herrings are the stalest of fish.

That's like forever telling your girlfirend/boyrfriend that they should never disagree with you, as it would weaken the relationship, and they would lose face and credibility.

What type of credibility would WE, THE PEOPLE of Ireland have if we bent over for our untrustworthy government to increase the powers of the untrustworthy and unaccountable EU?

Setting limits and boundaries for them is what is needed, not what must be avoided because it will be awkward.

Let them throw their tantrums, and spit their bile, but in the end, FECK THEM.
They have to learn when NO means NO.

author by worried onepublication date Wed Apr 15, 2009 15:40author address author phone Report this post to the editors


Richard Whelan, a recently retired senior partner in an international financial services company, is a member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies and the Belgian Royal Institute for International Relations.

If the answer is "yes", well, then I can completely understand why Richard is so upset by his fellow citizens' decision :)

author by Séamuspublication date Wed Apr 15, 2009 16:22author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Other advocates of the No vote included Sinn Féin, CORI, ...

Don't you mean Cóir? If you can't get a simple piece of information like the name of an organisation correct then what hope is there for the rest of that article?

author by Bazooka Joepublication date Wed Apr 15, 2009 16:38author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"Richard Whelan, a recently retired senior partner in an international financial services company..."

We should keep following the same tired old instruction from International Financiers that has landed us in the present financial crisis?

The "Belgian Royal Institute for International Relations" you refer to is EGMONT?


This EGMONT propaganda is what one would expect from a mouthpiece for the European political elite who want us to vote them into a position of unaccountable power over us.

These financiers and political elite have never had the interests of the people at heart nor do they now.


author by Democratpublication date Wed Apr 15, 2009 17:51author address author phone Report this post to the editors

A vote for the Lisbon Treaty is a vote for state tyranny that will benefit a few (for a while at least maybe), and bring misery to many.

Nein Danke!!

author by Christo_Rey - n/apublication date Wed Apr 15, 2009 18:41author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"...The European Union was accused of “contempt for democracy” on Sunday after it emerged that hundreds of members of a new diplomatic service are being trained - even though the Lisbon Treaty that creates it has not come into effect..."


Anyone who casts a yes vote for Lisbon is a traitor to the Irish nation ,an enemy of democracy and dare I say it ,as dumb as a bag of hammers.


author by Melpublication date Wed Apr 15, 2009 21:03author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"... the Lisbon Treaty is our ticket to a more transparent and democratic Europe ..."

This statement appears to me as the biggest piece of misleading nonsense I've come across in a long time.

I believe the exact opposite is true, and that the sooner the Lisbon Treaty and the blades of the shredding machine come into contact with each other the better.

What we need (I believe) is a European Union of Soverign Democratic States: not a group of puppet states controlled and run by unelected, know-it-all despotic dictators who have deluded themselves into believing they should be allowed to do everybody's thinking for them, because they arrogantly believe (or pretend to believe) they know what's best for everybody -- and that anybody who significantly resists their arrogance fully deserves to end up being criminalised, and imprisoned as well possibly.

We already have far too much bullying by our own so called "public servants" it seems to me, and it's in the opposite direction that we need to be moving.

author by Ronocpublication date Wed Apr 15, 2009 21:22author address author phone Report this post to the editors

And smell the cornflakes! If you look into the history of the EU and what its about you wouldnt be peddaling a Yes vote.

"The decision of 862,000 voters to speak on behalf of almost 500 million EU citizens"

Firstly the Lisbon is NOT Democratic because nobody can understand it and it can be bent to mean several different things. Secondly, France and Holland voted NO, they changed the name from a constitution to a Treaty and then the Irish voted NO, no other countries in Europe where given a chance to decide by the people, it was a parlimentary ratification.
So 862,000 voters voted No, Why not give th rest of the EUs peoples to vote then????

Voting Yes to the treaty will not get us out of the recession. The recession was created by the bankers and the only way out is to control our own money supply. Is the European Central bank run by the Government or is it privatly owned???

"The level of misinformation spread on the Treaty" - there was not much information at all spread, the government peddaled a Yes vote but the meida was biased towards a Yes. All they said was thats its good, Europe is good, but the No side actually had points to make the Yes side side didnt.

Any how just wake up....

author by Taggerpublication date Thu Apr 16, 2009 00:39author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Bad enough in this country at the moment with that crowd of Dysfunctional Morans who have run the country into the ground,and all thy do is fire cheap shots at each other across the floor like school children, do I want a larger version of this NO.

Next time same again for me No.

author by kh - nmnpublication date Thu Apr 16, 2009 01:55author address author phone Report this post to the editors

That Mr A should try to convince Mr B to think in Mr A's terms because doing so is in Mr A's interests and then for Mr A to tell mr B doing so is in Mr B's own interests too is how crazy this whole thing has become.

It is alarming to see the misinformation being published. I refer to other recent media activity by a group calling itself Irelandfuture.ie, which claims its raison d'etre is to explain "what the Lisbon Treaty is all about and why its so important".

I refer readers to the link for further detail.

Related Link: http://www.newsmedianews.com/headlines.php
author by Baggiepublication date Thu Apr 16, 2009 09:36author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"The decision of 862,000 voters to speak on behalf of almost 500 million EU citizens"

The reason we 'spoke' was because the other governments decided that they couldn't trust their own people to have a vote. A denial of democracy. Which, as it happens, is exactly what the Lisbon Treaty is about.

author by Richard Whelanpublication date Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:47author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I apologise sincerely for mixing up the names of Core and CORI, that was a dreadful mistake.

It really amuses me to think that someone googles my name and automatically assumes that's me. I doubt that any Belgian banker would want to write for Indymedia! I am an ordinary Irish citizen voicing my opinion on an issue. I do not work for anyone, or represent anyone but myself. By the way, if you google my name some more you may notice I was stabbed on a London bus a few years ago.

Some points made there were very good. It is of course strange that other countries do not vote. I will however point people to a 1987 Irish Supreme Court ruling stating that all EU treaties requiring change to the Constitution must go to referendum. This is the wishes of our highest court and we respect that obviously. The Constitutions of other countries however, which were not made in the last 10 minutes, state that if the Treaty is passed by Parliament (which is in theory representing the people and their interests?) then it is passed.

Tell me, when you vote in June for your European Member of Parliament, can you see the face of your candidate? Can you see the party they represent? With Lisbon, your member of Parliament will have much greater control over legislation and how money is spent. People also have no regard for the clause including national parliaments in the legislative process. This idea of faceless bureaucrats in Brussels, while it has some truth to it at the moment, will certainly be less true with more power given to elected representatives.

If someone can, using clauses from the Treaty, make their argument against it, I am more than willing to listen.

author by Richard Whelanpublication date Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:50author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Is there no one who wants to express an opinion on the advocacy groups on the No side?

Mr. Ganley really represents our people.

author by Freedom is popular.publication date Thu Apr 16, 2009 13:25author address author phone Report this post to the editors

There is only one reason why the People of Ireland should vote a resounding no to Lisbon and any re-hashed Treaty will still overrule the Constitution of this Country.

I have got four separate Legal opinions on this and all four said that the Irish Constitution will be overruled if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified.
So, ANY renegotiated Treaty is simply not good enough for this Country as we will be serfs in a Totalitarian United States of Europe.

I say this to any Libertas Candidates who intend to run for Local or European elections. I will support ANY Party or Independent if they sign an Affidavit to the effect that they will NEVER support ANY re-hashed Lisbon Treaty.

And no,we can't be shoved further out into the Atlantic into isolation for voting NO..There is no JCB big enough.

author by Killianpublication date Thu Apr 16, 2009 14:14author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"If someone can, using clauses from the Treaty, make their argument against it, I am more than willing to listen."

I don't know of anybody who claims to understand the Lisbon Treaty overall (whatever about the individual fragments of it contained in its separate clauses); and there is a long string of "high profilers" out there who have tried to understand it overall apparently, and who publicly claim they can't make "head nor tail" of the whole thing as an integral document.

And, it's the overall package that counts I believe: not selected fragments to suit fragmented (i.e. corrupt) arguments.

Worst of all perhaps for the Lisbon Treaty though, are the many credible claims in circulation to the effect that it was very deliberately designed by its authors to fool people (as in "blinding them with bullshit") for obfuscation purposes -- i.e. to confuse, bewilder, and stupefy -- so that the authors and their cronies can then slyly and unnoticed move on to indulging themselves in even bigger orgies of political, legal, and corporate corruption (protected by their normal IMPUNITY facilities no doubt) than the ones we've already got running at the present time: and which would include bigger and better wars of course, the very best source of all apparently for the vast profits that the greed-ridden global bankers are obviously now fully addicted to, and absolutely must have (for their next "fix").

Lisbon Treaty, Obfuscation:

author by LisbonMyAsspublication date Thu Apr 16, 2009 14:58author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Are the OTHER nations going to vote again then? Cos surely we all have to vote on the SAME treaty?

No, it is not being re-drafted, and re-ratified, it is being swaddled in lies (declarations) which have NO LEGAL STANDING, i.e. they are merely for the benefit of fools seeking reassurance.

It's the SAME treaty. We already said NO.

author by Ronocpublication date Thu Apr 16, 2009 19:00author address author phone Report this post to the editors


Is a very helpful site on informing people about the Treaty. Many of the patrons of the site will be know and you will find many articles and press statements. The site basically says the want a more democratic EU and the Lisbon treaty will make the EU less democratic. have a look and pass it on to all you know...

Related Link: http://www.people.ie
author by Lanapublication date Sun Apr 19, 2009 21:06author address author phone Report this post to the editors

This article contains several bits and pieces of imformation on the EU which seem worthy of consideration.

On immunity for example (and if true), the following seems really bad from the viewpoint of preventing corruption in the EU, and may explain plenty:

"In the territory of each member State and whatever their nationality, officials and other servants of the Communities shall...be immune from legal proceedings in respect of acts performed by them in their official capacity, including their words spoken or written. They shall continue to enjoy this immunity after they have ceased to hold office..." (Chapter V, Article 12 of Protocol 36 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, Treaty on European Union; 8 April 1965). These privileges are also included in the EU Constitution under Article III-340 which states: "The Union shall enjoy in the territories of the Member States such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the performance of its tasks, under the conditions laid down in the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities. The same shall apply to the European Investment Bank."

The above piece has been taken from the "End Notes" (Item 41) of the article titled "FREEDOM IN JEOPARDY: THE CASE AGAINST THE EU AND SUPRANATIONALISM" by D. Andrews dated 17/09/04.

The full article can be viewed at:

author by Christo_Reypublication date Mon Apr 20, 2009 19:14author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Certainly the fact that Ireland can't set it's own interest rates and can't value it's currency accordingly with the economy is going to end in our economic doom.
This is economics 101. A no brainer

"...The euro is coming under severe pressure. Now even the Prime Minister of Luxembourg and President of the Euro Group, Jean-Claude Juncker, and Karl Otto Pohl, former Chief of the Bundesbank, fear that the euro may be in danger..."


author by Mavepublication date Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:24author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Credible reports are circulating which claim the European banks might be in just as bad, and possible a much worse state than their US counterparts.

See "Can the Euro survive global banking crisis?":

If, as some seem to believe, the Euro was "built on sand" (i.e. one-size-fits-all, the "long the short and the tall"), created "out of thin air" by some mysterious "central" bank or other whose owners the voters cannot identify (try as they may), and a destroyer of national sovereignty as well, then perhaps we might all be better off without it?

author by Christo_Reypublication date Tue Apr 21, 2009 20:24author address author phone Report this post to the editors

There is a lot of chatter out there about a Global "bank Holiday" being announced for later this summer,whereby one no longer has access to ones savings,maybe for a period,maybe for good.This happened in Argentina in th early 2000s and that country is still shafted to this day.Many people lost everything.

There is open discussion now about need for a Global reserve bank and currency.The term I hear a lot is "New Financial Order".Has a certain ring no?

I can only imagine that dire economic circumstances would be required to compel the world to accept a system,run again by unaccountable, invisible elitists.

My guess is that the Dollar ,Euro and Yen at least are doomed.All part of the plan though.If people can be bothered to read Professor Carol Quigley's "Tragedy and Hope" it becomes quite evident that the plan for a New World Order with associated finacial pillars has long been in the planning.Quigley was Bll Clinton's mentor at Georgetown University.The book is available for free in PDF format.

So,my advice is to take your cash out of the Titanicly sinking banking system,invest in Gold or stick it in a metal box under the mattress.


author by Ronniepublication date Sun Apr 26, 2009 14:47author address author phone Report this post to the editors

A question can be put to referendum more than once. Two precedents were the two referenda on changing the PR system of voting (rejected both times) and the two referenda, held nine years apart, on dropping the no divorce clause from the Constitution - carried by a hairsbreadth majority the second time round. So there is no constitutional impediment to holding a Lisbon 2 referendum. If the No campaigners want to carry Lisbon 2 they will have to concentrate on hammering away at the substantive arguments against the treaty. Things such as the concentration of powers in the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the Presidency. Things such as the widespread continental public disenchantment with the institutions of the EU, the sheer boredom of the EU bureaucracy, and the rambling opaque prose of the Lisbon Treaty document itself. And maybe 57 other points which I can't think about offhand. The campaign is about points, points and more points about the EU, about everyday concerns and about national identity and sovereignty. Being able to articulate a case for a second No requires intellectual as well as organisational spadework.

author by Anoypublication date Mon Apr 27, 2009 14:37author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The modern Nation State represents a distinct set of social institutions, whereby "the State" has the political authority to create the rules by which a society is governed (which also includes, by-the-by, a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence). Clearly, by "the State" we are referring, in the abstract, to a particular set of social relationships (both institutional and individual), In this respect, we can loosely characterise the State in the following way:

Firstly, it involves some notion of government (whether this be democratic or totalitarian), in the sense of political institutions and representatives who have the power to make decisions affecting the whole of society (social policies, laws and the like).

Secondly, in addition to some form of decision-making machinery, the State also involves some way of implementing decision-making and this usually takes the form of a Civil Service (a form of bureaucratic organisation in modern societies).

Thirdly, the State also includes some way of enforcing social controls, through the machinery of a judiciary, an organised police force, armed forces and the like. In addition, writers such as Giddens argue that a feature of modern societies is the way the State employs systematic forms of surveillance in relation to a given population.

This is the definition of a modern nation state given by www.sociology.org.uk/ and I believe the Lisbon Treaty with more powers given to the ECB judiciary (particular over justice) , establishment of a foreign affairs department, president, defence etc.will cement these characteristics in the EU and in doing so form a pan European federal nation in nature if not yet in name.

As Ganley of Libertas points out ,85% of our laws are now initiated from Brussels these laws are drafted by an un-elected commission, the role of parliament is to voteto pass or reject any paricular law submitted to it by the Commission, it can not in and of itself initiate a law. The commission has the sole "right of initiation". In any other parliamentary democracy this is the role of the executive (i.e prime minister and ministers with the support of party members), however in Brussels this role is assumed by the "civil service" or the commission. The house of Lords dubbed this the "monopoly of initiation" and is clearly the most undemocratic and dangerous aspect of the EU. Although this is process is already in place in many policy areas or "competencies" as they are called in the EU, Lisbon will greatly expand the no. of "competencies" which fall under this process, including the key area of jusctice and home affairs.

A key question I ask myself is if the only members in the EU who are elected (i.e parliament members) can not initiate or draft a law, how can it repeal a law?. The answer of course is it can not and no amounting of lobbying your elected "representatives" will make any difference if you happen to be adversly affected by a particular law, it is just not in their current remit.

Only the commission can repeal, draft or amend any particular law before submitting it for vote, they are also (and will be further after and if Lisbon is ratified) insulated from public pressure (as they are unaccountable to the electorate) . I think many people in Ireland with current events feel removed from the democratic process and powerless under the current system, if they think they are far removed now, Lisbon if ratified will greatly enhance the current removal from power. It is imo a possible fast track to totalitarian government (based on historical precedents) If of course you believe they, the people at the EU would never allow such a thing to happen then you have nothing to worry about, I on the other hand would prefer not to have to trust the Commission to wield such enormous power and hope they did so beneficially for the citizens of Europe, I would rather see sufficient checks and balances, accountability and empowerment of the plebicite before even thinking of transferring more power to the EU.

author by Ronniepublication date Mon Apr 27, 2009 16:01author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Anoy's logically argued comments on the Commission and its 'monopoly of initiation' with regard to laws are on the right tack. This is the sort of intellectual spadework needed for mobilising a solid No campaign in Lisbon 2. Where are the other spadeworkers?

author by David Mcpublication date Wed Jun 11, 2014 21:48author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I believe that the legality of the EU is as relevant in 2014 as it was following the rejection by referendum of the Lisbon Treaty by the Irish electorate. The Irish voted "no" in the first referendum and "yes" in the second. The creation of a new Europe was dependent upon a "yes" vote from Ireland. The Treaty had to be agreed by all 27 member states before it could take legal effect. Given that Ireland had voted "no", then the Treaty had no effect and Europe had not changed. However the leading law officer in Ireland announced that Ireland could ignore the first referendum and have another one instead. On a simplistic note, after a "yes" vote in the second referendum, Ireland should have had a third referendum and decided on the "the best out of three". However the legality of the EU which is based on the Treaty is what is at issue and in effect it comes down to one man, the Irish Attorney General aka the highest legal officer in Ireland. The relevance of all of this is that the Constitution of Ireland cannot be changed without a majority vote in a referendum by the citizens of Ireland. According to Bunreacht na he Eireann, the now much ignored Irish Constitution, no Government, or officer of the State can alter or change the Constitution. Such changes can only be brought about by a referendum and Ireland had its referendum and rejected the Lisbon Treaty. Consequently any or no changes which were decided by the electorate in a Constitutional referendum could not legally be ignored by a Government or an officer of the State acting on its behalf. Before the second referendum the Irish Government stated that the new referendum would be a referendum on a new Lisbon Treaty containing new protocols, opt outs and guarantees for Ireland. Given that protocols, opt outs or guarantees have no standing or validity in law, the content of the “second” Lisbon Treaty had not changed. The legality of the second referendum is therefore invalid and any result therefrom equally invalid. It has no standing in law and therefore the result of the first referendum is the only legally valid result on the Treaty. Consequently, the Lisbon Treaty and the EU upon which it was grounded is an invalid entity as is any legislation which has come into being on account of its illegality and invalidity. The next issue is that of a quantification of the recompense due to Irish citizens on account of this illegal treaty and any subsequent European legislation as well as how this might be achieved. Perhaps we might consider these issues when we look at the future prospects for Ireland. Equally perhaps we should educate our politicians as to the fact that front page photographs on Time Magazine or commendations from the World Health organisation to our Minister nor Health for his policy of non smoking whilst presiding over a disintegrating Irish Health Service, perhaps we should point out to all of them that this type of drivel is fine for our friends in Europe, but has and will be viewed very differently by many generations of Irish citizens. And finally what happens next, well Ireland as should have been suggested by our cretinous Government before the first referendum on the Lisbon Treaty could now propose that it will bring the whole house of cards in the EU tumbling unless our friends in Europe, firstly wipe out our national debt, secondly reimburse Ireland with every cent paid to date plus 10% interest including the cost of the bed and board of the Troice in Ireland, provide Ireland with a legally binding veto on all matters concerning Ireland and similarly provide Ireland with an annual non refundable grant of thirty billion euro adjustable upwards for inflation. I believe that this is very achievable and must be included in any future Treaties which I believe must take place. Such binding conditions should have been secured before any signing of any Lisbon Treaty past or future. It is never too late. Our Taoiseach might not be on "Newsweek" next year, but sure that will save him the cost of a new suit, shirt and tie. DT, LD

Number of comments per page
© 2001-2020 Independent Media Centre Ireland. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Independent Media Centre Ireland. Disclaimer | Privacy