EU: Why vote "NAY"? - Seven Deadly Lisbon Treaty Clauses

Right, here we go again with the EU's Lisbon Treaty that will most probably win the majority of the votes in Ireland on October 2nd.

Before Ireland's constitution and short lasting independence loses its head, I'd like to say my last words as half an Irish citizen.

At least my French half will join the more powerful side of the EU, which I needn't be proud of as that does not include my fellow people of France.

First of all, it has become apparent to me that the majority of voters still feel a "YES" vote is right. And people complain that the "NO" voters are brainwashed by the propaganda being fed to them.

While we still can't prove the existence of the following quote from Jean Monnet, it appears that the "YES" voters are more brainwashed than the "NO" voters:

“Europe’s nations should be guided towards the super-state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.”

Apparently he wrote this to a friend in a letter in 1952, but there is no mention of which friend. Dulles? David Bruce? Eisenhower? No one can find a copy of the letter online. Ask David Icke. He quoted it on his website...

So while we "NO" voters are brainwashed by quotes like that that don't even have a source to prove their existence, the "YES" voters are being brainwashed by the government and media.

They claim they know and understand the contents of the Lisbon Treaty, while the "NO" voters have no clue, but do they really? Can the "YES" voters read between the lines? Can I as a "NO" voter?

No, so I'm quoting from a source that does know, and that I trust because they paraphrased the lines from the Lisbon Treaty itself

The following seven deadly sins - sorry I mean Lisbon Treaty Causes - are as follows:

1) Page 12, Article 2- 4. “The Union shall establish an economic and monetary union whose currency is the euro.”

We start with a light one. Yeah, sucks for those who don't have the Euro, yet, but most countries in the EU do. Sorry, UK...

2) Page 13, 3A-3, end: “The Member States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union's tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union's objectives."

What a mouthful. What it means in plain English is "We must comply with the treaties, and we may not oppose the EU."

If you don't believe that that's what it means, then read the original line again slowly word by word.

3) Page 14. 3A-4. “Under the principle of proportionality, the content and form of Union action shall not exceed what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties.”

Sounds fair enough at first sight. They don't exceed what is necessary, so maybe they'll just put the anti-EU protesters in jail rather than in the torture chamber?

In plain English: "the EU will not use more force than is necessary to compel us to comply with the treaties."

4) Skipped it, because I don't get it.

5) Pages 17 8B-4. “Not less than one million citizens who are nationals of a significant number of Member States may take the initiative of inviting the European Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties.”

So you need a petition signed by one million citizens before any amendments can be made? No. They said specifically "a legal act of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties".

In plain English: "We may petition the EU government, but we are only allowed to ask for more laws to complete the EU dictatorship. In other words, we are forced to petition for the EU, Soviet style."

6) Page 18 Article 9: Defines the Executive of the EU: three unelected politiburos. The only chance we have of representation is in the European Council, which starts off as being one Prime Minister or President per country. But these 27 Heads of State are the very ones who forced us into the EU against our wishes in the first place: they are already bought and paid for by the EU.

Below the politiburos is the European Court of Justice, the one that ruled in case EUCJ 274/99 that it is illegal to criticise the EU.

7) Page 39 10A-c-3 "Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy,”
“Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities.”

Three unelected EU politburos will control the nuclear weapons of the former nations of Britain and France. The Treaty of Elysee 1963 gives Germany effective voting control of the EU. Nuclear weapons controlled by German dictators? What is that a recipe for?

That's about all I've got to say for now. There may be a lot of propaganda out there, but the Lisbon Treaty is written down black on white. It IS the new EU constitution. It may be too long to read for most of us, but luckily there are those who give us a nice summary.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by MightyAl]

I personally hope and pray that Ireland gives a NO vote again.
At least you get a vote(even though they will make you vote until they gey the Yes that they are demanding.
The population of the UK were denied our chance to vote as the government were scared we would say no,even though we were promised that we would get to vote.
So please people of Ireland,be the spanner in the works of the federal EU dictatorship that I so hope you will be.
VOTE NO.
We were promised that joining the EU would not affect our soverignty...What a crock that is.
How on Earth does the EU taking over control of our nuclear arsenel NOT affect our soveriegnty?
Our government in the UK may as well just pack up and go home,as they will no longer have any say in what goes on in their own country.

Now we will be ruled over by incompetent monkeys from Brussels with a hidden agenda-at least our Government were our own incompetent monkeys with a hidden agenda.

Amazing that in the year 2009 almost the whole of europe has been occupied by a soviet style system without a single shot being fired.
The chemicals in our food and TV mind control really are doing the job aren't they...

It's quite ironic... our left-wingers, who want to join the EU also want to abolish the army, but right here it says:

7) Page 39 10A-c-3 "Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy,”
“Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities.”

Are they even aware of this little gem right here?

And this is going to pi$$ off our right-wingers (who are already against the EU, but still...). No democratic dissent allowed? Great. I'm looking forward to the day that those facts dawn on the majority of people. Sadly, TV is more en vogue than freedom and privacy these days.

2) Page 13, 3A-3, end: “The Member States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union's tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union's objectives."

Go for NO, Ireland. Part of the Swiss people feel with you.

I cheered those in Ireland when the voted no the first time. I hope their brains have not been rotted to the extent they vote yes this time.



An American citizen, who is not yet a New World Order Serf

I hope Ireland vote NO again, that way this treaty should crash + burn.

It's quite funny that the YES voters say we are brainwashed while they parrot on that this monolithic monstrosity is necessary to help the economy.

Crossing my fingers that this doesn't pass.

And what's this news about a UK referendum promised by David Cameron if he should become prime minister or something like that?

Does anyone have the full information on this? it's quite confusing?

It seems that there's still a possibility for a UK referendum? That's barely possible. It'll be too late...I don't believe it for a second.

Let's just hope Ireland knows that the EU subsidies they received did not contribute towards Ireland's economic growth known as the Celtic Tiger.

The following excerpt explains why Ireland did not benefit from EU subsidies. So what can the EU do for Ireland after the Lisbon Treaty is passed, if their subsidies didn't even contribute to the Celtic Tiger?

Please take your time to read either the following excerpt or the full article in itself.

According to the this article:

Many outside observers attribute Ireland's success in improving its standard of living over the last 15 years to subsidies from the EU. In fact, though, EU subsidies do nothing but hinder consumer-satisfying economic development.

After giving a couple of examples that you can read at your own leisure on their website, they state the following:

Not surprisingly, when comparing EU transfers and economic growth rates, we find no positive relationship.

They then give the best example as follows:

If the subsidies were a major cause for Ireland's growth, we would expect Ireland's growth to be highest when it was receiving the greatest transfers.

But growth rates and net transfers as a percent of GDP have actually moved in opposite directions during Ireland's higher growth rates in the 1990s though.

Ireland began receiving subsidies after joining the European community in 1973. Net receipts from the EU averaged 3 percent of GDP during the period of rapid growth (1995-2000), but during the low growth period (1973-1986) they averaged 4 percent of GDP.

In absolute terms, net receipts were at about the same level in 2001 as they were in 1985. Throughout the 1990s Ireland's payments to the EU budget steadily increased from 359 million Euro in 1990, to 1,527 million Euro in 2000. Yet, in 2000, the receipts in from the EU were 2,488 million Euro, less than the 1991 level of 2,798 million Euro.

Ireland's growth rates have increased while net funds from the EU remained relatively constant and have shrunk in proportion to the size of Ireland's economy.

If the subsides were really the cause of economic development in Ireland, we would also expect other poor countries in the EU, which receive subsidies, to have high rates of economic growth.

EU Structural and Cohesion Funds represented 4 percent of Greek, 2.3 percent of Spanish, and 3.8 percent of Portuguese GDP. None of these countries achieved anywhere near the rate of growth the Irish economy experienced. Spain averaged 2.5 percent GDP growth, while Portugal averaged 2.6 and Greece averaged only 2.2 percent growth from 1990-2000.

The remarkable success Ireland has experienced in improving its economic performance over the past 15 years is due to market-based forces. Although EU subsidies have been present, they have not been the driving force and may actually be holding Ireland back from growing faster. A policy environment that promotes economic freedom, enabling private entrepreneurs to promote economic development was the key to creating the Celtic Tiger.

So Ireland did NOT depend on the EU for its economic growth, so what will the EU do for Ireland once the majority votes YES to the Lisbon Treaty?

Im voting no but I feel as if it won't hold this time

There is a lot of support for the yes side this time around. There are tens of thousands of signs here, the vast majority are backing a yes vote. From what i've seen, the signs are in favour of the yes side by a ratio of about 4-5:1 or greater.


The government here are using the recession & EU membership as their 2 main talking grounds for voting yes, both of which are irrelevant on this treaty. Quite a few government backed agencies are coming out calling for a yes vote (not like the alphabet agencies over in the US, more like Irish Farmers Association and the likes).

On the recession side of things you see many signs labelled "Vote YES for JOBS!", as if when the treaty is passed we will have a booming economy again.
Ireland's cost of living is the 2nd highest in Europe, our minimum wage is far greater than most other EU countries, it will take far longer for us to come out of recession before most other countries in Europe.

On the flip side of the Yes vote you have the membership signs; "EU: Vote YES! Because we belong!", "Vote Yes for Europe!" etc.
These signs bring into question our membership of the EU, as if somehow if we vote no we're going to be thrown out of the EU. To be honest i'd be happy if we were.


The main talking point last time they tried to pass this treaty was the military aspect of the EU, I'm constantly hearing on the yes side of the debate here that "it was ratified and Ireland will still be a soverign nation if it's passed" - BS! They didn't change a thing!


I'd really love for this treaty to be shot down again but most of our crooked politicians are backing the yes side. Fingers crossed for Friday!

[edit on 29-9-2009 by TheSam]

[edit on 29-9-2009 by TheSam]

Originally posted by TheSam

That is incredible, although not surprising. Why is it that people always fall for the promise of a better economy when obviously it's not going to happen?

As you can see from my post above, the EU subsidies to Ireland never contributed to Ireland's growth anyway. And now they are pulling our arms again, and of course the majority appear to be falling for it this time around.

Last year I was proud of the Irish for not falling for any of the EU's BS, but now I may just feel ashamed if the YES voters are indeed as large as you say (my family in Ireland are all YES voters, except for my grandparents who think WWII just ended and don't know who their children are).

I actually live in Taiwan now, and the same reasoning was used here to get the President into his seat. He won the elections by a landslide last year because he promised a better economy, despite it already being clear that we were entering a global recession.

His opponent (our favorite) lost because he explained to the people that we were about to enter a recession and that he would help Taiwan pull through it. Of course people didn't want to listen to that BS, which turned out to be true of course. So all the people invested like crazy, as they believed in the winning president, and ended up bankrupt in many cases. Kind of serves them right for being so naive, but one must feel sorry for them anyway.

Once the Lisbon Treaty has been passed, the Irish people will be surprised that nothing has improved. Ah well, you need to see it happen for real before you believe it.

At this time we NO voters are brainwashed by propaganda, and don't understand the importance of getting the treaty passed. We are ungrateful bastards, as Ireland would have never made it this far without the EU. That's what people said to me on another blog...I think they are blind...

So vote YES for jobs, my arse. Campaigns are always full of lies. It's always about change, which actually means change for the worse.

Vote YES for Europe is true though. It's not like we're voting YES for Ireland, anyway! It's NO for Ireland, YES for Europe!

Being a member of the EU is overall more painful than not being a member. If this is the EU, then I would have been happier just keeping the borders and showing my passport each time I enter another country. It's less troublesome than what the EU is throwing at us now.

It's like being a member of the WHO. If you are not a member of the WHO you will not be forced to take the swine flu vaccinations. If you are, well...ouch...

At least, Taiwan is not a member of the WHO, so I'm ok.

Fingers crossed for Friday! I will have a big celebration if the YES voters win. Maybe it's false advertising that the majority are saying YES just to get the rest of the people to join the majority...

I hope upon hope that The Republic does the rest of Europe a favour and votes against this, but I fear the worst.

If accepted then we in the UK must raise the game and do everything within our power to stop this being imposed upon us.

We, the people, have had no say whatsoever and should demand the right to have a say on something that will have such a major effect on us and alter the governing of our country.

i think people are just fooling themselves, the irish people don't really have that much say in the federalisation of europe, that's happening anyway, even if we do vote no. the EU just isn't democratic enough to let a vote stand in it's way.

if we get it wrong this time we'll just have to vote again or they'll mount a legal challenge or they'll ratify a modified treaty in ireland or something. this is happening, by hook or by crook, doesn't matter what 4 million people think about it.



[edit on 30/9/09 by pieman]

This seems like such a big deal to me, and one with is severely under reported. S&F for the OP.. my prayers for all of you tomorrow, and after my prayers for all of us :/

Is this going to be the last blow at sovereign nations in Europe? And after this vote will we have the new Roman Empire? Just things I am wondering, but it does sadden me to no end to see this happening, and it just pushes the US that much closer to loosing our own sovereignty.

Maybe someday we'll be able to stand side by side again like we did hundreds of years ago and fight for real freedom...scary days ahead for sure

(edit4spelling)

[edit on 10/1/2009 by toepick]

Also: Czechs Attempts to Block Lisbon Treaty

The Lisbon Treaty should be approved by all 27 member states in order to take effect in the EU legal system. However, the Czech Republic, Ireland and Poland have yet to ratify it despite other members’ ratification.

Unfortunately, like the above poster says, just more stalling the inevitable.

[edit on 10/1/2009 by toepick]

[edit on 1-10-2009 by end of]

[edit on 1-10-2009 by end of]

I've just voted. Very quiet at the polls but no quieter than it normally is. This is a momentous day for the whole of Europe and the world and we should all be keeping an eye on the outcome of this.

Originally posted by MightyAl
Right, here we go again with the EU's Lisbon Treaty that will most probably win the majority of the votes in Ireland on October 2nd.

Before Ireland's constitution and short lasting independence loses its head, I'd like to say my last words as half an Irish citizen.

At least my French half will join the more powerful side of the EU, which I needn't be proud of as that does not include my fellow people of France.

First of all, it has become apparent to me that the majority of voters still feel a "YES" vote is right. And people complain that the "NO" voters are brainwashed by the propaganda being fed to them.

While we still can't prove the existence of the following quote from Jean Monnet, it appears that the "YES" voters are more brainwashed than the "NO" voters:

“Europe’s nations should be guided towards the super-state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.”

Apparently he wrote this to a friend in a letter in 1952, but there is no mention of which friend. Dulles? David Bruce? Eisenhower? No one can find a copy of the letter online. Ask David Icke. He quoted it on his website...

So while we "NO" voters are brainwashed by quotes like that that don't even have a source to prove their existence, the "YES" voters are being brainwashed by the government and media.

They claim they know and understand the contents of the Lisbon Treaty, while the "NO" voters have no clue, but do they really? Can the "YES" voters read between the lines? Can I as a "NO" voter?

No, so I'm quoting from a source that does know, and that I trust because they paraphrased the lines from the Lisbon Treaty itself

The following seven deadly sins - sorry I mean Lisbon Treaty Causes - are as follows:

1) Page 12, Article 2- 4. “The Union shall establish an economic and monetary union whose currency is the euro.”

We start with a light one. Yeah, sucks for those who don't have the Euro, yet, but most countries in the EU do. Sorry, UK...

2) Page 13, 3A-3, end: “The Member States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union's tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union's objectives."

What a mouthful. What it means in plain English is "We must comply with the treaties, and we may not oppose the EU."

If you don't believe that that's what it means, then read the original line again slowly word by word.

3) Page 14. 3A-4. “Under the principle of proportionality, the content and form of Union action shall not exceed what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties.”

Sounds fair enough at first sight. They don't exceed what is necessary, so maybe they'll just put the anti-EU protesters in jail rather than in the torture chamber?

In plain English: "the EU will not use more force than is necessary to compel us to comply with the treaties."

4) Skipped it, because I don't get it.

5) Pages 17 8B-4. “Not less than one million citizens who are nationals of a significant number of Member States may take the initiative of inviting the European Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties.”

So you need a petition signed by one million citizens before any amendments can be made? No. They said specifically "a legal act of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties".

In plain English: "We may petition the EU government, but we are only allowed to ask for more laws to complete the EU dictatorship. In other words, we are forced to petition for the EU, Soviet style."

6) Page 18 Article 9: Defines the Executive of the EU: three unelected politiburos. The only chance we have of representation is in the European Council, which starts off as being one Prime Minister or President per country. But these 27 Heads of State are the very ones who forced us into the EU against our wishes in the first place: they are already bought and paid for by the EU.

Below the politiburos is the European Court of Justice, the one that ruled in case EUCJ 274/99 that it is illegal to criticise the EU.

7) Page 39 10A-c-3 "Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy,”
“Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities.”

Three unelected EU politburos will control the nuclear weapons of the former nations of Britain and France. The Treaty of Elysee 1963 gives Germany effective voting control of the EU. Nuclear weapons controlled by German dictators? What is that a recipe for?

That's about all I've got to say for now. There may be a lot of propaganda out there, but the Lisbon Treaty is written down black on white. It IS the new EU constitution. It may be too long to read for most of us, but luckily there are those who give us a nice summary.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by MightyAl]

Most of the clausules are already mentioned in the treaties of Maatricht, Amsterdam, Nice etc.I dont feel threaned in any way. BTW how do you explain three politburo's executives will control CFSP let alone the nuclear weapons of UK and France? whaha these claims are ridiculous, and Germans dictators controlling those weapons. Angela Merkel has more balls then Brown and Blair combines, making such assumptions about German leaders, be ashamed!
The ironic thing is, since Irerland is hit hard since the recession they now understand how important the European family is and might vote yes this time.
I am sorry you dont convince me with these points, neither do the others with calling it a Roman empire..Do some study people please! read desmond dinan or something and you might learn something about the union...

[edit on 2-10-2009 by Foppezao]

i find it amazing that anyone would trust a politician enough to give them this much power..democracy is not about 'streamlining'..its about freedom..and if that means making life for ourselves or the government seem harder sometimes then so be it..freedom is more important.

why didnt the politicians feel they should ask us if we want this..something they have planned for decades?..why have they continually lied to us?..doesnt that make you a bit sceptical?

Originally posted by Yossarian
I've just voted. Very quiet at the polls but no quieter than it normally is. This is a momentous day for the whole of Europe and the world and we should all be keeping an eye on the outcome of this.

hello..whats the feeling there?..have you spoken to anyone else regarding this vote?..is it looking like it may be a yes this time?...

Well sure they're not going to say..look we're trying to recreate the Roman Empire here..but a President, council, control of the military..

You might not see the train come'n down the tunnel, but you sure can see the light and feel the tracks..

Keeping this on my facebook so all my friends are aware of the vote today..since the MSM does such a poor job of it

Most or all? Why do they need a new treaty if it's the same as the older ones?

I do take back the point about Germany. though. I simply copied and pasted it without thinking about it much, unlike the remainder of my post.

As a matter of fact I think Germany is the best place to live in Europe. France is too chaotic, and the UK is too expensive and too full of taxes.

I lived in Germany for 11 years, and never have I encountered anything wrong with German society. Of course, I think Merkel stands out in the EU.

I admire her, as she's the only one who's got the guts to stand up against the other leaders by offering an opposing opinion to their's, such as with pipeline leading into Europe.

Originally posted by MightyAl
Most or all? Why do they need a new treaty if it's the same as the older ones?

I do take back the point about Germany. though. I simply copied and pasted it without thinking about it much, unlike the remainder of my post.

As a matter of fact I think Germany is the best place to live in Europe. France is too chaotic, and the UK is too expensive and too full of taxes.

I lived in Germany for 11 years, and never have I encountered anything wrong with German society. Of course, I think Merkel stands out in the EU.

I admire her, as she's the only one who's got the guts to stand up against the other leaders by offering an opposing opinion to their's, such as with pipeline leading into Europe.

merkel is the same as any other leader..goes on about climate change all the time and votes against limiting CO2 levels in cars exhaust fumes (you know how many big car makers are in germany)...so..whats more important..the german economy or the world?..or maybe she knows its all BS..

she also wants more cameras all over the place even though crime is dropping..quotes:

'even though everything is actually going well..we still need more survailance'

'we should use any means that are possible to survail..we should use any available technology'





[edit on 2-10-2009 by alienesque]