More questions for the far-wrong side of Lisbon

Would Mr. Cowen continue to represent the European Commission and the Council against his own people? Or would he finally start acting according to his constitutional obligation to his country and demand that the EU should unconditionally respect the decision of Ireland and immediately stop the ratification of the rejected treaty?

Have the pro-Lisbon leaders considered that living under a dictatorial regime creates such a high uncertainty that first affects the rulers, due to the unpredictability and uncontrollability of the individual ambitions within an uncontrollable regime? Have they considered the possibility that the one-dimensional knowledge of their lawyers launching an operation with tricks and paragraphs against the nations of Europe may have been insufficient to assess the feasibility of the overall plan? Have they considered the very likely option that their Lisbon-scheme would fail when they least expect it?

1) Commission President Barroso: “We should respect the decision of all states, regardless if their ratification is by referendum or parliamentary vote.” [1]
If all methods of ratifications should be respected, why does the EU consistently disrespect a country’s decision when the decision is arrived at by referendum? (In France, Netherlands and Ireland) If referendums are to be respected, why did the EU launch an international project to reconstruct the former EU Constitution in a manner that would enable the member states to avoid referendums [2, 3]? Are the purpose of avoiding referendums and the act of ignoring the referendum results ways of ‘respecting’ referendums?

2) None of the leaders of the EU-states have ever been authorised by their national electorate to force their country under the control of a non-elected supranational/federal state [4]. Yet, the EU is urging the ratification of Lisbon in all member states, including those in which former referendums already rejected the former version of the treaty. How come that the act of the French and Dutch parliaments [5] ratifying the Lisbon Treaty and purposefully contradicting their peoples' former decision on the EU Constitution, is considered a “democratic” decision? Is contradicting referendum results a democratic act and another way of ‘respecting’ referendums? Is there any concept in a pro-Lisbon politician’s own dictionary that does not mean the exact opposite of its original dictionary meaning?

3) In a readily available speech Commission President Barroso responded to the Irish NO immediately after it was announced. Without any time frame to discuss it with the other leaders he announced the “decision of Europe and for Europe” that the ratification should continue regardless of the decision of the Irish electorate. If 'one million people' in Ireland are not supposed to decide on behalf of half billion [1], then how come that a dozen non-elected bureaucrats are supposed to decide on behalf of half billion? Is Mr. Barroso aware of the official name of the political system he represents [4, 6]?

4) If “one million signature” of Ireland can be trashed by the Commission in a second, how much credibility can be given to this provision of the Lisbon Treaty: “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.” (TEU, Art 11, 4)

5) Sarkozy: “Ireland is a problem. But if we had a second or a third problem, it would become very difficult to solve” [7]
Does this mean that any member state rejecting the treaty by parliamentary vote would also be a ‘problem’ to be solved by the EU, rather than a decision to be acknowledged? Is this why it has only been the electorate who has rejected the treaty: because the problem of the voters as a whole cannot be ‘solved’, compared to the “problems” arising form parliamentary ratifications? Is this why the EU needs to avoid referendums by all means?

6) Will there be a second, an even more intensified pro-Lisbon propaganda with more lies about the treaty and without offering a readable text to the voters [8]? Will this time the NO groups be silenced and entirely forced out of the mass-media? Will the voters be convinced that despite the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty specifically stating so [9] there will not be transfer of national powers to the federal state?

7) As for the widely advertised “increased democracy” by Lisbon, why do the pro-Lisbon leaders deceive the electorate [2, 3, 10] and how such political practice can be reconciled with the principles of democracy [4]? How the practice of secret arrangements to secure a ‘yes’ vote in each member state [2, 3], the consistent disrespect of the voters of Europe and the act of re-drafting, signing and ratifying a formerly rejected constitution can be reconciled with international law, the rule of law and the principles of a constitutional democracy [4]?

8) If deceit [2, 3, 10] and disrespect of the electorate are practices of dictatorial systems [4], why is it “good for Europe” to be ruled by a dictatorial, totalitarian and authoritarian federal regime [6] rather than to preserve their national freedom, democracy and sovereignty [4, 9, 11, 12]?

9) Compared to the current manageable and sovereign political-economic units known as nation-states, why would an enlarged and unified Europe, aiming at incorporating countries and cultures even from outside Europe, bring more democracy to Europe? [4, 11, 12].

10) In his parliamentary speech [1] Mr. Schultz is suggesting the spectre of a European ‘superstate’ [3]. Ms Wallström, during her visit in Ireland, passionately denied the same: “The Treaty of Lisbon is far from paving the way for a “European superstate” [13]. Italian President Giorgio Napolitano went further; he said: "it is psychological terrorism to suggest the specter of a European superstate.” [3] If we assume that Ms. Wallström is telling the truth, would such assumption entail that Mr. Schultz could be accused of 'psychological terrorism'?

11) What can the EU-leaders do with a Lisbon Treaty they cannot do without? To represent the EU countries as one country in world-politics, and conveniently threaten, or even attack, other countries [14, 15] on behalf of half billion?

12) As noted earlier, none of the leaders of the EU-states have ever obtained the authorisation and support of their national electorate to force their country under the control of a supranational/federal state [4, 6]. How can the EU represent Europe as “one voice” if the EU has consistently ignored and rejected the voice of Europe? Whose voice is going to be represented by the leaders of Europe: the inner voice of their own ‘royal’ whims?

13) On what authority does Mr. Sarkozy claim the right to interfere with the internal affairs of Ireland? [16]

14) Would Mr. Cowen continue to represent the European Commission and the Council against his own people? [10] Or would he finally start acting according to his constitutional obligation to his country and demand that the EU should unconditionally respect the decision of Ireland and immediately stop the ratification of the rejected treaty?

15) Is the Lisbon ratification process in all member states just one big political circus to ‘entertain’ and rule 500 million people? Is there a pre-written end establishing the federal state of the EU at all costs, regardless of the expressed and/or suppressed opposition of the whole electorate? Is this why the Commission, the Council and the EP maintain their blatant, cynical lies and their utter contempt for the will of the citizenry: to demonstrate their absolute power over the region?
Have the pro-Lisbon leaders considered – on the basis of their studies of philosophy, sociology, psychology, history and political theory, etc. - that living under a dictatorial regime creates such a high uncertainty that first affects the rulers, due to the unpredictability and uncontrollability of the individual ambitions within an uncontrollable regime? Have they considered the possibility that the one-dimensional knowledge of their lawyers launching an operation with tricks and paragraphs against the nations of Europe may have been insufficient to assess the feasibility of the overall plan? Have they considered the very likely option that their Lisbon-scheme would fail when they least expect it?

References

[1] Respect the Irish Vote: Aftershock in European Parliament
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6QmH-7fu68

[2] Bonde’s Briefing 19.12.07: Born in sun and sin
“The EU’s Prime Ministers met Thursday 13 December 2007 11.30 in Lisbon to solemnly sign the Lisbon Treaty which none of them has had time to read.
The text has on purpose been made totally unreadable, and the numbering system has been changed time and time again, Bonde, who was present at the signing ceremony, writes.”
http://www.bonde.com/index.php/bonde_UK/article/bondes_...91207

[3] Questions for the far-wrong side of Lisbon
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/88057

[4] Our future under a ratified Lisbon Treaty
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87683
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87712
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87730

[5] SP Senators set Premier stiff homework: 105 questions on the Lisbon Treaty
http://international.sp.nl/bericht/26636/080624-sp_sena....html

[6] Is there a democratic life after a dead Lisbon Treaty?
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/88033

[7] EU faces obstacle after Irish “no”
http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKL1718568120...80620

[8] What does the government hide by hiding the Lisbon Treaty?
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87595

[9] Lisbon Treaty: national level competences to be transferred to the EU
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87923

[10] Anthony Coughlan: Lies, Damned Lies, and a Referendum Re-run
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/88061

[11] “Voting NO to Lisbon: to avoid the collapse of economy”
(Final countdown: myths versus facts regarding the Lisbon Treaty)
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87857

[12] “Voting NO to Lisbon: to keep our homes, families and economic strength”
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87814

[13] “Lisbon Douze Points” - European Commission Vice-President debates the Treaty in Dublin Castle”
http://www.forumoneurope.ie/index.asp?locID=113&docID=1567

[14] France: Sarkozy calls for European military build up
By Antoine Lerougetel
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/sep2007/sark-s03.shtml

[15] EU approves new sanctions on Iran
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/23/africa/nuke.php

[16] Protest over Sarkozy visit planned
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0624/bre...7.htm