Moves to silence the No side for referendum rerun

Had to say i saw this coming but the broadcasting authority has determined it is no longer necessary to give equal coverage to yes and no speakers. Having lost the debate on the treaty the yes side now want a slanted pitch so they can make unfounded claims about a no vote being a vote for withdrawal from the EU, withdrawal from the Eurozone or a general two fingers to the rest of europe.

http://www.examiner.ie/breakingnews/ireland/authority-makes-changes-to-lisbon-coverage-guidelines-421363.html

"Guarantees" debunked in detail

As promised i have formulated a more detailed response. Straight away the guarantees are a breach of the Lisbon treaty as only the European Court of Justice can interpret the treaties post-Lisbon. The European Council decision deciding what the treaties mean is immediately worthless. Only when the "guarantees" are ratified as a protocol do they have legal force.
But questions of when and if must follow. Will it be within 5 years?, 10 years?? or even 20 years???. What if the protocol is defeated in a national parliament? What if it is defeated in a referendum??
Now let us assume (assumptions the mother of all f...-ups) it does eventually make it over the line as a protocol. There is nothing much in the text only duplication and repetition in opaque and vague language.

See the guarantees at:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0620/1224249186777.html

Annex 1A on moral issues: This does go further than the current provisions but still does not justify the risk of bringing the charter of fundamental rights into the treaties.

Annex 1B on Taxation: This is a red herring as the issue is a common tax base not a common tax rate. No-one ever said the treaty would impose a common tax rate only that the treaty would allow the EU to stop FDI companies channeling their profits through ireland, thus forcing us to share corporation tax revenue.

Annex 1C on Neutrality: Neutrality is so vaguely defined anyway that this can mean almost anything so it will mean what the government wants it mean. It importantly retains the requirement to assist countries at war which for me ends irish neutrality. Non-participation in permanent structured cooperation or the european defence agency does not change the fact that a defacto army and the EU armaments industry will be acting in our name, this too ends irish neutrality.

Annex 2 on Workers rights and Public services: This is a declaration and can be flushed down the toilet tomorrow.

Annex 3 on Neutrality: This is a declaration and can be flushed down the toilet tomorrow.

In short only Annex 1A offers anything new or different of substance. Even this does not counter the risks of being subject to the vague and fuzzy rights charter.

I hope i have been of help.

"guarentees" - Dont be fooled!

This one will be short and sweet although i may update. We will be voting on exactly the same treaty. Not one comma or full stop will have changed. The "guarentees" cannot change the application of the treaty, our obligations of membership nor the obligations of membership of the other countries. If they did the treaty would have to be reratified. It is not being reratified. Putting 2 and 2 together means on October 2nd we are having a Hugo Chavez style rerun because the government didnt like the result last year.

The case for withdrawal

Is being in the EU necessary or desirable? Convince me of either and i shall cease to be a eurosceptic! I will argue that it is neither.
1- Necessary for what?
We can have free trade without EU membership via EFTA/EEA or associated status (Channel Islands and Isle of Man). Sure we wont have any vote in common market regulations but if you read John Major's (former British prime minister) autobiography you will see that common market regulations are decided by the bigger countries. We can have free movement of people without EU membership via EFTA/EEA. Your Norwegian friend has all the benefits of Europe that you do (except he cant aspire to a cushy job in Brussels!)
2- Desirable for what? Now we don’t need it why should we want it? Why do we want to hand over our independent foreign policy. Remember us courageously opposing the British on the Falkland’s, what chance of that happening now? An independent foreign policy is an essential component of a proper independent country. Unless you are one of those few people who believe that Ireland can veto EU foreign policy, how can we be independent and be in the EU! Why do we want to hand over our independent justice policy? Ireland has the highest standards of civil liberties in Europe, why drag them down to continental European standards with ID cards, trial by judge, conviction by 7 jurors, no right to silence, police raids on immigrant quarters, stop and search. While our Amsterdam treaty opt-out insulates us from much of this we are committed to giving it up in 3 years after Lisbon comes into force (buries in the referendum question and NOT on the ballot paper!).
Why do we want to hand over our independent monetary policy? Yes the euro gave us 10 years of get rich quick schemes. It made bankers, builders and politicians very very rich indeed. The euro creates the property bubble that has spectacularly burst and left us unable to devalue our currency to kick start the economy. We are now fairly stuck as reinstating the punt carries big risks too.

So i ask you to read up on EFTA/EEA and associate status. You might come round to my thinking. Just one small problem, there will be no more cushy jobs for our politicians!!!

Lisbon scaremongering reaches new and sadder depths

The elite of irish society make the European Movement Ireland (EMI) and its alter ego Alliance for Europe (AFE). The supreme court ruling in the 1995 McKenna judgment prohibits taxpayers money being used to fund the yes side. As such EMI cannot participate in referendum campaigns directly.
I had always treated EMI as serious politicians who made their case in a rational and dignified manner and who all round conducted themselves with a high degree of decorum. A lot has changed since the Irish people courageously said no to Lisbon last year. A new website called www.irelandsfuture.ie has popped up making numerous vague threats about our non-ratification. In fact exactly the same threats made to the Danish and Swedish people when they voted on joining the euro currency in 2000 and 2003 respectively (those threats proved empty by the way). Similarly the EMI website is publishing cartoon style documents prophesizing our demise, these echo the releases of the British National Party. http://www.europeanmovement.ie/fileadmin/files_emireland/downloads/The_Irish_Stun__12_June_2018.pdf
A sea change has taken place in Ireland’s relationship with Brussels. We are no longer offered positive arguments about the benefits of treaties, we are now threatened with the consequences of saying no. Much like the pro-EU lobby carry on in the remaining EFTA countries.
Indeed a lot of courage will be required of the irish people to resist this fear campaign. Take inspiration from the Danes and the Swedes!

EU Democracy, CUBA style!

Apologists for the castro dictatorship in Cuba offer the excuse that democracy does exist in Cuba, in that you can elect your preferred member of the communist party. So you are free to vote but you cant vote for change. Similarly in the EU there are free elections but nearly all political parties are identical in their european policies, so how do you vote for change without turning to unpalatable fringe groups? Most telling of all is when a referendum is defeated its either overturned in parliament or you have to vote again until you get it right. The EU, the new CUBA!

Lisbon scaremongering gets ridiculous

It really is ridiculous when the two ministers responsible for european matters continue to peddle lies about the consequences of our no vote. They insist we can be somehow left behind, this is impossible as the treaties only change by unanimity. They insist foreign direct investment will suffer, how is that as we are still full members of the EEA (European economic area) and benefit fully from the single market no matter what happens (even if we leave the EU!!!).
The true consequnces for them is they can no longer look forward to a cushy number in brussels and can no longer be wined and dined as a convenient stick to hit the british with.
The fearmongering over the commission is also unfounded as we can use our veto to ensure the czech proposal of a 26 member commission with the foreign policy chief (currently Spain's Javier Solana) being the 27th commissioner. As we will never get that job we will have a permanent commission seat. Dont be fooled by promises of the rollback mechanism in Lisbon. It only defers the 2/3rds formula for the time being. Plus under lisbon we can only recommend a commission candidate whereas as currently we choose our candidate.