We need the first EU revolution!

Worth watching this movie:


The Lisbon Treaty is the renamed European Union constitution rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005.

The Lisbon Treaty turns the EU into a state in its own right and gives the bloc its own legal identity. The unaccountable European Court of Justice, an EU institution, would effectively become the ‘supreme court’ of the EU.

Under the treaty, the ]unelected EU commission would propose all EU law which would then be imposed on member states by the council of ministers mostly on the basis of qualified majority voting.

The treaty also contains a so-called ‘Paseralle clause’ which would allow the EU to give itself more powers as it sees fit without the need for any more treaties.

The Labour government was elected in 2005 on a manifesto promising a referendum on the European Union constitution, which has now been rehashed as the Lisbon Treaty.

The House of Commons’ European Scrutiny Committee even described the Lisbon Treaty as: “substantially equivalent” to the EU Constitution and former French President Giscard D’Estaing even told us the treaty was a con.

“Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly. “All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way," he said.

As part of this strategy, Gordon Brown’s government reneged on Labour’s manifesto promise to hold a referendum and instead forced the treaty through parliament with Liberal Democrat and Tory help.

The Irish electorate has also been told that they must vote for a second time on the Lisbon Treaty by October 2009 having voted to reject it in 2008. Why? Because EU and Irish politicians have decided Irish voters’ must be overruled.

Politicians across Europe hold their electorates in contempt: refusing to hold a referendum on the Treaty despite voters in France, the Netherlands and Ireland rejecting their plans for an undemocratic, neo-liberal superstate.

as if a new league of nations will prevent another sending of politicians and bureaucrats to the guillotine…


Do you know much about how the “No” campaign in Ireland was conducted? Because my friends there tell me it was very far from being above board, that the campaign was based on a number of lies about aspects of the Lisbon treaty in particular and the EU in general.

Likewise, I was in Paris during the vote there and I can assure you that the media (and thus voters responses) focused almost exclusively on issues such as a perceived introduction of “Anglo-Saxon market capitalism” or potential Turkish entry.

The EU is going to exist in some form or another whether we like it or not, and it needs a better framework than the one that it has at present. I’m not saying that the Lisbon treaty is the answer to that problem, but a campaign based on jingoism and false perceptions is hardly a democratic process.

I have no idea how it was conducted, if there were lies as always in politics then that is not a good situation. All I know is that they voted no and no one cared,

Do you know that the EU constitution forces nation states to privatise industry? The only constitution in the word, even the US constitution says nothing about allowing a socialised economy.

Under Article III-147 of the EU Constitution: “A European framework law shall establish measures to achieve the liberalisation of a specific service”. That provision remains in the Lisbon Treaty.

I’m not against the EU as such, just the way it is now.

“Human rights organisations such as Statewatch and Liberty have consistently warned that the European Union is accumulating a vast range of powers that pose a threat to civil liberties across the continent of Europe…” etc…

Article 52 of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights attached to the Lisbon Treaty gives Brussels the right to suspend any human right if deemed in the ‘general interest’ of the EU.

A LEAKED internal report has revealed systematic abuses by Euro MPs of parliamentary allowances that enable them to pocket more than £1m in profits from a single five-year term, writes Jonathan Oliver.

wikileaks.org/wiki/Secret_report … e_millions

This is a question of free movement within the boundaries of the EU and shouldn’t really be a surprise. There is not a single member state for which the free market is anything other than a point of principle.

It takes a stretch to see that as placing power over the interpretation of rights in the hands of “Brussels”. None of the rights enshrined in that document are beyond the scope of existing national rights provisions, either.

Can you explain this comment too, by the way?

The point about liberalisation is that, why is it in the constitution? Don’t you find that strange that a constitution would say which economic system a super state will have? Does this mean that no socialist parties can exist? Are they against the constitution?

As far as I understand European law overrides national law. The U.K is the exception in which Margret Thatcher managed to get some opt-out laws. This does not apply to any new laws. Point is what is this interest anyway?

So Ireland was the only country to vote on the last treaty and it was rejected. Brits were promised to have a vote too, where is that? If people love this so much then let’s all vote on it. Ireland only makes up a few % of the population of Europe, so we all have to rely on that. The Irish voted no, yet other countries just passed through the treaty with no regard for the people. No one gave a dam.

squabbling about whose thumb under which you will be pressed…

the mayor of bordeaux says you cannot do this…
the parliment of france says you cannot do that…
the ruling head of the eu says you cannot do the other…

but you will pay taxes to each of them and smile…

and soon it will be the thumb of the un…

we need a new boss?

caesar primus liberalus right…


It’s better to be under the thumb of a local councilor. Their thumb can be broken. He or she can be easily thrown out, people have more control.

The Law of the European Union is the unique legal system which operates alongside the laws of Member States of the European Union (EU). EU law has direct effect within the legal systems of its Member States, and overrides national law in many areas, especially in areas covered by the Single Market.


I’m not suggesting that we shouldn’t have a referendum, Mark, but what I am suggesting is that it would somehow result in a more equitable political system. The referenda in Ireland and France, as I’ve suggested, were very far from purely democratic processes, and I’m sure the situation in the Netherlands was much the same.

Above all, the pro-Europeans need to mount a serious campaign that sets out the case for greater integration clearly and that responds effectively to the misrepresentations of the Eurosceptics or that seeks to establish assurances from the EU institutions (of which they are part) on issues of concern to their electorate/voting public (the main justification for a second Irish vote is that its government believes it has attained assurances on matters of importance to its citizens, such as abortion law). It is incumbent on the European lobby to make its case, and so far it has largely abdicated that responsibility, but it should not be an open and shut case.

As for the issue of liberalisation, this deals with one of the founding principles of the European Union, the free movement of goods and services within its boundaries being a key feature of the style of life which the EU has always wanted to establish. For this reason, it can hardly be surprising that it seeks to establish and economic convention.