Prepare For Lisbon II Publicised - Propaganda Translation
Wise Up Journal
by Gabriel O’Hara
The following quotes are from the August 25th Irish Independent article by Senan Molony:
“EUROPEAN Affairs Minister Dick Roche raised the prospect of a second Lisbon Treaty referendum last night, saying he believes it is ‘the appropriate response’ to the country’s continuing political crisis.”
“the Catholic Primate of All Ireland yesterday voiced fears that some Christians had voted against the treaty because the EU was becoming ever more secular in its outlook.”
Propaganda Translation: The Irish are idiots as the EU council President stated, Nicolas Sarkozy, and we voted for invalid silly reasons. The Irish No vote has has nothing to do with the fact that the treaty is self amending, makes the EU even more unaccountable and undemocratic, our fellow citizens of the EU were not allowed vote the Lisbon treaty (aka EU Constitution 2.0) this time, or many other relevant issues.
“Mr Roche said: ‘[…]If we want to retain our position as a constructive EU member state, we cannot simply sit on our hands, as some would have us do, and keep saying that ‘No’ means ‘No’.”
Propaganda Translation: You must always vote Yes, if you don’t do as we say we will try to intimidate you with name calling such as nonconstructive.
“Some members of Government may be relieved that the unpalatable truth is now being aired.”
Propaganda Translation: The unpalatable truth is democracy by the people does not exist.
“A government spokesman said last night: ‘Mr Roche is not calling for a second referendum to be put. That would not be a fair reflection.’”
Propaganda Translation: Engage in double think.
“The differing views from senior members of Church and State will this week reopen the entire Lisbon debate — but may not bring closer the finding of a solution that would ensure our continued full-membership of the EU.”
Propaganda Translation: Even though it’s legally impossible following the EU’s own rules we still can generate fear in you by tell you Ireland is currently not a full-member. You must vote Yes next time to continue being a “full” member. I’m not legally lying because I have my own personal view of what “full” means.
“Ireland has been given until October to tell our partner states what we intend to do to rectify the situation.”
Propaganda Translation: The government are not going to stand by the Irish democratic vote and in October will announce a way to “rectify the situation,” so prepare your mind consciously or subconsciously.
“‘We now need to take a hard look at our situation within the EU,’ Mr Roche said. ‘We have to recognise, however, that all other member states — 26 sovereign, democratic parliaments — are likely to have ratified the treaty by the end of the year. This will leave Ireland in an isolated position.”
Propaganda Translation: Voting rights for politicians are democratic, voting rights by the people get in the way of democracy (double think). Instead of telling the other member states to stop ratifying the treaty like France and the Netherlands did in 2005 with the EU Constitution (when their people were allowed vote and voted No) the Irish rogue government will hope other EU governments will ratify it, not changing the situation legally but which will help pressure the Irish in voting again, and voting the only way allowed, yes of course.
“The European Affairs Minister privately does not see any chance of resolving the problem by trying to put elements of Lisbon into Irish law by passing Bills in the Dail. If the legislative route was not adopted the first time out, it could not be resorted to now, he believes.”
Propaganda Translation: We tried to avoid a democratic referendum the first time and legally could not unlike the other lucky 26 parliaments. Passing the Lisbon Treaty now after the public already voted No would really destroy the illusion of democracy (sometimes people deserve “more” than the truth). We should stick to the recipe of bullying the people, terrifying them, making up silly reasons why they voted No and add lashings of pressure.
From the National Platform EU Research and Information Centre:
by Anthony Coughlan
You may find of interest the remarks below of Mr Dick Roche TD when a backbencher in 2001 and before he was promoted to Minister for Europe, regarding the proposal to re-run the Nice referendum.
They provide a piquant contrast to some of his recent statements.
The voter turnout in the 2001 Nice referendum was 35%, in contrast to the majority turnout in the 12 June Lisbon referendum.
“THE IRISH PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN.”
Mr Dick Roche TD on why it would be a “democratic affront” to re-run the Nice Treaty referendum without making changes to the Treaty…spoken when he was a Dail backbencher in 2001 and before he was made Minister for Europe
“It is foolhardy to talk about another referendum at this stage unless something fundamental changes. To attempt to rerun a referendum as a means of reversing the democratic decision taken by the people would be rightly regarded as an affront. Something fundamental will have to be changed in the Nice treaty before we can even contemplate putting it before the people again.
- Dail Debates, Vol. 358, pp. 1058-1061, 21 June 2001)
Below are some further excerpts from the same Dail speech of Mr Roche, backbencher:
“So far as the Nice Treaty is concerned, the Irish people have spoken and, like it or lump it, the Commission and its President have to accept it. They should do so with more good grace than they have shown in the recent past?
The Nice Treaty, no matter what its good intentions, is a document that has been democratically tested in only one Member State, and that is Ireland. It failed to meet the democratic test in this nation. It is an arrogance for any politician, either here or any Commissioner in Europe, to ignore the fundamental fact that the Irish people have spoken with some clarity on the matter. Yet last night the President of the Commission suggested that somehow or other the Irish people’s will can be undone. If the Commission, its leaders or the Governments of other European states decide to sweep democracy aside, we must ask on what basis is the future of Europe to be built?
Over the past two days I attended a meeting of the interim European Security and Defence Assembly. I was amazed and gratified in equal measure at the response by European parliamentarians from 28 different European nations to the Irish referendum. It was an interesting and extraordinary eye-opener. There was no finger-wagging or suggestion that our people had been wrong or were confused; rather there was a degree of admiration for the decision the Irish had made. Speakers from the United Kingdom to Slovenia to Greece spoke on the issue. They indicated their support for the right of the Irish people to make a decision on this matter. They were by no means all Euro-sceptics. Speakers from a number of countries both within and outside the Union indicated that the Irish people by its vote reflected a common view and concern that now exists both within the EU and in those states most proximate to the EU. Members from the EU states who contributed directly in the debate or who spoke privately to the Irish delegation members indicated that it was their view - I made an effort to do a straw poll - that referenda on the Nice Treaty as it currently stands, if held in other member states, would meet with the same public response as in Ireland.
There is something distinctly odd about democratic states attempting to take decisions that are out of line with the sentiment of their citizens. The gulf that exists between the citizens of Europe and the institutions, the commissioners and the bureaucrats who are now driving the Union, is nowhere more visible than in the area of peace, security and defence. In the run-up to the Nice Treaty the European Council decided, quite incredibly, that somehow the European Union could now take charge of peace, security and defence issues across the continent of Europe both within and outside the Union?
The issues raised by the rejection of the Nice Treaty in the referendum are of a fundamental nature. I have listened with some dismay to today’s debate and the debate that has taken place in the weeks since the referendum. Many in the political leadership of the nation are more focused on making a political point about the referendum than on truly addressing the core issues behind the judgement passed by the people?
It is foolhardy to talk about another referendum at this stage unless something fundamental changes. To attempt to rerun a referendum as a means of reversing the democratic decision taken by the people would be rightly regarded as an affront. Something fundamental will have to be changed in the Nice treaty before we can even contemplate putting it before the people again?
The Nice treaty is a complex document which intends to achieve complex things. It was sold to the Irish people as a means of providing for the enlargement of the European Union. Last night Mr Prodi made it very clear that was not what the treaty is about. He did not, however, make clear precisely what it is about. He was saying, therefore, that the enlargement process could be achieved without the Nice treaty.
I mentioned the assembly I attended yesterday and the considerable interest shown in the decision of the Irish people. Some thought-provoking contributors indicated that the opportunity afforded the Irish people should also be offered to the citizens of other member states. Maybe then Europe would get a clear message about what the people of Europe expect in the coming years.”