[pp.int.general] Lissabon Treaty: very bad news

[Eve-Marie Murel]

BINGO!
We need a song, an Irish song from saying no and meaning no, that everybody could sing along

Best regards from Germany

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:56:42 +0000 (GMT)
> Von: Carlos Ayala <aiarakoa at yahoo.es>
> An: Pirate Parties International -- General Talk <pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>, internacional at partidopirata.es
> Betreff: Re: [pp.int.general] Lissabon Treaty: very bad news

> ----- Mensaje original ----
> De: Reinier Bakels <r.bakels at planet.nl>
> Enviado: jueves, 19 de junio, 2008 10:49:23
> > > Unfortunately, it is what happens. Did Nice's or does Lisboa's change
> this?
> > No! But no legal text will ever change a mentality problem. So
> logically, all "Lisbon" alternatives will be rejected, as
> > long as there is no mentality change.
> 
> I have to disagree, as the current power holders won't have the need of
> such mentality change as long as EU laws still give them the power.
> 
> And the "all Lisboa's alternatives will be rejected, as long as there is
> no mentality change" is for me an unacceptable stance. If you're part of the
> Opposition block, is not your job to say no to everything, but to say no
> to anything you disagree with; and if you only have 2 seats against 400-500
> seats defending the opposite, you still have to defend what you believe is
> fair, despite perfectly knowing you'll gonna lose. Proposing alternatives
> isn't made depending on chances to win, but depending on the actual need of
> such alternatives; and if alternatives to Lisboa's are necessary, have to
> be proposed whatever a mentality change happens or not.
> 
> > I am *not* referring to the mentality problem of national governments
> being reluctant to submit the "Lisbon" approval
> > to a referendum. It is not constructive. It will lead to a "no", as you
> rightly point out. And then? That is the real
> > problem!
> 
> That's false. The real problem is that EU Council blocks any alternatives,
> as France and Germany are the big powers within EU and want to impose
> their model; so their stance is Lisboa's or burst, but that's false as a new
> alternative ought to be developed.
> 
> It's my fault, it's our fault the lack of alternatives if a NO happens?
> No, sir, it's Merkel, Sarkozy and Co.'s fault. They've tried desperately to
> force everyone to accept Lisboa's, in such ways that if there's no Lisboa's
> there's no current alternatives; does it forces us to resign and accept
> Lisboa's because of the lack of alternatives? No, sir, it forces us -the EU
> citizens, the EU Member State governments- to search for valid alternatives
> and, of course, for a different, transparent and democratic procedure for
> the alternative text's approval.
> 
> > There are many, very different explanations of the Irish "no" floating
> around. Well, the Irish were obviously *not* upset
> > about not having a referendum, because they had one. The Irish are
> believed to regret a loss of national identity in a
> > united Europe. The Irish may have been opposed against the "Lisbon"
> contents (for completeness, I don't believe this -
> > even if they perhaps would have had good reasons). Local politics may
> have played a role. And some people argue
> > that Ireland is a Microsoft stronghold, and nowadays the EU with its
> tough competition commissioner Neelie Kroes is
> > not really Microsofts friend: in more general terms: a strong EU is not
> in US interests, and he US is (apparently?)
> > influential in Ireland.
> 
> So Ireland is a sinner, Ireland is a USA-controlled puppet, Ireland is the
> Devil, etc, etc -yes, Reinier, I have heard such comments in Spanish mass
> media, media which are interested in present Irish people as the enemy
> because of having blocked Lisboa's ... who controls such media?-. No sir,
> Ireland is the current only NO because Ireland is the current only country to
> make the referendum; what about France saying NO in 2005, were French also
> Microsoft, USA-controlled puppets? And Netherlands? And Sweden -according to
> 2008 polls-? And the rest of countries that would vote NO if were allowed
> to? Please we should be faithful with reality and actual facts.
> 
> There is a slogan for the Irish NO, that would may be found too simple but
> that it's true as life when talking about signing contracts: if you don't
> understand it, vote NO. There is a significant amount of Irish voters who
> simply didn't understand some parts of the treaty, or didn't understand the
> real consequences of some other parts, and they rejected what they didn't
> understand. In Spain in 1978 all the parliamentary parties made an
> impressive effort to convince the eligible voters of the advantages of passing
> Spanish Constitution, thus 60 % of eligible voters became convinced and passed
> the text; it's then Irish eligible voters' fault? or it's lazy dogs -like
> most Irish parties- fault, which have made no significant effort to convince
> Irish eligible voters to vote YES? They only used politics of fear -if you
> vote NO we will be excluded from EU, etc, etc-, and some other voters have
> also rejected that argument-less behaviour.
> 
> Maybe they didn't any significant effort to convince Irish voters about
> how good is Lisboa's, because tricking people it's always a long, hard shot
> ...
> 
> > In my analysis, the actual text is immaterial as long as there is a
> mentality problem with the EU. For PP, I believe the
> > most important thing is that the EU is a massive "policy laundering
> machine" for intellectual property. A close analysis
> > of the process leading to many intellectual property directives learns,
> that *on paper* the political process was OK. 
> > The problem was they way it was handled by politicians: notably the
> ineffectiveness of the European Council, which is
> > supposed to be central in the decision making process! This mentality
> problem is probably explained by the total lack
> > of interest of mainstream media for Brussels and Strasburg politics.
> Only incidents are reported that have some
> > curiosity value. Frankly I blieve it would be in the interest of both
> the proponents and the critics of the EU to improve
> > visibility.
> 
> There are many things that affect PPI around Lisboa's, because it won't be
> very succesful for PPI to nail enough seats from enough countries to form
> a parilamentary group in Strasbourg, if European Parliament has no
> significant power and all the relevant decisions on IP, rights and liberties, etc,
> are made in the inter-Member States councils.
> 
> We're trying to concur next June to represent a significant amount of EU
> citizens in Strasbourg, but what if we're disallowed to make a profitable
> job because of Lisboa's?
> 
> > Would the PP be helpful to reveal the undemocratic nature of the
> *actual* political processes in Brussels to a general
> > public? There is an abundance of examples!
> 
> If most EU citizens don't know it, yes, it would be.
> 
> > As a lawyer, I often find that opponents of whatever law revert to legal
> arguments. Like: is having a referendum on
> > "Lisbon" accoding to the rules, or isn't it? I don't think such a "more
> of the same" approach is very helpful. Don't try to
> > be a better lawyer than a lawyer. Build on your own strength: being a
> *real* citizen with *real* experience and *real*
> > concerns of the *actual* reality! (As opposed to the "legal reality"
> which is actually no reality at all!)
> 
> So you want an approach that reach citizens. What about heads and tails,
> like I said in my former mail? Cavaco Silva, Durao Barroso, Merkel, Sarkozy
> & Co. choose tails, it's heads, they say "best of three", they choose tails
> again, it's heads again, they say "best of five", they choose tails again,
> it's heads again, they finally say "enough! let's forget heads and tails,
> it's going to be made as I say". It's clear enough? If it isn't, we may
> find other examples, parables, to explain people the flaws of what's happening
> with this procedure.
> 
> In democracy, one law disagreed by some -and even objectively bad- may be
> passed, and only further experience may convince a majority to revoke it;
> because of that, Lisboa's would may be passed by most of EU citizens despite
> its flaws, so which is our major concern? Lisboa's flaws -which is, I
> think, also our concern-? or having a procedure that ensures that if Lisboa's
> is finally passed is because of EU citizens' will? We're talking about
> democracy, Reinier; and in this case -and in other cases regarding EU-,
> democracy left the building a long, long time ago. Regards,
> 
> 
>                                                                           
>         Carlos Ayala
>                                                                           
>         ( Aiarakoa )
> 
>                                                               Partido
> Pirata National Board's Chairman
> 
> 
> 
>       ______________________________________________ 
> Enviado desde Correo Yahoo! La bandeja de entrada más inteligente.

-- 
Ist Ihr Browser Vista-kompatibel? Jetzt die neuesten 
Browser-Versionen downloaden: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/browser