<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:verdana,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><div style="font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">----- Mensaje original ----<br>De: Reinier Bakels <r.bakels@planet.nl><br>Enviado: jueves, 19 de junio, 2008 10:49:23<br>> > Unfortunately, it is what happens. Did Nice's or does Lisboa's change this?<br>> No! But no legal text will ever change a mentality problem. So logically, all "Lisbon" alternatives will be rejected, as<br>> long as there is no mentality change.<br><br>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.<br><br>And the "<span style="font-style: italic;">all Lisboa's alternatives will be rejected, as long as there is no mentality change</span>" 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.<br><br>> I am *not* referring to the mentality problem of national governments being reluctant to submit the "Lisbon" approval<br>> to a referendum. It is not constructive. It will lead to a "no", as you rightly point out. And then? That is the real<br>> problem!<br><br>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 <span
style="font-style: italic;">Lisboa's or burst</span>, but that's false as a new alternative ought to be developed.<br><br>It's my fault, it's our fault the lack of alternatives if a <span style="font-style: italic;">NO</span> 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.<br><br>> There are many, very different explanations of the Irish "no" floating around. Well, the Irish were obviously *not* upset<br>> about not having a referendum, because they had one. The Irish are believed to regret a loss of national
identity in a<br>> united Europe. The Irish may have been opposed against the "Lisbon" contents (for completeness, I don't believe this -<br>> even if they perhaps would have had good reasons). Local politics may have played a role. And some people argue<br>> that Ireland is a Microsoft stronghold, and nowadays the EU with its tough competition commissioner Neelie Kroes is<br>> not really Microsofts friend: in more general terms: a strong EU is not in US interests, and he US is (apparently?)<br>> influential in Ireland.<br><br>So Ireland is a <span style="font-style: italic;">sinner</span>, Ireland is a <span style="font-style: italic;">USA-controlled puppet</span>, Ireland is <span style="font-style: italic;">the Devil</span>, 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.<br><br>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: <span style="font-style: italic;">if you don't understand it, vote NO</span>. 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 <span style="font-weight: bold;">lazy dogs</span> -like most Irish parties- fault, which <span style="font-weight: bold;">have made no significant effort to convince Irish eligible voters to vote </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">YES</span>? They only used politics of fear -<span style="font-style: italic;">if you vote NO we will be excluded from EU</span>, etc, etc-, and some other voters have also rejected that argument-less behaviour.<br><br>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 ...<br><br>> In my analysis, the actual text is immaterial as long as there is a mentality problem with the EU. For PP, I believe the<br>> most important thing is that the EU is a massive "policy laundering machine" for intellectual
property. A close analysis<br>> of the process leading to many intellectual property directives learns, that *on paper* the political process was OK. <br>> The problem was they way it was handled by politicians: notably the ineffectiveness of the European Council, which is<br>> supposed to be central in the decision making process! This mentality problem is probably explained by the total lack<br>> of interest of mainstream media for Brussels and Strasburg politics. Only incidents are reported that have some<br>> curiosity value. Frankly I blieve it would be in the interest of both the proponents and the critics of the EU to improve<br>> visibility.<br><br>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.<br><br>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?<br><br>> Would the PP be helpful to reveal the undemocratic nature of the *actual* political processes in Brussels to a general<br>> public? There is an abundance of examples!<br><br>If most EU citizens don't know it, yes, it would be.<br><br>> As a lawyer, I often find that opponents of whatever law revert to legal arguments. Like: is having a referendum on<br>> "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<br>> be a better lawyer than a lawyer. Build on your own strength: being a *real* citizen with *real* experience and *real*<br>> concerns of the *actual* reality! (As opposed to the "legal reality" which is actually no
reality at all!)<br><br>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 "<span style="font-style: italic;">best of three</span>", they choose tails again, it's heads again, they say "<span style="font-style: italic;">best of five</span>", they choose tails again, it's heads again, they finally say "<span style="font-style: italic;">enough! let's forget heads and tails, it's going to be made as I say</span>". 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.<br><br>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,<br><br><br> Carlos
Ayala<br> ( Aiarakoa )<br><br> Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman<br></div></div><br>
<hr size=1><br><font face="Verdana" size="-2">Enviado desde <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mailuk/taglines/isp/control/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=52431/*http://es.docs.yahoo.com/mail/overview/index.html">Correo Yahoo!</a><br>La bandeja de entrada más inteligente.<br></font></body></html>