Here’s what the Political Editor of the Irish Times has this to say on the momentum of the latest polls regarding the Lisbon Treaty referendum:
THE LISBON Treaty could face a shock rejection with the No side now in the lead, according to the findings of the latest Irish Times /TNS mrbi poll.
It will take an unprecedented swing in the last week of the campaign for the treaty to be carried.
The poll shows the number of people intending to vote No has almost doubled to 35 per cent (up 17 points) since the last poll three weeks ago, while the number of the Yes side has declined to 30 per cent (down 5 points).
The number of undecided voters is still a significant 28 per cent (down 12 points) while 7 per cent won’t vote.
The massive increase by the No vote since the last poll has mainly come through gains among undecided voters but, even more ominously for the Yes side, it has lost some support to the No camp.
While the final outcome is still in the hands of undecided voters, the clear momentum is now with the No campaign and it will take a dramatic shift in public attitudes over the next few days for the Yes side to win.
The swing to the No camp has not been prompted by domestic considerations, with just 5 per cent of those opposed to the treaty saying they are influenced by a desire to protest against the Government.
I would hazard a guess that the momentum of the No campaign is driven by the underhanded way that those in power have attempted to question the motives and integrity of those who reject the power play of this pretend constitution.
In Ireland, dirty politics have been used against those who are leading the NO contingent:
During an attempt to assault activists who asked him a question in Dublin, a European MEP tripped and fell on his face and the entire incident was caught on camera, but that didn’t stop the media from reporting that an “anti-EU gang” of thugs had screamed abuse and assaulted Proinsias de Rossa — in a crass attempt to smear opposition to the European Union.- - - - - - - - -
The video shows de Rossa being approached slowly by the cameraman and another We Are Change Ireland activist who asks, “Why did you do it?” to which de Rossa responds, “When are you going to grow up?”
Earlier, de Rossa had called for Irish citizens to support the sovereignty-stripping EU Lisbon Treaty, which is a re-packaged version of the European Constitution that was already summarily rejected by voters upon introduction.
The two begin walking down the street and de Rossa is the first to physically put his arm on the activist as he moves him out of the way to cross the street.
De Rossa then lunges for another cameraman and then begins running towards him.
De Rossa clearly then appears to trip and fall to the ground as he reaches out for the cameraman.
We Are Change Ireland flagged down a police van themselves to report the incident and, even as media reports are forced to admit, after questioning eyewitnesses, the police made no arrests. If anyone should have been arrested for assault it was de Rossa himself.
The video, including a slow motion portion, is below the fold.
As I said concerning the poor Netherlands, in the post just below this one -
The current political structures in Europe can only be sustained if the flow of information is restricted. Since most media are either state-owned or in thrall to the same politically correct ideology shared by the elites who run the national governments and the EU, restriction is not difficult.
In fact, it is this convergence which ensures not only an iconic BBC-style uniformity of message, but also locks out any credible competing ideas.
Bearing that in mind, Wise Up Journal, which ran the video, quotes the Beeb’s usual and customary coverage of this event:
Under the headline Anti-EU gang assaults Irish MEP, the BBC reported, “Irish former minister Proinsias de Rossa was knocked to the ground after a public meeting in Dublin on Monday night, according to the Labour Party.”
The Labour Party being bastions of honesty, of course.
“Labour leader Eamon Gilmore said the MEP was confronted by a group of men who screamed abuse at him before knocking him over and pinning him down,” added the report.
Watch the video again. Who exactly knocks de Rossa to the ground? The invisible man? It is clearly de Rossa’s out of control temper and his shock at the audacity of citizens asking questions of a politician that led to him falling flat on his face.
[…]
The Associated Press seized on the purported “assault” to smear anti-EU groups.
“The episode highlighted hostility in Ireland’s hard left to the European Union, which requires a “yes” vote from Ireland for the treaty, the product of several years’ negotiations, to become law,” according to the report.
Again this reflects a fundamental ignorance of the fact that We Are Change Ireland was born out of the 9/11 Truth Movement, which revolves around the central issue of the 9/11 attacks, and not any prescribed political partisanship.
Why were the media so keen to perpetuate such a giant fraud and smear the activists as violent thugs while exalting the pro-EU MEP as an innocent victim?
Because a “no” vote in Ireland, the only EU member nation to allow a referendum on the issue, would signal the death knell for the Lisbon Treaty, and the press — especially the BBC who routinely propagandize for the expansion of the EU and have received over £141 million in loans and grants from Brussels — have to engage in dirty tricks and smear campaigns to try and reverse public opinion which has always been anti-European Union. [my emphasis — D]
Wise Up Journal has an archive page with a wealth of information on both the Lisbon Betrayal and related events in Ireland.
Éirinn go Brách!
Hat tip: ferdaigh
26 comments:
Why ANY Irishman or woman would vote yes on the Lisbon treaty is beyond me. After hundreds of years under the British boot they finally got there s**t together and are doing quite well, only to now give it all away!? The mind boggles. What would Michael Collins or any other patriot of days passed say now?
I didn't realize the BBC has essentially been bought by the EU as its propaganda arm. Does the rest Europe's news services similarly receive huge "grants"?
My Danish flag is already flying
UNDER my Star Spangled Banner.
I'll - now purchase an Irish flag to raise with the other two.
I didn't know that the Irish were still freedom loving.
Being of Danish - Irish blood ...
Go Ireland! If the treaty is not legally passed, and it is illegally enforced anyway, at least it won't have any legitimacy and people and nations can 'nullify' it as they please.
The Gates of Vienna proprietors and sympathizers are mistaken in believing that an Irish "no" vote means a vote against the EU in its totality.
What an Irish "no" vote means is a vote against the Treaty of Lisbon - and along with those who want the EU abolished are those who 1) don't want the EU to be any more powerful than it is today, and 2) are for a closer union, but not the version offered by the Treaty of Lisbon.
I would highly doubt that a referendum to remove Ireland from the EU entirely would win. And any of you who thinks otherwise is thinking wishfully, IMHO.
Spackle, what you fail to realize is that the reason Ireland has gone from a country with a 20% unemployment rate hemorrhaging illegal immigrants to tend bars on the U.S. east coast to a nation with the highest GDP in Europe, perhaps the world - is the EU, and the ability it has given the Irish to integrate their economy with the rest of Europe. Sound economic policies on the part of successive Irish governments have helped too.
Surely, a 'No' in Ireland won't make the EU system just roll over and disappear. There will be intergovernmental conferences, proposals and draft treaties with no end, until we reach the obvious conclusion:
Reform or die.
Already, the legitimacy of Lisbon (try googling for that :) is in serious doubt. They can't explain us why we'd want this treaty, and they can't come up with a viable alternative.
I see chaos approaching.
Well Dymphna, I haven't seen the video yet but thank you very much for this information. It is hilarious!
That is why I can't stop laying an eye over Gates of Vienna.
Also, we have to be thankfull to the Irish. You Celts are saving all of us, thank you very much.
Also Gordon, yes, you are right, the European Union helped Ireland but now it is going to different. It was a good boy that turned into a criminal.
The E.U. can no longer do good for Ireland and as such Ireland should reject the E.U. as soon as possible.
Thank you Ireland!
I'd like to visit that green island of yours one time...
Afonso, the EU has done a lot of good for Portugal too, albeit not as much as Ireland. Under the old "nation-state" Europe Portugal would still be ruled by Salazar's grandson!
Well, the Irish have already saved civilization once; no big deal if they do it again. :-)
In fact, it is this convergence which ensures not only an iconic BBC-style uniformity of message, but also locks out any credible competing ideas.
Rather than "convergence", I would have been more inclined use "collusion" but that's just picky little ol' me.
Archonix, you know the rules here. Behave yourself!
----------------------
Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...
Actually, Gordon, the biggest factor is that Ireland has been a net recipient of EU funding since it joined. That's allowed the government to cut taxes to virtually nothing whilst still spending huge amounts, making use of money coming in from the EU (in reality from other member states) to pay for all sorts of things.
Right now the economy is suffering hyperinflation. House prices are rising, wages aren't. The government can't realistically control inflation because it's in the Eurozone, where the interest rate is controlled by the ECB. Unemployment amongst natives is rising, EU regulations are slowly forcing small businesses and SMEs to shut down. Ireland's economy is a huge, huge bubble that will be bursting very soon, just like Spain's economic bubble is in the process of bursting. Raising taxes to pay for the fact that Ireland is no longer a net recipient of EU funding is already starting to have an effect.
So what's the advantages? The one you mentioned, the only one anyone ever mentions, of "integrating" Ireland's economy with that of Europe, isn't an advantage exclusive to EU membership. A free trade zone offers precisely the same advantage and still allows the flexibility of setting interest rates, tax rates and controlling immigration, controlling regulation, controlling all sorts of policy that are currently EU competences but which should be the province of sovereign nations.
In other words the EU offers no advantages. In exchange for a poor imitation of a free trade zone, Ireland has to take on rafts of legislation, give up its sovereignty and now give up its rights to make foreign policy decisions. The one single advantage the EU might have given Ireland - free money - is gone, now. Those "good" economic decisions were paid for by everyone else in the union. Low taxes are a good economic decision; high government spending definitely isn't, and with that funding gone the Irish government will either have to crank taxes up a huge amount or slash its spending.
Advantage? Bollocks. You sit there pontificating about this socialist wreck of a supranational government, claiming it's the best thing that happened to us since the end of the bloody war but you don't have to live with the results. You don't have to see people being slowly stripped of everything that once gave them a little bit of pleasure in an otherwise dull life. You don't have to see people being denied their social time because of Eu regulations, or being forced to give up their small hobbies and entertainment because of EU regulations. You don't see the way it's stripping away the rights of people to enjoy their personal property, or to seek representation from government, or to simply live their god-damned lives the way they see fit. F*** YOU. Get off your high-horse, you don't know a damned thing about it. This "union" is slowly but surely destroying everything that was once good about these nations and replacing it with the sort of bland, regulated nothingness socialists always seem to desire. The "advantage" it offers is temporary, a lie, a deception that keeps people from seeing the result just long enough to bring it about.
If people cannot see what the European Union is then they need to revisit the reasons World War I and II were fought.
If people cannot see what the European Union is then they need to revisit the reasons World War I and II were fought.
Yes, that is certainly interesting. The Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary) were Empires, France a republic, Britain and Italy constitutional monarchies - it was, in a sense, a battle of the new against the old. And the old lost, after massive needless suffering.
It's remarkable that we were close to ending the war in early 1917 (it was rather senseless, after all), but the entry of the US on the side of the free suspended that, marching us on to the complete disaster of the Russian Revolution (sponsored by Germany), and the infamous Versailles Treaty which Hitler later exploited to the max.
Now, the idea of the European Union is an answer to the problems that caused WW1. The persons, the ideas, the structure of the EU was laid out by the core persons already in the 20's, and is somewhat related to the Progressive movement that also gave rise to Mussolini. That was the spirit of the times.
Enter Hitler, and the plans are, ehm, suspended for a couple of decades, then brought back to life and implemented.
The alert reader will notice that EU is a solution to a WW1 problem, not WWII and the ensuing balance between East (Soviet) and West (USA).
Now the Soviet Union is gone, but EU marches on. And it has lost its connection to the people of the constituent countries, forcing French-style bureaucracy on everyone, dictating even how our soccer teams must be composed. The grab for power is never ending.
We need to show the Eurocrats that political power is granted them from the people, not the other way round. EU wasn't meant to be evil. But it was extensively built on the assumption that the people running it would be good, honest and courageous, which is obviously not the case.
I think we're in for a decade of struggle trying to win democracy back from Brussels.
Sorry about that, it just really got to me.
I'm sick of people in far off lands saying how great the EU is and claiming all sorts of achievements for it that just don't stand up to scrutiny. The EU deposed Salazar? Kept the peace? Saved us from ourselves? If it's so great why don't they come and live here?
Sorry, again. I think it's time I took another break.
The EU deposed Salazar?
And Islam saved science :)
Not knowing much of modern Portugese history, I'm still pretty confident that the inefficiency of dictatorship coupled with general education would have brought him down anyway, EU or not.
@ Gordon and Joanne,
Sincerely, many comments have been made after yours which contain many arguments I would like to see you rebunk. But I pass it.
You may both have known about Nostradamus, the XVI century French-Jewish prophet.
You may also know about the metaphysical notion of the four ages of involution common to the Indo-European world, from Celts to Hindus.
You may not even care abou all this but if you do care, you may beniffit from it.
Nostradamus, in the XVI century predicted three "Anti-Christs" that would "destroy the world". Here, "World" can be seen as "Civilisation" and the Civilisation he was refering to was obvious Europe. Europe and her children, the family some call "The West". The three Anti-Christs were:
Napoleon;
Hitler;
And a comming "Mabus" (or the sort).
If you can abstain from seeing Hitler as the encarnation of evil, you will aknowledge that both Napoleon and Hitler tried to subjugated the World/Europe/Civilsiation, what did not succeed in the First World War.
I'll live you a guess on who's the next Anti Christ will be. Also, Nostradamus stated that as the time passes, the destruction will be greater and greater.
But lets look to our Indo-European distant roots.
There was a believe in an involution, a degradation of man kind that was composed of four stages.
Basically, I will only adress to the yugas of the last standing great Indo-European paganism. Hinduism. There are four stages and each new stage represents a step down on quality of man kind:
Satya Yuga - A age in which high spiritual vallues are dominant. Honour, the Transcendent and Truth/Knowledge are the dominant vallues. Here, the Kings (best Humans) are (almost) in the level of the Gods;
Treta Yuga - Here, there is a seperation. The "Men of Vallue" are not so conected to the Gods. Here usually the clerics are above the "Men of Vallue" or the men of force rule, not caring about spirituality.
Dvapara Yuga - In this era, materialism domains and spirituality and "vallue" decay. Money takes precedence over pure virtue. Higher vallues are not understood.
Kali Yuga - The age of the lower calasses, with no contempt for Higher Principles nor materialism (because in a materialist society, usually only people with "some" vallue can make a fortune. In this era, vallue is not a need), characterized by Nihilism because the lower classes refuse to persue higher vallues or even material fortune.
If you look at European History, there is some striking correspondences:
Satya Yuga - Rome.
Treta Yuga - Christianised Europe where Popes and Kings became different institutions, one taking precedence over each other. You did not needed to be spiritual fullfilled to be a Nobel and you could be a priest/Pope without the ideals of "Nobility".
Dvapara Yuga - The emergence of Materialism and Capitalism. Florence and Northern Italian ad Jewish Capitalism. Rising of the Burgoise.
Kali Yuga - Clearly Communism, especially since 1917. Socialism and leftist ideals as general can also aply. With two great "mini-eras": One, after 1945 with the spread of Communism and other after the 60s with all the Social Marxism and Nihilism that now characterizes "Western Civilisation".
Talking about Kali Yuga, the European Union comes to mind.
Also, Nostradamus predicted that the war caused by the Third Anti-Christ, Mabus (MAdB'USsels?), would last twenty seven years.
In a nuclear weapon time, what war can last twenty seven years?
Maybe a war between the peoples that created a great Civilisation against a "group of foreigners" and the government who wants to destroy anything that is of "High Vallue" or particular to a given Civilisation.
Nostradamus stated that the Third Anti-Christ was going to unite all the World (Civilisation/Europe) under the flag of good, will seduce and buy intire Nations and then would attack anything "great" without mercy with the help of "allys arrived from far away".
It scares me a lot because all this ressembles the European Union. Nostradamus also talked about a nuclear explosion in Europe stating that in one day of the Third War there would be killed as many as during all the Second. It is true, the European Union did great things but so did the Nazis and the Communists. The worst criminals have commited good deads. The problem is that the European Union has now ceased to do great things, and one can easily see that the goods it has done are in order to realise a greater evil.
Just like the farmer feeds the pig before the killing.
Just two quotes:
"By the beginning of the twentieth century, organized labor and Marxist-Trotskyite subverters sought to transfer power to the last caste of slaves or sudras, or the consumer-pariah, reducing all values to matter, machines, dysgenic egalitarianism and the reign of abstract"
"The involution through the cycle of the ages was mirrored in the law of the regression of the castes, from the primal "heaven-born" kings to the deconsecrated slavish usurpers and raceless pariahs of the present."
From Julius Évola. You can replace "raceless" with "rootless" because that was the sense of "raceness". Raceness was thus an offensive way of saying "rootless". I don't know how it is in English but in Latin-derived languages, race (racially) is also an adjective.
Now answering quickly, Salazar's dictatorship (O Estado Novo / The New State) was abolished by a group of military capitains.
All this because this tiny little country in the South West of Europe was for 13 years facing a three front war in Guinea, Angola and Mozambique.
1% of the Portuguese were killed and the war prolonged into the mid seventies when it was already clear that European Colonialism had over.
Also because during all the XX century Salazar invested more in Africa (especially Angola) than in Portugal itself.
In my view, the regime had to ally with just four or five "reactionry states", mainly:
The United States;
The United Kingdom (and help Enoch Powell);
Far Rightist Brazil;
Apertheid South Africa and
Ian Smith's Rodhesia.
Portugal had to fight to create this axis on his own and meanwhile fastly replacing the population of the African colonies if needed, not only with Portuguese but also with white Brazilians and Anglo-Saxons, like we have done during the times of the Reconquista, or as the U.S. have done, populating a country with "Protestant Europeans" instead of just with English people.
We had a leftist (marxist?) revolution in 1974 and we entered the E.U. in 1986. Since then, we are not an independent Nation, we are more and more dependent on Europe and even worst, on Spain itself. Also, we look like we are being colonised.
During Salazar's regime, we were independent, we had an industry, we had means of production, we were soverign in our own terrritory, our Historical monuments were not abandoned and we were activeley colonising Africa instead of being colonised by Africans. We were poor, but we were not nihilistic nor morally dubious.
All the European Union has done was to BUY US, now we are slighlty richer but not that much and we can only get poorer. In two generations, we may not have Portugal here.
Was our prostitution worth?
To the girl who mentioned WWI and WWII I would advise her to look at the Congress of Vienna.
That's a real European Union!
But, after WWI, what did those filthy French did? Uh yeah, scrool the German people... nice done?
Especially after we had treated you French with great respect after that damned Revolution and the Napoleonic adventures. Also, at least, with the WWI the National State went victorious, with the rise of Poland, Czechia, Hungary, and the South Slavic Kingdom that was after divided brutally into Nation States like the great Nation of Serbia and also Croatia.
But whad did you learn with it? Nothing!
And in the aftermath of the second world war you create a new Empire under the European Union, but this time, an empire vocationated to destroy all the civilisation. Interesting...
The Commies won the war, not us!
Stupid Americans, have you ever wondered how can Latin America be more and more Communist (by other names) as the time goes down if you won the War?
I don't even mention Europe, it is there to everyone to see in Latin America.
Well Joanne, go study a little longer the History of Our Civilisation, please.
From independent sources, and then go read the different sides of History itself, it is important too.
Regards...
Alfonso -
Stupid Americans? Come on now. Youre an intelligent guy. You can do better then that.
Was our prostitution worth?
It rarely is. Prostitution is expensive, the money is quickly spent, and once the buyer turns his attention elsewhere, that's the end of it.
The final Antichrist will be the union of the blood-enemy of the Jews and the Spiritual enemies of the Jews. That would be the Ishmaelites, under the Babylonian moon god's [Satan's] religion, Islam.
He is the horn of the remant of the Greek empire, the Secuelid Empire... He is called the Assyrian, the King of Tyre, Gog, The King of the North. all the descriptions point to the region where Syrian/Iraq/Turkey meet.
His empire will be the revived Islamic Caliphate.. the empire that followed Rome.
His subordinate, the False Prophet, will be a dragon in lamb's clothing.... or as the President of Iran has said...
The Mahdi and his follower Isa (Muslim Jesus) are coming soon, to establish Islmaic justice on earth and bring peace that comes with the worldwide conquest of Islam.
Spackle, re-reading what I wrote I have to recognizze that you are absoluteley right.
I wouldn't mind erase the all comment just to correct that.
I am sorry it can really be seen as a generalization or as offensive, it was really not my intention. I am really sorry...
The thing is, in Portuguese, the comma functions somehow as a limitator. With the comma, it would be: "Americanos estúpidos, (...)" and that would automatically exclude all the Americans but the stupid ones (of course, there are some!). Without the comma, it wouldn't make any sense to say "Americanos estúpidos (...)" I would have had to say "Estúpidos Americanos" and it would suggest that all the Americans are stupid. But, because in English we have always to put the adjective before the noun, it doesn't matter how many commas we put there, it will not make a diference.
Sorry, I really didn't meant to generalise. I was refering to "some" stupid Americans who believe that this is another American century don't matter how many Mexicans there are in the United States. Or think that America has the duty to solve all the world's problems (non democratic regimes) instead of taking care of their own, such Obama wining the next elections...
I hope you (not stupid) Americans can understand... sorry...
P.S.- "American Stupids" would not fit because it would suggest that I was talking dirctly to the stupids of America... I am not talking to those Americans, I am talking about them...
Vince,
Here we have a say:
"O que vem de baixo não me atinge"
"What comes from below can not reach me".
That's why I honestly do not fear a islamic califate. What I fear is the European Union...
Muslims are pathetic thugs and are only empowered by the E.U. and the left of the West in general.
No Left, no European Union and no muslims (capable of attcking the West).
First of all, my "Salazar" comment was hyperbole. I'm just pointing out that Portugal before the EU and Portugal after the EU are two very different places, and only the super-rich and politically-connected from the Salazar days would say that the former was better than the latter.
Next, I find it quite ironic that the counter-jihad groups want to fight the "Islamic menace," yet they also seem to want to dismantle the best governmental structure to fight that menace, a European Union. Granted the current leadership of the European Union, as reflected by its member states, is feckless in this regard, but the answer is to change the EU, not destroy it.
After all, what led to the two "Gates of Vienna" close calls in 1529 and 1683. It was a combination of a strong Ottoman power AND a divided Europe. In 1529 France was actually allied with the Ottomans against Austria!
Dividing up Europe into its small, competing, fractious nation states will just open the door for an easier Islamic takeover. Perhaps Archonix in his island redoubt will remain safe for a while as the Continent is overrun, but the Muslims have boats now too.
Dividing up Europe into its small, competing, fractious nation states will just open the door for an easier Islamic takeover.
Absolutely and categorically false. Here in Denmark we have some very useful opt-outs from the European Union, and we have used those to implement an immigration policy that is an example for other countries to follow. Had we just toed to the Brussels line, we would not have been permitted this, and there would have existed no good example for other countries to emulated.
A main reason Europe never descended wholescale into tyrrany is that we have always been so divided. You just can't take on that many nations at once and expect to win. And if politicans in one country act foolishly and get bad results, other countries will have tackled the challenges in a better way and be the examples to follow.
Further, the quest for 'Unity' has historically plunged Europe into some of the greatest disasters seen on planet Earth...
Post a Comment