Nigel Farage: Irish Referendum kickstarts real EU debate
First European Parliament debate in the aftermath of the second Irish referendum – Brussels, 07.10.2009…
Comment from Wise Up Journal:
The following articles and video highlight the current situation with the Lisbon Treaty as well as showing aspects of the EU that is not really being covered by the mainstream media, namely the EU and Irish authorities unlawful actions in the Irish Lisbon Treaty referendums, as well as what the EU has planed for their EU citizens/subjects under the Lisbon Treaty.
On the 6th October 2009 the EU Commission produced a 35 page document for the EU Parliament and the Council, called the “Stockholm Programme” that could more accurately be called the “Stockholm Syndrome”
Despite the language used throughout the whole document appearing to care and respect people’s rights, it is the complete opposite, designed to hide the clear fact that it is about harmonising/standardising laws/cultures and people themselves.
It is a draft blueprint of the elite’s vision of how the EU should be run and how they should control nearly every aspect of our lives, which a article from the Telegraph on this issue shows.
By Bruno Waterfield
The European Union is stepping up efforts to build an enhanced pan-European system of security and surveillance which critics have described as “dangerously authoritarian”.
Civil liberties groups say the proposals would create an EU ID card register, internet surveillance systems, satellite surveillance, automated exit-entry border systems operated by machines reading biometrics and risk profiling systems.
Europe’s justice ministers will hold talks on the “domestic security policy” and surveillance network proposals, known in Brussels circles as the “Stockholm programme”, on July 15 with the aim of finishing work on the EU’s first ever internal security policy by the end of 2009.
Jacques Barrot, the European justice and security commissioner, yesterday publicly declared that the aim was to “develop a domestic security strategy for the EU”, once regarded as a strictly national “home affairs” area of policy.
“National frontiers should no longer restrict our activities,” he said.
Critics of the plans have claimed that moves to create a new “information system architecture” of Europe-wide police and security databases will create a “surveillance state”.
Tony Bunyan, of the European Civil Liberties Network (ECLN), has warned that EU security officials are seeking to harness a “digital tsunami” of new information technology without asking “political and moral questions first”.
“An increasingly sophisticated internal and external security apparatus is developing under the auspices of the EU,” he said.
Mr Bunyan has suggested that existing and new proposals will create an EU ID card register, internet surveillance systems, satellite surveillance, automated exit-entry border systems operated by machines reading biometrics and risk profiling systems.
“In five or 10 years time when we have the surveillance and database state people will look back and ask, ‘what were you doing in 2009 to stop this happening?’,” he said.
Civil liberties groups are particularly concerned over “convergence” proposals to herald standardise European police surveillance techniques and to create “tool-pools” of common data gathering systems to be operated at the EU level.
Under the plans the scope of information available to law enforcement agencies and “public security organisations” would be extended from the sharing of existing DNA and fingerprint databases, kept and stored for new digital generation ID cards, to include CCTV video footage and material gathered from internet surveillance.
EU officials have told The Daily Telegraph that the radical plans will be controversial and will need powers contained within the Lisbon Treaty, currently awaiting a second Irish vote this autumn.
“The British and some others will not like it as it moves policy to the EU,” said an official. “Some of things we want to do will only be realistic with the Lisbon Treaty in place, so we need that too.”
AN ATTEMPT to bring a number of legal challenges aimed at overturning the result of the second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty has been refused by the High Court which ruled the arguments advanced were political not legal.
Mr Justice Seán Ryan yesterday dismissed four separate applications for leave to challenge the constitutionality of the 28th Amendment to the Constitution Bill 2009 brought about as a result of the majority Yes vote in the October 2nd referendum.
The judge said no compelling arguments had been made out for leave in any of the cases.
The challenges were brought by Harry Rea, Blarney Road, Co Cork; Nora Bennis, North Circular Road, Limerick; Mark McCrystal, Swords Road, Dublin, and Richard Behal, Killarney, Co Kerry.
All four made their applications personally without the assistance of lawyers and sought leave to seek declarations that the result of the referendum is null and void and the amendment itself is repugnant to the Constitution.
Among a series of claims, it was alleged the Government acted outside its jurisdiction by failing to put the “guarantees” obtained by it concerning the Lisbon Treaty before the Oireachtas prior to the referendum.
A number of arguments were also made about the status of those guarantees.
It was claimed there had been “a cynical deception” of the people and the Government had acted beyond its authority by involving the heads of other member states in their private capacity so as to create an internationally binding treaty affecting people’s fundamental rights and constitutional protections without obtaining their consent.
It was also argued that retaining the same title for the latest Bill was an attempt to eradicate the existence of the previous vote which the Government lost and “should have respected”.
Mr Justice Ryan ruled, in order to bring judicial review proceedings, a statable case must be made. While that threshold was low, “very compelling reasons” would have to be given to allow leave for a case to have “a solemn decision of the people” declared null and void.
The judge also said some of the applications contained arguments which were more technical in nature, such as the argument in relation to the title of the amendment.
Others were more complex in their presentation, and were less easy to summarise, he added.
Following the judge’s decision, Mr Rea said he intended to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Czech President Vaclav Klaus ‘to continue’ lone resistance to Lisbon Treaty
By Bruno Waterfield
Vaclav Klaus, the Czech president, has vowed to continue his lone resistance to the Lisbon Treaty by defying mounting European Union pressure for him to sign on the text’s dotted line.
President Klaus is the last obstacle to the completion of the treaty’s ratification and to the creation of a new EU President, foreign minister and European diplomatic service.
“I fear, and I am not the only person to fear, a deepening of EU integration,” he said during a visit to Moscow.
Mr Klaus, the EU’s only openly Eurosceptic head of state, has demanded new “opt-outs” from the Lisbon Treaty to prevent Germans expelled from the Czech Sudeten region after World War II from reclaiming their property.
“For me it is something of vital importance. In my opinion, the conditions that I have made for signing the agreement are serious,” he said.
The Czech Republic has been warned that it could lose its seat on the European Commission and face other unspecified “consequences” unless the country’s president abandons his solitary struggle against the EU.
Until Mr Klaus provides his signature on the treaty, the work on planned new institutions, such as an EU President, cannot be completed, a situation that has infuriated other European governments.
Despite the Czech stand off, Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minister, gave his public backing to Tony Blair for the future post of EU President.
“Tony Blair has what it takes to become the EU’s first president,” he wrote in a letter published in the conservative Italian daily Il Foglio.
“My government and I will do our best to ensure that a great political heritage built from courage, balance and prudence will not dissipate.”