"it is possible that the other member countries will finish ratifying the treaty, then figure out how to deal with the Ireland problem."
"Irish voters shoot down EU treaty; The proposal would create more authority United Europe idea at issue" by Kevin Sullivan, Washington Post | June 14, 2008
DUBLIN - Irish voters resoundingly rejected a treaty designed to modernize the European Union, the second time in three years that European voters have shot down a complex proposal to create more authority and world influence at the bloc's Brussels headquarters.
The GLOBALISTS AGENDA!
By defeating the Lisbon Treaty by 53.4 percent to 46.6 percent in a national referendum, fewer than a million Irish voters scuttled a document that would have deeply affected the lives of nearly 500 million Europeans in the 27 member nations.
Justice Minister Brian Lenihan said the results announced yesterday marked "a very sad day for the country and for Europe."
And for the New World Order crowd -- at least, for now!
.... But jubilant opponents of the treaty called it a David-and-Goliath victory for common people, skeptical of the EU's increasing influence on their lives, over an enthusiastically pro-Brussels European political establishment.
Declan Ganley, a businessman who led the antitreaty campaign, told reporters:
"It is a great day for Irish democracy. This is democracy in action . . . and Europe needs to listen to the voice of the people. This is a very clear and loud voice that has been sent yet again by citizens of Europe rejecting the anti-democratic nature of Brussels governance that has to change."
The results of Thursday's referendum call into question the vision of a united Europe that arose after World War II and has driven the growth of the bloc....
WHOSE VISION is that they are talking about?
Ireland, by a quirk of its constitution, was the only European nation to hold a popular referendum on the treaty, which supporters - including almost all Irish political and business leaders - said would streamline the EU, speed decision-making, and give it greater influence in world affairs.
In all 26 other nations, the decision is made by the government; 18 have already ratified the treaty and the rest are widely expected to follow.
Irish backers of the treaty said that Ireland should support the EU because European aid had helped transform the country from a poor, farming backwater into a prosperous "Celtic Tiger" thriving on high-tech industry....
But the feisty "No" campaign, which portrayed the treaty as a power grab by Brussels that would weaken Ireland, argued that the treaty was being imposed on people by European "elites," and that Ireland was the only country standing up to them.
European analysts said it is unclear what will happen now. Many said Brussels had no "Plan B," because the Lisbon Treaty was already a Plan B. It was essentially a modified version of a proposed European constitution that was rejected in referendums in France and the Netherlands in 2005, then withdrawn.
They always have a back-up plan, readers!
Clara O'Donnell, a research fellow at the Center for European Reform, a London think tank:
"This is the worse nightmare scenario, what everyone was trying to avoid. We don't know the next step. People are depressed and wondering what to do."
Especially the N.W.O. crowd.
O'Donnell said there will be "minimal impact on the daily lives of citizens" because of the rejection. She and others said the EU will continue operating with its current rules, which they called increasingly inadequate to run a union that has added 12 new member countries in the past four years. In her view, it is possible that the other member countries will finish ratifying the treaty, then figure out how to deal with the Ireland problem. When Irish voters rejected a treaty regarding EU expansion in 2001, officials simply scheduled another vote the following year, which resulted in adoption of the treaty.
A second possibility, she suggested, is that the EU will declare the treaty dead and start over. Future changes might have to be done step by step, rather than in one sweeping document, she said. The treaty would have created a full-time EU president and a stronger foreign minister to represent the bloc with a strong and consistent voice. It would have streamlined the legislative process and given member nations more of a say in proposing legislation.
As if the GOVERNMENTS are good!
Critics, including the Sinn Fein political party, argued that the treaty would have undermined Ireland's traditional neutrality, reduced its influence at the European Commission, the bloc's executive arm, and forced it to eliminate corporate tax incentives that attracted huge foreign investment. Supporters said those arguments were simply false.
In the end, many voters seemed confused by all the back and forth. In interviews, many said they rejected the nearly-300-page document because they didn't understand the mostly technical changes to the EU bureaucracy.Bernie Kiernan, 48, an elder-care worker:
"I voted no because I don't have a clue what's in it."
I sort of sick of the insults from the damn elite press, especially a LYING, AGENDA-PUSHING one such as AmeriKa's.
Yup, duh, we don't know what we are voting for out here, duh!
Thing is I DON'T NEED TO KNOW; if the NWO and their MOUTHPIECES of the MSM are FOR IT then I'm AGIN IT!!!!
Oh, and would you BUY some merchandise without wanting to know what is in it? Oh, then let me sell you a SHIT SANDWICH then!!!! EAT UP, 'murka!
