Open rebellion over Lisbon

thank you for apologising Pat I will gladly accept. just please read in full before pointing the finger at others and calling them conspiracy theorists and liers, was only quoting what I had read!! I didnt write it originally.

if we vote yes OR no then Al-Qieada will take over the country!

# Bock the Robber Says:

" Furthermore, I said nothing about conspiracies, and neither did Lette.".

Perhaps not in so many words. But I felt that alleging that the no campaign was secretly being funded by the US establishment amounts to the same thing.


"Why aren’t you able to show respect to people who hold a different point of view to yours?".

Suggesting that the no campaign is secretly funded by the US is simply not true and this, what my self and other posters have called a lie, needs to be nailed. I am not suggesting that you and Lette are personally responsible for this as it seems to come om on high in the yes lobby. In my view this is a swear being deliberately being put out there.

Given the fact that you and Lette were personally offended by the term "lie", I unreservedly withdraw it and apologise. I was speaking more in terms of the political campaign then trying to personally insult you or Lette.

I was only joking someone else referenced Ireland becoming the 52nd. No there are just fifty you are correct but there are several territories Guam ,P Rico, some places in the west indies, somoa I think.

actually there are only 50 states, i would have thought. which are the other two.

http://www.50states.com/

There are already 52 states in the states. I'm just kidding.

There was great coverage of the lisbon debate on one of the local stations, dont know which one it was though (92.4) which had both sides on it, and It re-affirmed by decision on why I chose to vote no.

While most of it was way above my head, the bits that were understood were a cause for concern.

Firstly, the articles of the treaty can be changed after it is ratified.

Second, there was the introduction of a process where 1 million signatures could be collected in order to bring motions before the powers that be, however what the Forum on Europe is not saying, (they have a 10 minute "summary" of the treaty on youtube) is that the 1 million signatures have to be spread over 15 countries. And I am not sure if they would accept the one million signatures if they were collected online.

Third, I share SIPTUs concerns about the absence of legislation guaranteeing the right to collective bargaining for workers. While it is contained in the charter of rights, it requires legislation in order for it to be legally binding.

Pat: I would have said nothing if you hadn't sunk to calling people liars. Furthermore, I said nothing about conspiracies, and neither did Lette.

Why aren't you able to show respect to people who hold a different point of view to yours?

Lette, bock the robber, Keith (?)

You need to inderstand that this debate is not about what the US may or may not like to see. This debate is about Ireland and its place in Europe. But fair play to you guys, you have managed to divert the debate into nonsense about US conspiricies. But it suits the yes lobby to keep us in the dark.

Todays Sunday Times also believes that the yes lobby want to keep us in the dark. To quote the header in todays editorial , titled "Be positive, vote no"

This editorial also states "Not for nothing did Giuliano Amato, the former Italian prime minister, claim that the document "should be unreadable". This lack of transparency was regarded as a particular benifit by Valery Gisgard d'Estaing, who stated in 2007 that "public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it the proposals that we dare not put to them directly""

The editorial also maintains "With each passing week the public has seen beyond the mixture of bland reassurances and thinly veiled threats being punped out by the yes campaign. The most serious of these threats, that the EU will be thrown into "chaos" is a piece of desperation on the part of the yes camp. According to the Independent Referendum Commission, in the event of a no vote, the EU would continue to operate under its present rules". So the chaos theory is bogus"

But perhaps in the eyes of the busy yes lobby here, the Sunday Times is part of some giant conspiracy along with Sinn Fein, SWP, American military complex etc :-)

I feel that our incompetent politicians should be rapped on the nuckles and sent back to negotiate a better deal. I am being positive about Europe and voting no this time.

There's a massive difference between peacekeeping and going on the offensive. However, Ireland's involvement in the likes of the Afghanistan debacle has blurred this massive distinction.

Again Ireland is not neutral. Our military neutrality policy means nothing whatsoever outside Ireland - it means next to nothing here either. Our supposed neutrality policy isn't even self-consistent. When DeValera demanded the return of the Treaty Ports before the outbreak of WWII we became a declared neutral. We even interned belligerent forces in the Curragh during the war as mandated by the laws that define neutrality. However, since then, we've offered our airPORTS and other services to belligerents and have destroyed any semblance this policy had regarding neutrality or indeed, self-consistency.

Moreover, the Constitution demands that our participation in conflicts be put before the Dáil, according to article 28 of Bunreacht. However, we lent material support to the US in its undeclared war on Iraq without the assent of Dáil Éireann. We didn't even wait for the UN to confer legitimacy, we acted and rightly presumed that this lapdog would eventually sanctify it, which it eventually did.

This notion of defending Ireland is a red herring. The truth of the matter is that if Ireland were invaded, it'd be all over before any of our alleged allies would get their shit together and respond. But you're right, we probably will never be invaded in the 'good old' sense of the word. Those days are long over. We have good relationships with those who'd be capable of launching a traditional style invasion (no thanks to the EU either) and the other types who might choose to bomb the shit out of us because we decided to aid the crusade will not send a traditional invasion force and thus any military muscle sent to our aid will be rendered impotent.

Our build up of military power will have nothing to do with defending Ireland. It will act as a threat, much the way the nuke once acted as a deterrent (not a deterrent anymore though: UK, US and Israel etc. have reserved the right to launch first-strike offensives). Ireland in Bunreach has affirmed its intent to seek to resolve international disputes through pacific means. This went out the window ages ago. This military build-up is the next step in rejecting the ideals our constitution demands. I cannot realistically be seen to be discussing peace with you whilst I point a gun at your forehead.

There's a big difference in supplying troops to a UN Peackeeping mission and going out on the offensive.

Ireland's neutrality will be maintained, and you're right in the fact that Irish Neutrality isn't explicitly defined, but it is an official government policy, and has been since the days of the free state, Ireland has always considered it's participation in military efforts on a case by case basis, this doesn't change in the lisbon treaty.

In fact we stand to benefit more from the Common EU Defence policy, our only method for defence is to rely on the armies of our allies as our Defence forces are woefully inadequate for the task of invading the country should it happen. (Which in fairness, it probably never will).

Keith said: "@notanimpersonator: It’s a moot point that you’re making seeing as allowance is specifically set out in the treaty for an individual member state to maintain it’s neutrality."

It's not a moot issue at all Keith. Firstly, Ireland is not a neutral country as defined in law by the Hague Convention and the Geneva Conventions. In fact, Ireland hasn't even ratified the Hague Convention. Ireland's definition of its neutrality policy is unique to Ireland, and even at that, very few are aware of its implications. Afterall, it doesn't exist in written format, does it. More to the point, Ireland's neutrality policy is not law and is therefore inferior to law, interntional law and domestic law. Hence our ability to supply troops to the UN and the EU's forces when told to do so.

Secondly, if you check out the first paragraph quoted from Article 28 by Bock after my post you'll note the following: "The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy." That's the same as saying that one of the items to be included in the common security and defence policy will be a common defence policy. What else will be included in this policy - and why is it not covered currently? Reminds me of the Greens - vote for us now and we'll announce our policies after the election.

Pat follows the great Irish political debating tradition. When you have no facts, just huff and puff and call the other person a liar.

It worked for generations of gobshite politicians.

@notanimpersonator: It's a moot point that you're making seeing as allowance is specifically set out in the treaty for an individual member state to maintain it's neutrality.

@goo: In reality there's not much about the treaty that can be coveyed in a lay manner, but there has been a good concerted effort to provide objective information in an intelligible manner. It's up to the public to research this referendum, because there's no easy way of mass communicating it. At the end of the day it's not a public referendum on divorce or abortion, not a simple concept, instead it's a cryptic piece of political policy that doesn't even make sense on it's own if you read it, it relies on other assets and treaties before it becomes intelligible, and even then it's only comprehensible by political scholars. So there's fuck all sense going around waving the pitch-fork and saying the government isn't telling us what it's about, the information has been made available, and in reality, the Lisbon Treaty shouldn't even be considered for public referendum, save for the fact that our constitution requires amendments to be put forth for public approval, if it wasn't for that the government elect (the voice of the mass public) would be ratifying this on our behalf.

@Pat Johnston: No one called you a liar yet Pat, but you seem quick enough to point the finger, you also seem to be very quick to call for facts to be provided. Well I have provided facts enough in my last comment on this post, Lette has also stated facts, same goes for Squid and Bock the Robber. So It seems that we are able to back up our statements with solid demonstrable fact, (no CIA conspiracies cited) whereas you have backed up your statements with nothing. In fact instead of backing up your statements and debating this issue you've just gone ahead and accused people of lying, it seems that you are the one getting more and more desperate, maybe this wouldn't be the case if you were able to argue fact against fact, but you have demonstrated that you can not, instead you're running you're own little smear campaign against us here, just like the smear campaign run by SF, SWP and the lobby groups, you must feel like a real little hero!

At the end of the day, if we vote no we're doing a big service to the USA, and doing ourselves no favours. Like it or lump it, we're in Europe, and Europe has done us well, and no-one is looking to give up Irish soverignty, but we can't ignore the fact that the common good of the EU is good for Ireland too.

I've never understood Europe-bashing. I mean seriously what the fuck do Europe bashers want? Do they want to be under the crown again, or do they want to become the 52nd state? Because at the end of the day we cant survive on an indigenous self-reliant market, and in the EU we've become a powerful nation and never lost our voice - that's more than we can say from the deal we got from the crown. And a lot more than any deal we would get from the USA.

Pat: you say:
"As I said earlier, I have not yet heard the Yes lobby come up with a single compelling reason to vote yes."

well I havent seen the No lobby come up with a single reason to vote no either! the campaigns are as weak as eachother!!

"would you sign a contract you didnt understand?"
"Ireland can do better" VOTE NO
They are not reasons, they are slogans and pathetic ones at that!

where did I come up with this so called Lie? the facts are here plain as day: http://www.indymedia.ie/articl...
and... http://www.anarkismo.net/newsw...
and... http://www.wsm.ie/story/3946
and... http://www.wsm.ie/story/3946

oh wait... http://www.google.com/search?c...

These are written by ligitimate sources and they would have a law suit on their hands if they published untruths dont ya think?!

I am not a liar, why would I? im no politician and iv already said I dont know much about this treaty because neither the No or the Yes campaign have given me reason to swing wither way but to be honest its people like you and the facts thats **FACTS that I have brought forward that are now making me want to vote yes.

Pat give me a solid reason to vote no and ill go with you hand in hand to the voting box on friday and ill vote No. Untill then i think ill stick with the facts I have found.

Lie?? HA ill leave that to the real politicians thank you.

Pat, even with Dail privillage a person wouldn't get away with calling someone a liar.

The fact t hat Libertas is funded by individuals who haver been involved in making money out of the US military industry is a plain fact, not a conspiracy theory.

Bock the Robber Says: "Lette isn’t smearing anybody and you know that perfectly well. Shame on you for calling her a liar."

Bock, they say that the secret of lying is first to tell a big lie and then to keep repeating it.

Lette has told the big lie, and, well, you just keep reating it.

I think that you both have read too many cia conspiracy theories.

We can expect this kind of smearing though as the Yes lobby gets more and more desperate.

Come on, debate the facts and forget about the smear tactics.

As I said earlier, I have not yet heard the Yes lobby come up with a single compelling reason to vote yes.

We should demand that our politicans go back to Europe and negotiate a better deal.

hmmm the Yes camp have done more damage by NOT forwarding any good or actual arguments for ratifying this treaty that i can discern,so even if its actually a good treaty then theyv failed badly to tell us why.
No doubt their arguments will get more colorful as their desperation grows. I remember one argument the Yes camp put forward for the Maastrcth Treaty which was something like- 'if we vote NO then the IRA will take over the country!'
Perhaps this time they'l invoke the spectre of Bin Laden.

loooool :@)

You're quite correct Bock.

The last paragraph you quoted is particularly interesting, especially since Article 51 of the UN charter figured strongly in the US excuse to wage war on Iraq. One should remember that Iraq did not perpetrate an armed agression on the shores of the US. The US has set a very dangerous precedent as to how Article 51 can be interpreted and indeed what exactly can be constituted as being an act of "armed agression on its territory," regarding EU members.

Effectively, in my opinion, this EU army can order Irish support for any reason they deem appropriate, regardless to any input from us. We might not be forced to include Irish soldiers as in accordance with our military neutrality policy, that's the only limit though and it's quite dubious.

Notanimpersonator:

It might be helpful to quote some more of article 28, in addition to the part you selected.

The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides.

It also says as follows:

If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

Future Taoiseach: Lette isn't smearing anybody and you know that perfectly well. Shame on you for calling her a liar.

Libertas was set up and funded by Rivada.

Rivada's links with the US military go far beyond Hurricane Katrina and you know this as well. They are a supplier of secure communications equipment to the US Army, National Guard and Homeland Security. Their board of directors is overwhelmingly ex-military, intelligence and ex-Bush administration people.

The other major player in Libertas is the owner of a company that supplies in-flight refuelling services to the US Airforce.

We should be worried about these people's motives.

For those who state that the Lisbon Treaty is not about militarisation - how do they reconcile the following:

Article 28 (to be inserted - replacing article 17) (c)3, para 2.

"Member states shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities. The Agency in the field of defence capabilities development, reseach aquisition and armaments (hereinafter referred to as the "European Defence Agency") shall identify operational requirements, shall promote measures to satisfy those requirements, shall contribute to identifying and where appropriate, implementing any measure need to strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector, shall participate in defining a European capabilities and armaments policy and shall assist the Council in evaluating the improvement of military capabilities."

Not only that, I agree with Keith here, (not because im bias) but seriously I never said I was voting yes, I only said I was thinking about it. walking through town this morning I see another poster from SF saying, "Would you sign a document you didnt understand? VOTE NO" .... am... NO I wouldnt sign the thing at all!! I wouldnt vote either way if I didnt understand it fully, and this stands with me now too.

I admitted to you all I didnt know a lot about the lisbon treaty and all I gave was my opinion in the form of a VALID point on something that I read and understood to be true. So why bash me? I have no evidence of it being untrue!!

so with what you say that the link with libertas and the US mil being the dying argument of the yes campaign... i dunno about that because tha majority of the arguments the no campaigners have made have no relavance to the lisbon treaty whatsoever at all.

so im going to be open here, which I feel I have been all along anyway, and ill say this, I feel that the no campaign is just as weak as the yes campaigners because I have not seen enough solid, valid evidence for me to confidently vote either way.

but my point above still stands, if you type in "Libertas US Millitary" in google you will see enough articles to see where i came up with it. Id say something if I made it up , I didnt but I do believe as keith said in the pink elephant in the room that a lot of people here are willing to ignore at their own loss!!.

There's a pink elephant in the room guys.

Let's face it, if the Irish Times was prepared to make that comment they would have verified it's authenticity.

Are we that fucking blind that we can't put two and two together.

Rivada is on retainer as a DOD contracor, Ganley and his cohort (including other us defense contractors) have covered the country in posters, no small feat, not by a longshot, especially when in reality the only placards we should be seeing are party placards, why anyone would trust a lobby group with a very strong verifiable connection to the US DOD, over the voice of the political parties that represent us is completely beyond me. It's fucking ridiculous.

You know what, I just see the no campaign as the typical opposition for the sake of opposition bandwagon, and the fact that they're prepared to gloss over the obvious link to the US Mil just amazes me. How many of the opposition have spoken out about the use of Shannon as a US Mil staging point, lets not forget that they were quick enough to link Shannon to Guantanamo on the foot of an Amnesty International report, why can't you do the same now, is it because you don't want to admit to the blisteringly obvious? I'll tell you why, because the same people who are voting no love fucking europe bashing.

You shouldn't have to be reminded of the fact that this country would be a shithole still if it wasn't for europe, and anyone who disagrees is seriously deluded or just fucking kidding themselves. The celtic tiger would have been the celtic housecat had it not been for free movement of goods and capital.

America want's to remain the biggest bully in the playground, and Ireland is the key to keeping them stronger than Europe.

I'm sorry now, but i'd have Europe over the states any day.

hehehe I dont use ibm or microsoft, ima Mac girl!! LOL!

look guys relax a small bit I have already openly said I know very little about the Lisbon treaty (obviously) so yeah, im not the one taking it seriously at all :)

Shannaboley I never said I predicted US economic collapse in 1993 if you read what I actually said I predicted that a new bogey-man was needed by the US to justify military spending and lo and behold that's exactly what happened. And to be clear I'm not someone who thinks 9/11 was all a US govt plot. It s more like the makers of a posionous fly-spray poking a stick into a hornets nest and when some people are stung saying "Look I told you that we needed this fly-spray"

Lette, Microsoft sell stuff to the US military as to IBM and loads of other companies. So what.

Lette,

Fair play to you Lette. Good wind up.

If you are going for a lie, then go for a big lie.

However this US military claim is simply ridiculous.

I do not believe for one minute that you take it seriously yourself.

Lette your anti-Libertas smear is typical fo the failed tactics of the yes campaign who won't talk about the Treaty itself. Ganley's company, Rivada, was involved in the cleanup after Hurricane Katrina, and in that respect helped the US national guard. To twist that into 'links with the US military' is a flat lie.

PAT: actually do your homework, Libertas are the company that have funded the Europien No campaign, they are American military, go figure and do some research.

Squid, the FG response was that we can't be selective about some things while expecting them to be available to us. If folks couldn't come here then we couldn't go there. The other member states have been only able to postpone the date for full free movement of labour from the new member states not opt out completely. It was a 7 year postponement and most of the people who opted to come here are more likely to head to Germany and Austria in future.

The Irish government made the decision it did at the time because the economy was finding it hard to get people to fill many of the lower paid positions that were available and if they had not been filled prices would have risen by much more than they did causing knock on effects across the economy.

According to Patricia McKenna the only reason we have a military is to keep the arms industry going. Sure it is, it's not like there are any crazy people in the world who might wish us or people geographically close to us harm (after all if someone nukes the UK our shield of neutrality will protect us from the prevailing winds), or more locally seek to use force to change the political lie of the land (not that that nice Mr. Adams himself ever handled a gun), and everyone in the international community is perfectly rational like that nice Mr. Mugabe chap who plans on starving his own people who so happened to vote for someone else in what was we're all sure a free and fair election.

America isn't funding the No campaign. What I assume Lette is referring to is an article in the Irish Times about a month ago which mentioned that there are connections between Libertas members and the American Military. The article didn't establish what the connections were and, for that reason, could probably be based on the six degrees of separation; the same system which connects Barrack Obama to Hitler and Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein.

Some really sad crackpot theorizing going on in this thread.
Why not take the time to study all the materials that are out there and make an educated informed decision and vote accordingly.
But make sure to avoid being swayed by the crackpot theories. Of course the US don't want a "United States of Europe" to evolve but neither do China or Russia. But the question is what do YOU want and is this it?

I know that squid, so do the American public it was the excuse Bush used!
but September eleventh started us down that road. Thats why I say it was misguided and wrong .

There is no link between Saddam Hussein and 9-11.

So the military or government was worried about money or power or the europeans so they started a multi billion dollar war? even though in 1993 you predicted the US would be bankrupt! did you also predict September 11th because misguided or not wrong as it may! be thats what caused the war .

Not paranoia - realism. If McCain wins its more of the same. Again a stable and prosperous world is very much in Ireland's interest.

At times like this I feel I understand how Churchill felt when he warned of the rise of German militarism in the 30s.

In 1993 I predicted to general derision that in the absence of Communism the US military/industrial complex would need to create a new bogey man to justify the high levels of military spending that is the engine of an otherwise bankrupt US economy. At that time Hollywood had started to substitute generic Eastern European/Commie villains with Islamic/Arab ones. In a couple of years the originally CIA funded Al-Qaeda emerges to fill the void.

Where does Europe come into this? Well the rise of the euro as a foreign reserve currency of choice for much of the Middle-East and Asia has led to the decline of the dollar if this process continues the capital transfers that underpin the US economy will decline to such a level that the levels of military expenditure as a proportion of GNP (which in the US are higher than any other country in the worll) will prove unsustainable bringing an end to US military hegemony and the collapse of the military/industrial elite that rule the US. So they have to do something to stop this hence the Iraq war, hence the covert funding of anti-EU opinion in Europe.

Us militarism lol boy thats some big paranoia, bush has a few months left . America is not that concerned or scared of the big EU its far more concerned that the chinese will get us lol . Seriously to vote for something based on the americans governments position is just not in Irelands best interest and is that not what its about what is best for Ireland as a country as a people .Ireland has fought so long and hard just to be Ireland have faith in yourself vote for whats right for you.

by the way I cant say anything negative about Bush the cia may be reading.

Just to be clear I'm not voting Yes to avoid upsetting Cowen. In fact the prospect of upsetting that complacent bunch of tossers is the only reason I can see for voting No. I'm voting yes for a dynamic effective Europe that will be a bulwark against US militarism. Cowen may be a b**x but its the Bush junta and their media cheerleaders that will get us killed.

" it seems the sleeveen element are now more afraid of upsetting their American multinational overlords.".

On the contrary I would I have thought that the sleeveen elements are more afraid of upsetting Cowen & the Irish political establishment.

Poll just in on the Joe Duffey show showed 57% against.

The Yes camp must be getting desperate. Expect more stories of American conspiracies, foreign mind control etc.

The Yes camp will do anything except except provide a single good reason for voting yes. Hence their daft conspiracy theories.

Big laugh on the Joe Duffy show this afternoon was people saying that we should trust our politicians when they tell us to vote yes.

Surely they have not been following the latest episodes from Planet Bertie at the tribunal!

RE US involvement there may not be direct funding (though I'm sure Youth Defence and its surrogates are awash with Bible-belt cash) but if you watch the euro-sceptic change of direction that has happened in the UK over the past 10 years this was driven by a violently euro-sceptic media driven by their North American owners to oppose a strong EU which is in direct opposition to US interests (eg the decline of the dollar in the face of strong euro).

This change of direction has been mirrored here in the last few years just as these same media barons have increased their hold on the Irish market!!!!

The other point on this is that we used to over-whelmingly vote Yes for fear of stopping the EU money gravy-train. Now that as stopped it seems the sleeveen element are now more afraid of upsetting their American multinational overlords.

I agree Squid.

Perhaps the Yes camp could also explain the ultimate destination of the EU project ?

Does anybody know what the overall plan for Europe is or is it simply being made up as they go along ?

With regard to the Fine Gael response to Jim Long, the claim that we cannot be selective is rubbish also.

If member states could not be selective about the european package then Britain would have the Euro, and all but three of the countries would have had open borders following EU expansion to 25 countries.

Also as far as I know, the british have been able to opt out of certain parts of european treaties in the past.

My main concern is that we will be made vote for the same thing again and again unless the government get the result they want. similar both to the Nice Treaty, and the current zimbabwean elections.

Interesting about the American funding Lette. Can you be more specific?

Lette,

So the Americans are behind the No Vote ? A CIA Conspiracy perhaps :-)

Seems to me like the yes camp are panicking and coming out with all kinds of nonsense.

Its about time the yes camp started to play the ball and not the man. There is a strong element of attempted censorship by the yes camp. They seem to think that it is their right to decide who can and who cannot speak on this issue.

If there is a good case for voting yes, then I have yet to hear it!

“As a result of the Nice treaty, we have had an influx of foreign nationals. They have come in and compounded the workforce. They are seriously exploited and do not contribute to the workforce at all, and our own economy has suffered as a concequence. All the wealth is being sent out of Ireland because of this, I am clear that this has fast-forwarded the race to the bottom for the Irish people.”

am... that has feck all to do with the lisbon treaty and is a stupid argument to make!!

another stupid award has to be made to the limerick post this week for putting on their front page what the leader of the "socialist" party said...

that voting yes means that we are voting to Militerise Euroupe... iv never heard the likes of the shyte!

Yes we will have a stronger defence system but thats not the same as militerisation at all and keep in mind folks that America is funding the No campaign over here so that we will not be a strong hold against them and for that alone im only thinking about voting yes.

when I heard that I was shocked!!

I'm a probable Yes voter but even I think the Yes campaign is shockingly bad. They seem to be unable to put forward positive reasons for voting yes. Most of their rationale seems to be based on gratitude (as Joe Leddin above), or fear of the consequences of a no vote. In either case it portrays Europe as an external entity that we must be subservient to.

This of course mirrors the negative campaigning and fear-mongering of the No camp (see Cllr Long's anti-immigrant rant above) who also see Europe as an external entity who in their case must be opposed.

Am I naive to want to see Europe portrayed as something we are part of, contribute to, benefit from. This is an entity that has created an environment where war between countries that have in living memory fought the two bloodiest wars in history is now an unimaginable possibility. This Europe that has the possibility of becoming a bulwark against the increasingly dangerous global influence of U.S. military power. This Europe that we belong to...... Nobody's arguing FOR it!