szelmar
09.01.02, 12:08
Także GW opisuje eurosceptyków do których z dumą sie zaliczam, jako bandę
zaściankowych ciemniaków. Tymczasem to kolejny lewicowy chwyt retoryczny! Kto
nie zgadza sie z nami, ten jest nielegalny, nieelegancki i nienowoczesny.
Poniżej fragment przemówienia Prokuratora Generalnego Irlandii, który w mojej
opini znakomicie wyjaśnia niepokoje nie tylko Irlandczyków ale i Polaków! I
prosze nie mówić mi, że wynikają one z niedostatecznej wiedzy. Powiedzcie
raczej, że wasza propaganda jest mało skuteczna, bo faktycznej wiedzy o UE to
nikt nie ma zamiaru ludziom przekazywać! Raczej zostaną zalani falą bilboardów
i relamówek czyli środków czystko propagandowych! Zawodowo śledze sprawy UE i
im więcej wiem, tym bardziej jestem pewien, że zagłosuję NIE w referendum.
Chyba, żeby obecne trendy robienia na siłę Superpaństwa Federalnego zostaly
odwrócone.
Nowoczesnym europejczykom, znającym oczywiście angielski życzę miłej lektury
"It is my personal view that the negotiation of a Constitution for Europe -
whether described as such or dressed up as a `treaty of competences' at this
point is arguably previous and possibly quite unwise. To impose, or to attempt
to impose, on an EU of 27 Member States, a constitutional order devised by 15
of them is to say the least morally and democratically dubious.
"The drive to create a Europe with the attributes of a State is the ambition of
what, I think, is only a minority, albeit an important and well placed
minority, of Europeans. In recent times we have heard proposals for a great
variety of attributes of a sovereign European State:
a constitution;
a justiciable Bill of Rights;
citizenship (since Maastricht);
the power to prosecute, try and punish citizens (the Corpus Juris proposal);
direct taxation (by Europe);
tax harmonisation for the Member States;
defence capacity;
a two-tier parliament modelled on the German model;
a directly elected president;
a Union government.
"Few if any of these proposals carry popular significant support. While many of
these proposals have been put forward separately, they constitute, in the
round, the indiciae of a European State in substance - it matters little
whether it is described as a super-state or a federal state.
"I fully accept that these political categorisations and labels cannot be black
and white and that in politics there are few exact or scientific terms of art.
But, like the elephant, we know a Federal State when we see it, regardless of
whether we can define it.
"These proposals are not coming forward from the people. They are being devised
by a narrow class of activist office-holders, elected and unelected; most of
the proposals appear to me to have all the potential for electoral take-off of
early experiments in steam powered flight. This has not inhibited their
propagation.
"Is it really realistic to expect voters to put them out of their minds when
they ask themselves the fairly basic question: `Do I want to encourage the
process of European integration'?
"The problem of course is that the inner circle of federalism, whether in the
corridors of the Commission, or the European Parliament, or the wings of
Council meetings, has the upper hand and the initiative in setting the agenda.
If this is the agenda articulated variously by the Commission, by the European
Parliament and by statesmen such as President Rau, Chancellor Schröder, and
Foreign Minister Fischer, should we be completely surprised if voters, when
given a rare chance, attempt to pass judgement on it?