Voting No for a reason: Lisbon Treaty OR a Europe of democracy


A constitution by its own definition never allows the act of overthrowing it (=replacing it with another). Not even a sovereign parliament with elected representatives and legislative supremacy has been authorised by the electorate to overthrow and invalidate the constitution under any circumstances, unless such parliament and the domestic law specifically claim to foster a system of “rule of man” rather than “rule of law”.
(Summary of the Lisbon Treaty research)

This blog contains the findings of our research, (one of them is quoted above), on the subject of the Lisbon Treaty, the EU’s controversial “reform treaty”, to which the voters of Ireland will be called to submit their votes in June. Our research offers the objective perspective of political science, based on a thorough analysis of the text, of the implications of the treaty, as well as on evaluating the ongoing political process of implementing the treaty in the EU-member states.

It is a contradiction in terms to project the foundation of a region of security, freedom and democracy, as promised by the Lisbon Treaty, and founding a new country, a federal state on that region without the electorate, merely by the crude command of a central political core of Europe.

In addition to presenting the claim that voting NO to Lisbon Treaty is a conclusion of a scientific research, we wish to eliminate the myth that the only choice or the “best deal” for Ireland and for all EU countries is to sign the incomprehensible constitutional Treaty of Lisbon. Contrary to the myth, there is an alternative to Lisbon Treaty, and yes, there is a better choice than the current dictatorial trend of Lisbon. The alternative is the Eudemocrats (EUD), represented by prominent and honorable politicians of the EU, who have been consistently representing the European voters’ rights against the ongoing dictatorial structural and philoshophical transformation of the Union. The EUD is currently working on drafting a new constitution preserving the values of democracy and laying down a system of a free alliance among the nations of Europe.

A relevant conclusion we have recently arrived at is that the Lisbon Treaty itself admits that the EU has been committing the act of breaching international laws, because it declares that the EU has been following the practice of placing the Union law above national laws without existing contractual basis. It also claims that this practice will remain in place, despite the fact that the lack of contractual basis is still the case:

“At the time of the first judgment of this established case law … there was no mention of primacy in the treaty. It is still the case today. The fact that the principle of primacy will not be included in the future treaty shall not in any way change the existence of the principle and the existing case-law of the Court of Justice.” (FINAL ACT (2007/C 306/02): 17. Declaration concerning primacy)

The very act of ratifying a treaty with such provision – either with or without referendums – is an attempt to invalidate the requirement of respecting existing international agreements in international affairs. Violation of international laws on constitutional terms such as crossing borders and arbitrarily overriding the laws of sovereign countries creates a serious international legal conflict within the category of “war” and should be handled as such.

Such erosion of the contractual basis among the EU and the member states furthermore underlines and adds to the capability of the EU to continue its free extension of its powers over the EU-countries, by maintaining such rights even without any further written agreements among the EU-states. One of the numerous reasons for voting NO to Lisbon is to revoke the permission the Union granted itself to freely violate international laws, i.e. to terminate the Court’s practice of violating our national sovereignty by disregarding the requirement of international contractual agreements in its practices.

In addition to the aspect of undermining international law itself by the Lisbon Treaty, another relevant point to emphasise is that the primacy of the Union law is the main pillar of the legal act making the EU a new federal state. The reason why the EU-leaders claim, for example, that there will be no tax-harmonisation in the EU and Ireland’s tax regime will remain unaffected, yet at the same time J.M. Barroso cannot promise that this status quo would not change in the future, is because under the Lisbon Treaty, the 27 member states would become one single political unit under one federal state, which, observing one major principle of utmost priority to reach perfect cohesion and unity within the entire Union, can be expected to make any decisions of any kind, in any field, including the rules defining national vetoing rights.

Specifically, the current EU-leadership, which, by disregarding the French and the Dutch decisions, has reached unanimity in breaching former agreements requiring unanimity, can be expected to continue its practice of reaching unanimity in decisions about virtually any aspect of our lives and in any rules of the Union toward the cohesion of one central government. By reaching unanimity in changing the definition of “unanimity” and degrading it into a giant excercise of deception, by making arbitrary alterations of former agreements and redefining the most essential concepts of “unanimity”, “democracy”, “rule of law”, “democracy”, the EU has become a political unit for which democracy and the related fundamental political concepts have lost their objective meaning. For any country joining such a Union with moving concepts and principles, and with limitless powers it granted itself by the Lisbon Treaty, is exposed to an enermous threat of losing political freedom altogether.

Because the EU-leaders keep denying the fact that the Lisbon Treaty would empower the EU with federal state competencies (they commit a fallacy known as “straw man argument” by denying the foundation of a “superstate”, which is a meaningless term anyway), we found it essential to provide more evidence that the Lisbon Treaty does create a federal state of the Union, as a result of which the member states surrender their sovereignty and cease to exist as independent countries.

The second most essential finding of our research is that it is a constitutional requirement in each country not to overthrow the constitution, therefore the parliamentary ratification in each EU-state – regardless of the domestic law and the actual content of a national constitution, is the unconstitutional act of overthrowing the constitution. The approach of our evidence is built on the scientific (objective) definitions of political concepts, such as “state”, “federal”, “constitution”, “democracy”, “constitutionalism”, “rule of law” etc. This approach is based on directly comparing the Lisbon Treaty to a theoretical (generic) constitution.

The third main argument of our research is that referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, i.e. on the old-new EU Constitution would be the absolute objective requirement in each EU-state to fulfill the objective principles of democratic constitutionalisation of any new state – in this case the new federal state of the European Union.

Because the EU claims to become a political unit founded on the principles of democracy and rule of law, the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty should be made a requirement by the EU in each EU-state, otherwise the EU would eliminate its own founding principles.

In summary of our research findings, the Lisbon Treaty requires referendum in each EU-state because:

1) The Lisbon Treaty has all the substance to satisfy the criteria of being a new constitution
2) A constitution never allows the act of overthrowing it (replacing it with another)
3) A democratic constitutionalisation process stipulates the referendum as the basis of accepting a new constitution.

By abolishing our democratic voting rights in the very act of constitutionalisation, the EU contradicts its own promise to create a region of freedom, democracy, rule of law and security. Without referendums on the Lisbon Treaty in each member state within the EU, by the act of its own foundation the new federal EU-state abolishes its own founding principles. By the methods of enforcing the Lisbon Treaty the EU is actually breaching the Lisbon Treaty itself and is eliminating its own legitimacy.

As long as the EU ignores these facts, any country and any people who wish to live in a region of freedom and democracy and under a leadership that would respect international law, the genuine principles of democracy and rule of law, would reject the Lisbon Treaty for the sole reason to reject a system and a leadership that has abolished the principles of democracy in Europe.

In agreement with the findings of this research – as well as with the claims of National Platform and those of other known “No to Lisbon” campaigns (, voting NO to Lisbon Treaty means sending back a flawed, unreadable and undemocratic constitution and asking for another, readable treaty that would satisfy the requirements of implementing a democratic system in Europe. We believe in a united Europe, which would be a strong and voluntary alliance of free, independent and democratic countries, rather than within one politically monopolistic structure or “empire” as projected by Commission president José Manuel Barroso. We prefer a Europe of independent democracies, which would compete in reaching the highest effectivity in putting the principles of democracy into practice, rather than founding one coercive centralised, non-transparent, unelected and unaccountable federal government, which is rapidly evolving into the opposite direction by effectively abolishing the principles of democracy by the Lisbon process.
To remain in a status of cooperation with Europe does NOT mean ratifying an unreadable constitution and does not require accepting the terms of a political oligarchy that unlawfully appointed itself to be the constitutional assembly for 500 million citizens without the authorisation of the citizens themselves.

For the above reason voting NO to Lisbon Treaty means rejecting the EU federal state’s undemocratic constitution called “Lisbon Treaty”. It means rejecting the undemocratic methods of implementing the Lisbon Treaty itself and means calling for another, democratic constitution, to be implemented by another, trustworthy and truly democratic EU-leadership. Voting NO to Lisbon Treaty means to express our request for restoring democracy in Europe and saying yes to the most honorable and truly democratic efforts of the Eudemocrats. Rejecting the Lisbon Treaty means asking for the chance for a meaningful debate among the voters and the leaders of Europe.

From an international perspective, by voting NO to Lisbon Treaty our purpose is to defend our land, our political and economical freedom, democracy, neutrality and peace against the unlawful attempt of the EU to colonise Europe. Being on the side of defence, i.e. those who defend our country against any form of invasion – in this case against an international conspiracy and deceit – we refuse any false accusations and other pejorative, fallacious labels like “nationalism”, “xenophobia”, etc. We rightfully and lawfully protect our own interests by means of protecting our national sovereignty, our national borders, our own culture, our welfare state, our own social, educational and healthcare system, our free competition, our own control of economy and protection against globalisation, we demand to preserve our own control over the monetary (central bank) and budgetary (tax, government expenditure) regulations. We rightfully and lawfully protect our own nation’s properties, intellectual achievements and natural resources from global privatisation and wish to preserve these as our properties, and wish to retain our own current democratic voting rights and citizens’ rights.

Research articles:

Selected references:

NEW! Lisbon Treaty Irish Referendum Blog – National Platform


%d bloggers like this: