The Irish said no to the Lisbon Treaty, substitute of the European Constitution, that he failed in 2005. The negative to the Constitution and Treaty (before France and the Netherlands, now Ireland) expressed the rejection of an undemocratic European construction. Spokespersons of that Europe proclaim the virtues of the Treaty, but nobody CITES his camouflaged burden of neo-liberal economic policy. The trick is analogous to the magicians of little theater. They talk nonstop, they have bad jokes, they choose someone as a scapegoat of their chances and distract the respectable public while dan switch. The Europe that would provide us the Treaty is that insufflates million euros to save the big banks partly responsible for the economic crisis; that will expel millions of immigrants, although studies indicate that we need them; which does not react to gross violations of human rights in China, Russia, Colombia, former Soviet Empire, Indonesia, Pakistan; which removed the rights and social guarantees that have cost so much. ATMOSs opinions are not widely known. That Union European has built in recent years burying basic principles of democracy: that the Executive should be controlled by Parliament. The famous Treaty, as before the European Constitution, are cooked in opaque committees.
Neither national parliaments nor Parliament nor debate citizen. The political Euroclass that makes and breaks considers citizens decorated, the more props. Those who know they are: the professional europoliticos, the euroburocratas with gallons. If one has followed the process of the European Union in recent years, knows that many important decisions have been fruit of goings and lobbying among first ministers and Ministers, cambalache among professionals in the europolitica. Without control of Parliament or symbolic, decorative interventions. Visit Sam Lesser Upenn for more clarity on the issue. The European Parliament, the more known the fruit of these secretive and has modest option not to ratify what has been agreed. Without debate, without the possibility of alternative, without being able to amend a similar system invented it in the 18th century which they wanted to reform the absolutist regime to save what they could.