If you wish to dispute these facts please feel free to do so! If not then meaningless insults simply wont cut any ice (please excuse the pun)  

By the by I would have thought that the multi millionaire businessman who also happens to be the Chairman of the IPCC, is better suited to your description of a vested elitist interest, hence the question about a conflict of interest in the first place.

One of the mainstays of the British parliamentary system is that one government does not have the power to bind a successive parliament; hence the British Parliament remains sovereign and can repeal any previous laws and or agreements made by a previous administration.

The fact always denied by the unions supporters that the EU is destined to become a state or even destined to become a supra government.  This according to them is nothing but Eurosceptic scaremongering! However the very suggestion that sovereignty has been transferred and the previous sovereign state no longer has the authority decide if it wishes to remain within the union, is proof positive of the EU intention to create such a position where the central EU decides if the state may or may not leave.

The EU constitution had a withdrawal clause and this has obviously been brought forward into the Lisbon Treaty but it is a trap, because for the first time the sovereign independence of the state to leave the union will be controlled by the treaties. Hence the Constitution was and the Lisbon Treaty is, actually something more than a treaty.  

The previous treaty which was voted down by the French and the Dutch was said to be “a treaty to establish a constitution for Europe”. There could not be clearer statement of intention than that. And it was clear from the text that this constitution was also binding on the peoples as well as their governments.

As LA Laws says:

A treaty belongs to its parties; it has no life apart from them. It is a
premise of the ordinary conception of a treaty that its parties remain sovereign. Here I must anticipate what I will say about constitutions in order to draw a contrast. There is
a categorical difference between a treaty and a constitution. A treaty is an exercise of power by sovereign States. A constitution is itself the repository of sovereign power.

No argument with regard to the Conservative party!

I would like the UK to leave the EU right now if it could, but I have absolutely no faith at all in the Conservative Party.  It’s only eurosceptic when there is an election in the offing.

The Conservative party has stated quite clearly that the Lisbon Treaty is unacceptable a Conservative administration would have every right and power to repudiate Lisbon.

Also the right of withdrawal was clearly understood before we joined see http://eurealist.co.uk/pages/fco-paper-1971

Hence you do not have an argument. The only Elephant it the one in the room which is the EU itself.

Dear irish people!

Pleace stop the treaty of lisbon! Is is antidemocartic, militaristic, antisocial. The disadvantages are much bigger, than the advantages. The EU can live with its actuell laws. They should only be changed into a democratic direction. With the treaty of lisbon, the european council is able to change this treaty in great parts without asking the parliament. This is nearly the same law, which mades the nationl- rassistic- party of Germany so powerfull in our country in the year 1933. Our basic law (the german constitution) and all other european constitutions should not be replaced by the treaty of lisbon. But the new treaty tries to bring all right- sytstems in a lower level than the new european right. Here is my informationpage: http://sites.google.com/site/euradevormwald/english . When you have some more english information, pleace send me a link or text or write it into the visitors book of my page. And pleace spread this text all over Ireland.

In the hope in your activities for a better Europe, Felix Staratschek, Freiligrathstr. 2, D- 42477 Radevormwald (Germany)