Passando pelo Dragoscopio
A entrevista de Benazir Bhutto, em que ela afirma “Omar Sheikh, o homem que assassinou Osama Bin Laden...”
E este, em que imediatamente se leva acabo a destruição das provas
Será mito ou realidade? Depois de saber que o principal impulsionador e prémio nobel, gasta 20 vezes mais electricidade numa das suas casa, que o americano médio... Qual será o objectivo de tudo isto? Impedir, como alguns dizem, que África e outros tais, se desenvolvam?
Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'
O termo "deniel" (negação) aqui tem a mesmo peso pejorativo que o "holocausto deniel"
O que tenho descoberto é que os cientistas não negam as alterações climáticas, como o aquecimento global, o que afirmam é não concordar com as conclusões catastróficas tão em voga.
“3. The Treaty makes us all real citizens of this new European Union for the first time, instead of our being notional or honorary European "citizens" as at present:
A State must have citizens and one can only be a citizen of a State.
Citizenship of the European Union at present is stated to "complement" national citizenship, the latter being clearly primary, not least because the present EU is not a State. It is not even a corporate entity that can have individuals as members, not to mind citizens.
By transforming the legal character of the Union, the Lisbon Treaty transforms the meaning of Union citizenship. Article.17b.1 TEC/TFU replace the word "complement" in the sentence "Citizenship of the Union shall complement national citizenship", so that the new sentence reads: "Citizenship of the Union shall be in addition to national citizenship." This gives the 500 million inhabitants of the present EU Member States a real separate citizenship from citizenship of their national States for the first time. It gives a treble citizenship to citizens of Bavaria and Brandenburg within a Federal State like Germany. The rights and duties attaching to this citizenship of the new Union are be superior to those attaching to citizenship of one's own national State in any case of conflict between the two, because of the superiority of EU law over national law and constitutions.
As most States only recognise that one can have a single citizenship, henceforth it is one's Union citizenship which will be regarded by other countries as primary and superior to one's national citizenship.
Although we will be given rights as EU citizens, we should not forget that as real citizens of the new European Union we also owe it the normal citizens' duty of obedience to its laws and loyalty to its authority, which will be a higher authority than that of our national States and constitutions.
Member States retain their national constitutions, but they are subordinate to the new Union Constitution. As such they will no longer be constitutions of sovereign States, just as the various local states of the USA retain their constitutions although they are subordinate to the Federal US Constitution.”
“The Treaty underlines the subordinate role of National Parliaments in the constitutional structure of the new Union by stating that "National Parliaments shall contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union" by various means set out in Article 8c, amended TEU. The imperative "shall" implies an obligation on National Parliaments to further the interests of the new Union.... The provision of the Treaty that if one-third of the National Parliaments object to a Commission proposal, the Commission must reconsider it but not necessarily abandon it, is small compensation for the loss of democracy involved by the loss of 68 vetoes by National Parliaments as a result of other changes proposed by the Lisbon Treaty.”
“... culmination of what started nearly 60 years ago when the 1950 Schuman Declaration, which is commemorated annually on 9 May, Europe Day, proclaimed the European Coal and Steel Community to be the "first step in the federation of Europe".”
Algumas afirmações sobre o novo tratado
The difference between the original Constitution and the present Lisbon Treaty is one of approach, rather than content [...] The proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through the old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary [...] But lift the lid and look in the toolbox: all the same innovative and effective tools are there, just as they were carefully crafted by the European Convention.
Valery Giscard D'Estaing, former French President and Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution, The Independent, London, 30 October 2007
"I think it's a bit upsetting [...] to see so many countries running away from giving their people an opportunity", Irish prime minister Bertie Ahern said on Sunday 21 October, according to the Irish Independent. 'If you believe in something [...] why not let your people have a say in it. I think the Irish people should take the opportunity to show the rest of Europe that they believe in the cause, and perhaps others shouldn't be so afraid of it,' he added."
Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, EU Observer, Brussels, 22 October 2007
They decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception. Where they got this perception from is a mystery to me. In order to make our citizens happy, to produce a document that they will never understand! But, there is some truth [in it]. Because if this is the kind of document that the IGC will produce, any Prime Minister – imagine the UK Prime Minister – can go to the Commons and say “Look, you see, it's absolutely unreadable, it's the typical Brussels treaty, nothing new, no need for a referendum.” Should you succeed in understanding it at first sight there might be some reason for a referendum, because it would mean that there is something new.
Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister and Vice-Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution, recorded by Open Europe, The Centre for European Reform, London, 12 July 2007
Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly [...] All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.
Valery Giscard D'Estaing, Le Monde, 14 June 2007, and Sunday Telegraph, 1 July 2007
The most striking change [between the EU Constitution in its older and newer version] is perhaps that in order to enable some governments to reassure their electorates that the changes will have no constitutional implications, the idea of a new and simpler treaty containing all the provisions governing the Union has now been dropped in favour of a huge series of individual amendments to two existing treaties. Virtual incomprehensibilty has thus replaced simplicity as the key approach to EU reform. As for the changes now proposed to be made to the constitutional treaty, most are presentational changes that have no practical effect. They have simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum.
Dr Garret FitzGerald, former Irish Taoiseach, Irish Times, 30 June 2007
The substance of the constitution is preserved.That is a fact.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, speech in the European Parliament, 27 June 2007
The good thing is that all the symbolic elements are gone, and that which really matters – the core – is left.
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Danish Prime Minister, Jyllands-Posten, 25 June 2007
The substance of what was agreed in 2004 has been retained. What is gone is the term “constitution.”
Dermot Ahern, Irish Foreign Minister, Daily Mail Ireland, 25 June 2007
90 per cent of it is still there [...] These changes haven't made any dramatic change to the substance of what was agreed back in 2004.
Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, Irish Independent, 24 June 2007
The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable [...] The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success.
Karel De Gucht, Belgian Foreign Minister, Flanders Info, 23 June 2007
The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it.
Giuliano Amato, speech at London School of Econmics, 21 February 2007
Referendums make the process of approval of European treaties much more complicated and less predictable [...] I was in favour of a referendum as a prime minister, but it does make our lives with 27 member states in the EU much more difficult. If a referendum had to be held on the creation of the European Community or the introduction of the euro, do you think these would have passed?
Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, Irish Times, 8 Feb.2007; quoting remarks in Het Financieele Dagblad and De Volkskrant, Holland; also quoted in EUobserver, 6 February 2007
“Durante a sua intervenção, de cerca de 50 minutos, o líbio defendeu a proibição do uso de armamento nuclear se este for uma ameaça para a vida humana, e que ainda não começou a terceira guerra mundial, porque «há um receio em relação ao nuclear e isso é perturbador».”
O passeio das ogivas.
É só digitar no Googe “missing nukes Barksdale AFB” e ficamos a saber que seis ogivas nucleares, por misteriosos erros, foram retiradas de um bunquer, foram montadas em seis misseis de cruzeiro, último grito, montadas nas asas de um B52, e, alegremente voaram desde o North Dakota até ao Loisiana.
Uma delas parece que ainda anda desaparecida.
Parece também que alguns intervenientes(?), andam a ter acidentes mortais ou são encontrados... suicidados(?)
Alguma leitura aqui, aqui e aqui