In the Spirit of the Forum for Stable Currencies

Stop the “Cash Crumble” to Equalize the Credit Crunch is the name of our Public Credit Petition on-line. It is targeted at the Treasury Select Committee and requests an inquiry into a long-term view of the money supply or public credit.

Signed by our key Parliamentarians Lord Sudeley and Austin Mitchell MP, it is now ready for the e-world to see and support.

Please check our FAQ page should you wonder what hides behind the terms “Cash Crumble” and “Credit Crunch”.

Sovereignty is the principle that nation states have sold to monetary and financial institutions. The sovereignty of a state in the US is comparable to regions in Europe. May “small is beautiful” win in the face of the powers of globalisation!

Oklahoma Declares Sovereignty.

STATE OF OKLAHOMA
2nd Session of the 51st Legislature [2008]
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 1089

By: Key
AS INTRODUCED

A Joint Resolution claiming sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over certain powers; serving notice to The federal government to cease and desist certain mandates; and Directing distribution.

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
Reads as follows:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
Prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
Or to the people.”; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as
Being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States
And no more; and

WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that The
federal government was created by the states specifically to be an Agent of the states; and

WHEREAS, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as agents
Of the federal government; and

WHEREAS, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some
Now pending from the present administration and from Congress may
Further violate the Constitution of the United States.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE OF THE 2ND SESSION OF THE 51ST OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:

THAT the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not Otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

THAT this serves as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our Agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are Beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

THAT a copy of this resolution be distributed to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of The United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and The President of the Senate of each state’s legislature of the United
States of America, and each member of the Oklahoma Congressional Delegation.

Published in: a.. Revolution on June 14, 2008 at 8:42 am
Tags: constitution, federal government, state sovereignty

The URI to Track Back this entry is:

This article “Mad Finance must not rule us” was originally published by Le Monde. It has been signed by former politicians and calls for a global review of the financial system.

Comments can be left on the remarkable site of Truth Out that offers the English translation.

Here is the Update on the Implementation of the Financial Stability Forum’s (FSF) Recommendations in the form of a Report by the FSF Chairman to the G8 Finance Ministers. It addresses:

I. Current situation of the financial system

II. Implementation of the recommendations of the FSF Report on Enhancing Market and Institutional Resilience

III. The work of the FSF going forward

It is worth noting that our line of “public credit” is completely absent in this line of institutionalised thinking.

It is also worth noting that “write-downs” are likely to persist in the financial sector for some time.

Finally, our line of thinking could only address point c in the introduction: “the sources of leverage and their associated risks are better identified and addressed.”

“Risk” is the key word - not sustainability!

F I N A N C I A L S T A B I L I T Y F O R U M

11 June 2008
Update on the Implementation of the FSF’s Recommendations
Report by the FSF Chairman to the G8 Finance Ministers

I. Current situation of the financial system
Financial markets and institutions continue to make progress in adjusting to the new conditions that have prevailed since the outbreak of market turbulence. Banks and other financial institutions have raised substantial amounts of new capital and further capital raising plans have been announced. Institutions have also moved to reduce leverage and build liquidity. Credit and liquidity risk premia have narrowed since mid-March although more recently there has been some re-emergence of strains.

A number of challenges remain. Despite central bank liquidity operations, term money markets in the major currencies remain subject to volatility and wide spreads. Many securitisation markets remain disrupted and assets continue to accumulate on banks’ balance sheets. With housing and commercial property markets and economic growth weakening in several countries, write-downs are likely to persist in the financial sector for some time.

II. Implementation of the recommendations of the FSF Report on Enhancing Market and Institutional Resilience

Authorities are continuing to take appropriate steps to facilitate adjustments in the financial sector and dampen the impact on the real economy. At the same time, it is essential for the restoration of confidence that work to put in place a more resilient financial system for the future maintains its momentum. The guiding principle of the recommendations of our Report on Enhancing Market and Institutional Resilience is to recreate a financial system (a) that is more immune to the misaligned incentives that have we have seen; (b) where leverage is ultimately lower; and (c) where the sources of leverage and their associated risks are better identified and addressed.

II.1. Recommendations identified as immediate priorities by the G7
In endorsing the FSF Report, the G7 communiqué in April identified certain recommendations of the Report as priorities to be implemented within 100 days. All of these priority recommendations are on track, as described below:

• Regarding risk disclosures, supervisors and national authorities have strongly encouraged their internationally active financial institutions to use the recommended leading risk disclosure practices summarised in the FSF Report as part of their upcoming mid-year 2008 reporting. Some early reporting institutions have implemented the disclosures, and authorities expect others to enhance their risk disclosures along the lines proposed in the FSF Report in forthcoming mid-year reports. We will assess the results in September.

• The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) is accelerating its work to enhance the accounting and disclosure standards for off-balance sheet entities. By end-2008, it will issue for consultation a new proposed standard on consolidation of special purpose vehicles and other entities and related risk disclosures for off-balance sheet entities.

• Also, in response to the FSF recommendations, on 3 June the IASB announced the establishment of an expert advisory panel to assist it in (a) reviewing best practices in the area of valuation techniques and (b) formulating any necessary additional guidance on valuation methods for financial instruments and related disclosures when markets are no longer active. This expert advisory panel will hold its first meeting this week in London.

• As noted above, financial firms are continuing their efforts to strengthen their capital positions. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision announced on 16 April a series of steps to make the banking system more resilient to financial shocks. These include the issuance of Pillar 2 guidance to strengthen risk management and supervisory practices, including stress-testing practices and capital planning processes.

• The Basel Committee will issue for public consultation global sound practice guidance on the management and supervision of liquidity risks later this month. It plans to finalise the guidance in late September, and will begin work to assess the scope for further international convergence around the supervision of liquidity risks.

• IOSCO finalised the revision to its Code of Conduct Fundamentals for Credit Rating Agencies (CRAs), and released the revised Code on 28 May. The Code sets out materially enhanced expectations for quality and integrity of the rating process; CRA independence and avoidance of conflicts of interest; and CRA responsibilities to the investing public and issuers.

II.2. Other recommendations
Good progress is being made by FSF member institutions and bodies as well as the FSF Working Group on further recommendations, including the following cited in the G7 April communiqué.

• The Basel Committee announced on 16 April that it will publish later this year proposals for establishing higher capital requirements for complex structured credit products; strengthening the capital treatment of liquidity facilities extended to off-balance sheet vehicles; and strengthening the capital requirements in the trading book.

• The Basel Committee is in the process of developing guidance to enhance the supervisory assessment of banks’ valuation processes. An outline of what such guidance would cover has been developed, and the Committee plans to finalise the guidance by end-2008.

• IOSCO decided in May to monitor the implementation by CRAs of the revised Code of Conduct Fundamentals for CRAs. It aims to have the results later this year.

• The Joint Forum has launched a stocktaking of the uses of credit ratings by its member authorities in the banking, securities and insurance sectors. It plans to finalise the work by end-2008.

• The FSF WG has formed a small group of supervisors to develop the protocols needed for the establishment of supervisory colleges for the major global financial institutions.

• At a meeting convened by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York on 9 June, major market participants and their supervisors reviewed industry strategy and agreed an agenda for addressing weaknesses in the operational infrastructure of the over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives market. The agenda includes the establishment of a central clearing house for credit default swaps (CDS); bilateral and multilateral netting of contracts; protocol for managing defaults; and targets for greater automation of trading and settlement.

III. The work of the FSF going forward
The FSF WG will assess progress in taking forward the above and other recommendations later this month and in early September. The full FSF will review progress across all recommendations at its meeting on 29 September.
The FSF is also setting in train an examination of the forces that contribute to pro-cyclicality in the financial system and possible options for mitigating it. The FSF WG will discuss the areas to be covered in this examination at its meeting in June.
Continuous support and involvement by the G7/G8 would be helpful to maintain the positive momentum for taking forward the workstreams to enhance the resilience of the financial system. The FSF will present a comprehensive follow-up report at the G7 meeting in October.

Public Credit Petition

My warmest congratulations to you for the inspiration (and implementation) that lies behind The Treasury Select Committee Petition. I think this will touch a nerve as it is something that ordinary people can understand…and politicians can make speeeches about. Also the timing is excellent…and the Online Petition addresses the modern governance problem of the Democratic Deficit, representing the other side of the Early Day Motion coin.

You may now find yourself inundated with requests for Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) and Fact Sheets. Do not be shy to ask for my help. It is in this context that the work this Spring on the Swabey (Usury and the Church of England) and Tawney (The Damnable Sin of Usury) manuscripts (and chronologues) may have a part to play. Thomas Robertson’s Human Ecology is also needed…OCR’d but unedited.

More on The History of Usury and from the Ciff’s Edge Signalling Company

This is a text for a petition that I am planning to submit to the Treasury Select Committee. Please let me know of any changes you might wish to see before you’d be willing to put your name to it. Thanks.

Stop the “Cash Crumble” to Equalize the “Credit Crunch”

“We, the undersigned, request an inquiry into the long term development of the money supply, in particular the share of cash and the share of credit in the economy. Since nobody questions who generates the interest necessary to pay for credit, we object to buying into the myth of a “credit crunch” while on-line statistics of the Bank of England show that the cash share of the money supply has continually dwindled. The reality is therefore a “cash crumble”.

A lot of us have studied our financial system over many years and some have taken legal advice resulting in Parliamentary scrutiny via the Treasury Select Committee. Others have submitted “Green Credit for Green Purposes” in response to the Committee’s inquiry into the Stern review which was published in February 2008.

For an economy with believable inflation rates and the ability to preserve wealth, it is necessary for the Government not to raise taxes nor to borrow but to stop the “cash crumble”.

Given that we all live longer, we request an independent inquiry into the long term money supply as the tap that should fuel our economy sustainably. Wholesale and retail credit have monopolised the supply. To compensate for the imbalance generated, the Government should spend cash into the economy and gradually increase its share for the sake of future generations. Instead of growing the financial economy, it should use its ability to create “cash” or “narrow money” to fuel genuine growth in the real economy to cover pension bills fairly, pay for public services adequately, make public buildings energy-sufficient and to adapt to climate change effectively.

Most of us have been victims of rising prices that don’t match inflation figures and many of us have experienced practices of banks and other authorities that we don’t consider honourable. We are all aware of social problems that can be reduced to a financial system that is neither sustainable nor fair. We therefore urge the Treasury Select Committee to organise an inquiry into the long-term development of the money supply.”

You can comment below, leave your signature here or sponsor the petition here.

Before you buy this book, you may want to read the reviews. I have long been able the analyse the problem better than describing it. These descriptions are examples of the underlying principles that make me angry, sad and occasionally even mad. For it is difficult to make sense of the excuses, the non-truths and the pseudo-explanations of what is happening.

But more and more of us are waking up, aren’t we?!

This book explains maybe more than any other analysis how ‘broad money’, i.e. interest-bearing credit, is used to pay people - to do bad. Reviews can be found here.

To do good within this system is perfectly possible as we all know. But the author of “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” is doing especially good!

With thanks to Dr. Lilly Evans.

This article paints the bigger picture of Ireland and her dependence on financial capitalists in the EU elite. Great reasons for voting NO to the Lisbon Treaty!

The Lisbon Treaty:  Look out kid, they keep it all hid

As an American who moved here and became an Irish citizen, there has always been one question that has nagged at me: After the Irish people struggled against foreign domination for 600 years, and finally won independence, why did they then voluntarily throw away their sovereignty to a different foreign master? Do people think that Franco-German domination will be somehow better than British rule?  Can’t they see that Brussels is Strongbow all over again?

Perhaps I’m being unfair however. It isn’t really that obvious that the EU is an imperialist project, but I assure you it most certainly is. Not only is the EU itself a European-scale  empire – something that Britain never achieved and Hitler was unable to hold onto – but the EU (and NATO) are being used increasingly as a base for  supporting imperialist adventures in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Africa, and wherever else there are resources to be stolen or local upstarts to  be put in their place.

One thing that many people don’t understand  is that  imperialism — and war generally — have never  really been about nationalism. It seemed that way for centuries, and that makes it more difficult to recognize modern imperialism, since nationalism has been downplayed following Word War II.

Imperialism and warfare have always been commercial projects, instigated by bankers and others seeking to make a profit, either from the war itself or from the spoils of war. Government leaders – always the stooges of commercial interests — have, however, frequently used nationalism as a means of rousing the populace to support imperialist endeavors. Nationalism has been at times the propaganda of war and imperialism, but never the cause.

But nationalism has not been the only propaganda approach. The white man’s burden, for example — the bizarre notion that murder and theft benefit the victim — was used quite successfully by British imperialists for quite some time. And of course atrocities by the others are a favorite ploy. One might recall the absurd stories circulated during the War to End All Wars about German soldiers eating Dutch babies. Is there no end to the public’s credulity? In Britain perhaps not, but I expect more from the Irish. They’ve seen the other side of the imperialist game.

Today, the propaganda is sillier than ever, and again it seems somehow to be working. Today, unbelievable as it seems, imperialism is being justified on the basis of spreading democracy and humanitarian interventionism. The standard approach, as in Darfur, is to first destabilize the area covertly, then to publicize the resulting suffering and get people upset, and finally to send in the occupation forces — which was of course the goal from the outset. Thus is Ireland now a partner in imperialism, although most of the population, and the soldiers who are risking their lives, can’t really be blamed for not being aware of the fact.

I don’t want to get started on this, but I must say a few words about the destabilization of Yugoslavia, as it is so typical of modern imperialism. Yugoslavia was a proud, multi-ethic, peaceful nation that succeeded in avoiding domination by both the Nazis and the Soviets, both during and after Word War II. How sad it was when US-German intelligence agencies began their destabilization campaign, backed up by the corporate-serving media. As atrocities mounted on both sides, more or less equally, the media focused entirely on the atrocities of only one side, the Serbians.

And then there’s Srebeniza, where refugees were encouraged to gather, and adequate protection not provided — intentionally setting them up to get massacred.  One thing was led to another (nothing happens by itself in these kind of affairs), and finally we got the horrendous US-NATO blitzkrieg against the people of Serbia. The commercial payoff: US-EU control over Kosovo’s key position vis a vis energy supplies. Also, the US has a permanent military base there now, Camp Bondsteel. The recent declaration of independence by Kosovo was a sick joke, unless you count foreign occupation as independence.

Some of you may be thinking, “OK, the EU may be evil, but I’ve got an 08 reg car as a result. I want to take care of number one, myself”. Fair enough, who am I to judge? The thing is though, my yuppie friend, is that the EU is out to screw you just as much as it is out to screw those in the “underdeveloped” world. Do you think the collapse of the Irish housing market is an accident? Do you think the housing bubble that preceded it was an accident? Welcome, my friend to the real world. Nothing like that ever happens by chance. Just as bubble & squeak is a favorite British dish, so is bubble & burst a favorite way for banks to pick your pockets.

It’s so easy for them. First they lower interest rates, and loosen up loan requirements. Of course housing prices go up! How could they not? If a bank will loan X on a house, then the seller can ask for X as their price. It is banks who determine the value of a house. Buyers don’t think in terms of how much they owe, they think in terms of, “Can I make the payments?” This is especially true when prices seem to be going up forever, and people think they can always sell at a profit if anything goes wrong.

The same thing happens in the business sector. Companies can easily borrow, so they invest in new operations, hire more people, and the economy generally heats up. Everyone thinks ‘times are good’ borrowing and spending increase, people get new cars, credit card balances jump way up. It’s party time! As David McWilliams put it, “The Celtic Tiger is just one big overdraft”.

This is phase one in the pick-a-pocket-or-two game of bubble & burst. As the balloon rises, banks rake in a percentage of it all, and do very well indeed. They keep the fires going in the balloon’s burners until it gets so high that even the monthly payments are too much for people to afford any more, and inflation gets so bad that consumerism starts to decline. The fun is now going out of it for the banks, and so then begins the next phase of the game, the profit from burst phase.

At this point we begin to read in the newspapers that prices have got out of hand. Duh! In case you missed that: DUH!!  DUH!! Our Minister for Finance (the voice of the big banks) then tells us that interest rates must be raised to avoid inflation. Isn’t it just a bit late to lock the barn door my friend? Wouldn’t it have been a better idea not to lead the horse out in the first place? Interest rates go up, investment is cut back, workers are made redundant, spending declines, housing prices go down, etc., and as you know yourself, this is exactly where we are right now here in Ireland.

For most of us, this makes for tough times. We’re finding it hard to keep up with our expenses. We’re wondering if we really needed that newer car. Perhaps our job is at risk, or perhaps we’ve been forced onto the dole. If we own a shop, we’re getting fewer and fewer customers. In general, it’s bleak for everyone — except for the banks.

They are now sitting on a huge inventory of loans that they’ll be collecting on for years to come, a much more valuable inventory than they could have achieved without the bubble. Yes, a percentage of those loans will need to be written off, as businesses fail and houses are foreclosed, but that amounts to peanuts in comparison to all the loans that will get repaid. Not only that, but as interest rates rise, the value of that inventory gets still bigger! The banks can unilaterally decide to increase your mortgage payments. How convenient for them. I wish I could find a racket like that.

Surely you remember the old joke…”What’s the difference between a banker and a drug pusher?”  Answer: “Banking is legal, more profitable, and hurts more people”. I loved that scene in Scarface, when the pin-striped gentleman banker explains why they’re better off doing their money-laundering in Miami rather than Panama, even though Panama gives better rates. Pacino, the drug-dealer chief, says to his roughneck bodyguard: “Learn from these guys, they’ve been at it for a thousand years”.

Meanwhile, back here in Ireland, there’s still more to our collapsing-bubble story. Part of the profit from burst phase is ownership consolidation. Over-extended businesses are in trouble, and the big investors and big corporations (ie, the vultures) swoop in to feed, flying in from all around the world, from Frankfurt to Tokyo. Even though the over-extended business is a viable one, its debt burden forces it look for a buyer. The vultures are able to pick up valuable inventories, and viable operations, for a fraction of their real value. The big fish eat the little fish, and chew on ‘em and bite ‘em. The little fish eat the littler fish, and so ad infinitum. One of the consequences of these bubble & burst episodes has been the concentration of global ownership into the hands a small community of transnational corporations — and banks.

I’ve been giving out about banks. Perhaps you are thinking, “Yeah, I agree, banks are evil, but what does that have to do with the EU, and with the Lisbon Treaty?”  EVERYTHING my dear friend. The EU is ALL ABOUT bankers tightening their control over the affairs of Europe and of the world. And do you think it’s an accident that Bertie’s main advisor has been the same fellow who will soon be our Taoiseach, thus giving banks a direct line to determining Irish policy? Meanwhile, tribunals waste our time looking into comparatively trivial matters, while Ireland’s assets are being auctioned off to the highest bidder.

I’ve been studying the EU, and the trickery by which it has been sold to the masses, since back in ‘91. I happened to be staying with a friend in France at the time, in the midst of the media blitz aimed getting the French to vote oui on the Maastricht Treaty. Everywhere you’d go, there were adverts saying, “It’s the adult thing to do”.  I suppose “adult” has something to do with how French people like to think of themselves, and so it makes a good advertising slogan, but “adult” has nothing to do with the Maastricht Treaty.

The Maastricht Treaty was the founding document of the EU, and it is very interesting. It was drafted by bankers and signed by bankers. Rather than Prime Ministers  or Foreign Ministers being involved, it was Finance ministers who attended the conference back in ‘91. The treaty says very little about democratic process, nothing about the rights of citizens, and it isn’t concerned much about political matters in general. The main concern of the document is to ensure that Europe shall always have banker-friendly fiscal policies. This treaty is still at the base of all EU policy.

From the very beginning, the intention behind the EU initiative has been to create an all-powerful centralized European government under the firm control of Europe’s banking elites. At first I didn’t quite understand where it was all headed, but I was able to recognize a con game when I saw one. There was something about the way the project was being sold that smelled like last week’s fish. Why was all the slick advertising always pro-Europe? Why were there never two sides to the issue, and when the other side was presented, why was it usually presented weakly?

We see the same thing today with RTE’s one-sided coverage. Oh yes, they “present both sides”, HA HA, but it is easy to tell from their overall coverage which side “makes sense” and which side is a bunch of folks who “don’t get it”, who are “dragging their feet”, who don’t understand “the way things are going”.

As for the government in Dublin, they show no interest in finding out how the Irish people feel about the Lisbon Treaty or the EU. Their mission, as they see it, is to sell the Treaty, by any means necessary, regardless of what people want. They’re even beginning to use fear tactics, as when Bertie talks about “no more jobs” if the Treaty fails. These kinds of propaganda tactics have been used throughout the development of the EU. Gerhard Schroeder, at the time Chancellor of Germany, went so far as to suggest that Germany might turn aggressive again if the EU project faltered. I’m sure the German people found his remarks quite objectionable and even embarrassing.

One thing to keep in mind is that the structure of the EU government in Brussels is quite undemocratic by European standards. In European nations — if they are nations anymore — everyone in the government is elected directly by the people. In Brussels, on the contrary, the main power is concentrated in the European Commission, all of whom are appointed, and all of whom agree to put “EU interests” ahead of the interests of the nation they are “representing”. Who, may I ask, decides what “EU interests” are? The Commissioners, just like the Finance Ministers throughout most of Europe, always turn out be very close to the banking community.

One of the tricks being used by the EU, to sell itself to the masses, is an emphasis on green initiatives, and progressive initiatives. And in fact many people point to such things as reasons to see the EU as a “force for good”. I suggest, however, that these ‘good programs’ are bait and bait only, on the EU hook of domination. Such initiatives cost Brussels, and the banks, nothing. We see the real agenda of the EU when we read about how “Ireland must cut back on its social services”, and of course in the push for ever more privatization, an agenda championed so effectively here in Ireland by Mary Harney. If only tribunals would take on the big crimes!

Have you ever wondered what privatization is really about? Have you been seduced by cheaper phone alternatives? Do you think ‘competition’, as they use the term, is always ‘better for the consumer’, and ‘better for the taxpayer’? Again, what we have here is a two-phase game, just like bubble and burst. Lots of apparent benefits and competition at the beginning, lots of monopolization at the end, and eventually higher prices for all of us. What privatization really amounts to, in the long run, is selling your farm for what looks like a good price, and then being a tenant farmer on your own land for the rest of your life, being squeezed by the landlord. Do you really want to go back there?

Ireland is a country that could easily be self-sufficient in food, and its farmers could make a good living feeding the Irish people, who would be enjoying healthy, locally produced products. Instead, because of EU policies, and the imposition of a reckless free-trade regime, Irish farmers are being forced out of business and our food supply will be at the whim of the multinationals that control the global food-distribution networks.  Eventually food production will migrate to the lowest-waged nations, with farmers working for peanuts, we will pay inflated prices at the supermarket, and the middle-men will pocket the huge difference.

For anyone who cares about Irish sovereignty, culture, or well-being, the Lisbon Treaty isn’t really the question before us. The real question is this:  How quickly can we get out of the EU, bring back our own currency, and restore our sovereignty? It may already be too late, but if we wake up and get to work, there may still be hope for Ireland. If we wait too long, and we try to escape, they’ll send in the troops, just like in Tibet.

Richard Moore

rkm@quaylargo.com

The Lisbon Treaty ‘behind the scenes’ explains how the Maastricht Treaty, the EU constitution and the introduction of the Euro came about… Some dare call it ‘democracy’… Having seen both West and East Germany suffer from the Euro - without a referendum - I consider it VITAL that we use all our net-working skills to encourage Irish citizens to vote for us who don’t have the possibility. The election is on June 12th. Signing the petition is the smallest contribution we can make.

From ATTAC Germany:

If you live in an EU member state, please sign this petition and spread the word:

http://www.irish-friends-vote-no-for-me.org/

Here is why: In April, a petition was launched against 2 Articles of Lisbon Treaty (56 and 48).

http://www.stop-finance.org/

Extract:

“As European citizens, we therefore demand the abrogation of article 56 of the Lisbon Treaty which forbids any restrictions on capital flows and thus sets the perfect conditions for the overwhelming hold of finance on society. We also call for restriction of the freedom of establishment (art. 48), leaving capital free to migrate wherever conditions are most favourable and financial institutions free to seek asylum in the City of London or anywhere else they choose.”

It has received over 35000 signatures up to now. Whatever the final number will be, however, the fact remains that the Irish are going to vote on the Lisbon Treaty without any amendmends made to it, and no other country has a referendum.

Therefore, it is absolutely essential that we can convince as many Irish citizens - according to opinion polls, the majority is still undecided - that this treaty is not in their best interest, neither as Irish citizens, nor as Europeans.

They are told by the Yes Campaign - basically their Goverment with heavy funds from the EU Commission - that Europeans would take it badly if they said No. Little could be further from the truth. The peoples of all other member states are denied referenda on this text which will influence everybody living in the EU and even those outside. Opinion polls continously proved that the majority of them wanted referenda and many have openly demanded them - like thousands of us Austrians - but the Government just smiled and looked the other way.

The Treaty of Lisbon is in essence of the same content as the EU Constitution, which was rejected in 2005 by the French and the Dutch.

Neither have a referendum now. What is more, the Portuguese had been guaranteed a referendum by the party that is now in power - and are now denied a referendum. Hearing the news then, London, Paris and Berlin showed reliev. When the heads of state went to Lisbon last year to sign the treaty, 200.000 Portuguese went onto the streets. This is the biggest demonstration Portugal has seen in at least 20 years. The international media has ignored it.

I therefore ask you to do what is in your power to convince as many Irish as possible that this treaty must be rejected. It is a threat to the European Social model, a threat to any chance of ecological advancement.

Some friends of Attac Germany and I will go to Irland to assist the NO Campaign. We are in contact with CAEUC, the Coalition against the EU Consitution. Its members come from several small Irish parties and civil people’s movements. Compared to the Yes Campaign, the means of the CAEUC are tiny. They therefore also ask for money. Because of the Irish law, they cannot get direct financial contributions, however. To support them financially if you are not Irish, you must become a member. This is valid for both individuals as well as organizations.

Thanks again for your time and attention.

Siegfried