Has the no to Lisbon campaign in Ireland been terminally damaged?

[Adrian Wainer]

Notice how the right-wing No side like Adrian, who claim that the Lisbon Treaty will turn Europe into a soviet gulag (in Coir/Libertas' case, where women are forcibly aborted, then married to a lesbian and put into the European Army), are never contradicted by the hard-left No side, who in turn claim that the Lisbon Treaty will turn Europe into a free-for-all neo-liberal superstate.

This divide in the No side just shows up how ludicrous their claims are, which is why in turn they try not to draw too much attention to their wild inconsistencies.

P.

Actually there is no inconsistency whatsoever, in that if one goes far enough left or far enough right, one ends up in much the same place as exampled by the many similarities between Hitler's Third Reich and Stalin's USSR. Yes I am such a right winger that, I congratulated Joe Higgins MEP on his victory in a posting in this forum, LOL.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

[HughinBandon]

Actually there is no inconsistency whatsoever, in that if one goes far enough left or far enough right, one ends up in much the same place as exampled by the many similarities between Hitler's Third Reich and Stalin's USSR.

It's called political extremism. It's usually caused by not questioning the motives of the ruling parties and just saying yes to everything they throw at you without fully understanding the consequences.

[oceanclub]

Actually there is no inconsistency whatsoever, in that if one goes far enough left or far enough right, one ends up in much the same place as exampled by the many similarities between Hitler's Third Reich and Stalin's USSR.

The only similarities these two states had was that they were dictatorships. Economically they were very different. Neither your nor Hugh have yet explained how the post-Lisbon gulag will be both a command econony _and_ a neo-liberal economy.

P.

[oceanclub]

You were supposed to miss it, that's the point.

Capital punishment in Ireland was originally phased out due to a European initiative:

Capital punishment in Ireland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1994, the Sixth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights came into force in Ireland, prohibiting the death penalty in peacetime. Later, Ireland adopted the Thirteenth Protocol, which prohibits the death penalty in wartime, and also the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The abolition was written into the Irish Constitution in 2002 with the Twenty-first Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland.

The hysteria and lies of the No side has no boundaries.

P.

[eurosceptic]

On the contrary i think this will lead to a badly needed diversifying of the no side. As smear is the main yes weapon allowing one or two people to lead the no campaign for any sort of extended period is dangerous. Plenty of middle class people voted yes for the sole reason that SF were calling for a no vote. Ditto the smear campaign on decko was unfortunately paying off. Now the no side can reboot and reinvent itself. This means stephen collins and colm keena will also have to reboot and invent new hysterical conspiracy theories about the no side.

[Chuck de Mawl]

I missed the bit in the Treaty that allows for summary execution of citizens; can you point it out to me?

tic tic tic...

I believe he is referring (inaccurately) to this analysis witten by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

‘in light of the fact that Italy was trying to abandon the death penalty through the United Nations, forever. And this is not in the treaty, but in a footnote, because with the European Union reform treaty, we accept also the European Union Charter, which says that there is no death penalty, and then it has a footnote, which says, "except in the case of war, riots, upheaval"—then the death penalty is possible. Schachtschneider points to the fact that this is an outrage, because they put it in a footnote of a footnote, and you have to read it, like really like a super-expert to find out!’.

An exception to a ban on the death penalty does not mean that the sentence is carried out without trial, courts etc.
So no stopping people and shooting them on the street.
However, the terms 'riots' or 'upheaval' is rather vague, and certainly not something that should go undiscussed.

This is one of the aspects of Lisbon, I didn't get round to checking (cos there's just so much damned cross referencing) anybody else tied it down to a reference?

[oceanclub]

I believe he is referring (inaccurately) to this analysis witten by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Ah, the woman who believes in a "murderous Pokemon cult".

Helga Zepp LaRouche Bio

P.

[Chuck de Mawl]

I believe he is referring (inaccurately) to this analysis witten by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

However, the terms 'riots' or 'upheaval' is rather vague, and certainly not something that should go undiscussed.

The "footnote" in question, directly quoted, is as follows:

3. The provisions of Article 2 of the Charter correspond to those of the above Articles of the
ECHR and its Protocol. They have the same meaning and the same scope, in accordance
with Article 52(3) of the Charter. Therefore, the "negative" definitions appearing in the
ECHR must be regarded as also forming part of the Charter:

(a) Article 2(2) of the ECHR:

"Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article
when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully
detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection."

(b) Article 2 of Protocol No 6 to the ECHR:

"A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts
committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall be applied
only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…"

------END------

Now, that doesn't introduce the death penalty as a punishment in a trial situation, and nor does it add anything to the powers of the police to execute people on the spot.
I mean, they can shoot people dead at the minute and argue (honestly or not) that it was the correct response for the circumstances.

By the way, I should point out, that I voted against Lisbon, and intend to do so again, and that this particular red herring was not part of my decision process.

It does worry me that so few people, either voting YES or NO, actually go to the bother of checking the detail in all the claims thrown into this debate.

[eurosceptic]

Chuck you are right that it doesnt necessarily mean the introduction of the death penalty. I think that was a fundamental misunderstanding of the concern at least as i read it.
What this does do is debunk the myth circulated by europhiles down the years that the EU was a bullwark against nasty carry on like the death penalty and made it a condition of membership to abolish the death penalty. What this provision does do is allow the death penalty in the EU no more.
There should in my view be some clarifying protocols to nail down a few possible loose ends such as the role of the european public prosecutor (whos remit can be extended without limit by a unanimous council vote) and that of europol who become a full EU agency whos officers can enter national territory albeit accompanied by national police officers.

[Chuck de Mawl]

It is written so, for the purpose of confusion. How there is even a remote possibility of this document been ratified, baffles me.
How can people enter into a "contract", when its not understood???!!??!!

Most people don't read contracts, or check most things for themselves.
And lets face it, most of the politicians don't give a damn, so long as it helps their career, and sure they'll all be cosy afterwards with pensions and big houses.
Apathetic members of the public are never going to sit down and read it and all the references.
Those who blindly trust what 'Leaders' tell them, will vote YES or NO depending on which party they support. They forget that these elected 'Leaders' are supposed to be our employees and servants and treat them with a lot more skepticism and assertiveness.