Originally Posted by Chuck de Mawl

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?

Originally Posted by Cameleon

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???!!??!!

Originally Posted by Verhofstadt

With Libertas imploding across Europe and Mary Lou and Kathy Sinnott losing their seats, admittedly by tight margins, has the No to Lisbon camp been damaged beyond repair?

Originally Posted by Chuck de Mawl

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…"

Originally Posted by Cameleon

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???!!??!!

Originally Posted by Chuck de Mawl

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.

Originally Posted by drkpower

Settle down with the indignation Chameleon. If you are telling me that you understand every provision of the contract you entered into when you bought your house, you are lying.

In fact, even your contract to buy a car or a holiday or a credit card has so many provisions and cross references to detailed legislation, that you do not understand that either.