EU-Charter of Fundamental Rights and death penalty

Spiritoftheseventies

Can we clear this up. While clicking on Irish times page link yesterday saw Jim Corr interview via you tube posted at bottom of page. He mentioned that in the charter that in a footnote at the end the Death Penalty could be implemented in special circumstances. Subsequently came across a link that seems to say same thing. What exactly is the situation with this amendment?


http://www.parteidervernunft.de/2009/08/24/eu-death-penalty/
the EU-Charter of Fundamental Rights allows the reintroduction of the death penalty and the killing of human beings during civil commotion and uprisings

Kalashnikov_Kid

Something tells me to stop at the point of reading Jim Corr (possibly Dundalk's greatest ever export, but still...)...

Anyway, basically all provisions, footnotes or otherwise, are (as I believe) subject to the national laws of the respective EU states.

In Ireland, this means Bunreacht na hEireann, our constitution.

So basically if the death penalty was to be introduced in Ireland, at the very least it would have to be passed through the Dail and put to vote by our people (in order to change our constitution to allow it to happen ala Lisbon) -

i.e. it would never happen in this day and age, as we know it. And the decision to enact the death penalty would ultimately come down to the Irish public, as long as our national political structures as we know them today remain intact.

Good to hear Jimbo's still out there professing the word of the New World Order. Wonder if he's spun out his helicopter in Dundalk's direction recently. A true legend.

Spiritoftheseventies

Kalashnikov_Kid wrote: »

Something tells me to stop at the point of reading Jim Corr (possibly Dundalk's greatest ever export, but still...)...

Anyway, basically all provisions, footnotes or otherwise, are (as I believe) subject to the national laws of the respective EU states.

In Ireland, this means Bunreacht na hEireann, our constitution.

So basically if the death penalty was to be introduced in Ireland, at the very least it would have to be passed through the Dail and put to vote by our people (in order to change our constitution to allow it to happen ala Lisbon) -

i.e. it would never happen in this day and age, as we know it. And the decision to enact the death penalty would ultimately come down to the Irish public, as long as our national political structures as we know them today remain intact.

Good to hear Jimbo's still out there professing the word of the New World Order. Wonder if he's spun out his helicopter in Dundalk's direction recently. A true legend.

Im not talking about the death penalty in Ireland. Do we as Irish citizens have right to voice opinion on this even if it takes place outside of Ireland. So to ask question again. Will the Death Penalty in Europe be introduced in special circumstances if this treaty is passed.

P. Breathnach

bayviewclose wrote: »

Im not talking about the death penalty in Ireland. Do we as Irish citizens have right to voice opinion on this even if it takes place outside of Ireland. So to ask question again. Will the Death Penalty in Europe be introduced in special circumstances if this treaty is passed.

See http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/2004/4/29/Explanation%20relating%20to%20the%20complete%20text%20of%20the%20charter.pdf pp. 16/17

ei.sdraob

@bayviewclose

stop trying to start another lie

EU is clearly anti death penalty


http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/human_rights/adp/index_en.htm

EU Policy on Death Penalty

The EU strongly opposes the death penalty in all circumstances. Still a large number of executions are taking place and many countries retain the capital punishment de facto or in their legislation. The EU has drawn up policy guidelines on the death penalty. These guidelines provide inter alia a set of criteria for making representations and outline minimum standards to be applied in countries retaining the death penalty.

and yes just so there is no confusion i deliberately highlighted the bit above from EU policy document



edit: another myth busted!

/

Nehaxak

I thought we already voted in a referendum before, years ago, doing away with the death penalty ?

ei.sdraob

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Europe

Europe holds the greatest concentration of abolitionist states

Abolition has been common in European history, but has only been a real trend since the end of the Second World War when human rights became a particular priority. The European Convention on Human Rights was adopted in 1950 but some countries took many years to ratify it. The United Kingdom retained the death penalty for high treason until 1998 (William Joyce was the last person to be put to death for high treason in the UK, on 3 January 1946).
Italy was the latest country (March 3, 2009) to ratify protocol 13 in abolishing the penalty for all crimes.[2] Azerbaijan and Russia have not signed protocol 13, while Armenia, Latvia, Poland, and Spain have not yet ratified.[3] All but Russia and Latvia have, however, abolished the death penalty.
[edit]European Union
The European Union (EU) has long since been against the death penalty, supporting the European Convention, and its 2000 Charter of Fundamental Rights included a ban on the death penalty.

FutureTaoiseach

The Charter overrides the Irish Constitution, and any attempt to deny this is ludicrous. It will override the Irish Constitution because ALL EU law supersedes the Irish Constitution under both existing Irish Constitution provisions (presently Article 29.4.10 of the Constitution and under the referendum wording Article 29.4.6. of the Constitution. Article 6 TEU as amended by Lisbon states that the Charter will have "the same legal value as the Treaties". Who, in the final analysis, interprets the Treaties? The ECJ. So Kalashnikov_Kid, you are factually incorrect. I suggest you research the subject matter with more diligence next time. Gerard Hogan SC has stated that the Charter may "eclipse" the Irish Supreme Court, and I have included his remarks below with a link:Gerard Hogan said the Charter of Fundamental Rights could "eclipse" the Irish Supreme Court?

Irish Times wrote:

THE ROLE of national supreme courts and constitutional courts in the EU could, over time, be eclipsed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, according to a leading constitutional lawyer. The Charter of Fundamental Rights will become enforceable under the proposed Lisbon Treaty.
Gerard Hogan SC was speaking at a private conference of the Irish European Law Forum in UCD last January last.
At it he reiterated many of the issues he raised on previous occasions, including in The Irish Times, concerning the charter and its predecessor, the Declaration on Fundamental Rights.
He went on to say at the conference that much would depend on the interpretation given by the European Court of Justice to key phrases in the new charter that related to the implementation of EU law. The charter states the rights it enshrines are only enforceable by the courts when EU law is being implemented. Depending on how this is interpreted, the charter could amount to "the most profound change" in relation to judicial review and the protection of fundamental rights since the adoption of the Constitution, Mr Hogan said. He questioned the inclusion of certain rights in the charter, as they do not fall under the competence of EU legislation. One example is the right to marry and found a family. He pointed out there is no EU competence in relation to national marriage legislation, so it is unclear why such a right should be stated, as it is only enforceable if EU law is being implemented. The same could be said of many of the other rights in the charter, he said, including the rights of the child, the right to criminal due process and the right to healthcare, he said. Mr Hogan stated the charter had many positive aspects, including that it created a proper legal basis for a challenge to the validity of EU legislation on human rights grounds, but still contained problematic aspects. In particular, it was unclear as to when a state would be "implementing Union law" and when it would be implementing purely domestic law, given the transposition of EU directives into domestic law.

Now, quoting from the Treaty text and the constitutional amendment wording in this referendum:

Article 29.4.10 Before Lisbon wrote:

No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State.

Article 29.4.6 Irish Constitution as Proposed wrote:

No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, actsdone or measures adopted by the State, before, on or after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, that are necessitated by theobligations of membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 5° of this section or of the European Atomic Energy Community, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by—
i the said European Union or the European Atomic Energy
Community, or by institutions thereof,
ii the European Communities or European Union existing 15
immediately before the entry into force of the Treaty of
Lisbon, or by institutions thereof, or
iii bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this
section,from having the force of law in the State.

Article 6 TEU as amended by Lisbon wrote:

1. The Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, as adapted at Strasbourg, on 12 December 2007, which shall have the same legal value as the Treaties. The provisions of the Charter shall not extend in any way the competences of the Union as defined in the Treaties. The rights, freedoms and principles in the Charter shall be interpreted in accordance with the general provisions in Title VII of the Charter governing its interpretation and application and with due regard to the explanations referred to in the Charter, that set out the sources of those provisions.

P. Breathnach

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The Charter overrides the Irish Constitution, and any attempt to deny this is ludicrous. It will override the Irish Constitution because ALL EU law supersedes the Irish Constitution under both existing Irish Constitution provisions (presently Article 29.4.10 of the Constitution and under the referendum wording Article 29.4.6. of the Constitution. Article 6 TEU as amended by Lisbon states that the Charter will have "the same legal value as the Treaties". Who, in the final analysis, interprets the Treaties? The ECJ. So Kalashnikov_Ki, you are factually incorrect. I suggest you research the subject matter with more diligence next time...

On what point is Kalashnikov_Ki factually incorrect? Are you suggesting that the EU can force us to adopt the death penalty?

ixtlan

This is typical No side distortion of the EU.

The EU does not agree with the death penalty and has outlawed it in almost all circumstances.

I've just wasted 40 minutes to understand what's going on here.

The European Convention on Human Rights required countries who signed up to ban the death penalty except in cases of war... Presumeably you could not get states to sign up unless this proviso was put in. Note this was a convention running in the late 40s and early 50s so memories of WWII were rather recent.

Although the EU is against the death penalty it has never been an absolute and several states have laws permitting executions in extreme wartime circumstances. The Charter of Fundamental Rights in 2000 included a full ban, but this was never legally binding. Therefore I assume states with those laws could live with it.

After Lisbon, it will be legally binding, so again I assume that what happened is that states with these laws allowing the death penalty said hands off our rights and laws and constitutions, said we signed up to the ECHR and that should be good enough. So the charter (or more accurately an added declaration) was ammended to say that it would be interpreted in accordance with the ECHR.

The states which I have found so far with such death penalty in wartime laws are Poland and Latvia. Poland in particular seems to have issues.

So...

1/ The EU has never had an absolute ban on states carrying out executions in wartime circumstances.
2/ Lisbon does not change this.
3/ The EU cannot make law in this area. The only question is whether it bans national governments from making such law.

You may feel that the EU should have a complete and total ban in all circumstances. I would agree. However obviously this is an area where some states feel strongly, and again the EU is trying to be sensitive to the sensitivities of those states. It may be absurd to us, in this area, but that's the nature of compromise.

By all means you can write to your MEPs and demand they work on a total ban, but the No side should bear in mind that they will be trying to force an issue on unwilling states, something which they constantly complain about with regard to Ireland being forced by the EU. It seems really this is a matter that has to be resolved internally in the relevant states.

So, once again...

Lisbon makes no legal changes to the current situation on the death penalty in EU states. It's banned in normal circumstances. It's allowed (if the state wishes) in wartime.

Ix.

FutureTaoiseach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

On what point is Kalashnikov_Kid factually incorrect? Are you suggesting that the EU can force us to adopt the death penalty?

I think what the EU can do is allow the Irish government to be released from the ban from 2001 on the Irish Constitution that we voted for in 2001 on the same day as the Nice I referendum. The Charter footnotes allow for the reintroduction of the death-penalty. That doesn't mean automatically that it will be re-introduced. It just means that the 2001 ban on its re-introduction is rendered null and void.

On what point is KK incorrect? He is incorrect his general claim that nothing in the Charter overrides national law.

Anyway, basically all provisions, footnotes or otherwise, are (as I believe) subject to the national laws of the respective EU states. In Ireland, this means Bunreacht na hEireann, our constitution.

That comment seems to be arguing something beyond the death-penalty issue - namely - that the Charter overall is subordinate to the Irish Constitution. It isn't.

ei.sdraob

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I think what it can do is allow the Irish government to be released from the ban from 2001 on the Irish Constitution that we voted for in 2001 on the same day as the Nice I referendum.

On what point is KK incorrect? He is incorrect his general claim that nothing in the Charter overrides national law. That comment seems to be arguing something beyond the death-penalty issue - namely - that the Charter overall is subordinate to the Irish Constitution. It isn't.

like a real politician

you avoided his question

so here it is again, and i will keep bringing it up until you decide to answer it

do you claim that the Charter of Human rights would force death penalty on Ireland?

FutureTaoiseach

ei.sdraob wrote: »

like a real politician

you avoided his question

so here it is again, and i will keep bringing it up until you decide to answer it

do you claim that the Charter of Human rights would force death penalty on Ireland?

No. I do claim, however, that it would legalise its possible reintroduction either by the Irish govt or by EU legislation later on.

ei.sdraob

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

No. I do claim, however, that it would legalise its possible reintroduction either by the Irish govt or by EU legislation later on.

how do you square that circle

when the EU Policy is:

The EU strongly opposes the death penalty in all circumstances

ixtlan

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

No. I do claim, however, that it would legalise its possible reintroduction either by the Irish govt or by EU legislation later on.

First I must clarify my earlier post. Rather than say the 2000 CFR included a full ban on the death penalty, I should have said that it could possibly have been interpreted as a full ban. The declaration to the Lisbon Treaty version clarifies that actually there is no absolute ban.

So, Lisbon changes nothing. It has always been the case that the Irish government could, through a referendum to change the constitution, enact a death penalty law applicable in time of war. The EU could never impose any such law.

It's also worth pointing out that the capital punishment ban is the only part of the constitution that cannot be overruled by the Irish government in time of war.

Ix

Nehaxak

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

No. I do claim, however, that it would legalise its possible reintroduction either by the Irish govt or by EU legislation later on.

We voted by referendum to abolish the death penalty in Ireland, thusly changing our constitution, hence to change it back would require another referendum. Unless the Lisbon Treaty (if passed) would supercede our constitution and force us to enact the death penatly even though our constitution does not allow.
Am I wrong in this ?

ixtlan

ei.sdraob wrote: »

how do you square that circle

when the EU Policy is:

The EU strongly opposes the death penalty in all circumstances

Well, I'll repeat what I wrote earlier.

First, Lisbon changes nothing.

The EU strongly opposes the death penalty in all circumstances, but has never absolutely banned states from using it in times of war.

We can start a campaign to ban it absolutely, but for some states that will be the EU pushing too far.

Ix.

ei.sdraob

Nehaxak wrote: »

We voted by referendum to abolish the death penalty in Ireland, thusly changing our constitution, hence to change it back would require another referendum. Unless the Lisbon Treaty (if passed) would supercede our constitution and force us to enact the death penatly even though our constitution does not allow.
Am I wrong in this ?

Yes a referendum would be required on a matter as serious as this

and theres no way in hell it be allowed by the people to pass

this whole thread is nothing more than a fud spreading excercise, to spread fear and confusion

shame on yee NOOOOes

ixtlan wrote: »

Well, I'll repeat what I wrote earlier.

First, Lisbon changes nothing.

The EU strongly opposes the death penalty in all circumstances, but has never absolutely banned states from using it in times of war.

We can start a campaign to ban it absolutely, but for some states that will be the EU pushing too far.

Ix.

the question was addressed at FT.

some countries as per the link i provided still have death penalty

but the EU is pushing hard to get rid of it in them countries

the Irish people cant tell the people of another country what to do as much as the people of that country can tell us what to do

this whole thread is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to create fud and scare people into voting NO by the OP and FT

/

FutureTaoiseach

ei.sdraob wrote:

Yes a referendum would be required on a matter as serious as this

It would not be required if it came from the EU institutions because they are not bound by the Irish Constitution. They are bound only by the Treaties and under Article 6 TEU as amended by Lisbon, the Charter has "the same legal value as the Treaties". So I respectfully disagree with you.

ei.sdraob

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

It would not be required if it came from the EU institutions because they are not bound by the Irish Constitution. They are bound only by the Treaties and under Article 6 TEU as amended by Lisbon, the Charter has "the same legal value as the Treaties". So I respectfully disagree with you.

what particular EU institutions are you referring to?

this is a very serious accusation so please be more precise in your statements

FutureTaoiseach

ei.sdraob wrote: »

what particular EU institutions are you referring to?

this is a very serious accusation so please be more precise in your statements

The Commission, the Council of Ministers and then the European Parliament. My hypothesis would be that the process would begin at the Commission before passage through the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. It would have to be within the limits of the footnote though.

ei.sdraob

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The Commission, the Council of Ministers and then the European Parliament. My hypothesis would be that the process would begin at the Commission before passage through the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. It would have to be within the limits of the footnote though.

do tell us whose bright idea was it not to reduce the size of the useless EU Commission

also do tell us who did the people elect into EU Parliament few months ago

and finally do tell which elected Irish ministers are on the EU Council


are you trying to tell us that some unelected "elites" will try to sneak something as big as a Death Penalty despite all the EU policies and guarantees without no one noticing or protesting?


what fantasy land do you live in?

Nehaxak

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

It would not be required if it came from the EU institutions because they are not bound by the Irish Constitution. They are bound only by the Treaties and under Article 6 TEU as amended by Lisbon, the Charter has "the same legal value as the Treaties". So I respectfully disagree with you.

The Lisbon Treaty, if passed, will not supercede our own constitution.
The last remaining remnant of a death penalty in Ireland was to do with treason and we voted some years back (think it was around the same time as the divorce referendum if I remember rightly) to abolish that also.

It could also be counter productive for No campaigners to push further on this non issue as you can bet probably 70%+ of people in Ireland (my "guess"), if pushed, would gladly vote for the death penalty to be brought back for crimes such as child abuse, I know I would.

If I knew there was any chance of the death penalty being re-enacted by the Lisbon Treaty to cover crimes such as that, I would gladly vote yes for it.

P. Breathnach

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

It would not be required if it came from the EU institutions because they are not bound by the Irish Constitution. They are bound only by the Treaties and under Article 6 TEU as amended by Lisbon, the Charter has "the same legal value as the Treaties". So I respectfully disagree with you.

Please be direct: are you saying that the EU could force us to adopt the death penalty?

FutureTaoiseach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Please be direct: are you saying that the EU could force us to adopt the death penalty?

Only if the Government uses Paragraph 7 of the referendum wording to surrender Protocol 21 (the optout protocol on Justice and Home Affairs). Unless they do that, the Government could veto it. However, Dermot Ahern has said that the Government intends to review the optout within 3 yrs (he said this as Foreign Minister last year). Also, Lucinda Creighton on April 1st (!) on her blog also called for the abolition of the Justice optout. That means QMV for Justice and Home Affairs, and yes - I believe capital punishment might be a long term result of that.

Nehaxak wrote:

The Lisbon Treaty, if passed, will not supercede our own constitution.

All EU law since 1973 has superseded the Irish Constitution. Read the Articles I posted earlier in this thread that are in the Constitution now and under the referendum wording (Articles 29.4.10 now and Article 29.4.6. as proposed)/ EU law already supsedes the Irish Constitution since 1973. See the following:

Article 29.4.10 Before Lisbon wrote:

No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State.

Article 29.4.6 Irish Constitution as Proposed wrote:

No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, actsdone or measures adopted by the State, before, on or after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, that are necessitated by theobligations of membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 5° of this section or of the European Atomic Energy Community, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by—
i the said European Union or the European Atomic Energy
Community, or by institutions thereof,
ii the European Communities or European Union existing 15
immediately before the entry into force of the Treaty of
Lisbon, or by institutions thereof, or
iii bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this
section,from having the force of law in the State.

Article 6 TEU as amended by Lisbon wrote:

1. The Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, as adapted at Strasbourg, on 12 December 2007, which shall have the same legal value as the Treaties. The provisions of the Charter shall not extend in any way the competences of the Union as defined in the Treaties. The rights, freedoms and principles in the Charter shall be interpreted in accordance with the general provisions in Title VII of the Charter governing its interpretation and application and with due regard to the explanations referred to in the Charter, that set out the sources of those provisions.

oscarBravo

FutureTaoiseach is banned for continuing to spread lies and misinformation, despite his earlier ban being lifted on condition that he would no longer do so.

Spiritoftheseventies

(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…’

Can we confirm this. And as already stated in post three, do we as Irish citizens apply an "Im all right jack approach" to Europe. As long as it doesn't happen in our own back yard its okay. We are part of Europe. So we are told. Never mentioned anything about Ireland. If death penalty is allowed to take place even in very special circumstances is everyone okay with this? Will it be enacted in the same way Rendition was. Supposedly for the greater good but with human rights taking a back seat. Surprised Amnesty International has remained silent on this. Only heard about this through a link but I'm not comfortable with the direction being taken here especially with the lack of transparency.
Not good enough to vote on a treaty that promises A B C but dont worry about E F and G.

passive

bayviewclose wrote: »

Never mentioned anything about Ireland. If death penalty is allowed to take place even in very special circumstances is everyone okay with this?

I'm confused... I'm angry, and I'm armed.. so... Seriously, are you trying to say that the EU should force member states to ban the death penalty in all circumstances? Or else what? Under penalty of death? Wasn't the whole deal with our abortion and neutrality concerns that the EU *doesn't* force its member nations to modernise, liberalise (or in our case, grow a pair.)

Do you actually mean this or are you just trying to make people think the EU is going to hang us all?

P. Breathnach

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Only if the Government uses Paragraph 7 of the referendum wording to surrender Protocol 21 (the optout protocol on Justice and Home Affairs). Unless they do that, the Government could veto it. However, Dermot Ahern has said that the Government intends to review the optout within 3 yrs (he said this as Foreign Minister last year). Also, Lucinda Creighton on April 1st (!) on her blog also called for the abolition of the Justice optout. That means QMV for Justice and Home Affairs, and yes - I believe capital punishment might be a long term result of that...

That is, if I may put it mildly, creative interpretation. The explanation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights allows a state to apply the death penalty in particular circumstances:

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.

Allows, not compels.

We have an opt-out under Protocol 21 from the provisions in the treaty on Freedom, Security and Justice, with the right to opt in to measures selectively. Show me where in Title V there is anything that can extend permission to apply the death penalty to Ireland, let alone force it on us.

Spiritoftheseventies

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That is, if I may put it mildly, creative interpretation. The explanation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights allows a state to apply the death penalty in particular circumstances:
Allows, not compels.

We have an opt-out under Protocol 21 from the provisions in the treaty on Freedom, Security and Justice, with the right to opt in to measures selectively. Show me where in Title V there is anything that can extend permission to apply the death penalty to Ireland, let alone force it on us.

Again, not talking about Death penalty in Ireland. Are we Europeans when it suits us. For jobs, economy. If the treaty was just about that it would not be a problem. But treaty is all encompassing.
The mere inclusion of the word Death Penalty (and again that such a contentious phrase was not included in booklet tells me RC are not telling us everything) leaves me in doubt.
Are we being asked to vote on a part of a treaty where a member 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…’
What exactly does that mean. Are non nationals in a state where that law is enacted.
In other words once the Treaty is sworn in, can any member state enact this law?

ei.sdraob

bayviewclose wrote: »

Again, not talking about Death penalty in Ireland. Are we Europeans when it suits us. For jobs, economy. If the treaty was just about that it would not be a problem. But treaty is all encompassing.
The mere inclusion of the word Death Penalty (and again that such a contentious phrase was not included in booklet tells me RC are not telling us everything) leaves me in doubt.
Are we being asked to vote on a part of a treaty where a member 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…’
What exactly does that mean. Are non nationals in a state where that law is enacted.
In other words once the Treaty is sworn in, can any member state enact this law?

so now that we established that the Charter wont bring in death penalty to Ireland

---

who are we to tell other states what to do?

it would be like UK telling Ireland to introduce abortion

they EU is already doing its damned best as per its policy to stop Death Penalty in all countries, the charter is a step in right direction

read the article on death penalty in europe i linked to earlier, quite interesting

Spiritoftheseventies

ei.sdraob wrote: »

so now that we established that the Charter wont bring in death penalty to Ireland

---

who are we to tell other states what to do?

it would be like UK telling Ireland to introduce abortion

they EU is already doing its damned best as per its policy to stop Death Penalty in all countries, the charter is a step in right direction

read the article on death penalty in europe i linked to earlier, quite interesting

Again I never said the charter linked the Death Penalty to Ireland. And its the third time I have said it. But we are IMO signing off on a very controversial part of the treaty if we vote yes here.

oscarBravo

bayviewclose wrote: »

And its the third time I have said it. But we are IMO signing off on a very controversial part of the treaty if we vote yes here.

I don't agree. The exceptions to the prohibition on the death penalty are presumably there because some member states felt they needed them, and wouldn't have signed up to the Charter without them. Those member states will continue to allow for the death penalty in those circumstances; other member states will continue to have blanket prohibitions.

Where's the controversy?

ei.sdraob

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't agree. The exceptions to the prohibition on the death penalty are presumably there because some member states felt they needed them, and wouldn't have signed up to the Charter without them. Those member states will continue to allow for the death penalty in those circumstances; other member states will continue to have blanket prohibitions.

Where's the controversy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Europe


from what i can see none of the EU members practice the death penalty anymore

with Latvia being the last one (See below) to ratify assuming Treaty of Lisbon is fully ratified

out of 50 countries in Europe 46 dont have it


the countries that do are:

* Belarus
* Russia observes a moratorium in practice. Their last execution was in 1996
* Latvia maintains it for crimes committed in war time but is a member of the European Union. It has also signed, but not yet ratified, Protocol No. 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights (total abolition)
* two unrecognised states of Transnistria and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus have not abolished the death penalty and are blocked from the Council of Europe. However neither have executed anyone to date




so if you dont like death penalty and want it abolished in all EU states then vote YES



will that make you VOTE YES @ bayviewclose?

since you made such a big deal out of it?



another myth busted! case closed

meglome

bayviewclose are you not starting to reconsider your position? You bring up an issue to vote No which is explained as a non-issue or incorrect and then you proceed onto the next, and so on. But you still don't seem to have shifted your view, if you just want to vote No regardless of what's in the treaty just say so.

ei.sdraob

whats more interesting is that some on the NO side keep going on about having stronger ties to the US while cutting ties to Europe (UKIP im looking at yee in particular)

but they have the worlds largest prison population and still execute regularly, a true leader of first word eh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Death_Penalty_World_Map.svg

ei.sdraob

oh dear look what me find

UKIP (who are campaigning on NO side)

beside wanting to withdraw UK from EU, UKIP want to reintroduce death penalty


sigh yet another things to add on my list to not to like UKIP for

ixtlan

bayviewclose wrote: »

Again, not talking about Death penalty in Ireland. Are we Europeans when it suits us. For jobs, economy. If the treaty was just about that it would not be a problem. But treaty is all encompassing.
The mere inclusion of the word Death Penalty (and again that such a contentious phrase was not included in booklet tells me RC are not telling us everything) leaves me in doubt.
Are we being asked to vote on a part of a treaty where a member 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…’
What exactly does that mean. Are non nationals in a state where that law is enacted.
In other words once the Treaty is sworn in, can any member state enact this law?

Just to repeat again...

Lisbon does not change the situation regarding states enacting laws allowing the death penalty in time of war.

If Lisbon passes a state can enact or keep such a law. If it does not pass a state can still enact or keep such a law.

So, this is not a reason to vote no. In fact the attitude of the EU in tippytoeing around the sensitivities of a tiny number of states show how it will not overrule states where they really don't want to change.

Maybe you would like a tougher EU, forcing states to conform. I don't. I'm happy to allow consensus to develop.

Ix.

Spiritoftheseventies

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't agree. The exceptions to the prohibition on the death penalty are presumably there because some member states felt they needed them, and wouldn't have signed up to the Charter without them. Those member states will continue to allow for the death penalty in those circumstances; other member states will continue to have blanket prohibitions.

Where's the controversy?

How do you mean wouldn't sign up to charter without them. Was this put in to appease those states. And now we are being asked to sign off on this footnote. Ill ask this question in another way. Are we as citizens of Europe being asked to sign off on this. To give consent to this. Maybe this sounds way too liberal but once this is introduced into the treaty what we are doing is in effect is justifying this law where member states chose to opt in on that law. If its outside the charter, there is less legitimacy to it.

oscarBravo

Honestly, bvc, I don't see any point in arguing this with you. The EU is deeply, firmly committed to the total abolition of the death penalty. You choose to ignore this in favour of a sub-clause in the charter that reluctantly allows for some exceptions to this in extreme circumstances.

Your approach seems to be similar to that of many No campaigners: focus unwarranted attention on minor perceived defects in Lisbon or the EU as if they were the be-all and end-all of the whole European project. I know many of the leading No campaigners do this on purpose, as their ultimate goal is the complete dismantling of the EU. I don't think that's your motive, but the end result is the same.

By all means, vote No to Lisbon, as if the fact that there's a tiny little opt-out clause buried somewhere in the Charter outweighs the EU's vehement and outspoken objection to the death penalty. If you can't get this one small issue in perspective, I can't see you getting the entire treaty in perspective.

PopeBuckfastXVI

I wish the EU could ban the death penalty across the Union, but unfortunately some less progressive states don't want that.

So to sum up the situation:

Right now some states in Europe allow themselves to introduce the death penalty in times of war or other emergency.

After Lisbon some states in Europe allow themselves to introduce the death penalty in times of war or other emergency.

This isn't a reason to vote either yes or no.

Spiritoftheseventies

oscarBravo wrote: »

Honestly, bvc, I don't see any point in arguing this with you. The EU is deeply, firmly committed to the total abolition of the death penalty. You choose to ignore this in favour of a sub-clause in the charter that reluctantly allows for some exceptions to this in extreme circumstances.

Your approach seems to be similar to that of many No campaigners: focus unwarranted attention on minor perceived defects in Lisbon or the EU as if they were the be-all and end-all of the whole European project. I know many of the leading No campaigners do this on purpose, as their ultimate goal is the complete dismantling of the EU. I don't think that's your motive, but the end result is the same.

By all means, vote No to Lisbon, as if the fact that there's a tiny little opt-out clause buried somewhere in the Charter outweighs the EU's vehement and outspoken objection to the death penalty. If you can't get this one small issue in perspective, I can't see you getting the entire treaty in perspective.

What i am saying why put the footnote in. If these member states chose to use the death penalty let them. What treaty does no matter how noble its intentions (I'm aware that they promote the right to life on the charter) is to legitimize the actions.
As you said no one wants Europe dismantled but this treaty as one document should not be all encompassing.
Imagine if you will the treaty is a series of motions at an AGM. Maybe 80 per cent of them put before the floor would be carried. Others would be struck out.

But this from Martin Manseragh which is damning enough.
"The original Constitutional Treaty was successfully negotiated under the 2004 Irish Presidency, a source of considerable pride at the time, as it was beyond the capacity of Prime Minister Berlusconi. All member governments signed the Treaty, but France and the Netherlands rejected it in subsequent referendums. Adaptations and curtailments were made, and the revised Lisbon Treaty which emerged received parliamentary ratification in both countries without subsequent popular protest. In the case of France, President Sarkozy in the May 2007 election which brought him to power won a mandate for parliamentary ratification. However, none of our partners were prepared to go through a second renegotiation, but in any case what we needed was not a change in the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, but authorative clarification so as to take away any excuse for mistrust, misunderstanding or misrepresentation, accepting there would be those who would continue to oppose it regardless".
That from a dail speech dated 08/07/2009.
What is clear that while certain "assurances" were given, our partners were not prepared to change the text of the treaty. They had decided the direction already. And are intent on getting it through.
And what the death penalty footnote signifies is a footnote that is tantamount to guillotining an act that has big enough consequences maybe not for the many but for the few.

P. Breathnach

bayviewclose wrote: »

How do you mean wouldn't sign up to charter without them. Was this put in to appease those states. And now we are being asked to sign off on this footnote. Ill ask this question in another way. Are we as citizens of Europe being asked to sign off on this. To give consent to this. Maybe this sounds way too liberal but once this is introduced into the treaty what we are doing is in effect is justifying this law where member states chose to opt in on that law. If its outside the charter, there is less legitimacy to it.

You are being absurd. If the EU could actually force a policy on its members in this area (as distinct from encouraging it) then you would have a legitimate complaint about interfering with member-states' sovereignty.

oscarBravo

bayviewclose wrote: »

What i am saying why put the footnote in. If these member states chose to use the death penalty let them.

Because if the "footnote" wasn't there, the other member states couldn't ever apply the death penalty under any circumstances, and they obviously weren't happy with that. So there's a footnote to the extent that the death penalty may be used, in extremis.

There are lots of opt-outs in the treaties, for most of the member states and for all sorts of reasons. Most states will never, ever implement a death penalty, and the rest will probably never use it.

It's a minor quibble to be getting hung up on, and it groups you in with the rest of the naysayers who are casting about for any minor little detail to use as an excuse to oppose the treaty.

PopeBuckfastXVI

BVC's attitude is equivalent to someone in another country complaining about Lisbon because Ireland isn't opting in to the common defence.

It's absurd.

ixtlan

bayviewclose wrote: »

What i am saying why put the footnote in. If these member states chose to use the death penalty let them.

Because then the charter becomes completely meaningless. You are suggesting countries sign up to it knowing that they have laws which conflict with it, and then just ignore that fact.

This is a legal document, legally binding. All states will have checked what they need to do to conform and sign up.

It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is.

Again... for the 5th? time... Lisbon changes nothing with regards to this.

Ix.

Cróga

Here you go folks:

http://www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=9

Art 2. Right to Life

Definition
1. Everyone has the right to life.
2. No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed. (Great line for the politicians)
Legal Explanations
1. Paragraph 1 of this Article is based on the first sentence of Article 2(1) of the ECHR, which reads as follows:
1. 'Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law …'
2. The second sentence of the provision, which referred to the death penalty, was superseded by the entry into force of Article 1 of Protocol No 6 to the ECHR, which reads as follows:
‘The death penalty shall be abolished. No-one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed’.
Article 2(2) of the Charter is based on that provision.
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 53(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:

• in defence of any person from lawful violence;
• in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
• in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.’ (Police can kill protesters)

b) Article 2 of the 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 a penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…’.

BlitzKrieg

in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.’ (Police can kill protesters)

tbh

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:

Cróga

Yeah and we all know how much the police are saints :rolleyes: Take, for example, the tasers that where brought in in the USA and UK (and soon Ireland), they were only supposed to be used for when its "absolutely neccesary" - only in replacement of guns... now they're using them if you J Walk across the street! These are lethal weapons, they kill and harm people. So they're already doing it, just with this they can get away with it.

meglome

Croga wrote: »

Yeah and we all know how much the police are saints :rolleyes: Take, for example, the tasers that where brought in in the USA and UK (and soon Ireland), they were only supposed to be used for when its "absolutely neccesary" - only in replacement of guns... now they're using them if you J Walk across the street! These are lethal weapons, they kill and harm people. So they're already doing it, just with this they can get away with it.

I dunno shooting them would be a little harsh, can we not just use tasers?

Cróga

meglome wrote: »

I dunno shooting them would be a little harsh, can we not just use tasers?

Tasers are just as dangerous, they can kill. Just look up people getting tasered on youtube its very distressing. How can you advocate this on people?