Question on Lisbon

mizhell

Hi! new here sorry if it comes across as a bit green, but could anyone help clarify an issue that has come up whilst trying to make sense of the Lisbon treaty, does this article below basically mean if we vote yes we are giving up our constitutional rights? I would be grateful to hear any straight forward feedback from both sides thanks!

The proposed 28th Amendment to the Constitution of Ireland Bill, 2009, Article 29.4.6. states:

"No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State, before, on or after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, that are necessitated by the obligations 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 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."

Is mise le key

mizhell wrote: »

Hi! new here sorry if it comes across as a bit green, but could anyone help clarify an issue that has come up whilst trying to make sense of the Lisbon treaty, does this article below basically mean if we vote yes we are giving up our constitutional rights? I would be grateful to hear any straight forward feedback from both sides thanks!

The proposed 28th Amendment to the Constitution of Ireland Bill, 2009, Article 29.4.6. states:

"No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State, before, on or after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, that are necessitated by the obligations 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 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."

In a quick answer to your question the Lisban Treaty (which is really the European Constitution that was defeated by France & Holland) will supercede any member states constitution.......


Here is a link to a very informative paper that actually references the articles in the treaty of major concern to the No side which transparently then backs up all the issues we are being told is nonsense from the Yes side such Militarisation, Taxation & the loss of direct power in each countrys internal affairs by its own government.....if you are unsure of what to vote read this paper & make an informed decision on you & your childrens future because one thing is certain if this is passed into being there will be no way back to where we are now so you should be sure before Oct. 2nd...

http://www.sovereignindependent.com/downloads.php

If any of you have Bebo or Facebook pages & already rightly beleive that this is the worst possible thing that can happen to our country spread the content of this post & mediafire link witch is the same as the PDF attached.......download the PDF & E-Mail it also to friend's & encourage them to do the same......spread the information as far as possible on the net to friends & users & to personal E-Mails for a NO!

http://www.mediafire.com/?vgmmjxq3xy2

mizhell

thank you for the feedback I will read this information just as a matter of interest is this paper tied to any particular political party or group?

Is mise le key

mizhell wrote: »

thank you for the feedback I will read this information just as a matter of interest is this paper tied to any particular political party or group?

In the interest of transparency i feel i should make you aware of this thread as this is what i am about, being transparent & open.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62215169&postcount=178

Click the link in the quote on this:rolleyes: post to follow the argument that led me to make this :rolleyes:post.

Stargal

Moved to the European Union forum so that people can demolish theasylumkey's arguments.

Scofflaw

mizhell wrote: »

Hi! new here sorry if it comes across as a bit green, but could anyone help clarify an issue that has come up whilst trying to make sense of the Lisbon treaty, does this article below basically mean if we vote yes we are giving up our constitutional rights? I would be grateful to hear any straight forward feedback from both sides thanks!

The proposed 28th Amendment to the Constitution of Ireland Bill, 2009, Article 29.4.6. states:

"No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State, before, on or after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, that are necessitated by the obligations 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 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."

That's the updating of this existing article in our Constitution:

Article 29.4.10 Bunreacht wrote:

10° 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.

The article above was placed in Bunreacht in 1973, when we joined the then EC, and it has been updated at EU treaty referendums since.

The new version covers almost exactly the same ground as the old one, but slightly more clearly.

And in the interests of transparency, I'm not connected with any campaign group, but I intend voting Yes, and would prefer other people to do so too.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Daftendirekt

mizhell wrote: »

Hi! new here sorry if it comes across as a bit green, but could anyone help clarify an issue that has come up whilst trying to make sense of the Lisbon treaty, does this article below basically mean if we vote yes we are giving up our constitutional rights? I would be grateful to hear any straight forward feedback from both sides thanks!

The proposed 28th Amendment to the Constitution of Ireland Bill, 2009, Article 29.4.6. states:

"No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State, before, on or after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, that are necessitated by the obligations 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 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."

Hi mizhell,

The article in question basically means that EU law takes precedence over Irish law. Meaning EU law is not open to challenge on the grounds of national law.

It's probably worth your while having a read of Article 29 of the constitution as it stands, Section 4, Subsection 10 in particular:

Bunreacht na h&#201 wrote: »

10° 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.

Edit: Damn, Scofflaw got there first.

meglome

theasylumkey wrote: »

In a quick answer to your question the Lisban Treaty (which is really the European Constitution that was defeated by France & Holland) will supercede any member states constitution.......

blah blah blah

http://www.sovereignindependent.com/downloads.php

http://www.mediafire.com/?vgmmjxq3xy2

The stuff above is pure propaganda from proven liars.

You should start with the Independent Referendum Commission site.

http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie

Then take a read through some of the links in my signature.


As to your question...
EU law has superseded our own since 1972. You can imagine there would little point if we agreed to laws which we then didn't need to follow. Imagine you joined the local club, agreed to follow the rules but you didn't want to follow the rules. We can either leave the club or follow the rules we all agreed in advance.

mizhell

appreciate all feedback sorry had some internet issues over the weekend will look into all replies and look at all links/opinions thanks for the info will post tmrw

mizhell

my mind has been made up by the shady tactics from the no side if anyone has any actual real information that can be backed up from something other than a rag feel free to voice your opinions thanks! you can read how I have come to this decision on this thread.... its a 'YES' from me btw...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=62295049&posted=1#post62295049

ei.sdraob

mizhell wrote: »

i. the said European Union or the European Atomic Energy Community, or by institutions thereof,

in case you are not aware the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) are involved in cutting edge research into Fusion

a source of unlimited energy derived from water with no environmental side-efects (thats how the sun works)

more info here > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER


basically thats one area of energy technology research that would be very foolish for Ireland not to participate in


but of course Sinn Fein disagree

Is mise le key

mizhell wrote: »

my mind has been made up by the shady tactics from the no side if anyone has any actual real information that can be backed up from something other than a rag feel free to voice your opinions thanks! you can read how I have come to this decision on this thread.... its a 'YES' from me btw...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=62295049&posted=1#post62295049

Now if you dont apply the word 'Shady' to the shower that are pushing this forward here & in europe you are truly Naive in the extreme.

You have to see through all the stuff being thrown at you to get to the core of what this is all really about.........sorry chief NO NO NO.

ei.sdraob

theasylumkey wrote: »

Now if you dont apply the word 'Shady' to the shower that are pushing this forward here & in europe you are truly Naive in the extreme.

You have to see through all the stuff being thrown at you to get to the core of what this is all really about.........sorry chief NO NO NO.

says the man

who has bull**** like

"The EU Introduces the Euro wide Death Penalty. "

in his signature

Is mise le key

ei.sdraob wrote: »

says the man

who has bull**** like

"The EU Introduces the Euro wide Death Penalty. "

in his signature

Now this is where the silly quick remark people are making fools of themselves. Follow the link to its ultimate end which is the ECHR itself.

The word 'introduces' does not mean 'implements'.
However to introduce an idea is to publish it within a document.

Explain to me exactly where the line you quoted from my Sig is annacurate please when it links you to this in the ECHR,

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

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’.

This 'Introduces' across the EU a provision for law to be passed in any member state for the Death penalty even in times of "imminent threat of war"......now we all know that Blair & Bush said there was an imminent threat of war from Iraq which has subsequently turned out to be unfounded. Who in british society would then be elligible for the death penalty should they be affiliated with organisations on the word of MI5 that they are.

Question;

Does this provision extend to times of civil war & mean the death penalty can be issued by a government internally or to groups labelled as terroist organisations???

Sure all you would need to do then is torture & beat a confession from a suspect into signing a statement that they are part of said organisation & put them to death but that would never happen in a european country surley!!!

ei.sdraob

theasylumkey wrote: »

Now this is where the silly quick remark people are making fools of themselves. Follow the link to its ultimate end which is the ECHR itself.

how about you read this thread and stop spewing rubbish and outrageous lies


the EU is completely opposed to the death penalty!


oh and btw UKIP who are campaigning on the NO side want to introduce Death Penalty


check mate


/

sensibleken

here are my reasons for voting no

if we vote yes then angela merkel can come round to 13 year olds birthdays and stab them in the face!

eurocrats will make us legally obliged felate a goat on its birthday. DONT BELIEVE THE 'GARUNTEES' THAT ITS A PRETTY GOAT

the orange order will be entitled to have a poo in the GPO

obligatory baguettes!!!

its raining!

Sorry for taking the piss but the No side non sense is starting to get to me

Is mise le key

ei.sdraob wrote: »

how about you read this thread and stop spewing rubbish and outrageous lies


the EU is completely opposed to the death penalty!


oh and btw UKIP who are campaigning on the NO side want to introduce Death Penalty

check mate
/

First as i have repeatadley said you have see through all that is being throw at you from all sides.......i no more fly a flag for UKIP than i do for the EU but the fact is that there is a lot misguiding info coming from all side but that not to say that one side or the other is giving lies in its entirety.

Second the hypocrisy that is coming from the so called purveyors of the free world is not what i count as any refernece of merit as both the USA & Europe have good strong relations with both Saudi arabia which execute more people publicly than any other arabian counrty at present & Israel who recently killed more than 1400 people indiscriminatley many of them children & never received so much as a raised eye brow from the USA or the EU so dont give me that sh.it about the EU being so opposed to the death penalty & going over to there friends in the USA & patting each other on the back telling each other how great & good they are with this kind of cr.ap below........

In 1971, the United Nations General Assembly in Resolution 2857 (XXVI) affirmed the desirability of abolishing the death penalty in all countries. As for international abolitionist treaties, the Council of Europe took the first steps in 1983 by adopting Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty.

All the while it is written into the ECHR as being provided for & they stand by & let country's they choose to allow operate in any way they like in the face of the world.

Go away you silly little man & never try & tell me how great & good the EU & USA are again.

ei.sdraob

which part of

the EU is opposed to the death penalty

do you have a hard time understanding?

/

Is mise le key

ei.sdraob wrote: »

which part of

the EU is opposed to the death penalty

do you have a hard time understanding?

/

You should have wrote,

the EU is opposed to the death penalty, exept in times of war where we may deem it nessesary & perhaps civil war or imminent threat of war from any group we identify as being a sufficient threat to the general public.

Summary;

Any one the establishment see as a threat.

Sam Vimes

theasylumkey wrote: »

You should have wrote,

the EU is opposed to the death penalty, exept in times of war where we may deem it nessesary & perhaps civil war or imminent threat of war from any group we identify as being a sufficient threat to the general public.

Summary;

Any one the establishment see as a threat.

That clause is specifically for Latvia who would not sign up to it unless it was inserted. It doesn't apply to any other country.

Also, people spend most of their time here saying they don't want the EU to force things on us and here you are criticising the EU for not forcing laws on Latvia. Interesting....

ei.sdraob

theasylumkey wrote: »

You should have wrote,

the EU is opposed to the death penalty, exept in times of war where we may deem it nessesary & perhaps civil war or imminent threat of war from any group we identify as being a sufficient threat to the general public.

Summary;

Any one the establishment see as a threat.

yet another lie and you didnt bother reading the linked posts

the EU is completely opposed to Death Penalty

the only country left with death penalty is Latvia where it can happen in time of war

go ahead read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Europe

passing Lisbon would mean Latvia would say goodbye to death penalty in times of war!

all the other states already abolished it in all cases

Vote YES to stop death penalty!

/

Dinner

theasylumkey wrote: »

You should have wrote,

the EU is opposed to the death penalty, exept in times of war where we may deem it nessesary & perhaps civil war or imminent threat of war from any group we identify as being a sufficient threat to the general public.

Summary;

Any one the establishment see as a threat.

I don't believe thats the case. It was more the situation that while the EU is completley against the death penalty some countries (Poland was one of them, I believe) wanted to reserve the right to implement it in extreme circumstances.

There is greater detail in the death penalty thread that was here a while ago, a search should bring it up.

Is mise le key

I am sorry this is becoming tiresome & i will have to retire from this thread if such narrow sightedness continues......where does it just reference Latvia in any of the body of the text on the link below......

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

& again the final extract which is the contentious part states,

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 provision’.

Now i take from that 'A State' to mean any one of the 27 states.
The fact that it alledgedly has been inserted to facilitate latvia is innacurate......the legal interpretation of the above section of the ECHR applies to all members of the EU.

Since when does 'A State' translate into 'Latvia' in any european language!!!!

Dinner

Here's the thread for you. It seems that right now a state can decide to implement the death penalty in times of war and if Lisbon is ratified they can still decide to implement the death penalty in times of war.

I'm not going to bother replying to you anymore because, having looked at you sig, there wouldn't be any point. I don't think you're going to change your mind regardless of how much proof is given.

marco_polo

theasylumkey wrote: »

I am sorry this is becoming tiresome & i will have to retire from this thread if such narrow sightedness continues......where does it just reference Latvia in any of the body of the text on the link below......

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

& again the final extract which is the contentious part states,

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 provision’.

Now i take from that 'A State' to mean any one of the 27 states.
The fact that it alledgedly has been inserted to facilitate latvia is innacurate......the legal interpretation of the above section of the ECHR applies to all members of the EU.

Since when does 'A State' translate into 'Latvia' in any european language!!!!

Because nearly all States have signed up to Protocol 13 of the ECHR prohibiting the death penalty all times. The EU cannot make anybody sign up to Protocol 13 as it is a wholly seperate international agreement outside of its scope, until all states have done this themselves the EU cannot make Protocol 13 the basis for the article in the COFR.

This is not a hard concept.

Undergod

So to clarify, Declaration 17 Concerning Primacy does not refer to the Constitution, but to legislation? And everything accounted for by Declaration 17 is already in effect?

mizhell

where is all this money coming from? anyone any thoughts?

mizhell

theasylumkey wrote: »

Now if you dont apply the word 'Shady' to the shower that are pushing this forward here & in europe you are truly Naive in the extreme.

You have to see through all the stuff being thrown at you to get to the core of what this is all really about.........sorry chief NO NO NO.

so are you saying that putting peoples private details without their knowledge on a poster and aligning that person with a movement that they have never heard of or wish to be affiliated to as not shady? just wondering like

ei.sdraob

Undergod wrote: »

So to clarify, Declaration 17 Concerning Primacy does not refer to the Constitution, but to legislation? And everything accounted for by Declaration 17 is already in effect?

yes almost all EU countries have signed up to prevent capital punishment

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

with Latvia being the last one

waiting for us to pass the damned treaty

hope that makes it clear.

the EU is extremely anti death penalty


/

PopeBuckfastXVI

Dinner wrote: »

Here's the thread for you. It seems that right now a state can decide to implement the death penalty in times of war and if Lisbon is ratified they can still decide to implement the death penalty in times of war.

I'm not going to bother replying to you anymore because, having looked at you sig, there wouldn't be any point. I don't think you're going to change your mind regardless of how much proof is given.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62246314&postcount=257

tbh...

Is mise le key

Dinner wrote: »

Here's the thread for you. It seems that right now a state can decide to implement the death penalty in times of war and if Lisbon is ratified they can still decide to implement the death penalty in times of war.

I'm not going to bother replying to you anymore because, having looked at you sig, there wouldn't be any point. I don't think you're going to change your mind regardless of how much proof is given.

I feel the exact same way chief.......the ballot will decide, but it wont be rerun next year if its a YES now will it.

You ask me to vote on something & i say no to it.

You say why no?

I tell you the reasons why.

You say OK well sort it & come back to me with the same thing & ask me to vote on it.

I say???????

No - Correct as the criteria hasnt changed since the first time.
Yes - Stupidity given it has already been answered NO.

The best way to describe the treaty being put to us again & the so called Guarantees that we have received is a quote from the movie the Outlaw Josey Wales with Clint Eastwood;

"Dont pi.ss down my back & tell me its raining"

A yes vote is all that is required & we are not going to change the content is the european way......tell me how that is democratic or fair.

Is D'éirinn mé - I am of Ireland

I put Ireland first & europe second you cannot tell me that this will put ireland first. It will put europe first & ireland second plain & simple.

marco_polo

theasylumkey wrote: »

I feel the exact same way chief.......the ballot will decide, but it wont be rerun next year if its a YES now will it.

You ask me to vote on something & i say no to it.

You say why no?

I tell you the reasons why.

You say OK well sort it & come back to me with the same thing & ask me to vote on it.

I say???????

No - Correct as the criteria hasnt changed since the first time.
Yes - Stupidity given it has already been answered NO.

The best way to describe the treaty being put to us again & the so called Guarantees that we have received is a quote from the movie the Outlaw Josey Wales with Clint Eastwood;

"Dont pi.ss down my back & tell me its raining"

A yes vote is all that is required & we are not going to change the content is the european way......tell me how that is democratic or fair.

Is D'éirinn mé - I am of Ireland

I put Ireland first & europe second you cannot tell me that this will put ireland first. It will put europe first & ireland second plain & simple.

Guarantees are 100% fully legally binding agreements under international law (the Vienna Convention), but you know all of this already .

I take it you have conceeded your death penalty 'argument' as well.

meglome

theasylumkey wrote: »

I feel the exact same way chief.......the ballot will decide, but it wont be rerun next year if its a YES now will it.

You ask me to vote on something & i say no to it.

You say why no?

I tell you the reasons why.

You say OK well sort it & come back to me with the same thing & ask me to vote on it.

I say???????

No - Correct as the criteria hasnt changed since the first time.
Yes - Stupidity given it has already been answered NO.

The best way to describe the treaty being put to us again & the so called Guarantees that we have received is a quote from the movie the Outlaw Josey Wales with Clint Eastwood;

"Dont pi.ss down my back & tell me its raining"

A yes vote is all that is required & we are not going to change the content is the european way......tell me how that is democratic or fair.

Is D'éirinn mé - I am of Ireland

I put Ireland first & europe second you cannot tell me that this will put ireland first. It will put europe first & ireland second plain & simple.

How's this new conspiracy theories blog of yours going?

ei.sdraob

marco_polo wrote: »

Guarantees are 100% fully legally binding agreements under international law (the Vienna Convention), but you know all of this already .

I take it you have conceeded your death penalty 'argument' as well.

Dont get your hopes up

we have shown via the use of referenced facts and logic

that his opinions are based on ****

one has to be a man to be able to admit his in the wrong about something

more than likely he will just dissapear now, at least we have the last word

Undergod

ei.sdraob wrote: »

yes almost all EU countries have signed up to prevent capital punishment

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

with Latvia being the last one

waiting for us to pass the damned treaty

hope that makes it clear.

the EU is extremely anti death penalty


/

I wasn't really asking about the death penalty specifically, just in general.

Is mise le key

marco_polo wrote: »

Guarantees are 100% fully legally binding agreements under international law (the Vienna Convention), but you know all of this already .

Funny seeing as irelands leading solicitors (who actually work in law) disagree with that & if so then why not put them in the treaty to take away the legal aspect of the NO argument?????

marco_polo wrote: »

I take it you have conceeded your death penalty 'argument' as well.

All has been said & refernced that need to be over the last three pages if you cant get it from that then you never will. Friday will be the answer AGAIN.

marco_polo

theasylumkey wrote: »

Funny seeing as irelands leading solicitors (who actually work in law) disagree with that & if so then why not put them in the treaty to take away the legal aspect of the NO argument?????

I am going to play the 'source please' card here?

Undergod

theasylumkey wrote: »

You ask me to vote on something & i say no to it.

You say why no?

I tell you the reasons why.

You say OK well sort it & come back to me with the same thing with legally binding agreements stating the reasons you voted no are not in thh treaty & ask me to vote on it.

That's better.

Is mise le key

meglome wrote: »

How's this new conspiracy theories blog of yours going?

Its gaining ground my friend:D;)

ei.sdraob wrote: »

one has to be a man to be able to admit his in the wrong about something

My good man Meglome can vouch for me as being able to admit when i am wrong as i have in the past concceded to him on one point......i will not however just roll over for the EU & take their medicine no matter how many times they tell me its good for me......i'll be my own judge of whats good for me please, thank you.

ei.sdraob

theasylumkey wrote: »

Its gaining ground my friend:D;)



My good man Meglome can vouch for me as being able to admit when i am wrong as i have in the past concceded to him on one point......i will not however just roll over for the EU & take their medicine no matter how many times they tell me its good for me......i'll be my own judge of whats good for me please, thank you.

so you still insist Lisbon and EU would bring in death penalty

:rolleyes:

mizhell

theasylumkey wrote: »

I feel the exact same way chief.......the ballot will decide, but it wont be rerun next year if its a YES now will it.

You ask me to vote on something & i say no to it.

You say why no?

I tell you the reasons why.

You say OK well sort it & come back to me with the same thing & ask me to vote on it.

I say???????

No - Correct as the criteria hasnt changed since the first time.
Yes - Stupidity given it has already been answered NO.

The best way to describe the treaty being put to us again & the so called Guarantees that we have received is a quote from the movie the Outlaw Josey Wales with Clint Eastwood;

"Dont pi.ss down my back & tell me its raining"

A yes vote is all that is required & we are not going to change the content is the european way......tell me how that is democratic or fair.

Is D'éirinn mé - I am of Ireland

I put Ireland first & europe second you cannot tell me that this will put ireland first. It will put europe first & ireland second plain & simple.

ya might not have seen the no posters out and about there man but are they not all different from the last time the treaty was voted on? why aren't the parties campaigning for a no asking for the same things as they did last time if nothing has changed?

Is mise le key

mizhell wrote: »

ya might not have seen the no posters out and about there man but are they not all different from the last time the treaty was voted on? why aren't the parties campaigning for a no asking for the same things as they did last time if nothing has changed?

Well there is so much to choose from why not be diverse.....one thing i can say for you all lads on here & other threads you are monotonous with your views:D

Sam Vimes

theasylumkey wrote: »

Well there is so much to choose from why not be diverse.....one thing i can say for you all lads on here & other threads you are monotonous with your views:D

The truth can be quite monotonous. Conspiracy theories, while compelling, aren't much good to anyone

mizhell

theasylumkey wrote: »

Well there is so much to choose from why not be diverse.....one thing i can say for you all lads on here & other threads you are monotonous with your views:D

I dont think diverse would be the word I would use..... and yeah your right it does feel very boring being right but thanks for the concern:P

Is mise le key

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The truth can be quite monotonous. Conspiracy theories, while compelling, aren't much good to anyone

Like i said on another thread its easy to throw out that old chestnut when someone opposes the mainstream:rolleyes:.

1. I dont give a sh.it who shot JFK.
2. George bush is not an alien just an as.shole.
3. We did land on the moon.
4. Elvis is dead.
5. Politicians are deceiptful & corrupt.

No conspiracies there:rolleyes:

ixtlan

theasylumkey wrote: »

Well there is so much to choose from why not be diverse.....one thing i can say for you all lads on here & other threads you are monotonous with your views:D

Indeed. What I find monotonous is having to repeat endlessly the same truths to dispell the lies being peddled.

Can you clarify once again... are you standing by "EU introduces death penalty"? When article 13 of the ECHR forbids it in all circumstances... and when 22 of the 27 countries have ratified article 13... and when the other 5 have signed but have yet to fully ratify it.

To repeat, article 6 of the ECHR bans the death penalty in most circumstances. Ireland signed up to that long ago. Article 13 bans it in all circumstances and Ireland signed up to that in 2002. Lisbon basically says that the EU will folow the ECHR.

This is getting so depressing. The policy of many on the no side is to throw as much mud as possible at the EU and the Lisbon treaty. The yes side refutes it, but not everyone hears that, so a few percent of people believe the outrageous lies.

So, are you just a mud-slinger? You will keep telling people the EU is introducing the death penalty? Even though you know this to be untrue?

ix.

Is mise le key

ixtlan wrote: »

Lisbon basically says that the EU will folow the ECHR.

And here is the exact part in question with the contentious statement at the end of it......

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

Provisions are made for it for any state for reasons already outlined over the past 4 pages.

Explain to me how you interpret the final paragraph my good man.

Is mise le key

Seeing as every source of independant media not under the control of the powers that want a Yes are being rejected as conspiracies & conjecture i have changed my Signature to contain it only from the horses mouth.....:D;)

ixtlan

theasylumkey wrote: »

And here is the exact part in question with the contentious statement at the end of it......

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

Provisions are made for it for any state for reasons already outlined over the past 4 pages.

Explain to me how you interpret the final paragraph my good man.

I'm practically crying in frustration...

The interpretation of protocol 6 is ... a state can execute people in time of war or covil unrest.

However we have also signed protocol 13, which says. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/187.htm

Article 1 – Abolition of the death penalty
The death penalty shall be abolished. No one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed.

Article 2 – Prohibition of derogation
No derogation from the provisions of this Protocol shall be made under Article 15 of the Convention.

Article 3 – Prohibition of reservations
No reservation may be made under Article 57 of the Convention in respect of the provisions of this Protocol.

etc etc etc.

Would you care to interpret? Or agree that my interpretation and the interpretation of the world is correct in that protocol 13 supercedes protocol 6 and bans the death penalty on all circumstances.

Let's be clear on some other things. The ECHR is outside the remit of the EU. We signed signed up to it in pieces over the decades. The reason it's split into sections (protocols) like this is so that states can sign up as they are ready. First we signed up to 6... then in 2002 we signed 13.

Would you for the love of God admit that signing protocol 13 means that the death penalty is outlawed? And that the EU wants all states to fully ratify protocol 13? And that 22 have ratified, and 5 have signed but not yet fully ratified?

Ix.

marco_polo

theasylumkey wrote: »

And here is the exact part in question with the contentious statement at the end of it......

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

Provisions are made for it for any state for reasons already outlined over the past 4 pages.

Explain to me how you interpret the final paragraph my good man.

1) Do you understand the difference between the Council of Europe and the European Union?

2) Do you understand the difference between the Charter of Fundamelnal Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights?

ixtlan

And just to add a little more from protocol 13 of the charter... The European Charter of Human Rights... not the Eu Charter of Fundamental Rights...

The member States of the Council of Europe signatory hereto,

Convinced that everyone’s right to life is a basic value in a democratic society and that the abolition of the death penalty is essential for the protection of this right and for the full recognition of the inherent dignity of all human beings;

Wishing to strengthen the protection of the right to life guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed at Rome on 4 November 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention");

Noting that Protocol No. 6 to the Convention, concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty, signed at Strasbourg on 28 April 1983, does not exclude the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war;

Being resolved to take the final step in order to abolish the death penalty in all circumstances,

Have agreed as follows: ...