LISBON CONSPIRACY MEGA THREAD - threads merged

Penn

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

There may be nothing to worry about its contents now but you must understand that this is a self amending document. What you see today may be changed tomorrow and you can do absolutely nothing about it. This is a frightening aspect and can well lead us down the slippery slope just like our predessors did in Europe. Be prepared for the manditory roll out of viral detection microchipping., cumpulsory isolation, detention and the introduction of EU wide Martial law. :eek:

The Lisbon Treaty now proposes to give the European Council (Heads of Government) the power to propose changes to certain parts of the governing Treaties, although this proposed power is quite limited. Any such change cannot increase the competence of the EU – the scope of its powers. In addition, any such proposals must be agreed unanimously by the European Council, meaning that any one member state may veto such a proposal. If the European Council does agree a proposed change, then in order for it to come into effect, it must be ratified by the member states in accordance with their own constitutional requirements. This may require a referendum in Ireland as happens at present.

So, if a change is proposed, Ireland alone does have the power to veto the change, and in order for the proposed change to come into effect, it must be ratified by all countries by their constitutional requirements, which for us is a referendum.

humanji

And if we look at what the treaty actually says instead of reading between the lines (ie the blank spaces that we can fill with any type of nonsense:

Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights1 wrote:

Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

Nobody can be killed on purpose by a state unless they are convicted in a court of law and the country currently allows executions to occur (I think Latvia is the only country that allows this)

2. 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;

If you kill someone in self-defence, you won't be charged with murder.

b. in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;

If a person is accidentally killed while they are being arrested or trying to escape custody, the officer(s) who accidentally killed the person will not be charged with murder.

c. in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

If there are riots or there is an armed uprising and one of the rioters/insurrgents is killed as a result of A or B above, then the officer responsible will not be charged with murder.

All this does not stop people being charged with manslaughter as it only applies to people who have been killed accidentally, or with no other choice. If someone is unlawfully killed, the person responsible will still able to be prosecuted under law.

Also, this does not proclude the ability of people to appeal and investigate what has been called a lawful killing.

So in short, executions will not be made legal but will still be allowed in Latvia (as I'm sure you'd all be against the EU forcing a country to do something against it's will). The has nothing to do with executions.

Run_to_da_hills

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

So, if a change is proposed, Ireland alone does have the power to veto the change, and in order for the proposed change to come into effect, it must be ratified by all countries by their constitutional requirements, which for us is a referendum.

As I said before Ireland is no more a pimple on the ar*se of Europe, what ever the majority of MEP's decide we have to go with it. If the EU Parlament decides that rolling out EU wide chipped Identity cards is the only ways and means to "protect" the citizens of the Union we have to obide by it.

6th

D'oh! I knew I forgot to lock this.

6th

Please note I have merged 3 threads to make this one. All discussion of Lisbon related CTs to go in this thread.

waitinforatrain

mangaroosh wrote: »

A highly ironic post coming from someone advocating the Yes vote, where the constant retort seems to be, there is ample sources out there for you to educate yourself.

Seeing as how we cannot rely on some people to do this, I suggest you follow this link:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62310647&postcount=6

and the subsequent links and follow the conversation

1. I'm not a yes voter.
2. Not all yes voters are the same.
3. The post was without sources.

Thank you, shutup, goodbye.

6th

waitinforatrain wrote: »

1. I'm not a yes voter.
2. Not all yes voters are the same.
3. The post was without sources.

Thank you, shutup, goodbye.

Thank you, shutup, goodbye.

24hr ban. Hopefully you learn to be polite in your short time off.

FunnyStuff

humanji wrote: »

The guarantees are a red herring. They've nothing to do with the treaty itself and are used to direct attantion away from it.
quote]

It sounds like you are finalising his argument for him, that basically, yes, the guarantees are worthless!

meglome

FunnyStuff wrote: »

It sounds like you are finalising his argument for him, that basically, yes, the guarantees are worthless!

That in your expert legal opinion?

FunnyStuff

meglome wrote: »

That in your expert legal opinion?

can you not have a discussion without getting mouthy with everyone?!?!? you wrote it not me.

6th

Put the handbags away girls.

meglome

FunnyStuff wrote: »

can you not have a discussion without getting mouthy with everyone?!?!? you wrote it not me.

You've lost me. I asked you a simple question. You're saying the guarantees are worthless and I was asking what you were basing this opinion on. Simple as that.

Stainless_Steel

meglome wrote: »

That in your expert legal opinion?

I find this quite ironic considering you ran your YES campaign in favour of a legal document.

just kidding.

FunnyStuff

meglome wrote: »

You've lost me. I asked you a simple question. You're saying the guarantees are worthless and I was asking what you were basing this opinion on. Simple as that.

No, humanji said they have nothing to do with the treaty, thats why i said he is pretty much saying they are worthless. After all, if they have nothing to do with it, what are they guaranteeing?!?! And i dont need to be a legal expert to have an opinion. Anyway, not going to argue about it.

King Mob

FunnyStuff wrote: »

No, humanji said they have nothing to do with the treaty, thats why i said he is pretty much saying they are worthless. After all, if they have nothing to do with it, what are they guaranteeing?!?! And i dont need to be a legal expert to have an opinion. Anyway, not going to argue about it.

They are legal guarantees that there is nothing in the Lisbon treaty that allows Europe to interfere with tax, abortion etc.

humanji

FunnyStuff wrote: »

No, humanji said they have nothing to do with the treaty, thats why i said he is pretty much saying they are worthless. After all, if they have nothing to do with it, what are they guaranteeing?!?! And i dont need to be a legal expert to have an opinion. Anyway, not going to argue about it.

I'm not saying they're worthless at all. I'm saying that the guarantees state that the issues contained in them aren't affected by the treaty. Some of the No side were so intent on tricking the Irish people that they made up a load of bull about fictional consequences of a Yes vote. So the guarantees had to be made to point out that these people were basically lying scum and that everyone should concentrate on the contents of the treaty.

The guarantees are valid and legally binding. But they should of been unnecessary as they only had to be brought in when people started lying about the treaty. For example, we were told by groups like Coir that abortion would be brought in if we voted Yes. This isn't in the treaty at all, but too many people believed it to simply let it slid. It was an orchestrated attempt by some of the No campaign to blind the voters to the actual important information. If it was Bush who had done it, you'd all be screaming conspiracy.

Black Uhlan

meglome wrote: »

So let's imagine you join the police and whilst going about your lawful duties someone tries to kill you. (Or actually does kill you, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_McCabe). Now what if you saw them coming and defended yourself and you kill them instead. Why on god's green earth would that be a crime?

Please, Please, Please point out the text in the treaty or otherwise where it states what is proportionate....please?

Or are you just going to trust them to make it up as they go along?

While your using your imagination perhaps you could stretch it away from best possible case scenario to the potential realities of the situation. Some people like laws. it makes them feel safe. but please tell me why you approve of a law that empowers the authorites to kill you?

meglome wrote: »

It's already legal in the EU to defend yourself, and why the hell wouldn't it be.

You seem too wrapped up in this whole "self defence" buzz.

Which if any of this is specific to self defence?

(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;

Almost all, if not all violence is unlawful. (only violence I can think of is combat sports) Technically this could mean a mother slapping a son, a fight during a rugby game, me kicking you in the balls etc. And this covers third-party violence, not specifically on the person of authority.

(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;

Garda Detective takes a head shot on a fleeing unarmed suspect - instant death. Garda Detective claims he firied a leg shot. End of story, onto the next lawful killing. But of course things like this never happen in this perfect world we live in.

(Follow the bold)
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.’

insurrection Noun
the act of rebelling against an established authority [Latin insurgere to rise up]
insurrectionist nadj
Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006

rebel Verb
B]-belling[/B], [B]-belled[/B
1. to fight against the ruling power
2. to reject accepted conventions of behaviour
Noun
1. a person who rebels
2. a person who rejects accepted conventions of behaviour
Adjective
rebelling: rebel councillors [Latin re- again + bellum war]
Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006

So, technically my understanding here is any group however small who gather together to protest against "accepted conventions of behaviour" e.g Forced Vaccinations could technically be massacred to a man by the authorites and potentially (on Lisbon Treaty ratification) no crime will have been commited due to this article.

It's things like that that make all the difference. Why is there a need to add "insurrection" to "riot" in the clause if it is never really gonna be acted on?

meglome wrote: »

Some country's (i.e. Latvia) allow for the death penalty in times of war. This is the case now and will be after the Lisbon treaty is passed. You can't be saying the EU will control us all and then proving they can't force even one country to change this.

And besides...

The EU strongly opposes the death penalty in all circumstances. or how about this, or maybe let's try this one.

I am sure you will have an answer as to why they went to the bother of actually including it then?

meglome wrote: »

How will it create another Iraq war?

I'm glad you agree it was a war that was created. How was the actual war created?
Through, lies, deceit, a complicit media, corruption, disregard of democracy and most of all through a misuse of power. Well we've just handed over more power to be abused.

meglome wrote: »

There is no EU president, not now not after Lisbon (you need to stop listening to the No campaign there really is no such post). Show me the part of the treaty that does this?

There is no position that is informally referred to as EU "president"? :rolleyes:

meglome wrote: »

How many innocent civilians have been executed since those laws already exist?

meglome wrote: »

innocent civilians

???
I don't know what laws you are talking about but do you agree with execution for civilians who are not "innocent" ?

meglome wrote: »

I love that you guys have an imagination but why pick on something that's actually good for your country.

I don't love the fact that you generalise despite it being against the rules. How is it good for the country? JOBS?? haha don't make me laugh.

humanji

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Please, Please, Please point out the text in the treaty or otherwise where it states what is proportionate....please?

Article 2:

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

It doesn't "empower the authorities to kill you". It states that you will not be charged with murder if you have no other choice but to kill someone in one of the outlined circumstances. But it has to be within the bounds of the law. That's the bit you're ignoring.

Black Uhlan wrote: »

You seem too wrapped up in this whole "self defence" buzz.

Which if any of this is specific to self defence?

Read the first line of the bit you quoted. As for the rest, it clearly states that the if you kill someone there has to be no other alternative.

There is no position that is informally referred to as EU "president"? :rolleyes:

You're twisting his words. There's no EU president. Saying there's an person who is informally referred to as EU "president" is like saying Santa exists because that's the nickname I give one of my mates.

I don't love the fact that you generalise despite it being against the rules. How is it good for the country? JOBS?? haha don't make me laugh.

I thought you said it was creating a job informally called EU "President"? :rolleyes: The treaty has many positives for Ireland (there's a list of the ten most popular knocking about here). When you way it up against actual bad points, you realise that the bad points are few and far between, and barely even worth mentioning.

meglome

Now that the Tony Blair part of the CT is gone, how are we doing on the rest?

mysterious

Voting yes gives more jobs to Ireland.

Are we been fooled again? lol.... "We are stronger with Europe and our economy is safer" So has the words been put to action.

Talk about propaganda and blatant NWO brainwashing.

indough

pfft, those claims were vague and unmeasurable enough to not actually be lies, but not actually be fully true either

standard campaign rhetoric

King Mob

So where's the Orwellian nightmare world promised by the anti Lisbon crowd?

Was that just election talk on their part too I wonder?

humanji

Hasn't there already been a number of companies who've announced the creation of jobs?

mysterious

humanji wrote: »

Hasn't there already been a number of companies who've announced the creation of jobs?

Was it promotted by Lisbon......? l can't help but find my question funny.

humanji

mysterious wrote: »

Was it promotted by Lisbon......? l can't help but find my question funny.

Can you prove it wasn't? The slogan was "Yes to jobs", not "no will mean no jobs" or "yes will guarantee the creation of jobs for the Irish people". It's a vague political promise that you'd expect from politicians.

You see, the nay-sayers harp on and on about Lisbon not creating jobs, but they never say they were wrong about claiming a yes vote would force us in an EU army, or force us to have abortions, or create a one world government. These were slogans created by interest groups/political parties, who wanted to influence the vote. The smart people ignored them all and just read the treaty and it's various documentation anv voted on their interpretation of it.

mysterious

humanji wrote: »

Can you prove it wasn't? The slogan was "Yes to jobs", not "no will mean no jobs" or "yes will guarantee the creation of jobs for the Irish people". It's a vague political promise that you'd expect from politicians.

You see, the nay-sayers harp on and on about Lisbon not creating jobs, but they never say they were wrong about claiming a yes vote would force us in an EU army, or force us to have abortions, or create a one world government. These were slogans created by interest groups/political parties, who wanted to influence the vote. The smart people ignored them all and just read the treaty and it's various documentation anv voted on their interpretation of it.

Humanji, you made the outlandish claim and I asked you a direct question, not this above.

Where are the jobs?
What jobs?
What boost to the economy?
What garentee to Irish people?

and back to your claim, You said there was announcment, I'd like to see that clip? Your right it was propganda and lies, since we already voted no the first time, they were desparete to push it threw and no matter what sort of bull**** they came up with they were going to pass it through. It's all part of the NWO process. Taking more power and control over the people of Europe.

Thanks in advanced.

humanji

What outlandish claim? I said that several companies have announced that they are creating jobs. Paddy Power announced 250 new jobs. Citrix announced 20 jobs and even said that Lisbon was "a decisive factor" in their decision. So jobs have been created. Were they created because of the Yes vote? I don't know. Citrix say so, but they could just be saying that. But that doesn't matter. All I said was that new jobs had been announced.

And it's not really an NWO scam that allowed a re-vote. It was Fianna Fàil using their constitutionally backed right to hold another referendum. It's not fair, but it's all legal and above board.

Anyway, you;re missing my point which was that the "Yes for Jobs" was just a slogan by one party. It holds as much water as "Yes for an EU army" or "Vote no and I'll eat your children". It's the bullsh*t that's spread by political parties in every single vote. There's no reason to have expected this one to be any different.

mysterious

humanji wrote: »

What outlandish claim? I said that several companies have announced that they are creating jobs. Paddy Power announced 250 new jobs. Citrix announced 20 jobs and even said that Lisbon was "a decisive factor" in their decision. So jobs have been created. Were they created because of the Yes vote? I don't know. Citrix say so, but they could just be saying that. But that doesn't matter. All I said was that new jobs had been announced.

And it's not really an NWO scam that allowed a re-vote. It was Fianna Fàil using their constitutionally backed right to hold another referendum. It's not fair, but it's all legal and above board.

Anyway, you;re missing my point which was that the "Yes for Jobs" was just a slogan by one party. It holds as much water as "Yes for an EU army" or "Vote no and I'll eat your children". It's the bullsh*t that's spread by political parties in every single vote. There's no reason to have expected this one to be any different.

How did forcing us to vote again, to suit poltiicans (may I add),

actually inspired Paddy power to create jobs. Jobs are been lost everyday. What has Lisbon got to do with it?


This is just absaloutely desparate.

mysterious

humanji wrote: »

And it's not really an NWO scam that allowed a re-vote. It was Fianna Fàil using their constitutionally backed right to hold another referendum. It's not fair, but it's all legal and above board.

No it's about money and corruption. Did you see Brian Cowen's filthy grin the day the treaty passed. He gets big paycheque from Europe. Along like the rest of them. Their job is to keep Europe satisfied while fianna fail and other parties keep us cot in this bull****. This corruption is no different fascism on the rise in my view.

Anyway, you;re missing my point which was that the "Yes for Jobs" was just a slogan by one party. It holds as much water as "Yes for an EU army" or "Vote no and I'll eat your children". It's the bullsh*t that's spread by political parties in every single vote. There's no reason to have expected this one to be any different.

There was no reason to vote in this at all. I've never came accross such hysteria and nonsense in all my 24 years on this planet. It's about power, and these politicians will make all these ammendments and paperwork to try step by step take more power from ourselves. The more you say yes and sign for, the day will come where you can't say no anymore.


We as a race of people have to start seeing beyond this bull.

humanji

mysterious wrote: »

How did forcing us to vote again, to suit poltiicans (may I add),

actually inspired Paddy power to create jobs. Jobs are been lost everyday. What has Lisbon got to do with it?


This is just absaloutely desparate.

I said jobs had been announced. They have. There's even one company directly accrediting the treaty to their decision. That's all I'm saying.

Now I ask you, where it this EU army we're being conscripted into? Where's these forced abortions? Where's this totalitarian one world government that has enslaved us?

You're finding offence at one bullsh*t campaign slogan but seem to have no problem with others. Why is that? They're all just a load of populist rubbish. Only a fool would blindly believe them.

mysterious wrote: »

No it's about money and corruption. Did you see Brian Cowen's filthy grin the day the treaty passed. He gets big paycheque from Europe. Along like the rest of them.

Do they?