The European Union - the New Soviet Union?

samson09

Vladimir Bukovsky spent many years in Russian labour camps and psychiatric prisons for defending human rights. He came to Britain in 1976. He lectures and writes on the old Soviet system and the EU.

IMO, if the Lisbon treaty gets ratified, we will be taking another step towards what this guy is describing, sure we're halfway there already!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM2Ql3wOGcU

6th

This isnt the politics forum.

Run_to_da_hills

6th wrote: »

This isnt the politics forum.

Maybe the OP should rephrase the title. The up and coming EU VS the former Soviet Union.

In the up and coming EU you have far less civil liberties than anyone had in the former Soviet Union.

In those days if the KGB wanted to "spy" on you they had to physically plant bugs, tap into telegraph wires and open your letters at the local sorting office or intercept the postman before it got through your letter box.

The EU authorities will have it so easy these days, under "anti terrorism" measures they can now legally get and store all your electronic mail, text messages, phone records for up to two years and tap into your cell phone / record from a remote office without you even knowing. The authorities could also turn your 3G phone into a bug even if its switched off from remote access.

very soon they will have live access to all urban cctv, congestion charge cams, your electronic smart card and ANPR records so they can pinpoint exactly where you go. :eek:

In the former soviet Union they did not have sofisticated RFID passports / ID that can be swiped / checked several feet disclosing invisible confidential data away by the authorties even if conceiled in your pocket. :eek:

THe EU can also find out what you are interested in by your internet / reading habits, ISBN numbers on the material you buy on line with your credit cards etc. Soon they will know everything that you buy through cashless transactions / EAN barcodes. (The excuse for monitoring this will more than likely be carbon tax ot electronic rationing) :rolleyes:

To tell you the truth you would have been far more comfortable living in the former USSR than this up and coming "big brother" EU superstate and with the possibility of Tony Blair at the helm. :eek:

derry

Soviet Union will be walk in the park compared to EU monster.

Articale 2 of the charter of human rights makes the death penalty come back

Aprt from the fact they can shoot you if you resist arrest or escape from prision they can shoot you or kill you when your rioting.

Then if they suspect that you pose a threat to the EU they can take you out as a threat. So if you state I dont like what the EU does on this subject eeeekkkk a nanti EU person a threat must be elimated shoot to kill jim ,the EU comes in peace ,.shoot to kil

They even got sailites in space that can listen to what you say to another person if your in the middle of a feild . How they do that i dont know for sure but suspect it is like the laser signal vibrates from the noise if pointed at the target similar to pointing laser at window of house and listening to what is being said in the room from the vibarations on the window.

just remember what happened one guy in east germany .He held a secrete meeting with his family and best friends to critise the stazi and government

he got arrested and jailed

When the wall fell he looked his file to se who ratted on him.It was everybody his wife his dad his friends the lot and that was no electronic tapping
Thats the future staring us in the face


here is apetition to sign before 9th october which says the referendum was a scam

sign it asap and get all your mates to sign it

http://info-wars.org/2009/10/06/criminal-complaint-against-the-referendum-commission-returning-officers-jose-manuel-barroso-the-european-commission-brian-cowen-and-subsequent-persons-involved-in-the-lisbon-treaty-campaign/



derry

derry

derry wrote: »

Articale 2 of the charter of human rights makes the death penalty come back

No it doesn't.

derry wrote: »

Aprt from the fact they can shoot you if you resist arrest or escape from prision they can shoot you or kill you when your rioting.

No they can't.

granite man

derry wrote: »

Soviet Union will be walk in the park compared to EU monster.

Articale 2 of the charter of human rights makes the death penalty come back

Aprt from the fact they can shoot you if you resist arrest or escape from prision they can shoot you or kill you when your rioting.

Then if they suspect that you pose a threat to the EU they can take you out as a threat. So if you state I dont like what the EU does on this subject eeeekkkk a nanti EU person a threat must be elimated shoot to kill jim ,the EU comes in peace ,.shoot to kil

They even got sailites in space that can listen to what you say to another person if your in the middle of a feild . How they do that i dont know for sure but suspect it is like the laser signal vibrates from the noise if pointed at the target similar to pointing laser at window of house and listening to what is being said in the room from the vibarations on the window.

just remember what happened one guy in east germany .He held a secrete meeting with his family and best friends to critise the stazi and government

he got arrested and jailed

When the wall fell he looked his file to se who ratted on him.It was everybody his wife his dad his friends the lot and that was no electronic tapping
Thats the future staring us in the face


here is apetition to sign before 9th october which says the referendum was a scam

sign it asap and get all your mates to sign it

/http://info-wars.org/2009/10/06/criminal-complaint-against-the-referendum-commission-returning-officers-jose-manuel-barroso-the-european-commission-brian-cowen-and-subsequent-persons-involved-in-the-lisbon-treaty-campaign



derry

This is not a conspiracy theory, this is CRIMINALITY

humanji

It would be if it weren't proven to be false.

kryogen

how do we know this "petition" that you speak of isnt just a way to get the names of all us who oppose the Lisbon treaty???

Are you one of them!!!!????

lol ah im just joshin with ya

granite man

humanji wrote: »

It would be if it weren't proven to be false.

Please explain, there is no proof whatsoever that it is false.

granite man

kryogen wrote: »

how do we know this "petition" that you speak of isnt just a way to get the names of all us who oppose the Lisbon treaty???

Are you one of them!!!!????

lol ah im just joshin with ya

Very valid point to be fair, getting past caring at this stage tho. No flouridated water in my well, must get some and just shut up!

kryogen

granite man wrote: »

Very valid point to be fair, getting past caring at this stage tho. No flouridated water in my well, must get some and just shut up!

The Lisbon treaty is gone for this country, its unfortunate, very unfortunate but its done, no point in moaning about it or trying to change things that simply wont be changed, energies better served elsewhere me thinks

And tbh, this article is banging on about the yes side but the no side were largely the biggest cause of so many yes votes with so many unfounded statements, again, unfortunately.

Why sign the petition? who is the authority that will decide on any petition?

the government? all major parties in government and opposition wanted a yes vote......no help there

Europe? eh, dont think that one needs to be gone into in a detail really

Put your energies to better use people!

humanji

granite man wrote: »

Please explain, there is no proof whatsoever that it is false.

When someone makes a claim, it's up to them to provide proof. It's not up to everyone else to prove them wrong.

Black Uhlan

King Mob wrote: »

No it doesn't.



No they can't.

Could you please explain your statement then? Believe me I hope you are right!

This is what I posted in a different thread:

Black Uhlan wrote: »

The position of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights is set out in Article 6 of the Lisbon Treaty i.e they are EQUAL.

1. Lisbon Treaty
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.
http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-u[/color]nion-and-comments/title-1-common-provisions/8-article-6.html

2.Charter of Fundamental Rights
In this context the Charter will be interpreted by the courts of the Union and the Member States with due regard to the explanations prepared under the authority of the Praesidium of the Convention which drafted the Charter and updated under the responsibility of the Praesidium of the European Convention.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/32007X1214/htm/C2007303EN.01000101.htm

3.Notes To The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
The provisions of Article 2 of the Charter (2) correspond to those of the above Articles of the ECHR and its
Protocol.

They have the same meaning and the same scope, in accordance with Article 52(3) of the Charter (3).

Therefore, the ‘negative’ definitions appearing in the ECHR must be regarded as also forming part of the Charter:

ECHR
(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 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…’
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2004:310:0420:0464:ENDF

This is my reason for believing that Derry is technically correct. And if so, are people in agreement that this is at least a negative aspect of the treaty?

humanji

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Could you please explain your statement then? Believe me I hope you are right!

This is what I posted in a different thread:

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.
http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-u[/color]nion-and-comments/title-1-common-provisions/8-article-6.html

2.Charter of Fundamental Rights

In this context the Charter will be interpreted by the courts of the Union and the Member States with due regard to the explanations prepared under the authority of the Praesidium of the Convention which drafted the Charter and updated under the responsibility of the Praesidium of the European Convention.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/32007X1214/htm/C2007303EN.01000101.htm

3.Notes To The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
The provisions of Article 2 of the Charter (2) correspond to those of the above Articles of the ECHR and its
Protocol.

They have the same meaning and the same scope, in accordance with Article 52(3) of the Charter (3).

Therefore, the ‘negative’ definitions appearing in the ECHR must be regarded as also forming part of the Charter:

(a) Article 2(2) of the ECHR:
‘Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the
use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.’

(b)Article 2 of Protocol 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…’
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2004:310:0420:0464:ENDF

This is my reason for believing that Derry is technically correct. And if so, are people in agreement that this is at least a negative aspect of the treaty?[/quote]

Well he's wrong about introducing the Death Penalty as it states the Death Penalty is only allowed when it's already in the law.

The other part means that a life can only be taken when there's absolutely no alternatives and only in the 3 examples given above. The quelling of riots is what has Derry's knickers in a twist as he's assuming it means the cops will shoot anyone who protests.

What it actually says is that in the event that a riot is being lawfully quelled, a life can only be taken when there is no possible alternative. This means every avenue of stopping people has to be taken before a life can be taken. Basically, it's exactly how it is now, except if someone kills another under teh above rules and an investigation rules that they had no choice, they will not be charged with murder (but as far as I know they can still be charged with other offences).

Black Uhlan

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Could you please explain your statement then? Believe me I hope you are right!

Shouldn't you be asking the person who made to claim to back it up?

Black Uhlan wrote: »

ECHR
(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.’

That's kinda how it works now.
It doesn't give police the right to fire live rounds into crowds or any one trying to run away.
There's the slight issue with the fact irish police don't carry guns.

Black Uhlan wrote: »

(b)Article 2 of Protocol 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…’

And this means that any country that still has the death penalty for extraordinary circumstances still can have that in their laws.
There's only one country this applies to.

It says clearly that it applies to capital punishment during times of war.

There is nothing that allows or forces the death penalty to be made into law.

Black Uhlan wrote: »

This is my reason for believing that Derry is technically correct. And if so, are people in agreement that this is at least a negative aspect of the treaty?

And by "technically" you mean exaggeration, taking it out of all context and misrepresenting it the yea.

granite man

There was a shoot to kill policy for years up north, was never much noise made about it from the irish then. To me it was always a practise run for whats to come. Wait and see!