"26 down just one to go for the Lisbon Treaty"

[---]

26 down just one to go for the Lisbon Treaty

10/10 13:03 CET
Lisbon EU treaty

VIDEO AT LINK

Poland has now formally ratified the European Union’s Lisbon Treaty, leaving the Czech Republic the only one of the bloc’s 27 members to do so.

If and when the Czechs ratify, the Treaty will come into force.

Poland’s President Lech Kaczynski put pen to paper at just after midday at his residential palace in Warsaw.

The treaty is designed to streamline the decision-making process within the EU but a spanner could still be thrown into the works.

Firstly there is the question of Czech ratification; the Czech president wants a footnote added to the text giving his country an opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Overcoming the Czech objections will now be the focus of the next EU summit at the end of this month. The head of the European Parliament has said he hopes to have that crucial last signature by the end of this year.

Copyright © 2009 euronews

http://www.euronews.net/2009/10/10/26-down...-lisbon-treaty/

[Queensryche]

I've been so inudated with worst news coverage here that I didn't even know this was happening. (The media here thinks ESPN nude sportscaster peephole videos is top story.)

I have a hard time believing the citizens of the countries, or should I say states, involved voted "yes" to this treaty. They must be promising empty dreams to a bunch of hungry and jobless people.

Do you know who the legal personality is that's taking over the pillar?

[---]

Quote:I've been so inudated with worst news coverage here that I didn't even know this was happening. (The media here thinks ESPN nude sportscaster peephole videos is top story.)

I have a hard time believing the citizens of the countries, or should I say states, involved voted "yes" to this treaty. They must be promising empty dreams to a bunch of hungry and jobless people.

Do you know who the legal personality is that's taking over the pillar?

The pillar? Tony Bliar?

Yes, how quick the footnote that it introduces the ground for capital punishment for sedition, terrorism and crimes against the state across Europe was forgotten about...not that it was ever openly talked about by any major press institutions.

[parkinglotincident]

Quote:Yes, how quick the footnote that it introduces the ground for capital punishment for sedition, terrorism and crimes against the state across Europe was forgotten about...not that it was ever openly talked about by any major press institutions.

I thought the Lisbon Treaty actually removed Capital Punishment from the European Convention on Human Rights. Could you point out where in the Treaty Capital Punishment is authorised?

[---]

Quote:I thought the Lisbon Treaty actually removed Capital Punishment from the European Convention on Human Rights. Could you point out where in the Treaty Capital Punishment is authorised?

Did you?? My, that's interesting. Depends how you define 'remove' I would imagine. In answer to you..Yes, I can but No, I won't. It's not actually a charity shop here btw. whoever you may be, I suggest the best course of action would be to look into such for yourself more.

welcome to concen.

[parkinglotincident]

Well, that's just it. I've tried to find mention of sanctioning capital punishment in the Lisbon Treaty and I can't find any such mention. I thought maybe you would be able to remember in which part of the treaty you found the reference.

[---]

Quote:Well, that's just it. I've tried to find mention of sanctioning capital punishment in the Lisbon Treaty and I can't find any such mention. I thought maybe you would be able to remember in which part of the treaty you found the reference.

I'm sure it's not so difficult to locate the specific open ended footnote to the article concerned. If you expect me to believe that you were not able to source this material for yourself on this platform, then you are mistaken.

You're crap at setting ambushes, really.

[parkinglotincident]

What do you mean 'on this platform'? Anyway, I've ctrl+F'd my way through the treaty and still can't find it. I'm not sure I understand your reference to footnotes to articles. Have you got a different version to me?

[---]

Quote:What do you mean 'on this platform'? Anyway, I've ctrl+F'd my way through the treaty and still can't find it. I'm not sure I understand your reference to footnotes to articles. Have you got a different version to me?

Never mind what you didn't perceive in the treaty's linguistic consruction; what part did you not understand in what I said though?

--

It would appear ..apparently...that this chap's manner of cognitive dissonance is quite complicated.

--

the platform, dear parkinglotincident would be the internet.

[parkinglotincident]

I see. It all becomes clear. . . . .

[---]

Quote:I see. It all becomes clear. . . . .

It's a flippancy.

I very much doubt it, however. I concluded the diametric opposite prognosing from your fistful of arsey posts. but that's JMO:)


Enjoy your internet travels anyhow..don't forget to buy a CC t-shirt to impress the gaggle of friends who piss themselves at your witty recanting of things you read on the internet..let themknow you came here and showed us what for and can wholeheartedly concur with the programming in assailing us lunatics, pejoratives are go, and balh de blah blah when the subject of the silly 'conspiracy theorists' comes up in ostensibly Neurotypical sapien sapien social gatherings:)

or not. Enjoy your reading here..you'll find it is an open board and their is no concensus of opinion.

�€œA book is a mirror: If an ass peers into it, you can't expect an apostle to look out�€�

don't take it to heart, I would have probably gone to the trouble of thoroughly sourcing the informationand issue for you inthe spirit of good faith had I not already strongly concluded fromthe other posts scattered around the board at this time from you, that you're a bit tardy..and icanÄtbe arsed with that politely,anymore.

However,lest you should claim foul:
Here you go, I'm a nice guy..the exact wording relevant to the charter is:

Quote:3. The provisions of Article 2 of the Charter correspond to those of the above Articles of the
ECHR and its Protocol. They have the same meaning and the same scope, in accordance
with Article 52(3) of the Charter. Therefore, the "negative" definitions appearing in the
ECHR must be regarded as also forming part of the Charter:

(a) Article 2(2) of the ECHR:

"Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article
when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(B)in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully
detained;
© 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…"

have a nice day though

[parkinglotincident]

You are quoting article 2 of the ECHR here. Here's Protocol 13 of the same:

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Tre...ml/187.htm

Basically, an individual country would have to introduce its own law permitting the death penalty in accordance with Protocol 6, which restricts the death penalty to cases of 'war and imminent threat of war'. It isn't going to be the EU that re-introduces the death penalty. IF it happens it will be your own government.

[---]

Quote:You are quoting article 2 of the ECHR here. Here's Protocol 13 of the same:
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Tre...ml/187.htm

Basically, an individual country would have to introduce its own law permitting the death penalty in accordance with Protocol 6, which restricts the death penalty to cases of 'war and imminent threat of war'. It isn't going to be the EU that re-introduces the death penalty. IF it happens it will be your own government.

Quote:The provisions of Article 2 of the Charter correspond to those of the above Articles of the ECHR and its Protocol. They have the same meaning and the same scope, in accordance with Article 52(3) of the Charter. Therefore, the ‘negative’ definitions appearing in the ECHR must be regarded as also forming part of the Charter.

so now it's changed to an 'if'

I don't perceive myself as having a government..there is a structure and I am told it owns me...that is more like a slavery.

Anyhow, you carry on believing the game isn't crooked. Sure, the Lisbon treaty is essentially preserving the sovereign rights of EU members states and there's no way that this clause could surreptitiously laying the ground for a rather brutal future scenario!

If you don't believe that this treaty will draw law makers across Europe inevitably towards unitiary actions, with that being one of the very purposes, no less! Then that's your thing.


How could I be so myopic!?!


edit)

Quote:Article 5 of the Treaty of Velsen; “Eurogendfor (EGF) may be placed at the disposal of the European Union (EU) and also of the United Nations (UN), the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and other international organisations or an ad hoc coalition”

Quote:Article 16 (2) Eurogendfor Personal may possess, carry and transport arms, ammunitions, other weapon systems and explosives on the conditions that they are authorised to do so by their orders and that they do so in accordance with the laws of the Host State (HOST means the Party on whose territory the permanent HQ is located) and the Receiving State (The Party on whose territory EGF Forces are stationed or in transit).

[parkinglotincident]

Quote:f you don't believe that this treaty will draw law makers across Europe inevitably towards unitiary actions, with that being one of the very purposes, no less! Then that's your thing.


How could I be so myopic!?!

Of course the Treaty will lead to ever closer political co-operation, and the next treaty will grant even more powers to the EU, and so on until something that looks very much like a Federal Europe is proposed. You seem to be inferring that this is something I am in favour of, if so then you are wrong. Given a vote on Lisbon, (which is highly unlikely in the UK unless the Czech President is going to hold out for another 7 months) I would vote no. However, I fail to see how misrepresenting the contents of the treaty advances the debate.

[Hans Olo]

btw. GO VACLAV KLAUS!!! good job