All eyes on Ireland for October 2 polls

C.ZARB

Jul 14th 2009, 08:21

We are losing our indipendence (ie the veto) and what the big parties care about is the 6 MEP seat, with all its 'responsabilities', outrageously high (and foreign taxed) salary and free perks.

lgalea

Jul 13th 2009, 22:52

(5)
What can be said is that the eu PETTY DICTATORS did not have the guts to put this in the treaty, but put the reference in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and then did not even have to guts to put the explanation in the Charter, but made a separate document in the hope that the people will not read the lisbon treaty as it has been made in a manner that people will not understand it and would then not demand a referendum as stated by Giuliano Amato** himself, and even if they read the treaty they hoped that people will not go through the Charter since it referred to Fundamental Rights and more less would they be likely to go and read the explanatory document.

**If you want to hear Giuliano Amato say it himself go to http://www.cnimalta.org/amatoE.html and download the audio file.

So you see Scullion, as they say the EU PETTY DICTATORS may fool many people for some time, but they may not fool all the people all the time.

That shows how deep our MPs went into reading and understanding the lisbon treaty and its ancillary documents before approving it.

lgalea

Jul 13th 2009, 22:43

(4)
This means that since all eu laws are above all national laws including the national constitutions, the EU can introduce the death penalty notwithstanding that the death penalty has been removed from our Constitution.

While it can be said that a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights can introduce the death penalty under the circumstances mentioned, since the Explanatory Document is saying that these negative aspects also form part of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the EU intends to use them, otherwise it would not have referred to them.

That has been a very simple explanation so that perhaps you can understand that the EU is being given the right through the lisbon treaty which provides that the Charter forms part of the treaty and the Explanatory Document clearly shows what the EU intends to have this right otherwise it would not have been mentioned and explained as a negative aspect of the ECHR.

Maybe the EU PETTY DICTATORS did fools a lot of people, but it did not fool the British Government and others who made a reservation that the charter does not apply for them.

lgalea

Jul 13th 2009, 22:34

(3)
of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

This means that the EU can in the circumstances referred to introduce the death penalty because its laws are above all member countries laws, including the National Constitutions which are also laws.

In other words, if there is an insurrection against the EU, its PETTY DICTATORS from Brussels may order all actions that may result ion the death of persons and it may not be held responsible for such deaths.

Paragraph B states that
"(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…’.

Don't forget that the Explanatory Document says that these negative aspects all form part of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Therefore even here the EU can introduce the death penalty if it enters into a war or if it thinks that there is an imminent threat of war.

lgalea

Jul 13th 2009, 22:26

(2)
Explanation on Article 2 — Right to life
1 (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;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.’

One can see that a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights is authorized to introduce the death penalty under the circumstance mentioned. One can see that the Explanatory Document calls these "negative aspects" because they may result in the death of persons. However, the same document says that these negative aspects also form part

lgalea

Jul 13th 2009, 22:18

Robert Scullion
Here's your answer
The eu PETTY DICTATRS did not have the guts to put it in the treaty.
However, in the Charter of fundamental rights there is reference to the European Convention of Human Rights while the explanatory document intended to explain the Charter specifically refers to the articles and says that all the negative aspects of the Convention also apply.

Let's get to the facts.

The lisbon treaty provides that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2007/C 303/01) is deemed to be part of the treaty. The Charter is published It is published in the Official Journal OJC 303 pages 1 - 16 published on 14 December 2007.

You can download this document from
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:303:0001:0016:EN:PDF

Now there is another document called EXPLANATIONS RELATING TO THE CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS (2007/C 303/02). This is also published in the Official Journal of the EU OJC 303 page 17 - 35 published on 14 December 2007 and you can download the document from
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:303:0017:0035:EN:PDF

You can download these documents and follow the reasoning.

c.caruana

Jul 13th 2009, 18:31

NO TO THE LISBON TREATY!!!

A. Muscat

Jul 13th 2009, 16:58

October 2 should be remembered as the day of SHAME. Why the Irish peoples (NO) wasn’t respected? Are the EU still in a position to preach Iran and Zimbabwe about democracy? Can a football match be re-played if a team loses?

Robert Scullion

Jul 13th 2009, 16:36

@lgalea Ah rolling out the death penalty argument now ... perhaps you could explain where in the document the death penalty being re-introduced is highlighted (link to treaty http://bookshop.europa.eu/eubookshop/bookmarks.action?target=EUB:NOTICE:FXAC07306:EN:HTML&request_locale=EN) or perhaps when you can't find it you'll claim it'll be brought back in through some loophole, which only you have spotted Also perhaps you should notify the Council of Europe which has under Protocol 6 & 13 outlawed the death penalty (Malta joined in 1965) Looking forward to your answer :)

lgalea

Jul 13th 2009, 14:57

A. Vassallo What makes you so sure that there would have been a resounding vote in favour? It appears that both political parties were not of the same opinion as yours because otherwise they would have held a referendum to back them wouldn't they? And what makes you think that both political parties can enforce their members to vote according to their diktat? The 70,000 uncollected votes and the number of invalidated votes are a clear example that the political parties no longer control the electorate notwithstanding the pressure they make on the voters.

A. Vassallo

Jul 13th 2009, 14:24

@ lgalea You said "A sixth seat is worth absolutely nothing when considered with the more than 750 seats" igalea tell that to Mr. Joseph Cuschieri. I am sure he will be very greatful to you and to your bright idea.

A. Vassallo

Jul 13th 2009, 14:20

@ PL bloggers No one of you answered my very simple question which was: What will Saron Ellul Bonici (PL) will be telling her friend and colleague Jospeh Cuschieri (PL) if we do not get that sixth seat and Mr. Cuschieri (PES) will not become an MEP?

A. Vassallo

Jul 13th 2009, 13:44

@ Tony Caruana

Although we did not have our say, contrary to what you think and said, it would have been a resounding vote IN FAVOUR of the Lisbon Treaty to be in conformity with what the PL is now saying regarding the Treaty itself in particular and the European Union in general.

Do not forget that both the PN and PL accept Malta to be part of the EU, which was a big U-TURN for the PL. Do you remember Dr Alfred Sant once saying "God forbids we ever become members of the EU"?

lgalea

Jul 13th 2009, 13:35

A. Vassallo
A sixth seat is worth absolutely nothing when considered with the more than 750 seats.

Tony Caruana
You are totally right. The arrogant MPs arrogated to themselves the rights of the people when they decided not to hold a referendum because they were afraid that they will get a resounding NO like in Ireland. They have already started getting their answers from the 70,00 voters who did not even bother to collect their votes and by those who although collected them choose not to vote or invalidate their vote. These numbers will increase more the more the people will feel the negative effects of eu membership.

With the Lisbon treaty the eu will be able to order the introduction of the death penalty in the member countries. This is what our MPs have voted for when they approved the lisbon treaty.

May the Irish save the European people and us by again voting NO to the lisbon treaty to send the message to the arrogant eu petty dictators that NO means NO.

Charles J. Buttigieg

Jul 13th 2009, 13:16

@ A. Vassallo

Conflict of interest? What are you talking about? Diverse opinion maybe. What do you find so unnatural with a diverse opinion? Are people robots or individuals?

John Spiteri - Information Secretary AN

Jul 13th 2009, 12:56

The Irish will be voting for the same treaty - identical - word for word - NO LEGALLY BINDING GUARANTEES. the guarantees that you speak of are simply political promises of the same nature to the promises made by our government: eg reducing income tax to 25% and just as untrustworthy. if the treaty that Ireland will be voting on was somehow different different to that ratified in other member states, it would mean that all the other member states would need to ratify it again. so please do your homework.

@Mr. Vassallo - to gain a sixth seat in a powerless parliament Malta would be losing its veto powers. some bargain that is!

it also always goes unreported that the Lisbon Treaty has a self amending clause which would enable the EU to usurp more powers from member states without the need for referenda / parliamentary ratifications.

Would anyone in his right mind enter into a contract with a third party giving the latter the power to change the contractual terms and references at will and without any need for consent?

Tony Caruana

Jul 13th 2009, 11:44

At least the Irish get a chance to view their opinion.

We did'nt otherwise it would have been a resounding NO

A. Vassallo

Jul 13th 2009, 10:21

The Maltese people have the right to know what is the opinion of Sharon Ellul Bonici on the outcome of the Irish Referendum to be held in October. So far we know that Ellul Bonici was, is and always will be against the Lisbon Treaty.

If the Irish Referendum is lost again and Malta will not get its much awaited sixth seat, what will she be telling her friend and colleague Jospeh Cuschieri, who is the one to be confirmed as the 6th Maltese Member of the European Parliament?

Has this anything to do with a conflict of interest in the PL?