Reintroduction of Death Penalty Possible Due to Lisbon Treaty Europes citizens demand wide discussion by Dr Titine Kriesi, Switzerland Following a ruling of the Federal Constitution Court of Karlsruhe, democracy in general, states under the rule of law and welfare states remain at the mercy of the Brussels dictate. The supranationality of the EU is hardly debilitated. Not much change can be expected in terms of depriving national states of their power and nations of their rights. Yet only nations have the legitimate right to exercise legal power. Large or small scale politics requires a plebiscite free from manipulation. The Lisbon Treaty is a decision from the top, and not based on the knowledge of free people of their rights. So called guarantees and side laws do not help get over this fact. Similarly, the possibility of reintroducing death penalty on the basis of the Lisbon Treaty requires objective discussion and a plebiscite. Whoever wants to build a European Europe can still leave the Union (Art. a (50) EUC in order to force a treaty that is in the interest of nations and citizens and that takes the freedom of citizens and peoples into serious consideration. Ireland is the only one out of 27 EU states that allows its citizens to vote on constitutional issues. On 2nd October the Irish people will be asked a second time to go to the polls for that same treaty, because those in power in the EU did not like the No with which the treaty was rejected in a clear and well-founded fashion back in 2008. The remaining almost 500 million EU citizens will not even be asked! This starkly contradicts the ideal of democracy where, as the Greek suggests, it is the people that hold sway over the land, and not the governments. Citizens not treated as citizens, but as immature beings Which government has honestly informed its people of the contents of this treaty so that each citizen can form his or her own opionion? If anyone today does not know which fatal consequences, including long-term restrictions of citizen rights, the treaty entails, it is not because he or she does not understand it. The reason is rather that party deputies just follow their party heads without having read the treaty for themselves. Irelands Prime Minister, Brian Cowen, is said to have bragged on television about not having read the treaty.1 Is the treaty hushed up because they know exactly that the nations would reject it if they knew how many citizen rights it deprives them of? No law of citizen rights and freedom Nicolas Sarkozy seems to be aware of this in saying that if there were a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, in every country where such a referendum would take place, it would be lost. Sarkozy added: There is a cleavage between people and governments. A referendum now would bring [our] Europe into danger.2 Similarly the conservative British Shadow Foreign Secretary, William Hague: Opinion polls carried out in 16 EU member states show that almost all persons entitled to vote would have rejected the Lisbon Treaty, had they had a chance to go to the polls.3 The Irish EU commissioner for the home market, Charley McCreevy even thinks all political leaders are aware of the fact that in case of a referendum 95% of the population of their respective countries would probably have said no as well.4 We [in Ireland] do it by referendum. Thats democracy.5 However referendums do not take place in 26 EU states, including the UK, where in breach of an election manifesto promise, the Labour government has denied British voters any say on the Lisbon Treaty at all, either in a referendum or at a general election.6 In fact, no discussion whatsoever, or at least no honest discussion is taking place on part of the government in any of the 27 EU member states. How sheep-like are millions of people considered by them? In the case of treaties of such far-reaching consequences as the one in question, citizens surely expect politicians to enter into honest dialogue. Since this is not happening, everybody is asking rightfully: How good can a treaty be if, after months of national debate, its merits cannot be comprehensibly explained?7 Duty to arm and fight terrorism The Irish government has expressed doubts about the Lisbon Treaty concerning, among other things, its neutrality. In response to the Irish misgivings, Brussels answered in sheer contradiction of the truth that the treaty had never foreseen any restriction on neutrality.8 Any doubts were said to have been abated once and for all9 thanks to the warranties granted by the EU especially for Ireland. The Lisbon treaty does not affect in any way Irelands traditional politics of military neutrality. [Neither is the Treaty said to pose any basis] for creating European armed forces or compulsory military service for any military formation.10 Yet in the Lisbon Treaty it says that the member states of the Union (Par. 42, subpar. 3 2 TEU) not only commit themselves to improve step by step their military abilities, i.e. to arm, but the treaty assumes in Art. 43 Par. l TEU a right to wage war (ius ad bellum). And particularly so with the end of fighting global terrorism, including in ones own country. Thus the explicit ban on wars of aggression is played down (art. 26 par. l GG), i.e. wars of aggression are tolerated even though they contravene the German Constitution (commitment to peace). Are we in for more wars because of the Lisbon treaty? The nations do not want that. Evidence of EU collusion and confusion tactic True, in the Treaty on the EU it says: No person shall be sentenced to death, nobody should be executed. (Art. 11-62 VV) But this is not the whole truth. For the Lisbon treaty also states that any explanations on the Charter of Fundamental Rights (ECHR) of the European Union which have been adopted from the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms have the same liability as the basic text itself11 (ECHR). What does this mean? Evidently the plain truth is only seen in the explanations given on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and not in the Charter itself, claims Professor of law K. A. Schachtschneider: The Charter of Fundamental Rights is based, at least as far as classical fundamental rights are concerned, on the ECHR of 1950. At that time it seemed inevitable to leave the numerous member states of the European Council the possibility of the death penalty. Germany had only just abolished the death penalty in 1949, but France, Great Britain and many other states still had it. And a declaration of human rights would never have been reached had there been a general demand to abolish the death penalty.12 This explanation dating back to 1950 was reintroduced deliberately in December 2007 as a binding explanation to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It was not an accident. We should be able to read and understand this explanation, says Schachtschneider.13 Death penalty in times of war and perils of war and ... The fact that, besides the duty of the member states to arm, it says in a comment on a footnote that the death penalty will be feasible again and not just in times of war and perils of war (Germany and Austria are at war), but also in times of insurrection and upheaval, is a blatant scandal. Brussels says: Nothing in the EU Treaty of Lisbon ( ) affects in any way the need for protecting the right to live ( ) as foreseen in the Irish Constitution.14 Yet in the Lisbon Treaty it says: Contrary to the right to live (Art. II-62 VV) the death penalty, killing and execution in the event of war or imminent threat of war in accordance with the detailed provisions of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights is to be introduced by Council decisions on the general rules of missions (Article 43 paragraph 2 P. l TEU. 43 Abs. 2 S. l EUV).15 In the explanation on Fundamental Rights it says: A state may forsee the death penalty in its rule of law for deeds that are committed in times of war or imminent threat of war. This penalty may only be applied in those cases which are foreseen in the rule of law and are in accordance with its regulations.16 In other words, the death penalty is possible in times of war or imminent threat of war, without there remaining any protection by Fundamental Rights. It is true that the death penalty is not listed in any law as yet, at least in Germany. But if the EU issues detailed rules for missions (Article 43 paragraph 2 P. l TEU) i.e. if it takes military action (war) as a reaction to some crisis and issues legal regulations for such an event of war which facilitate the death penalty, then any contradicting fundamental right in the EU Constitution or any national set of fundamental rights will be to no avail. But, as stated before, the actual explanation on the Fundamental Rights would apply, and not the Right itself!17 ... Death penalty in times of riot and insurrection In the notes on explanations it states: 3. a) Art. 2 para 2 of the ECHR: A killing is not considered a violation of this article when it results from the use of force which has been absolutely necessary to a) protect any person from unlawful violence; b) lawfully arrest or prevent the escape of someone who is lawfully deprived of liberty, or c) to lawfully fight a riot or insurrection.18 So even in case of revolt or rebellion the death penalty would be possible if it accurately reflects the explanation. And because it is a European act of law it cannot be measured against either the Irish, German or any other national constitution, even if it states that the death penalty has been abolished. Since European law overrules national law, the death penatly would be possible.19 Well, somebody will ask: Who defines what is an insurrection or a riot? The EU is entitled to interpret ad libitum what and how it deems. Could this apply to situations as we used to have in Leipzig (the Monday demonstrations) or riots like we had recently in Latvia etc.? I.e. demonstrations accompanied by violence which could be interpreted as insurrection? Or when people gather because they do not agree with something and then some black bloc is smuggled in from somewhere? Will Brussels interpret the social disturbances expected even by Germany on the grounds of the economic crisis as upheavels or riots? And who, in that event, will be responsible for measuring the extent of violence? Citizen right to live not secured Since in the Lisbon Treaty the death penalty is again permitted under certain circumstances, the right to live is not secured. This is a crime, all the more so because this is just mentioned in the footnote of a footnote and can thus be reintroduced through the backdoor. Which politician has explained this clearly to his or her voters? The Irish Senior Lecturer Emeritus in Social Policy, Anthony Coughlan expresses his outrage at the reintroduction of the death penalty in the the Lisbon Treaty, too, saying that most people in Ireland and Britain have never heard of it. 20 (!) Both the German Constitution (Art. 102 GG) and the principle of human dignity of the UN Human Rights Charter command the abolition of the death penalty. The peoples of Europe have fought hard for this principle after the two horrible world wars in which 55 million people were slaughtered and which paralized the countries involved for decades. Reintroducing the death penalty would mean a step backward, falling behind the Enlightenment principle of freedom, equality and fraternity, the Human Rights Declaration of 1948, any right to justice and the hard-fought-for freedom of our nations. The EU would do well to cooperate with its citizens in a mutual effort to fashion our society reasonably and to aim at living and working together in dignity and equality based on human standards. Anything else is mere striving for power which the peoples of Europe do not want. Reintroduction of Death Penalty Possible Due to Lisbon Treaty So, is this what Tony B'Liar signed away in 2008, and later, by Doc Gordon McRuin-Broone??? So the Kommie Kommizzars, Merde Merchants & Batards of Brussels could use this to suppress criticism of, investigation of, reporting on EU corruption, or generally writing and publishing rude comments about the EU-SSR Land??