RE: Ireland Rejects EU treaty

RE: Ireland Rejects EU treaty (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Politesub53 -> RE: Ireland Rejects EU treaty (6/15/2008 3:57:22 AM)
quote: Quotes Meatcleaver :If the EU is an unaccountable old boys network its because of the national politicians you vote for. Nonsense, this assumes i voted for the present government for the last ten years. No doubt you will blame Thatcher but Labour have done nothing to change the system, even giving another high powered job to Mandelson who had to resign from office not once but twice. quote: Quote Meatcleaver : I don't know if you can speak any foreign languages but if you did, you would get a completely different picture of the EU than is portrayed in Britain and one that is nearer the truth. Yet more nonsense. I can speak enough French to get the basics from a story, it doesnt follow this makes French ( or an other ) papers any less honest than UK ones. If you are right why did France and holland ect reject the EU constitution in their own referendums ? Just as well we didnt all read the German press before WW2 broke out isnt it. quote: Quotes Meatcleaver : In the 70s it was just a trade agreement and if people listened to the pro-European politicians they would have known there was greater ambitions for the then EEC. IT IS ACTUALLY THERE IN BLACK AND WHITE IN THE TREATY OF ROME More nonsense, ( See a theme developing here ) try reading the governments own document sent out prior to the 1975 Referendum. It includes a statement that monetary union wont happen, and another that no laws affecting the UK will be made by the EEC. Its also ironic how socialist love the term "Little Englanders", which originally meant anyone in the UK, who was against the British having an Empire.

Politesub53 -> RE: Ireland Rejects EU treaty (6/15/2008 4:12:00 AM)
RL thanks for the links, but i still dont see anything that says aid policies are killing thousands of children. As for the multi-lingual comments, see my reply above. Aid must be given freely ( IE not to benefit the donor) except in cases where it isnt being used for other means. Mugabe is a prime example of a leader using aid monies for his own means, both financial and political. Aid donors are entitled to expect some form of control over policies, which will mean the need for aid is eliminated as far as possible. I have never ever suggested profit should come before aid, yet we must ensure aid gets where its needed most. Nice spot on big Phil, i think he will brighten up our cosmopolitan team somewhat. [;)]

meatcleaver -> RE: Ireland Rejects EU treaty (6/15/2008 4:25:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver With a common foreign policy Britain wouldn't be involved in an illegal war in Iraq and would be more concerned with a common European defence policy. A far more intelligent way to run a foreign policy than threatening to bomb everyone that wants to use a different currency to sell oil and the like. No point having a foreign policy when France and Germany both broke agreed UN sanctions. What would i know though, only having both parties lie about everything. Ironically in 1975 the Labour party voted to leave the EEC. So much for a democratic leadership by Wilson. Labour breaking its word is not an EU problem but a purely British one. As for France and Germany breaking UN sanctions, that again is a problem of national governments and not the EU so that is another red herring. However, turn you comment on its head, why would France and Germany trust Britain, it fights illegal wars! So much for Brit's thinking themselves superior!

meatcleaver -> RE: Ireland Rejects EU treaty (6/15/2008 4:37:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: Quotes Meatcleaver :If the EU is an unaccountable old boys network its because of the national politicians you vote for. Nonsense, this assumes i voted for the present government for the last ten years. No doubt you will blame Thatcher but Labour have done nothing to change the system, even giving another high powered job to Mandelson who had to resign from office not once but twice. Mandelson is a commisioner because he was appointed by a democratically elected British government. His being a commissioner is not the fault of the EU but a fault of domestic British politics. You are blaming the rest of Europe for the lack of accountability within the British political system. quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: Quote Meatcleaver : I don't know if you can speak any foreign languages but if you did, you would get a completely different picture of the EU than is portrayed in Britain and one that is nearer the truth. Yet more nonsense. I can speak enough French to get the basics from a story, it doesnt follow this makes French ( or an other ) papers any less honest than UK ones. If you are right why did France and holland ect reject the EU constitution in their own referendums ? Just as well we didnt all read the German press before WW2 broke out isnt it. The point is, the reporting of European news is limited in Britain and very biased. I can receive news from five different European countries and when four are saying one thing and the British media is saying something completely different, I know who I will believe. You have the British smugness of thinking Johhny Foreigner is an inveterate liar. Your comment about reading the German press before WW2 is a rather tedious comment, if their was an exchange of peoples and ideas before WW2 like there is now, WW2 probably wouldn't have happened because people would have kicked out the warmongering politicians and let's not forget, it was British jingoism that turned WWI from being a continental war into a world war and without WWI, there wouldn't have been WWII. quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: Quotes Meatcleaver : In the 70s it was just a trade agreement and if people listened to the pro-European politicians they would have known there was greater ambitions for the then EEC. IT IS ACTUALLY THERE IN BLACK AND WHITE IN THE TREATY OF ROME More nonsense, ( See a theme developing here ) try reading the governments own document sent out prior to the 1975 Referendum. It includes a statement that monetary union wont happen, and another that no laws affecting the UK will be made by the EEC. Its also ironic how socialist love the term "Little Englanders", which originally meant anyone in the UK, who was against the British having an Empire. Again the lies are British lies and not lies of the then EEC. It is clearly written in the treaty of Rome, there were ambitions for political integration. The fact that British politicians lied, does not make the EU a lying shop, it makes the British government a lying shop. I most certainly knew of the ambitions when I voted yes in the referendum and I was aware of the history and of Churchill being supportive of a united Europe when it was formed (although he thought Britain was too important to be a member of the EEC but then, he was a bit of a nationalist of the old school). I also notice that successive governments, whatever their colour keep ratifying treaty agreements and then blame the EU for agreements they freely enter in to. That is a British problem, not an EU problem. That is the dishonesty of British politicians not of the EU.

meatcleaver -> RE: Ireland Rejects EU treaty (6/15/2008 4:55:08 AM)
Having read about the Irish 'No campaign', they were fighting the 'No' campaign on abortion, tax and Irish neutrality, none of which the treaty in question deals with. This is the normal problem EU treaties have to run, people who are against the EU never campaign on the issues at hand but try to provoke an irrational xenophobic nationalist sentiment.

RealityLicks -> RE: Ireland Rejects EU treaty (6/15/2008 10:12:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 RL thanks for the links, but i still dont see anything that says aid policies are killing thousands of children. Aid must be given freely ( IE not to benefit the donor) ...Aid donors are entitled to expect some form of control over policies, which will mean the need for aid is eliminated as far as possible. I have never ever suggested profit should come before aid, yet we must ensure aid gets where its needed most. If development "aid" is implemented in such a way that it adversely affects a poor country's overall income, it follows that that country will be forced to spend less on areas like health and education. This results in the high infant mortality rates seen in the South. First, the good bit: the EU is the largest donor of foreign aid in the world, when member states' contributions are taken into account. (The EU sends about 100 euro per person per year, the US about half that and Japan roughly three-quarters.) But the string attached to this seeming generosity is the increasing emphasis on the poor countries opening their markets to EU imports - these are currently subsidised by the EU, while the developing countries' tiny amount of exports are overwhelmingly subject to tariffs, if sold into the EU. The Commission is suggesting lifting the tariffs ...but only if the poor open their markets to EU-sourced subsidised goods. This is being pushed through before proper impact studies can be carried out in target markets but the forecast is not good for the DCs. Blair's promises on aid after LiveAid2 have been overturned by Mandelson at the Commission. Blair promised that the poor could retain market control for at least 20 years. The EU forced agreements onto most countries in December 07, although many have accepted only interim agreements, in the hope that public awareness of the unfairness of the deals will bring about a more reasonable stance. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/may/19/uk.development (this is old but you can find more recent sources easily enough) It goes against everything that is believed about combatting poverty to pit poor farmers against the world's major agribusinesses, supported by billions of subsidy but that is current EU policy. quote: Anti-poverty campaigners have protested at how a proposal on aid for trade published by the Commission in April does not contain any measures designed to ensure that small producers are paid fair prices for their goods. This is despite how the 2000 Cotonou agreement, which underpins the EU's relations with ACP countries, committed the Union to improving the often paltry prices paid to producers. http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38611 quote: Commenting on the EU proposals, Luis Morago, Head of Oxfam International's Brussels office said: "Today's offer by the EU provides some answers to legitimate ACP concerns. However, it is made as part of the negotiation of Free Trade Agreements, which are fraught with problems. Developing countries look set to be asked to open their markets dramatically, which could have seriously negative implications for poor peoples' livelihoods and future economic development." http://www.neurope.eu/articles/72297.php Poor countries are often at the mercy of dictators and natural disaster. Helping them can never be perfect - there is always the possibility of some shortcoming or unforeseen eventuality. But remember that poor countries are poor today and will be kept poor tomorrow largely due to the policies of rich countries. Ireland was a lot poorer before EU membership but have enjoyed billions each year in development aid from the EU and are not due to pay a penny back for another five years. The firms which have gained from the ridiculously low corporation tax there would be quick to up sticks if the Treaty is ratified and tax reforms implemented but there are many landowners over there who are being paid fortunes annually under the CAP whether they farm their land or leave it fallow and that should not happen at the expense of the world's poor.

Politesub53 -> RE: Ireland Rejects EU treaty (6/15/2008 10:12:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Having read about the Irish 'No campaign', they were fighting the 'No' campaign on abortion, tax and Irish neutrality, none of which the treaty in question deals with. This is the normal problem EU treaties have to run, people who are against the EU never campaign on the issues at hand but try to provoke an irrational xenophobic nationalist sentiment. Every single Irish party except Sein Fein pushed for a "yes" vote. To say that the Irish people didnt know what they were voting for is just spin.

popeye1250 -> RE: Ireland Rejects EU treaty (6/15/2008 2:34:24 PM)
Reality, what does the E.U. have to do with "poor" or "developing" countries? I thought the "European Union" was an agreement between European countries?

Slavehandsome -> RE: Ireland Rejects EU treaty (6/15/2008 2:49:35 PM)
Well, this is another case of why we don't need taxpayers making these kinds of decisions. They voted the wrong way. We saw the same thing happen in Palestine, when the arab taxpayers voted the wrong way and Hamas took power. As long as people keep voting the wrong way, we're never going to get anywhere, especially since we don't negotiate with people we don't want to negotiate with. If I might offer a solution..... www.diebold.com and www.verichipcorp.com for all your taxpayer needs.

meatcleaver -> RE: Ireland Rejects EU treaty (6/16/2008 12:43:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Having read about the Irish 'No campaign', they were fighting the 'No' campaign on abortion, tax and Irish neutrality, none of which the treaty in question deals with. This is the normal problem EU treaties have to run, people who are against the EU never campaign on the issues at hand but try to provoke an irrational xenophobic nationalist sentiment. Every single Irish party except Sein Fein pushed for a "yes" vote. To say that the Irish people didnt know what they were voting for is just spin. I didn't say the Irish didn't kmow what they voted for, I said the referendum was fought on issues that the treaty had nothing to do with. Actually according to the spread of the votes, the urban areas voted yes and the rural areas that would have been it by the reform of the Common Agriculture Policy voted no. No doubt because they feel bitter because they've had their goody bag taken away from them. I said myself at the beginning, I would have voted against this treaty but probably for different reasons than you would. This treaty like other treaties is an effort by national politicians to keep power in their hands and not give the EU democratic legitimacy. This enables them to make the important decisions and accuse the EU of making unpopular decisions and blaming it for being undemocratic (meanwhile they happily ratify their decisions, which they wouldn't if the didn't like them.). Meanwhile people like you who don't seem to understand the political game playing going on, blames the EU because you seem to believe your national politicians while the decisions made you don't like are made by those very same politicians. Holland and France didn't vote no because they are against the EU, they voted no because of the lack of democracy and unlike the British public, they know that is down to national politicians not EU bureaucracy. The British just bleat on and on about the lack of democracy in the EU which is orchestrated by British politicians but never have the nouse to realize the guilty are the national politicians doing the conducting. Why don't you think BRITSH POLITICIANS won't give you a referendum on whether to stay in the EU or not or even on this treaty? No doubt you're going to blame the EU but it ain't down to them, its don't to the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED BRITISH GOVERNMENT! Of course at the end of the day, the British government know that being a member of the EU is best for Britain otherwise they wouldn't be able to get out fast enough. Personally I think Britain should leave or stop bleating and sulking and blaming everyone else for its decisions.

meatcleaver -> RE: Ireland Rejects EU treaty (6/16/2008 1:04:08 AM)
The truth is politesub, Britain in or out of the EU will have to take notice of Brussels without having a say which is exactly what happens to Switzerland. The Swiss public rejected a preferential trade agreement with the EU in a referendum and its government went back for an improved agreement. They were told it will be several years before the EU could find the time to reconsider their position so the Swiss are stuck with an old agreement they don't like because they didn't like the new agreement enough. They have also been forced to open up on some of their banking secrecy because of EU pressure and can't veto a decision because they aren't a member so they had to comply or pay the price of the EU limiting its dealings with Swiss banks. You will find now that many Swiss companies are setting up inside the EU and reducing their presence in Switzerand to get round the negative impact of the old trade agreement. Britain outside the EU would be in a similar position not only that, it would similarly be at the mercy of Washington and Tokyo and no doubt soon enough, Beijing and Delhi. Don't for one second think that Britian would get preferential treatment in Washington, there has been no evidence of that in the past and Britain outside the EU is just another middle sized country to ignore, the EU is what Washington knows it has to deal with.

Politesub53 -> RE: Ireland Rejects EU treaty (6/16/2008 8:17:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Meanwhile people like you who don't seem to understand the political game playing going on, blames the EU because you seem to believe your national politicians while the decisions made you don't like are made by those very same politicians. Holland and France didn't vote no because they are against the EU, they voted no because of the lack of democracy and unlike the British public, they know that is down to national politicians not EU bureaucracy. The British just bleat on and on about the lack of democracy in the EU which is orchestrated by British politicians but never have the nouse to realize the guilty are the national politicians doing the conducting. Why don't you think BRITSH POLITICIANS won't give you a referendum on whether to stay in the EU or not or even on this treaty? No doubt you're going to blame the EU but it ain't down to them, its don't to the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED BRITISH GOVERNMENT! Of course at the end of the day, the British government know that being a member of the EU is best for Britain otherwise they wouldn't be able to get out fast enough. Personally I think Britain should leave or stop bleating and sulking and blaming everyone else for its decisions. Thanks for patronising me Meatcleaver, but my guess would be i undertsand all to well. If you actually read my posts you would see that. Yes yes i know why Brown wont give us a referendum, its for the same reason he didnt hold an election last October. He know he would lose. You seem to want an EU superstate and thats fine, thats your wish and i respect that. Just dont tell me i dont understand things just because my view is different, it really undermines the validity of your posts.

meatcleaver -> RE: Ireland Rejects EU treaty (6/16/2008 8:36:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 You seem to want an EU superstate and thats fine, thats your wish and i respect that. Just dont tell me i dont understand things just because my view is different, it really undermines the validity of your posts. OK politesub, tell me why Brits complain about the EU then when it is their own government at fault? I don't actually want a superstate, I want the European parliament to have the power to hold the executive (commission) to account instead of national leaders manipulating them, that will make the EU more accountable and responsive to the European people no matter what their nationality.

Politesub53 -> RE: Ireland Rejects EU treaty (6/16/2008 10:29:40 AM)
Meatcleaver, not everything is the fault of the individual governments, some of it is due to the policies and bureaucracy of the EU. Take the abortion issue as a for instance. The Slovak Republic and the Holy See signed an international treaty, valid because the vatican is classed as State. Now the EU are telling the Slovaks that they may be breaking EU law on womens rights, this amounts to telling Catholics that they cant follow the teachings of the Church. It was probably this issue that the Irish had in mind. A woman has every right to want an abortion, just as everyone else has every right not to carry one out. Rightly or wrongly this is a classic example of EU interference. Another is the EU making fortune tellers illegal, yet Spiritualists should have the right to decide for themselves what to do. At present, which you have pointed out, the EU is open to manipulation from individual governments. The new treaty does nothing to solve this, double majority voting is just as open to backroom deals and horse trading as the current system. The larger countries wont ever allow a system such as you suggest, which begs the question, whats the point. My whole point is it isnt democratic, blame the governement if you wish but it doesnt alter the facts. This is why i am against the whole thing. When i mentioned Mandleson being made commissioner for trade, you said i should blame the British Government, yet my understanding is the EU commission had to approve his posting to office. Why didnt they satnd up and be counted, and say we refuse to give this man a job, due to his dubious practices in the UK ? When it becomes a proper democracy, answerable to the whole EU electorate. When the EU halts the rampant corruption and misuse of taxpayers money. When we are not subject to laws affecting business in an adverse way, such as the nonsensical health and safety rules. Then and only then my views may change. From Blair back to Heath and Wilson, former Prime Ministers were more interested in making a mark on history, than actually thinking through to effects of their desire for fame. On this much, at least, we agree.

popeye1250 -> RE: Ireland Rejects EU treaty (6/16/2008 10:35:43 AM)
Wow, and I thought we had too much beauracracy in the U.S.

meatcleaver -> RE: Ireland Rejects EU treaty (6/16/2008 11:26:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Meatcleaver, not everything is the fault of the individual governments, some of it is due to the policies and bureaucracy of the EU. Take the abortion issue as a for instance. The Slovak Republic and the Holy See signed an international treaty, valid because the vatican is classed as State. Now the EU are telling the Slovaks that they may be breaking EU law on womens rights, this amounts to telling Catholics that they cant follow the teachings of the Church. So you are saying it is OK to treat women as inferior to men because the Catholic Church says so? And anywaym the EU isn't making the Slovak Republic to do anything. If the Slovak Republic want to treat women as inferior to men as the Catholic Church would like, they are free to leave the EU. No one is a member of the EU against their wishes so no one is made to do anything. quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 It was probably this issue that the Irish had in mind. A woman has every right to want an abortion, just as everyone else has every right not to carry one out. Rightly or wrongly this is a classic example of EU interference. Another is the EU making fortune tellers illegal, yet Spiritualists should have the right to decide for themselves what to do. Yeah, this is why 5,000 Irish women go to the UK every year for an abortion because their own country is so hypocritical. It is still not a problem of the EU. Spiritualists come under freedom of religion. OK so its a nutty religion but they all are. Fortune telling is not a religion. quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 At present, which you have pointed out, the EU is open to manipulation from individual governments. The new treaty does nothing to solve this, double majority voting is just as open to backroom deals and horse trading as the current system. The larger countries wont ever allow a system such as you suggest, which begs the question, whats the point. Well the individual government srun the EU which is why they claim it is democratic unless it is politically convenient for them to accuse it of being undemocratic. However, the anti-Europeans are against giving the european Parliament more power but they then complain of lack of democracy, they want it both ways so why don't they just leave? Because they know they need the EU. quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 My whole point is it isnt democratic, blame the governement if you wish but it doesnt alter the facts. This is why i am against the whole thing. When i mentioned Mandleson being made commissioner for trade, you said i should blame the British Government, yet my understanding is the EU commission had to approve his posting to office. Why didnt they satnd up and be counted, and say we refuse to give this man a job, due to his dubious practices in the UK ? Each government nominates a commissioner and most nominees are nodded through. The approval is a safety mechanism and nothing else. It has been used against an Italian commissioner nominee but that was because he was facing criminal charges in Italy. quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 When it becomes a proper democracy, answerable to the whole EU electorate. When the EU halts the rampant corruption and misuse of taxpayers money. When we are not subject to laws affecting business in an adverse way, such as the nonsensical health and safety rules. Then and only then my views may change. I suspect you don't want an EU with democratic legitimacy that could face down the British government. Laws affecting business in an adverse way? Is that why Germany exports more manufacturing products than the USA but Britain can't manufacre its way out pf a paper bag anymore? I think you should look closer to home for adverse laws and policies on business. quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 From Blair back to Heath and Wilson, former Prime Ministers were more interested in making a mark on history, than actually thinking through to effects of their desire for fame. On this much, at least, we agree. Heathn was honest and upfront about the EU.

Politesub53 -> RE: Ireland Rejects EU treaty (6/16/2008 12:48:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Meatcleaver, not everything is the fault of the individual governments, some of it is due to the policies and bureaucracy of the EU. Take the abortion issue as a for instance. The Slovak Republic and the Holy See signed an international treaty, valid because the vatican is classed as State. Now the EU are telling the Slovaks that they may be breaking EU law on womens rights, this amounts to telling Catholics that they cant follow the teachings of the Church. So you are saying it is OK to treat women as inferior to men because the Catholic Church says so? Meatcleaver, dont twist my words to suit your own arguement, that whole quote you posted was followed by this. quote: A woman has every right to want an abortion, just as everyone else has every right not to carry one out. Clearly i am including both sexes in having the right not to carry out operations, due to religious beliefs. Do you see this differently then ?

meatcleaver -> RE: Ireland Rejects EU treaty (6/17/2008 4:11:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Meatcleaver, not everything is the fault of the individual governments, some of it is due to the policies and bureaucracy of the EU. Take the abortion issue as a for instance. The Slovak Republic and the Holy See signed an international treaty, valid because the vatican is classed as State. Now the EU are telling the Slovaks that they may be breaking EU law on womens rights, this amounts to telling Catholics that they cant follow the teachings of the Church. So you are saying it is OK to treat women as inferior to men because the Catholic Church says so? Meatcleaver, dont twist my words to suit your own arguement, that whole quote you posted was followed by this. quote: A woman has every right to want an abortion, just as everyone else has every right not to carry one out. Clearly i am including both sexes in having the right not to carry out operations, due to religious beliefs. Do you see this differently then ? There is not one doctor in the EU who is forced to perform any operation including abortion against their will (maybe by their own country but certainly not by the EU). Ireland has very strict abortion rules to the point where abortion is all but illegal, where is the EU forcing anything on the Irish? Irish women go to the UK in their thousands every year to have an abortion because their own country won't face up to its harsh treatment of women because of its adherence to Catholic dogma. I'm struglling to find your point here because no one is making the Irish perform abortions despite having a totally hypocrital stance on abortion. The Slovak government knew the rules on adherence to the European Charter on Human rights before it joined the EU, if it didn't like it, it didn't have to join. If it wanted to keep its treaty with the Vatican, it should have pursued a trading block with them.

Politesub53 -> RE: Ireland Rejects EU treaty (6/17/2008 10:27:55 AM)
Article 151 EC: 1. The Community shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore. [quote A European Union advisory panel has issued a statement saying that medical professionals are not allowed to refuse to participate in abortions. According to the EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights doctors should be forced to perform abortions, even if they have conscientious objections, because the right to abort a child is an “international human right.” The Network, which consists of one expert per EU member state, assists the European Commission and the European Parliament in developing EU policy on fundamental rights. The Network wrote a 40-page opinion stressing that the right to conscientious objection is not “unlimited.” The opinion was given in connection with a proposed treaty between the Vatican and Slovakia. This treaty includes a guarantee that Catholic hospitals in Slovakia will not be legally obliged to “perform artificial abortions, artificial or assisted fertilizations, experiments with or handling of human organs, human embryos or human sex cells, euthanasia, cloning, sterilizations, [and] acts connected with contraception.”][/quote] Source : http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/596 For your info im not religious, but believe the EU should up hold freedom of religious thought. This doesnt exactly sit well with Article 151 does it ? Thats my point.

meatcleaver -> RE: Ireland Rejects EU treaty (6/17/2008 11:35:55 AM)
If you read your own info it says "advisory panel" and "should". You should know that in Britain medical staff don't have to take part in performing abortions, neither do they have to in Ireland, they don't have to here and they don't have to in Germany nor anywhere else as far as I'm aware so it is all a red herring. There is nothing in that statement that is compulsory. But let's get to the nitty gritty, just what is so fascistic and objectionable about this?.... The European Court of Justice decided in 1996 that the treaties establishing the European Community do not empower it to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights, this despite all EC/EU member states being signatories to the Convention (Opinion 2/94 "Accession by the Community to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms" of 28 March 1996). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union You will notice that the EU has really just incorporated the European Charter on Human Rights which is nothing to do with the EU and completely independent of it because the European Court decided the EU couldn't over rule or modify any of the Charter. Once again, your point really doesn't have anything to do with the EU other than I assume, you object to the EU incorporating the European Charter of Human Rights. What is wrong about an organistaion trying to protect the liberties of individuals?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125