You're European now

[renegotiation]

If England joins the USE, that only counts up to the Tamar!

 

Ha, missed that one.

 

I'll just drop my efforts on this thread I think, as no one really seems remotely interested in my viewpoint. Getting some consensus with my outlook was my motive in starting this thread. That's ok. I'm not wallowing in self-pity! If people that disagree post I will still do my best to respond solely to what they say and nothing more.

 

 

 

The anti-European brigade is really scraping the bottom of the barrel with that one.

 

Bookworm, just for the record, I know you to be a very decent and fair individual from what I have seen on these forums. Even if you aren't in the 'anti-European brigade' I am confident you would agree it was a HUGE injustice that we didn't get a referendum on the matter?

 

And I don't believe in shapeshifting reptilians in case anyone wondered.

Edited December 2, 2009 by renegotiation

[Tezcatlipoca]

Hmmm...I think I'm going to probably withdraw from this specific discussion after this post as I'm fast gaining the picture, renegotiation, that you have convinced yourself that Europe has taken over this country to such a degree that no amount of contrary statements, or facts, from any of us are likely to change that view.

 

Again, I believe you have read one online source (from www.truthseeker.co.uk) and have allowed it to colour your thinking. Incensed by this outrage, you have then searched the relevent sections of the treaties yourself, and, upon finding reference to the death penalty as 'investigated' by Mr Stewart (truthseeker's founder), now wave them feverishly as confirmation.

 

The problem here is not that myself, Bookworm, or anyone else denies the existence of the articles to which you refer; it's that we do not agree with yours and Rixon's interpretation of those articles.

 

Let me put it more simply. Your statement "22 states [in Europe] reintroduced the death penalty yesterday and I don't think it will be too long before the other 3 follow" is simply wrong. No state has reintroduced the death penalty, and nor would it.

Spurred on by what you've read on the truthseeker.co.uk, I think you've snatched at the few articles that make provision for exceptional circumstances (such as war, in which - let's face it - all moral compasses tend to go a little haywire) and are now, like a dog with a bone, refusing to let go. Consequently, this isn't a discussion; it's simply you saying "I'm right" over and over again.

 

I can't speak for Bookworm or anyone else, but I personally feel that continuing to try to discuss this issue with you is not actually going to lead us anywhere. Indeed, I strongly believe that further opinion or statement contrary to your / Rixons belief on this subject will only result in you convincing yourself that we are "trying to make me [sic] out to be a 'wally'", which will inevitably lead to personal, rather than rational, response when you "stamp my [sic] feet a little bit."

 

For the record, I am strongly against legal support for, or even passive acceptance of, capital punishment. However, the opinions you've got from truthseeker.co.uk don't especially alarm me, partly because I dismiss them as the blitherings of a paranoid Euro-skeptic, but chiefly because I don't see that they constitute - or are even relevent to - the subject of capital punishment being introduced or reintroduced as a punitive response to criminal acts.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Tezcatlipoca

[lateralus]

just received this very important email:

 

---The English Penny

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EU Directive No. 456179

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In order to meet the conditions for joining the Single European currency, all

 

 

citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland must be made

 

 

Aware that the Phrase "Spending a Penny" is NOT to be used.after 31st December 2009

 

 

From this date the correct terminology will be

 

 

"Euronating".

 

 

 

 

 

Thank You for your attention

 

 

 

 

i still won't be able to vote.

upon turning 60 recently, with the exception of my much beloved bus pass - all i got from the government was an invitation to partcipate in a self bowel screening.

thanks for that!

[Bookworm]

Bookworm, just for the record, I know you to be a very decent and fair individual from what I have seen on these forums. Even if you aren't in the 'anti-European brigade' I am confident you would agree it was a HUGE injustice that we didn't get a referendum on the matter?

Honestly? Storm in a teacup as far as I am concerned. I really don't care that much. You see, as a Frenchwoman who spent most of her adult life in other countries than her native one, the concept of Europe is built in me in such a way that I can't even start to comprehend an idea of NOT having a Europe.

 

You mention the USA and corruption. What you don't mention is the glaringly obvious: that the US couldn't and wouldn't have become the most powerful country in the world without being the US of A. And talking of the US, the state and federal powers are well and truly divided, with very little federal interference, to the point where some (MOST! ) states still have the death penalty, whilst a handful of more enlightened have declared it anticonstitutional. The laws on everything from how many wives you can have to speed limits vary from state to state. And funnily enough, they have the same mistrust of other states as Europeans do.

 

Our world is getting smaller, like it or not. First, it was my shelter, your shelter, then it became our tribe, then our village, our city, our county, our country, and now we're on the verge of our continent. One day, hopefully, it will just be our world. Me, I'm already there as I have always thought as myself as a citizen of the world.

 

So, referendum or lack thereof? My dear, I don't give a damn... It would only delay the unavoidable anyway.

And I don't believe in shapeshifting reptilians in case anyone wondered.

You heathen! STONE HIM!!!

[Tezcatlipoca]

Our world is getting smaller, like it or not. First, it was my shelter, your shelter, then it became our tribe, then our village, our city, our county, our country, and now we're on the verge of our continent. One day, hopefully, it will just be our world. Me, I'm already there as I have always thought as myself as a citizen of the world.

 

Precisely my view, and very well put.

[Bookworm]

Precisely my view, and very well put.

Sorry Tez, forgot to say the above doesn't apply to vegetarians.* :-D Edited December 3, 2009 by Bookworm
Needed to add an asterisk for Crusher. :-D

[HSBCrusher]

use that word again Booky and I'll edit it.

 

[Bookworm]

*and pasty easters.

[Bookworm]

Oh, and Crusher, while you're here, would you PLEASE sort out that "Your" in the title? It's "You're European now".

[Spamalot]

So there's no truth in the statement that, 'the Death penalty can be given to anyone who mentions 'GINSTERS' pasties', as I was given to understand on a different thread..

[Bookworm]

That may well come under the abovementioned article 2 exception , Spammie.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Sorry Tez, forgot to say the above doesn't apply to vegetarians.* :-D

 

It's only a matter of time before you realise the error of your ways and come and join the cool kids...

 

Although on matters of grammar, we're agreed. Can somebody please correct the thread title?

[Bookworm]

Nah, I'd rather have steak and be uncool. Although next time I'm in Brighton, I'll buy you a veggie burger just to show I really do live and let live, what say you?

[Spamalot]

I think there should be a referendum with regards to the thread title and whether it should be changed or not.....

 

Just because two people have decided it should happen it doesn't mean the whole country agrees.

 

Not only that, there is the health and safety issue of the OP. IF he is not wearing his reflective jacket and he falls off his chair in the path of a passing Hoover when he reads that he has been CAGbotted, there could be a claim against CAG and Injury lawyers 4 U would be notified in due course..

 

Just a thought.... we must do things democratically and not endanger others by our decisions..

[SOD'EM]

If there was any way to categorically prove 100% without a shadow of a doubt that someone was guilty of a serious crime ( There must be some innocent people in prison ). Then shoot/hang the buggers.

 

Unfortunately, the law is an

 

 

If I got hung/shot for committing a serious offense, I certainly wouldn't do it again.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Nah, I'd rather have steak and be uncool. Although next time I'm in Brighton, I'll buy you a veggie burger just to show I really do live and let live, what say you?

 

I have a better idea. How about, the next time you're in Brighton, I buy you a veggie burger..?

[Bookworm]

Ah ah ah, you fell into my trap! I actually LIKE veggie burgers, in fact they're the only type of burgers I would eat! (I don't actually classify burgers as meat... whole different debate however. )

 

Sod'em, you said:

If I got hung/shot for committing a serious offense, I certainly wouldn't do it again.

which is a very good point. On the other hand, if you got hung/shot even though you HADN'T committed a serious offence, it would be REALLY difficult to set things right for you and your loved ones.

 

The problem with the final solution is that it is, well, so final...

 

I was reading something last night funnily enough, where it was being argued that in the US at least, condemning someone to death is actually a lot more expensive than sending them to jail in perpetuity, as they were more likely to exhaust all the lines of appeal to get their sentence at the very least commuted, and the cost of all the lawyers, prosecutors, appeals, counter-appeals, pardons etc... + the jail time (upwards of 15 yrs, let's not forget!) cost an absolute fortune, whereas a life sentence would "only" entail the cost of the jail term itself, thereby effectively saving huge amounts of money to the taxpayer. An interesting concept, if you can't appeal to people's better feelings, appeal to their wallets.

[SOD'EM]

I know what I said Bookie, but that bit was put in as an edit (as I wanted to add it after submitting the post).

 

Unfortunately you are not allowed to add smilies whilst editing a post. Otherwise you would have got one of these:p. I know it is impossible to commit another offence on this plain if you are dead (unless said crime was planned before death). That was the joke:D.

[renegotiation]

Hmmm...I think I'm going to probably withdraw from this specific discussion after this post as I'm fast gaining the picture, renegotiation, that you have convinced yourself that Europe has taken over this country to such a degree that no amount of contrary statements, or facts, from any of us are likely to change that view.

 

You got that one right.

 

 

 

Again, I believe you have read one online source (from www.truthseeker.co.uk) and have allowed it to colour your thinking. Incensed by this outrage, you have then searched the relevent sections of the treaties yourself, and, upon finding reference to the death penalty as 'investigated' by Mr Stewart (truthseeker's founder), now wave them feverishly as confirmation.

 

No, I have read several articles. And if you had even bothered reading the 12 line truthseeker article, which was just a brief but very honest synopsis, you would see that it only referred to what Professor Schachtschneider investigated.

 

 

 

The problem here is not that myself, Bookworm, or anyone else denies the existence of the articles to which you refer; it's that we do not agree with yours and Rixon's interpretation of those articles.

 

Well, that's not what you said earlier! See here:

 

I personally am unfamiliar with a recent reintroduction of capital punishment in any European state.

 

You make it up as you go along.

 

 

 

Let me put it more simply. Your statement "22 states [in Europe] reintroduced the death penalty yesterday and I don't think it will be too long before the other 3 follow" is simply wrong. No state has reintroduced the death penalty, and nor would it.

 

That's exactly what they did and we are at war! If it was never going to happen, then why would it be there?

 

 

 

Spurred on by what you've read on the truthseeker.co.uk, I think you've snatched at the few articles that make provision for exceptional circumstances (such as war, in which - let's face it - all moral compasses tend to go a little haywire) and are now, like a dog with a bone, refusing to let go.

 

You sound silly. You keep seizing on one small article on truthseeker like a 'dog with a bone' that was factually correct. You then keep knocking the article solely because of the site it appeared on without offering any logical objections to the veracity of the article. You then seize on the provision which refers to 'times of war'! Well, as I mentioned, we are at war. You also ignore that it also refers to 'imminent threat of war'. Anyhow, I don't even think it is ok to execute people at 'times of war'. If the metaphorical **** has hit the fan so hard you wouldn't need any legislation. It would just happen anyway. Think about it. What is absolutely astounding is that you ignore Explanations 3A(a), (b) and ©:

 

"(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."

 

You are seriously trying to present yourself as someone using reasonable arguments? It's ok to kill someone to effect a lawful arrest or someone doing a runner? That's open to all sorts of abuse. When the hell is humanity ever going to ever learn?

 

 

 

Consequently, this isn't a discussion; it's simply you saying "I'm right" over and over again.

 

I think that's exactly what you are doing, not me.

 

 

 

I can't speak for Bookworm or anyone else, but I personally feel that continuing to try to discuss this issue with you is not actually going to lead us anywhere. Indeed, I strongly believe that further opinion or statement contrary to your / Rixons belief on this subject will only result in you convincing yourself that we are "trying to make me [sic] out to be a 'wally'", which will inevitably lead to personal, rather than rational, response when you "stamp my [sic] feet a little bit."

 

It's up to you whether you respond or not. I honestly don't think you are capable of rational debate on 'this matter'. I reiterate, it was Professor Schachtschneider that pointed out the facts. I only make rational responses. You can't even answer simple questions. I see that you are still trying to avoid the following question tooth and nail:

 

Would you fully admit that the people have been denied a voice, which was even promised to them, and that this was incredibly wrong then?

 

I know full well why you won't answer. Why not just say you refuse to answer it and be done with it?

 

 

 

For the record, I am strongly against legal support for, or even passive acceptance of, capital punishment. However, the opinions you've got from truthseeker.co.uk don't especially alarm me, partly because I dismiss them as the blitherings of a paranoid Euro-skeptic, but chiefly because I don't see that they constitute - or are even relevent to - the subject of capital punishment being introduced or reintroduced as a punitive response to criminal acts.

 

Well, we definitely agree on something then. For the last time, the person that pointed out the facts of the matter was Professor Schachtshneider. My opinions are my own and others will have their opinions. Yet again, you seem to ignore the following like it isn't there:

 

"(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."

 

I am genuinely amazed.

Edited December 3, 2009 by renegotiation

[renegotiation]

I know what I said Bookie, but that bit was put in as an edit (as I wanted to add it after submitting the post).

 

Unfortunately you are not allowed to add smilies whilst editing a post. Otherwise you would have got one of these:p. I know it is impossible to commit another offence on this plain if you are dead (unless said crime was planned before death). That was the joke:D.

 

Just edit it and type in : ) without a space in between.

[sequenci]

Oh, and Crusher, while you're here, would you PLEASE sort out that "Your" in the title? It's "You're European now".

 

I did think to myself what is a European Now and how do I get my hands on one?

[renegotiation]

Honestly? Storm in a teacup as far as I am concerned. I really don't care that much. You see, as a Frenchwoman who spent most of her adult life in other countries than her native one, the concept of Europe is built in me in such a way that I can't even start to comprehend an idea of NOT having a Europe.

 

Fair play, but just like Tez you still haven't answered my question. Step up and answer please. It's a perfectly reasonable question. Or even just say you aren't going to answer. You just give your opinion and ignore the question. Do you think it was a great injustice that the U.K. was promised a referendum and didn't get one? And i'm disappointed you aren't outraged that they ignored the French vote regardless of your personal opinion.

 

 

 

You mention the USA and corruption. What you don't mention is the glaringly obvious: that the US couldn't and wouldn't have become the most powerful country in the world without being the US of A. And talking of the US, the state and federal powers are well and truly divided, with very little federal interference, to the point where some (MOST! ) states still have the death penalty, whilst a handful of more enlightened have declared it anticonstitutional. The laws on everything from how many wives you can have to speed limits vary from state to state. And funnily enough, they have the same mistrust of other states as Europeans do.

 

Look at what the U.S.A. gets up to in the world. It's disgusting. The people have hardly any say in what goes on. Did you know that the Federal Reserve even lends them their own currency? They are like gangsters.

 

 

 

Our world is getting smaller, like it or not. First, it was my shelter, your shelter, then it became our tribe, then our village, our city, our county, our country, and now we're on the verge of our continent. One day, hopefully, it will just be our world. Me, I'm already there as I have always thought as myself as a citizen of the world.

 

In theory it's great, but it won't work. I used to have exactly the same view as you. The corruption will just kill it. It will be hell and just lead to massive upheavals.

 

 

 

So, referendum or lack thereof? My dear, I don't give a damn... It would only delay the unavoidable anyway.

 

If it is 'unavoidable', then they shouldn't have a problem with referendums then!

 

 

 

Just briefly going back to your points in the 'European Convention Of Human Rights', which you did indeed correctly refer to as the 'origin' of the new laws I talking about, I want to briefly say a couple of things. The exceptions didn't make it legal for executions to be carried out in countries signing up to it. That would still be up to each nation. It just set minimum standards and created no laws. Now they have shunted some of that text into the 'Charter Of Fundamental Rights Of The European Union' and ratified that through the Lisbon Treaty the goalposts have been moved. That is now European Law. It's tricky to get your head round it, but was a minimum set of standards that didn't necessarily apply to any state is now legal (possible) in 22 of the 25 member states! Tell me, why didn't they just ditch it? Or even if they didn't ditch 3B, then why not ditch 3A? It was from over 50 years ago and outdated anyway. I don't think you were aware of what they had done and may try to argue that the de facto situation is the same. However, in my opinion there is something not quite right here and i'm not barrel scraping.

Edited December 3, 2009 by renegotiation

[Bookworm]

I know what I said Bookie, but that bit was put in as an edit (as I wanted to add it after submitting the post).

 

Unfortunately you are not allowed to add smilies whilst editing a post. Otherwise you would have got one of these:p. I know it is impossible to commit another offence on this plain if you are dead (unless said crime was planned before death). That was the joke:D.

As was my tongue-in-cheek reply, my dear.

 

 

No-one GETS me around here!

[Bookworm]

Fair play, but just like Tez you still haven't answered my question. Step up and answer please. It's a perfectly reasonable question. Or even just say you aren't going to answer. You just give your opinion and ignore the question. Do you think it was a great injustice that the U.K. was promised a referendum and didn't get one? And i'm disappointed you aren't outraged that they ignored the French vote regardless of your personal opinion.

That's because I don't have an answer: Was it a great injustice? I don't know. That's the answer. I don't care. that's the opinion. Can't really make it clearer than that, there's no need to tell me to "step up" as I had somehow failed some kind of test. Unlike lots of people, if I don't know the answer to a question, I refrain from answering it. It's a simple concept. ;-)

 

Look at what the U.S.A. gets up to in the world. It's disgusting.

Not disagreeing with you there, but that's irrelevant to what I was addressing, that is the POWER which they yield by the sheer fact of being the US of A. Likewise with the ex-USSR. No doubt what they were doing left a lot to be desired (understatement of the year, lol), but they were nevertheless exponentially more powerful as a union of countries than as they are now, a scattering of independent countries. "L'union fait la force" as we say in French. ;-)

The people have hardly any say in what goes on.

On the contrary. Between the Senate and Congress, people who want to have a say have probably more opportunities than most other democracies. The fact that most Americans are so disenfranchised that they let a few powerful lobbies rule things is a different story altogether, and that's where the real issue is, not the actual way the american system is set.

 

In theory it's great, but it won't work. I used to have exactly the same view as you. The corruption will just kill it. It will be hell and just lead to massive upheavals.

Corruption can be found at village level as well as international. Some of the worst examples of corruption and dodgy dealings were set at school committee levels. And my god, were these mothers RUTHLESS or what? I swear they'd put Imin Dada to shame!

 

As far as the rest of your post goes, we'll have to keep on disagreeing. I see no evidence anywhere that the death penalty has been or is being reintroduced in European countries, and I am fairly confident that it's not going to happen any time soon either.

[renegotiation]

That's because I don't have an answer: Was it a great injustice? I don't know. That's the answer. I don't care. that's the opinion. Can't really make it clearer than that, there's no need to tell me to "step up" as I had somehow failed some kind of test. Unlike lots of people, if I don't know the answer to a question, I refrain from answering it. It's a simple concept. ;-)

 

I don't believe you. A government promises a referendum to its people on the issue of transferring sovereignty to another body, a monumental issue, and you claim you don't know if it is a great injustice that it was then denied? You are not that stupid. You think i'm a Euro-skeptic zealot nut and don't want to give my side of the argument any ammo by agreeing with me at all. I said 'step up' because you were avoiding answering. If the roles were reversed and the pro-Euro lobby were denied a referendum on something they were promised I would admit it was a great injustice. That's democracy!

 

 

 

Not disagreeing with you there, but that's irrelevant to what I was addressing, that is the POWER which they yield by the sheer fact of being the US of A. Likewise with the ex-USSR. No doubt what they were doing left a lot to be desired (understatement of the year, lol), but they were nevertheless exponentially more powerful as a union of countries than as they are now, a scattering of independent countries. "L'union fait la force" as we say in French. ;-)

 

We could be a 'European Alliance' and still exhibit power. We don't need a political union. And how would you have liked to have been on the receiving end of their 'power'? By supporting such power, even if only as a concept, you are giving them legitimacy. I know you aren't cheering on their invasions!

 

 

 

On the contrary. Between the Senate and Congress, people who want to have a say have probably more opportunities than most other democracies. The fact that most Americans are so disenfranchised that they let a few powerful lobbies rule things is a different story altogether, and that's where the real issue is, not the actual way the american system is set.

 

What do you think 'The Patriot Act' was about? It was purely devised to stop the people having a voice. It's a 2 party system with a political overclass. The parties are completely controlled by private interests. The only way they could force real change is through force. It's got that bad. Personally, I think it's all going to collapse anyway.

 

 

 

Corruption can be found at village level as well as international. Some of the worst examples of corruption and dodgy dealings were set at school committee levels. And my god, were these mothers RUTHLESS or what? I swear they'd put Imin Dada to shame!

 

Sure, but the higher level and more widespread the corruption the harder it is to root out.

 

 

 

As far as the rest of your post goes, we'll have to keep on disagreeing. I see no evidence anywhere that the death penalty has been or is being reintroduced in European countries, and I am fairly confident that it's not going to happen any time soon either.

 

If law isn't evidence I don't know what is. It's in the 'Charter OF Fundamental Rights Of The European Union' as I have stated. Here it is:

 

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I reiterate, this is now European Law. Law is law. This is nothing to do with the 'European Convention On Human Rights' that just guaranteed minimum standards. We are now at war so the death penalty can be enacted and lethal force can be used to arrest people or stop them escaping. Like I said, when will we ever learn. This is real.