A YES vote for Lisbon is a YES vote for ushering in the New World Order.

Run_to_da_hills

On 20th Feb 2008 a caucus meeting was held at the German Parliament in Munich to discuss the Lisbon Treaty.

At this meeting a previously unmentioned paragraph was bought to light by Professor Schachtschneider, Humanities Faculty -University of Nuremberg.

Professor Schachtschneider, explained that the undisclosed paragraph means on ratification of the Lisbon Treaty the DEATH PENALTY will be reintroduced to Europe. The Death Penalty will be applicable for the crimes of RIOTING, CIVIL UPHEAVAL and DURING WAR. (When are we not at war and who will define riot and upheaval?)

Professor Schachtschneider made the point that this clause is particularly outrageous as it had been cleverly hidden in a footnote of a footnote and would not have been detected by anyone other than an exceptional expert reader.

http://thejournal.parker-joseph.co.uk/blog/_archives/2008/4/13/3636677.html

GhostInTheRuins

I don't believe that for a second.

Run_to_da_hills

GhostInTheRuins wrote: »

I don't believe that for a second.

Its currently a fresh topic in the EU Politics forum.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055507594

GhostInTheRuins

Cheers for the link, checking it out now

Run_to_da_hills

GhostInTheRuins wrote: »

Cheers for the link, checking it out now

Someone should post it in AH,

(I can't because ill be accused of scaremongering by the Yes party. :eek:)

meglome

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Someone should post it in AH,

(I can't because ill be accused of scaremongering by the Yes party. :eek:)

After reading that thread it seems that the Lisbon treaty does not allow for the death penalty. Any chance Run_to_da_hills that just once when you claim something in a thread it actually might turn out to be true. Sweet Jesus.

Veni Vedi Vici

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Someone should post it in AH,

(I can't because ill be accused of scaremongering by the Yes party. :eek:)

I haven't read the thread as meglome has. If you mean that by voting YES one is a scare mongerer then I would contest such opposition.

If its in reference to the death penalty then all I've heard is that its enclosed within the small print of a footnote of another footnote and is applicable only during times of civil unrest or riot. Just because thats what I've heard doesn't mean its true. More research on my part and perhaps yours is further required.

King Mob

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I can't because ill be accused of scaremongering by the Yes party. :eek:

Hang on. The yes party is scaremongering?

But you say if we vote in the Lisbon treaty the death penalty will be reintroduced?

How is your statement not scaremongering?

Also, have you actually read the Lisbon Treaty yet?

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

But you say if we vote in the Lisbon treaty the death penalty will be reintroduced??

I'm not saying it, thats exactly what is stated in the link and also discussed in the EU Political forum.

King Mob wrote: »

Also, have you actually read the Lisbon Treaty yet?

No I haven't read the Lisbon Treaty either has most of our Yes campaigning politicians. :rolleyes:

What I have read is important extracts of this poisonous and deceiving document that need to be exposed just like the above.

meglome

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I'm not saying it, thats exactly what is stated in the link and also discussed in the EU Political forum.

No I haven't read the Lisbon Treaty either has most of our Yes campaigning politicians. :rolleyes:

What I have read is important extracts of this poisonous and deceiving document that need to be exposed just like the above.

Correct me if I'm wrong here but the Lisbon treaty only potentially allows for the death penalty in a time of war. And this is only in countries that already have this provision built into the treaty as it's part of their national laws. Otherwise the treaty specifically forbids the death penalty. Am I missing something?

No offence Run_to_da_hills to the only one that appears to be spreading anything "poisonous and deceiving" is you.

Run_to_da_hills

meglome wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong here but the Lisbon treaty only potentially allows for the death penalty in a time of war. And this is only in countries that already have this provision built into the treaty as it's part of their national laws. Otherwise the treaty specifically forbids the death penalty. Am I missing something?

No offense Run_to_da_hills to the only one that appears to be spreading anything "poisonous and deceiving" is you.

If the Lisbon Treaty was trustful and credible as you and the other YES campaigners made it out to be it would have got a lot more support.

Why should people bother taking the advice of YES campaigning politicians that have already run our country into the ground through corruption and backhanders. The EU Parliament is a rich mans club for those that want to feather their own nests taking power with gravy train salaries and fat pensions.

Not according the above: "The Death Penalty will be applicable for the crimes of RIOTING, CIVIL UPHEAVAL and DURING WAR"

6th

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

No I haven't read the Lisbon Treaty

Do you not think it would be a good idea to read it?

nyarlothothep

Would you really like to see Darth Ganley and his cohorts get their way???

Loxosceles

New world order. Yeah, and the UPC code is the mark of the Beast, so build a bomb shelter and start canning tomatoes for dear life.

New World Order is a term used by people who feel like they are incapable of changing anything, or feel that the world is run by other people. If they feel like that, then they need to just go all the way punk, dye their hair green and throw chairs out the window, settle down and figure out how to do their own thing and make their own damn niche in the world that didn't exist before. Who knows, they might end up creating a new technology or something and becoming the Man that the current generation loves to hate. But don't use the term 'New World Order' because that sh!t is weak, dude.

What a bunch of bull puckey.

Run_to_da_hills

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Would you really like to see Darth Ganley and his cohorts get their way???

Not particularly but what I would like to see is the Lisbon treaty put to the floor as a democratic referendum in EVERY EU Country. We are blessed as a country to be the only EU country to have the ability to vote on this.

meglome

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Not according the above: "The Death Penalty will be applicable for the crimes of RIOTING, CIVIL UPHEAVAL and DURING WAR"

Have you even checked if this is true yourself? Why do I get the feeling you haven't.

meglome

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Not particularly but what I would like to see is the Lisbon treaty put to the floor as a democratic referendum in EVERY EU Country. We are blessed as a country to be the only EU country to have the ability to vote on this.

In democracy's we don't get to decide what other countries do.

King Mob

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I'm not saying it, thats exactly what is stated in the link and also discussed in the EU Political forum.

No it's not. It says something rather different.
What you're doing is sensationalising something to influence opinion on the subject.
In other words scaremongering.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

No I haven't read the Lisbon Treaty either has most of our Yes campaigning politicians. :rolleyes:

What I have read is important extracts of this poisonous and deceiving document that need to be exposed just like the above.

So why not read the whole thing before passing it off as "poisonous and deceiving."

U4IK ST8

Just want to say first that I'm against any treaty which furthers the EU Empire.

King Mob wrote: »

No it's not. It says something rather different.
What you're doing is sensationalising something to influence opinion on the subject.
In other words scaremongering.

That is true, according to what I've read. It is also one of the worst tactics, scaremongering that is, to use because soon enough people, like yourself, actually find out that whatever's being said is b.s.

DRAFT CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION wrote:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/04473_en.pdf
Article 2
Right to life
1. Everyone has the right to life.
2. No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed.

Explanation
1. Paragraph 1 of this Article is based on the first sentence of Article 2(1) of the ECHR, which reads as follows:
"1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law…"

2. The second sentence of the provision, which referred to the death penalty, was superseded by
the entry into force of Article 1 of Protocol No 6 to the ECHR, which reads as follows: "The death penalty shall be abolished. No-one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed." Article 2(2) of the Charter is based on that provision.

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."
(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…"

King Mob wrote: »

So why not read the whole thing before passing it off as "poisonous and deceiving."

To be honest, I don't think it's possible to "read" it unless you have the papers/documents which this treaty ammends. I remember footage from the EU parliament, where a German, I think, politician points out that it is impossible to read the Lisbon Treaty. He is in this video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVeMBNB0cII&feature=related - he is the second speaker. He also speaks @ 4min mark.

Also, the same could be said for yes voters. Why not read this before believing what our corrupt government tells us it's about? I'm almost positive that the majority of yes voters haven't even researched or even questioned what they are told about the treaty.

King Mob

U4IK ST8 wrote: »

Also, the same could be said for yes voters. Why not read this before believing what our corrupt government tells us it's about? I'm almost positive that the majority of yes voters haven't even researched or even questioned what they are told about the treaty.

I think that's exactly whats happened with Run to the Hills there. Except replace "our corrupt government" with conspiracy websites and anti Europe propaganda.

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

I think that's exactly whats happened with Run to the Hills there. Except replace "our corrupt government" with conspiracy websites and anti Europe propaganda.

At least our corrupt YES campaigning pro EU governments have now shown their true colours, just look at the state of the country. :rolleyes:

King Mob

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

At least our corrupt YES campaigning pro EU governments have now shown their true colours, just look at the state of the country. :rolleyes:

Hang on. The current economic crisis is the Lisbon treaty's fault? Seriously?

And to be clear, you admit that you accept unquestioningly any anti Europe propaganda you come across?

oscarBravo

U4IK ST8 wrote: »

Just want to say first that I'm against any treaty which furthers the EU Empire.

What EU Empire is that? And who is the Emperor?

To be honest, I don't think it's possible to "read" it unless you have the papers/documents which this treaty ammends.

Unless, of course, you read the consolidated version helpfully provided by the EU that show what the amended EU treaties would be if Lisbon is ratified.

I remember footage from the EU parliament, where a German, I think, politician points out that it is impossible to read the Lisbon Treaty. He is in this video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVeMBNB0cII&feature=related - he is the second speaker. He also speaks @ 4min mark.

Without looking at the video, I'm guessing that's Danish MEP Jens-Peter Bonde, an affirmed Euroskeptic. He obviously never bothered looking for the consolidated versions.

U4IK ST8

King Mob wrote: »

I think that's exactly whats happened with Run to the Hills there. Except replace "our corrupt government" with conspiracy websites and anti Europe propaganda.

Yeah, it seems his whole aim is scaremongering, with a name like "Run to the Hills".

Anyway, the title of this thread is actually true. A yes vote to this treaty will be bad news for us all in the future, I can assure you. You should listen to Sarkozy and others in the EU parliament and others responses to his statements. "This is not democracy" "Respect the Irish vote" are just a couple I have heard but you wont hear these responses on the RTE news.

Have a flick through some of this chaps videos on youtube, very interesting. http://www.youtube.com/user/europarl

King Mob

U4IK ST8 wrote: »

Yeah, it seems his whole aim is scaremongering, with a name like "Run to the Hills".

You should hear him go on about RFID chips.

U4IK ST8 wrote: »

Anyway, the title of this thread is actually true. A yes vote to this treaty will be bad news for us all in the future, I can assure you.

And the million dollar question is: why?

Run_to_da_hills

U4IK ST8 wrote: »

Anyway, the title of this thread is actually true. A yes vote to this treaty will be bad news for us all in the future, I can assure you. You should listen to Sarkozy and others in the EU parliament and others responses to his statements. "This is not democracy" "Respect the Irish vote" are just a couple I have heard but you wont hear these responses on the RTE news.

Have a flick through some of this chaps videos on youtube, very interesting. http://www.youtube.com/user/europarl

Definitely, a Yes VOTE to Lisbon is a Yes vote to EU Bureaucracy and Nonsense

FFS the EU Parliament wants to start taxing cow farts. :rolleyes:

http://dotconnectoruk.blogspot.com/2009/03/eu-lunatics-want-to-tax-livestock-farts.html

Sourse.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5877416.ece

King Mob

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Definitely, a Yes VOTE to Lisbon is a Yes vote to EU Bureaucracy and Nonsense

FFS the EU Parliament wants to start taxing cow farts. :rolleyes:

http://dotconnectoruk.blogspot.com/2009/03/eu-lunatics-want-to-tax-livestock-farts.html

So, yes you believe any anti Europe propaganda you read.

U4IK ST8

oscarBravo wrote: »

What EU Empire is that? And who is the Emperor?

It's something Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, said that sticks out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-I8M1T-GgRU

oscarBravo wrote: »

Unless, of course, you read the consolidated version helpfully provided by the EU that show what the amended EU treaties would be if Lisbon is ratified.

That's funny, I doubt the EU would be helpfull when trying to get a treaty passed which they need passed to bring the EU forward.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Without looking at the video, I'm guessing that's Danish MEP Jens-Peter Bonde, an affirmed Euroskeptic. He obviously never bothered looking for the consolidated versions.

That's him, yes. I'm sure he feels similar to me, that the EU are not going to be helpfull when trying to get the Lisbon Treaty passed. I would be willing to read an independant consolidated version of the treaty.

If you have a link there I'll be willing to look at it.

U4IK ST8

King Mob wrote: »

You should hear him go on about RFID chips.

RFID chips are very real. And there are people with these chips inplanted already, including military. That's another topic though.

And the million dollar question is: why?

See, why should I tell you why? Why don't you go look it up for yourself? Or are you content with what you are being told? 'Cos I'm certainly not.

King Mob

U4IK ST8 wrote: »

See, why should I tell you why? Why don't you go look it up for yourself? Or are you content with what you are being told? 'Cos I'm certainly not.

Because I'm asking you your opinion on an open forum for opinions?
Is there a discrepancy between "what we're being told" and the what's in the treaty?

oscarBravo

U4IK ST8 wrote: »

It's something Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, said that sticks out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-I8M1T-GgRU

What did he say? I'm not in a position to watch videos here.

That's funny, I doubt the EU would be helpfull when trying to get a treaty passed which they need passed to bring the EU forward.

Why wouldn't they be helpful?

That's him, yes. I'm sure he feels similar to me, that the EU are not going to be helpfull when trying to get the Lisbon Treaty passed. I would be willing to read an independant consolidated version of the treaty.

You're more than welcome to come up with your own consolidated version, by simply taking the existing treaties and applying the changes to them as listed in the Lisbon Treaty.

I'm willing to bet you won't do that. Why? Because you know perfectly well that you'll end up with precisely the same consolidated treaties that the EU published.

If you have a link there I'll be willing to look at it.

Knock yourself out.

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

So, yes you believe any anti Europe propaganda you read.

Most if not all these "conspiracy websites" source a large content of their material from broadsheet medai. :rolleyes:

Read it for your self and see how much of a farce the European Parlament has come to.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5877416.ece

oscarBravo

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Most if not all these "conspiracy websites" source a large content of their material from broadsheet medai. :rolleyes:

Read it for your self and see how much of a farce the European Parlament has come to.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5877416.ece

A spokesman for the European Commission said that a cow tax was not its preferred option. “We would rather have solutions that reduce emissions by capturing methane from manure and new animal feeds that reduce methane.”

Do you even read the sites you link to?

The story mentions "proposals" - whose proposed them?

King Mob

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Most if not all these "conspiracy websites" source a large content of their material from broadsheet medai. :rolleyes:

Read it for your self and see how much of a farce the European Parlament has come to.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5877416.ece

So not only do you believe everything bad about Europe, you then spew it out regardless of the topic being discussed?

Kinda smells like propaganda and scaremongering.

U4IK ST8

King Mob wrote: »

Because I'm asking you your opinion on an open forum for opinions?
Is there a discrepancy between "what we're being told" and the what's in the treaty?

Ok, my opinion is this. They want a "superstate". This treaty removes more powers that individual countries have. Our soverignty will be gone, our neutrality will be gone, our constitution will be useless.

It's not that there are discrepancies, they are not telling the full story.

oscarBravo wrote: »

What did he say? I'm not in a position to watch videos here.

"Sometimes I like to compare the European Union as a creation to the organisation of Empires... the Empires"

Why wouldn't they be helpful?

You can't see where I coming from? An organisation looking to further their control, helpfully creates a document for the masses to read, in which they make themselves look good. Leaving out the bits that certain people might disprove of and start informing others about.

You're more than welcome to come up with your own consolidated version, by simply taking the existing treaties and applying the changes to them as listed in the Lisbon Treaty.

I'm willing to bet you won't do that. Why? Because you know perfectly well that you'll end up with precisely the same consolidated treaties that the EU published. Knock yourself out.

The reason I wont is because it's far too time consuming. I can go to people who are far more experienced than you or I on this matter and listen to their views on this. If people are being hushed/silenced in the EU parliament then I want to hear what they have to say. So should you and everyone in Ireland and Europe.

Thanks for the link.

King Mob

U4IK ST8 wrote: »

Ok, my opinion is this. They want a "superstate". This treaty removes more powers that individual countries have. Our soverignty will be gone, our neutrality will be gone, our constitution will be useless.

And none of that is true.
Our sovereignty will not be gone, we'll still be neutral and our constitution will still be used.

That's just scaremongering. You may as well claim Europe is going to eat our babies.

oscarBravo

U4IK ST8 wrote: »

Ok, my opinion is this. They want a "superstate".

Who is "they"?

This treaty removes more powers that individual countries have. Our soverignty will be gone, our neutrality will be gone, our constitution will be useless.

Can you provide references to the specific treaty provisions that will have these effects?

It's not that there are discrepancies, they are not telling the full story.

Who isn't?

"Sometimes I like to compare the European Union as a creation to the organisation of Empires... the Empires"

Sometimes one politician likes to compare the EU to an empire, therefore it's suddenly the "EU Empire"?

I think you've skipped about 25 or so steps in your deductive analysis.

You can't see where I coming from? An organisation looking to further their control, helpfully creates a document for the masses to read, in which they make themselves look good. Leaving out the bits that certain people might disprove of and start informing others about.

Except they didn't leave any bits out. If you believe they did, please indicate which bits were left out.

The reason I wont is because it's far too time consuming. I can go to people who are far more experienced than you or I on this matter and listen to their views on this.

OK - who is expressing the view that the consolidated versions of the treaties are not a true and accurate reflection of the changes proposed by Lisbon, and how did they arrive at that conclusion without creating their own consolidated versions?

If people are being hushed/silenced in the EU parliament then I want to hear what they have to say. So should you and everyone in Ireland and Europe.

Who's being hushed/silenced in the EUP?

Thanks for the link.

You're welcome.

the_barfly1

King Mob wrote: »

And none of that is true.
Our sovereignty will not be gone, we'll still be neutral and our constitution will still be used.

Good god. I can't believe people are still arguing about the lisbon treaty.
Anyway, I studied the whole deal in great detail last year, so onto the issue of neutrality.

Under our special exemption in B na H, we do not have to join in a European Defence Force. However, under the solidarity clause, we would be compelled to provide military assistance to any other EU country that may be invaded by another country or terrorist organisation, or any country who believes such an invasion is imminent. I'm not going to go into this whole thing now, but that's one of the greatest faults in the text, it makes you believe that something is true, then it provides a workaround further on in the treaty. Its not watertight as to what we, the Irish people need. And therefore it isn't good enough.

Its power to transfer the ECHR into law is also as dumbfounding. Read it, they promise that nobody shall be condemned to death, then take it away by providing get out clauses for it to be implemented. The thing is has more holes in it than bad cheese.

King Mob

the_barfly1 wrote: »

Good god. I can't believe people are still arguing about the lisbon treaty.
Anyway, I studied the whole deal in great detail last year, so onto the issue of neutrality.

Under our special exemption in B na H, we do not have to join in a European Defence Force. However, under the solidarity clause, we would be compelled to provide military assistance to any other EU country that may be invaded by another country or terrorist organisation, or any country who believes such an invasion is imminent. I'm not going to go into this whole thing now, but that's one of the greatest faults in the text, it makes you believe that something is true, then it provides a workaround further on in the treaty. Its not watertight as to what we, the Irish people need. And therefore it isn't good enough.

Its power to transfer the ECHR into law is also as dumbfounding. Read it, they promise that nobody shall be condemned to death, then take it away by providing get out clauses for it to be implemented. The thing is has more holes in it than bad cheese.

Yea because Europe has been such a hot bed for large scale conflict these last few years.
And how exactly does a terrorist organisation invade a country?

Run_to_da_hills

the_barfly1 wrote: »

Its power to transfer the ECHR into law is also as dumbfounding. Read it, they promise that nobody shall be condemned to death, then take it away by providing get out clauses for it to be implemented. The thing is has more holes in it than bad cheese.

This is exactly the reason that this document is so long winded so as to confuse the masses, If the YES promoting Irish Government officials have great difficulty digesting it what hope have the sheeple. If you don't understand it simply vote no.

K-9

the_barfly1 wrote: »

Under our special exemption in B na H, we do not have to join in a European Defence Force. However, under the solidarity clause, we would be compelled to provide military assistance to any other EU country that may be invaded by another country or terrorist organisation, or any country who believes such an invasion is imminent.

Who decides what the assistance is?

the_barfly1 wrote:

Its power to transfer the ECHR into law is also as dumbfounding. Read it, they promise that nobody shall be condemned to death, then take it away by providing get out clauses for it to be implemented. The thing is has more holes in it than bad cheese.

Probably because some countries still have the death penalty? No? They have to respect the sovereignty of each country?

King Mob

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

If you don't understand it simply vote no.

Yea why bother trying to educate yourself about it when you can just make stuff up about and listen to scaremongering propaganda.

Way to spread the truth.

U4IK ST8

King Mob wrote: »

Yea because Europe has been such a hot bed for large scale conflict these last few years.
And how exactly does a terrorist organisation invade a country?

He gave you the answer but your still not happy? You are the wrong one, it's clear, so now you have this new found info what are your views on the Lisbon Treaty?

I knew I read somewhere that "we would be compelled to provide military assistance to any other EU country that may be invaded by another country or terrorist organisation, or any country who believes such an invasion is imminent."

It doesn't matter "how", if it happens we(Ireland) would be oblidged to contribute troops to the cause. Which nulls our constitution and our neutrality...

K-9

U4IK ST8 wrote: »

I knew I read somewhere that "we would be compelled to provide military assistance to any other EU country that may be invaded by another country or terrorist organisation, or any country who believes such an invasion is imminent."

It doesn't matter "how", if it happens we(Ireland) would be oblidged to contribute troops to the cause. Which nulls our constitution and our neutrality...

Reconcile those 2 paragraphs.

How does assistance mean troops?

oscarBravo

the_barfly1 wrote: »

...under the solidarity clause, we would be compelled to provide military assistance to any other EU country that may be invaded by another country or terrorist organisation, or any country who believes such an invasion is imminent.

Can you reference the specific provision in the Lisbon treaty that compels us to provide military assistance, specifically?

Its power to transfer the ECHR into law is also as dumbfounding. Read it, they promise that nobody shall be condemned to death, then take it away by providing get out clauses for it to be implemented.

Nope. Read the thread on the EU forum. The EU is totally opposed to the death penalty, and only provides exemptions as loopholes for specific member states that require them. The canard that Lisbon will allow the introduction of the death penalty is one of the more glaringly silly assertions by Euroskeptics.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

If you don't understand it simply vote no.

If you don't understand it, how can you understand the consequences of voting against it?

Tell me, why are you so eager to accept anything you're told by Euroskeptics, but unwilling to accept anything from pro-Europeans?

the_barfly1

K-9 wrote: »

Reconcile those 2 paragraphs.

How does assistance mean troops?

Apologies for not stating Military assistance. Look up Treaty of Lisbon, Solidarity Clause.

U4IK ST8

K-9 wrote: »

Reconcile those 2 paragraphs.

How does assistance mean troops?

Please read more carefully next time.

"military assistance"

King Mob

U4IK ST8 wrote: »

He gave you the answer but your still not happy? You are the wrong one, it's clear, so now you have this new found info what are your views on the Lisbon Treaty?

I knew I read somewhere that "we would be compelled to provide military assistance to any other EU country that may be invaded by another country or terrorist organisation, or any country who believes such an invasion is imminent."

It doesn't matter "how", if it happens we(Ireland) would be oblidged to contribute troops to the cause. Which nulls our constitution and our neutrality...

But hang on....
The European Council agreed that the necessary legal guarantees would be given that the Treaty of Lisbon did not prejudice the security and defence policy of any member state, including Ireland's traditional policy of neutrality.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/104692.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland_Bill,_2008#Second_referendum

So the Lisbon treaty neither nulls our neutrality and even if it did somehow that wouldn't null our constitution.

Looks like more scaremongering on your part.

K-9

U4IK ST8 wrote: »

Please read more carefully next time.

"military assistance"

Get a dictionary.

U4IK ST8

the_barfly1 wrote: »

Good god. I can't believe people are still arguing about the lisbon treaty.
Anyway, I studied the whole deal in great detail last year, so onto the issue of neutrality.

Under our special exemption in B na H, we do not have to join in a European Defence Force. However, under the solidarity clause, we would be compelled to provide military assistance to any other EU country that may be invaded by another country or terrorist organisation, or any country who believes such an invasion is imminent. I'm not going to go into this whole thing now, but that's one of the greatest faults in the text, it makes you believe that something is true, then it provides a workaround further on in the treaty. Its not watertight as to what we, the Irish people need. And therefore it isn't good enough.

Its power to transfer the ECHR into law is also as dumbfounding. Read it, they promise that nobody shall be condemned to death, then take it away by providing get out clauses for it to be implemented. The thing is has more holes in it than bad cheese.

the_barfly1 wrote: »

Apologies for not stating Military assistance. Look up Treaty of Lisbon, Solidarity Clause.

Don't apologize, he just didn't read it correctly.