Felons' interests count heavier than that of their victims

[Skybird]

I have a new reason why to spit on the european institutions. Why must a sovereign nation like Germany care for some freakheaded judge's mad decision that the interests of still dangerous murderers and rapist have to wiegh heavier then the legimtiate interst of soceity to be protected from them? why do we even elect national politicians who form governments that on their behalf influence the personnel for the German Constitutional High Court, if that Court can be overruled by foreigners from other countries even on decisions that effect only Germany.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,druck-695737,00.html


The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that German laws on preventive detention of dangerous criminals is a violation of their human rights. Now Germany will be forced to release almost 200 felons, including convicted rapists and multiple murderers. The first repeat offender has already been released.

If people still are assessed to be dangerous, keep them locked. That simple. Which means arrest the EU's representatives and the EU court's judges asap.

[DarkFish]

the EU starts to look more and more like the United States of Europe:down:

cooperation between the European countries is good, but the EU just keeps getting more and more power.

[Tribesman]

So its the problem of attempting retroactive legislation which is always dodgy.
The cause of the problem is inadequate sentencing in the first place.
The easiest way round it is to have the prisoners sectioned under mental health laws.

[Skybird]

the EU starts to look more and more like the United States of Europe:down:

cooperation between the European countries is good, but the EU just keeps getting more and more power.
Indeed, but that is a conflict that is very old. The ojne camps wanted to stay with a union of economically cooperating sovereign nations, while the other camp always wanted to abandon national sovereignity and repalace it with something like a European superstate. The latter camp won in momentum in the past 20 years, let's say: since the end of the cold war and German reunification - and with the disastrous results we have today.

It is an articial, unnatural enforcement of a pseudo-unity and uniformity that people simply do not want to have in europe. As a Dutch guest commentator in a German paper yesterday or the day before wrote: why should I sympathise with the idea of a union and a constitution that no person in europe can read in orfignal labguage, becasue it is not set down in one binding version, in one binding origianl langauge, but two dozens that all show variances in details? Why amd I expected to feel soldiartiy with people in Spain when they mismanage their economy, while I live in Northern Europe? why is there even the idea that such "soldiarity" could be expected to show up between total strangers with totally different living styles, national and social surrounding, who never met?

Europe means not only a canon of more or lsess shared values and hostirc traditons. It also means polenty od differences that also are historically founded, and may make a lot of sense on the regional level.

But some starry-eyed bureaucrats dream of a superstate instead. Et voilá, there we are.

Greece, btw, continues to order weapoins and military items like crazy, I just read. They have the money from the Greek bailout now, and 750 billion more are waiting to be consumed by some southern countries, so why starting to save money? They did not pay for fourt subamrines they had ordered, now haver ordered additonal two subs, plus more tanks - and the Eurofighter, that one they want as well, of course.

so much for consolidating their finances. and the Germans? Rumour says that the Germans even have pressed the Greek to order more weapons, and to pay for the already ordered ones.

It's all so sick and rotten an economy.

Wowh. I'm hijacking my own thread. :doh:

[tomfon]

Greece, btw, continues to order weapoins and military items like crazy, I just read. They have the money from the Greek bailout now, and 750 billion more are waiting to be consumed by some southern countries, so why starting to save money? They did not pay for fourt subamrines they had ordered, now haver ordered additonal two subs, plus more tanks - and the Eurofighter, that one they want as well, of course.

so much for consolidating their finances. and the Germans? Rumour says that the Germans even have pressed the Greek to order more weapons, and to pay for the already ordered ones.

Actually, Germany and France agreed to sell Greece their weapons in exchange for the bailout project. They said that they would give money only if Greece didn't cancel the order for buying the faulty(!) German diesel submarines and also frigates, helicopters and more from France. It is not a rumour but it is all about money. Finally, the europeans agreed to lend Greece money with 5% interest when they only pay 1.5% for interests. So that you could say, without being (very) unjust that Germany and France are lending Greece money to buy their weapons. Of course, Greece (and i'm reffering to the politicians) is not innocent too.

[Schroeder]

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that German laws on preventive detention of dangerous criminals is a violation of their human rights. Now Germany will be forced to release almost 200 felons, including convicted rapists and multiple murderers. The first repeat offender has already been released.
Yes, that pissed me off big time too. Who do they think they are? Is Germany a sovereign state? Well I guess I have to answer that question with a clear: No!
Not any more.
We sold away our rights to act as we think fit.:damn:

[Skybird]

The submarine thing I recall different. They had ordered 4 Type-214 and ordered for the modernisation of 3 old ones they already have. They never payed the modernisaton program, and the bill for the 4 new boats also is open, so the boats got withheld by Germany, while now German government was pushed by the defence lobby to use the bailout money for paying out Greek debts to German contractors first. The Greek then cancelled the modernisation of the old boats, and said they insist on the 4 German new boats being delivered, and now they want additionally 2 new 214s: six new boats they now want.

The financing should be done by germany almost alone, this they have copied from the Israelis demanding German systems for free, too (Israelis usually pay less than 20% of the prices in the treaties, the rest is payed by the German taxpayer: German taxpayers that way directly pay for Israeli defence. I wonder why they have not started to tax us directly).

The ridiculous argument is that when German defence industries produce them weapons for free (means: most of the money is financed by German extra fonds to boost the mutual friendship) and get payed by Germany, this German money investement would save German jobs. In other words: Germany should produce for free, should expect no payment, while German taxpayers pay for working for free.

Think of it. It really comes down to this simple principle. Politicians play ball with this in order to win elections by not loosing jobs.

Hilarious, absurd, rotten economy!

[Catfish]

Hello,
maybe we don't have the EU for so long, anymore :O:
Greetings,
Catfish

[Respenus]

Up and until this very moment, I was very supportive of criticism of the EU and still am. Yet when you gentlemen can't even get your institutions in order...ones that probably saved you a lot of trouble during the years...then one has no other option than to consider the possibility that there is more hot steam, than there is any real criticism or real suggestions for reform.

ECHR is part of the Council of Europe, an institution set up in 1948, whose primary goal is to protect human rights in Europe and it has done so. The fact that certain rulings are considered positive and the others not, is something natural to the rule of law. I am certain that you do not always agree with the rulings of your national courts, then why do you assault only the international, or in this case, regional ones?

I understand and I agree, that dangerous individuals are not to be on the streets. Yet this does not, in any way, invalidate the positive contribution to the state of Europe by the CoE and the ECHR.

[Jimbuna]

Congratulations Sky....have you just woke up and smelt the coffee or is it simply a case of the shoe being on the other foot now? :DL

This is only one of many concerns for the British people....concerns that have been batted around the political halls of power for quite a few years now.

The British people (a good majority IMHO) still await a referendum as to whether we (the UK) should remain a member of the EU and your original post is a shining example as to why they're concerned.

[Wolfehunter]

The ridiculous argument is that when German defence industries produce them weapons for free (means: most of the money is financed by German extra fonds to boost the mutual friendship) and get payed by Germany, this German money investement would save German jobs. In other words: Germany should produce for free, should expect no payment, while German taxpayers pay for working for free.

Think of it. It really comes down to this simple principle. Politicians play ball with this in order to win elections by not loosing jobs.

Hilarious, absurd, rotten economy!That is funny.. That's what they do here in Canada too. Otherwise companies move to china.. So tax payers are paying high taxes to keep these companies here.. lol What a vicious circle. :nope:

[Schroeder]

@Respenus

The problem is that this court can overrule national laws. We have no way to control it. It can de facto dictate our laws and we can't do anything against it. Now we get forced to soften up national laws that guaranteed protection from dangerous felons and have to release these people into society again. All those who get the so called "Sicherungsverwahrung" (preventive detention) are known to be incurable and violent. It is very likely that they will murder and rape again. We are not talking about a court decision that causes financial trouble or inconvenience. We are talking about very dangerous people being let loose on society with the expected result being a few people turning up dead and/or raped.
There is a reason why this preventive detention was established and now some judge in a foreign country dictates us to stop it.
that's what pisses me off. The court is endangering all people in Germany and that is a crime in my opinion.

[Respenus]

The problem is that this court can overrule national laws. We have no way to control it. It can de facto dictate our laws and we can't do anything against it. Now we get forced to soften up national laws that guaranteed protection from dangerous felons and have to release these people into society again. All those who get the so called "Sicherungsverwahrung" (preventive detention) are known to be incurable and violent. It is very likely that they will murder and rape again. We are not talking about a court decision that causes financial trouble or inconvenience. We are talking about very dangerous people being let loose on society with the expected result being a few people turning up dead and/or raped.
There is a reason why this preventive detention was established and now some judge in a foreign country dictates us to stop it.
that's what pisses me off. The court is endangering all people in Germany and that is a crime in my opinion.

And I conceded to that point in my posts, did I not? But after having read the article, the rights of these people were violated, whatever the considered positive effect on society. You cannot be put in something akin to a jail, without being convicted before a court of law according to a law which was in force at that moment. The retro-activity and the fact that these people were in jail without being convicted is the main problem for the ECHR. Should Germany pass a law, allowing individuals to be convicted and put into preventive detention when there is enough proof (beyond any reasonable doubt), than there wouldn't be a problem.

I need to return once more to my original point. Go check what sentences were passed by the ECHR, where Germany was found guilty and tell me, how many of those would you consider positive and how many negative, based on a rational opinion and not just anger at the fact there is a court above you. That's the whole idea, so that I can go to the court, to seek protection of my human rights, even when the state does not ensure them. I know that for Slovenia, the ECHR has done some wonderful things, particularly concerning the judicial process. The supranationality of the court was agreed even before there was any EU, or better, at the time of the creation of the ECSC, the fore-runner to the current EU, which again, has nothing to do with the CoE.

And again, the fact that you may not agree with a single judgement, does not mean, that he thousands that are hidden from view, yet which have immeasurably increased the protection of your human rights and increased your standard of living (the ECJ in this case, if I may be allowed the jump), are any less valid, or that the system only passes such laws. Systems can be problematic at times (or today, almost constantly), yet the angry young men attitude, attacking for attacking sake, without offering any real alternative or even considering the other side of the argument, is something we need to avoid, you we (me, you, Sky and others) wish to reform the current system. That's all I'm saying. Rational discussion and proof will ensure our victory, not yelling and pointing fingers at the specific things which nag us in a particular way (And the rights of those German's truly were infringed upon, I was shocked when I read the report).

[August]

the EU starts to look more and more like the United States of Europe:down:


More like the European Union of Socialist Republics. In the states we can still vote the miscreants out. :O:

[Tribesman]

Who do they think they are? Is Germany a sovereign state?
As a soveriegn state didn't Germany make this EU thing part of German law:yep:

Now we get forced to soften up national laws that guaranteed protection from dangerous felons and have to release these people into society again.
Are these not new laws that were introduced after the agreement to follow the EU courts laws.
As I said earlier the fault lies with the initial sentences by German judges in German courts under German law.

The British people (a good majority IMHO) still await a referendum as to whether we (the UK) should remain a member of the EU and your original post is a shining example as to why they're concerned.
The only issue the Brits have in this case is the questions about life=life ruling. Which will stand as many other EU countries have the same well established law. If by some strange quirk of circumstances that legal option should be overturned then there is still the minimum term which is open so there is nothing to stop a judge from giving 3 life terms with each of a minimum of 40 years to be served consecutive.
If by some miracle a nonce lasts those 120 years in prison then all it needs is a good doctor to section them all nice and legal for the rest of their natural.

[Schroeder]

@Respenus

Fair enough. You have a point there.
I'm just getting so tired of this whole EU thing.:nope:

[Skybird]

Respenus in so far is correct that in case of this court a bit more differentiated view may be adequate. However there are some reasons that explain my anger:

the court is associated with the European human rights convention that sees some very serious and disturbing ideological implications being turned into active policies that make me extremely critical and hostile to this convention. I do not see it as being predominantly positive and/or reasonable, and I reject it, therefore. I also claim it is abused for pushing forward a certain, often criticised political agenda in europe.

I have just checked the website of the court (in German), that, amongst other things, lists a selection of past cases and the according rulings by the court. I did not check it systemtically, just enough to get a quick overview. I cannot say that I agree with the vast majority of sentences/ruling.

I also have a principal problem with the european courts in general, though more with the European high court than with the Human Rights Court. That is that the judges serving there, by the mere system of selecting them (through national goivenrment's leaders decision, royal payments and only short serving times) get lured with a strong incentive to find theior ruling in accordance with offically wanted europolotical ambitions, agendas, projects, desires. Though even more with the High Court than the Human Rights Court ou will find only rare examples were the court dared to seriously challenge offical Eu polciies and positions. Doing so runs the risk for the judges that they will not be reconfirmed in office by political leaders, making them loosing their royal incomes. This system in itself has very serious legitimation problems, and that results in questionable independence of the court(s).

Rehgarding the sicherheitsverwahrung in Germany, the rules for it have been tightened several times in past years. Certain sexual deviations as well as violent crminals simply are beyoind the reach of therapy and resocialisation. In thse worst cases, the interests of soceity overrule their interest to be freed after some time. In Germany, life sentence means maximum 24 years, usually they get released after 15 years. It is inhumane and a crime against potential future victims to set free certain people when meanwhile experts assessed the candidate and come to the conclusion that the likelihood for them committing rape again is extremely high.

what will the ruling by the ocurt now chnage bin Germany? Around 200 highly dangerous criminals who all got sentenced to Sicherheitsverwahrung becausue their social prognosis says the probability they rape again or comit seriosu crimes again ist extremely high, will be let loose on the German public. Possbily, where they get identified, massive 24/7 police operations will be needed to protect and safeguard them around the clock, which is both very expensive and personell-intensive. and a good share of these guys will commit ne crimes. Explain that to their victims, Respenus, why you wanted these felons being given the opportunity to rape and to hurt them. the liekly reslt in chnaged legal basis in Germany will be that courts will order Sicherheitsverwahrung more often in advance, because they are not allowed to order it after some years have passed and the offender has been re-examined by experts.

Sexual deviations that make deviant people even obsessive crminals (rapists), often have their root in young age, and many of them are not available for being changed or neutralised by psychotherapy. established structures in your sexual behavior structure are extremely difficult or impossible to be changed once they have formed up. If that makes the individual in question a danger and threat to tohers, you either must use chemical chains (drugs) to supress certain drives with brute force), which has its own set of sideeffects and must be enforced under cointrolled, supervised conditions (which again has been brandmarked as a crime against humanity by critics of this chemical intervention), or you have to lock the indiovidual away for as long as it stays the way it is - and that is probably for the rest of it's life, at least until very high age. In sexual deviations, resocialising goals often are no option at all. Pedophilia for example cannot be cured, nor can you cure a psychopathic or sociopathic mind structure. Often, the deviaion is hardwired into the brain's neurons, or the brain's/body's chemistry. Therefore, protection of others must be the priority. the interest of the many very clearly overrule the interest of the one, in this case.

BTW, in past months I remeber that we have heard news on repeated cases of sex offenders having been released from prison - and immediately starting to rape again. The discussion of this possibility thus is not just a thing of abstract theory. It is a scenario showing a very high probability - evem more so since long time prisoners have orientation problems when they get relased into a world that has changed very much, and the risk of falling back into old criminal habits in general is very high with our current prison system.

In general i thionk we pay too much atgention for crminals, terrorists, perpetrators, and not enough attention for past and future victims. Even in the media you see it: we alwayxs discuss the crimoinal's fate and history, turning them into heroes and anti-.heroes constantly, we even form movie starring RAF terrorists as if they were modern Robin Hoods.

But how many TV discussioins, how many evening movie you see focussing on the victims? The ratio between both is badly out of sync, and we should be ashamed about this.

[DarkFish]

More like the European Union of Socialist Republics. In the states we can still vote the miscreants out. :O:I don't have a problem with socialists, I'm a socialist myself:O:
I DO have a problem with the EU overruling local governments, we should decide for ourselves what we want.
If I vote for party X, it's because I agree with party X's points. The Dutch election system is rather well organised (no electors and stuff), so the eventual government will always be a reasonably good representation of the Dutch people. Now if our government passes a law, we don't need the EU telling us we can't.
By doing so, the EU will eventually merge into a super-state, with the people having not much control over the government anymore (as in the US, where there are only 2 major parties)

[Skybird]

I don't have a problem with socialists, I'm a socialist myself:O:
I DO have a problem with the EU overruling local governments, we should decide for ourselves what we want.
If I vote for party X, it's because I agree with party X's points. The Dutch election system is rather well organised (no electors and stuff), so the eventual government will always be a reasonably good representation of the Dutch people. Now if our government passes a law, we don't need the EU telling us we can't.

It'S even worse. Proposals made by the EU commission are legally binding, they are mandatory, which means national parliaments have no right to not agree to them and to not waving them through. It even goes one step further. A government that sees itself unable to bring something through the parliament because the opposition there is too strong, can take it and bring it to the commission and aks it to do somethign about it. The commission (mind you: it does not get elected and legitimised by european people) then turns it into a commission proposals, et voilá - the parliamentary opposition immediately has become powerless and must wave through a proposals that before it opposed when it still was governmental policy.

Mind you also that the lisbin dicate rules that the commission can also evade lockups by an opposing EU parliemant by declaring a state of emergency, and then ruling via emergancy decress with a union-wide validity. several states have bitterly opposed and prevented any attempt to define what such an emergancy could be, when, how and by what such an emergancy automatism could be triggered, what the exit conditions should look like, and that there even must be an exit condition! nothing speaks aginst the commission decalring a state of emergency, and letting it run without time limit, ruling by decrees and without needing to fear any legal opposition by the EU parliament.

Why are you even voting anymore...? ;)

By doing so, the EU will eventually merge into a super-state, with the people having not much control over the government anymore (as in the US, where there are only 2 major parties)
That is the intention. Not freedom or democracy, but control. the way the EU constitution and the dictate of Lisbon was handled and enforced, tells the story of a de facto coup d'ètat.

[Respenus]

Mind you also that the lisbin dicate rules that the commission can also evade lockups by an opposing EU parliemant by declaring a state of emergency, and then ruling via emergancy decress with a union-wide validity. several states have bitterly opposed and prevented any attempt to define what such an emergancy could be, when, how and by what such an emergancy automatism could be triggered, what the exit conditions should look like, and that there even must be an exit condition! nothing speaks aginst the commission decalring a state of emergency, and letting it run without time limit, ruling by decrees and without needing to fear any legal opposition by the EU parliament.

Please Sky, do search and quote for me the fabled parts of the Treaty on the EU and the Treaty on the functioning of the EU as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon, which speak of such prerogatives. I must say, I've had a professor for EU law with the same view as you have and even he "failed" to mention such a clause. Admittedly, I do not know the whole of the treaty by heart, so I could not remember it, but it does come of as strikingly odd, that the UK, Ireland, Poland or the Czech Republic would allow such a thing to enter and then ratify it.

[DarkFish]

Why are you even voting anymore...? ;)well luckily the dutch Socialist Party is against the EU as well:yeah:

[Skybird]

but it does come of as strikingly odd, that the UK, Ireland, Poland or the Czech Republic would allow such a thing to enter and then ratify it.

Not odd at all. The treaty'S main text is only 1-2 dozen pages (depending on fomatting, obviously), but the appendices have 600+ pages. Also, after the failing vote by the dutch and French, before the constitution became the treaty of Lisbon, the content additionally got shuffled and mixed again, to make it even more impossible to fully overwatch all and every statement in it, not to mention the implications of these statements.

You are absoluetyl right, most polticians in national parliament have not known in full what they were voting upon, and there also was a high ammpount of anonymous group pressure everywhere. In Germany, severla poltiicans hinted that they readily admit tonot fully understand the treaty.

It never was menat to be fully understood by members of parliament, what else have you thought? It is a scheme only for legal experts and bureaucrats, a scheme diverse and complex enough so that you need the elite of the "interpreters" to use it (securing their power that way), and being able to hide all that critical content that is reducing freedom and sovereignity of nations and national parliaments in it'S compelxity.

I have adressed this problem repeately in the past 2 or 3 years, Respenus. ;) The treaty itself means not much - the appendices are the critical thing. I also referred to critics who are far more competent in evaluating the whole thing, in this context I repeatedly quoted the criticsm by former German federal president Roman Herzog, who before he became federal president of Germany was heading the German Constitutional high Court as it's president. He is a high-rpfiled expert on the constitution as well. And repeatdly I saw him on TV and read him on magazines ripping key components of it apart, illustrating the dangerous implications of unsolved contradictions and undefined details that ndeed would need precise specifications.

I am as unable as you are to fully overview that 600+ pages of appendices. It becomes even more critical since becasue the thing does not exist in one legally binding langauge only that is binding for all, but in several different languages. You may imagine my surprise when some weeks ago I compared part of the Maastrict treaty text in english and german - and found translation differences in some cases that made the according paragraphs no longer sdaying the same thing in both versions. This must be the reason why that dutch critic with his guest comment in a German paper whom I mentioned earlier, back then suggested that they should fix the constitution in just one language as a legally binding fundament: in Latin. :) Roman Herzog too has indicated that there are translation variations of a gravity that they could cause possible legal problems.

The complexity is intentional, Respenus. It is all about mimicry. There is probably only a handful of people who understand the Lisbon dicate text in full and in all detail and impliation. And that complexity, I say again, is intentional. It makes it more difficult to challange and to oppose it in parts. It distracts and discourages. The constition, and the Lisbon text, Valery Giscard d'Estaing - amongst others - has confirmed very clearly, do not vary in content. The changes made are cosmetic only. but they put quite an effort into shuffling it and making it more complex and unstructured so that critics find it more difficult to point at something.

It is not the treaty text. It is the appendices where the real important stuff got messed up.

[Tribesman]

I have adressed this problem repeately in the past 2 or 3 years, Respenus.
What he means Respenus is he is repeatedly challenged about the bits where he makes up stuff about what the treaty says, and he addresses it by either saying its a secret part that no one knows about or that you have to read between the lines of the treaty and write your own interpretation of what you think you want the treaty to really say.

It is not the treaty text. It is the appendices where the real important stuff got messed up.
The appendices are only the original treaties as they are amended by the text of the lisbon treaty. So there are no alterations in the appendices that are not detailed in the treaty itself.

That being said, the treaty is crap.

[Diopos]

Don't worry guys if Merkel's proposals concerning the eurozone are accepted there wont any functioning member left! It will be a cemetery with a German vicar, a Dutch undertaker, a French widow and a British beggar outside the entrance mumbling "I told you so". No need to tell you who will be in the graves ehh.......



.

[Dan D]

So you guys no like EU and the decision by the European Court of Human Rights?

That is interesting and all but let me point out to you that you are drawing conclusions that are based on wrong assumptions.

Why is that so?

It is because you are confusing the European Court of Human Rights with the European Court of Justice.

You see, the court ruling you do not like was held by the European Court of Human Rights.
This court, which is located in Strassbourg in France, is no EU institution (What does this all have to do with the EU?). It was established under the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950 (!). The convention is adopted by the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe is distinct from the EU (which has 27 member states) and consists of 47 member states , such as Russia, Ukraine and Turkey. Russia e.g. is not a member of the EU, is not it?

Btw. Canada, Japan, Mexico, the USA and the Holy See have observer status with the Council of Europe.

Some EU member states are members of the Council of Europe but not all members of the Council of Europe are EU members.

The Court of Justice which is located in Luxembourg City in Luxembourg on the other hand is an EU institution.

Does the European Court of Justice deal with Criminal law?

No, because Criminal law belongs to the national law systems and not to the EU law system, simple as that. There is no EU criminal law:


So you could do all you want, leave the EU, arrest the EU representatives and the EU court's judges and even shoot them, this is pointless.

You would still facing the possibility that the European Court of Human Rights makes decisions that are binding because your country is a member of the Council of Europe and signed the European Charta of Human Rights.

You would have to leave the Council of Europe instead which again is no EU institution.
Well, there is an EU institution that is called “European Council” but that is something else.

It is confusing, is not it?

[Tchocky]

I work next door to the CoJ, shall drop by tomorrow and find out what's what :P

[Diopos]

Dan D,
we are in a euro, EU, Europe bashing and "leave us alone" mode right now. Moderation will be sought afterwards ...

But,
always good to put things in perspective.
(or at least try to).


.

[Snestorm]

Personaly, I have no desire to see the EU reformed.

However, I do have a strong desire to see the EU, and all the other organizations that threaten national sovereignty, abolished.

[Respenus]

However, I do have a strong desire to see the EU, and all the other organizations that threaten national sovereignty, abolished.

I didn't mean to point you our Snestorm, but your argument gave me a chance to respond.

I'd like to see all nation-states or any organisations which promote the idea of the sovereignty of the state abolished and replaced with the sovereignty of the people, something which current states are lacking.

@ Tribesman
Sky is not wrong in pointing out strange and frankly, odd parts of the EU primary law. There are some unknowns and the Lisbon Treaty ensures that it is even harder to read than before. There were also certain elements before the Lisbon treaty which would open up the way to increase community competence, yet it requires the complete support of all member states.

It would clarify a lot of things Sky, if you could maybe post at least an article pointing out the more legal aspects of your arguments. I for one would like to read them just before I study the bloody thing and the more you know...

[August]

I don't have a problem with socialists, I'm a socialist myself:O:

My sincere condolences to you! :O:

I DO have a problem with the EU overruling local governments, we should decide for ourselves what we want.

But isn't that the essence of socialism? The individual or group subordinating itself for the greater good? What you're saying here doesn't sound very socialistic.

If I vote for party X, it's because I agree with party X's points. The Dutch election system is rather well organised (no electors and stuff), so the eventual government will always be a reasonably good representation of the Dutch people. Now if our government passes a law, we don't need the EU telling us we can't.
By doing so, the EU will eventually merge into a super-state, with the people having not much control over the government anymore (as in the US, where there are only 2 major parties)

I don't believe that having more parties automatically increases the peoples control over government, but we have different political systems anyways so what may work for you may not work for us.

[Snestorm]

I don't believe that having more parties automatically increases the peoples control over government, but we have different political systems anyways so what may work for you may not work for us.

It does, IF there is Proportional Representation.

[Skybird]

I do not constantly track these things, respenus, it is not my profession. however, you could use the search function, General Topics forum, for "Roman Herzog", which lists some threads of the past were I mentioned him, but this is probbaly not much different than what I say here, since I repeat that old arguments of hoim that I quoted back then. When the Lisbon dictate was noit yet decided, I had spend some time to fly, just that, over the appendices, but for a novice like us all here it is almost impossible to scan and understand that monster in full. Back then, and again now, I made it clear tthat I trust and follow the biting criticism of it that come from people whom I trust to know it much better than you or me will ever do, and especially I refer to the names Giscard-d'Estaing, Helmut Schmit and Roman Herzog. Schmidt and Giscard-dÈstaing are close friends and legitimately can be seen as two of the founding fathers of the EEC. Herzog is a legal experts specialised in german constitution and international and european laws. All three men have served in highest political offices, for long time. If such people with that reputation and competence (Herzog and Schmidt also known for their razor-sharp intellects) start to hack away at the EU, then this means much more than anything contemporary fun-manager sof poltics have to sa yin order to manipulate the cowds in a pro-EU fashion. I sometimes think of Schmidt less as a politician and more as the last true statesman we have had not only in Germany, but in all of Europe. The band of names that now dominate the politcal stage, is a band of hilarious narcissists.

My sources on these people'S comments on the matter mainly were German TV (both news magazines as well as dedicated politc programs), some books (though not on Lisbon), and in case of Herzog a regular column he had until last year in a German newspaper, Die Zeit or Die Welt it was, I think. Also interviews of all three in press, TV, radio.

My attack on Lisbon is like a that abger of a lfight guest in aplane compölaijg about the pilot loitering needlessly in the air, bumping on toiuch-down, flying turns in an uncoordinated manner which makes them a physical ly very unpleasant experience, etc. Such a guest may not know the basic of gaining a pilot's licence, but still he has all right and competence to judge whether the glight was a pleasdant one or the pilot made things worse than needed. This guest is even more legitimised in his opinion when on the ground senior pilots explain en detail where their collegue had failed, and what consequences that had. No, I do not know the 640 megawork of the treaty in detail, I have red the orignal treaty in full, and spend two hours or so to skim through the appendices. But the basis of my criticism stems from insightful comments of experts whom for varying reasons I trust to know and undeedastand it. I listen to them and then try to form an opinion whether or not what they say makes sense to me or not.

That is ion principle the only way us novices, you and me included, can deal with things like this. And I must say, Schmidt, Giscard-d'Estaing and Herzog, especially the latter, have marked very, very serious points regarding where Europe has completely derailed and lost it's orginial intention.

Needless to say that my input on this primarily is in German, and that I do not record and save all the many TV programs and news snippets, biuts and opieces that one happens to perceive when using any media unsystematically, privately.

That's as best an answer to your request for links I can give you. But i cannot imagine that only these three guys are critical of the EU. There must be many critics of English and Slowenian language as well who can copmpetently adress the issue without pushing an agenda of their own, and can mark the critical points in the lisbon treaty. I just do not know them - and why should I know all of them...?

[Tribesman]

@ Tribesman
Sky is not wrong in pointing out strange and frankly, odd parts of the EU primary law. There are some unknowns and the Lisbon Treaty ensures that it is even harder to read than before.
I know, like I said the treaty is crap.
What I referred to is that on specifics regarding the EU Sky makes lots of definate claims, when pushed on those claims it frequently emerges that those the specific claims are not really true.

But on the specifics in this topic about the legal issues of reatroactively introducing indefinate detention for a crime after a court sentence for that crime has been served?
Even without the problem of retroactive laws Basic German Federal Law would imply that it cannot be legal as it amounts to two different prosecutions for the same crime.
There are ways round it. Sectioning as I mentioned earlier is the simplest(though it is also contraversial).
Or appealing the cases in German courts and getting the terms increased on the basis of the new evidence that twenty years in jail isn't a sufficient penalty or that the preventative detentiion allowance can be included in the judgement.
Remember this is only a case of trying to apply a provision that wasn't utilised at the time while avoiding the process that would allow it to now be applied.
In short they have been caught trying to cut corners to make up for their own failings....and since in each of the six recent attempts all of which came about after a media storm and public outrage it illustrates the problems of politicians doing knee-jerk legislation to appease populist issues.

[DarkFish]

My sincere condolences to you! :O:not needed, I've got no problems with it:cool:
:O:
I DO have a problem with the EU overruling local governments, we should decide for ourselves what we want.But isn't that the essence of socialism? The individual or group subordinating itself for the greater good? What you're saying here doesn't sound very socialistic.It doesn't necessarily mean we should as a country subordinate ourselves for the greater good. Countries consisting of several peoples and cultures don't work. What is needed/wanted here, might not be needed/wanted somewhere else. The smaller the country (within certain limits), the better the government can suit the needs of the people.
I am pretty nationalistic myself, even though I'm a socialist.
From the official Socialist Party's standpoints (http://www.sp.nl/standpunten/cd_63/standpunt_over_europese_unie.html) (quickly translated):

"European cooperation is definitely needed, but that's something else than a EU that dominates the member countries, and forces regulations that go against the wishes of a majority of the people.
[...]
The role of national parliaments within the EU must thus be enlarged."

Also see: http://international.sp.nl/goals/2006/tenreasons.shtml point 10.

I don't believe that having more parties automatically increases the peoples control over government, but we have different political systems anyways so what may work for you may not work for us. If you've got 2 political parties, you've got only very little choice. The more parties there are, the better the chances for a party to suit your wishes. So the more representative of the people the government will be.
This in combination with the fact that we've got no electors. If a party gets 28% of the votes, it gets 28% of the seats. Nothing like one state has more electors per inhabitants than another one, or a "the winner takes it all" system.

[August]

Countries consisting of several peoples and cultures don't work. What is needed/wanted here, might not be needed/wanted somewhere else. The smaller the country (within certain limits), the better the government can suit the needs of the people.
I am pretty nationalistic myself, even though I'm a socialist.

A multi cultural society works pretty good for us here in the States but for Europe I would agree. Your cultural differences are just too great not to mention the extensive history of wars between your member nations.

If you've got 2 political parties, you've got only very little choice. The more parties there are, the better the chances for a party to suit your wishes. So the more representative of the people the government will be.
This in combination with the fact that we've got no electors. If a party gets 28% of the votes, it gets 28% of the seats. Nothing like one state has more electors per inhabitants than another one, or a "the winner takes it all" system.I way I see it if you have more than two political parties then they will sell out their constituents every time when they create the necessary coalition with sometimes several other parties, to reach majority. But be that as it may such a system would never work the way our government is set up. Here the majority party picks committee chairmen and controls the agenda. You'd have situation where a party representing only 28% of the electorate is setting policy, that just wouldn't fly.