Felons' interests count heavier than that of their victims

Originally Posted by August

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
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]

Originally Posted by August

My sincere condolences to you!

not needed, I've got no problems with it

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 (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]

Originally Posted by DarkFish

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.