Päivitys: Robin de Ruiterin mukaan täältä löytyy kaikki Lissabonin-sopimuksen kohdat joista hän kirjassaaan esitti suorasukaisia tulkintoja:
Euroopan Unionin virallinen lehti 2004 C 310Katso myös
tämä keskustelu eräästä Le Monde-artikkelista 26.10 2008, missä Ranskan entinen presidentti Valerie Giscard d´Estaing kerskailee sillä että oli onnistunut huijaamaan Ranskalaisia hyväksymään saman perustuslain minkä hylkäsivat kansanäänestyksessä. Parlamenttihan sen sittemmin hyväksyi - ei kansa:
However, besides that fact, in this case the bottom line is that this ratification goes against a democratically taken decision through a referendum. Nobody can pretend this treaty is "just" another treaty, totally different than what was voted on at the referendum. Even Giscard d'Estaing who supervised the draft of the original version of the EU constitution has emphatically stated that the Lisbon treaty is essentially EXACTLY THE SAME!!!
Worse, this ugly man even mocked the stupidity of the people, and their lack to understand these texts, writing about it in France's nr 1 newspaper "Le Monde"! One can't get more arrogant.
Jos luet ranskaa tai hollantia olisi vielä nämä linkit katsottavissa:
Näistä y.m. lähteistä jokainen voi itse varmistua siitä että kirjan teksti sivuilla 317-318 ei ole liioiteltu vaan vastaa Lissaboninsopimusta ja sen vähemmin tunnettuja liitteitä.
*
Päivitys: tässä linkki laajaan 51-sivuiseen pdf-tiedostoon missä tässä blogipostauksessa ilmenevät pitkälti uskomattomatkin väitteet voi tarkistaa:
Ehdotus Europan Unionin Perusasiakirjaksi . Tämä aineisto on suomenkielinen ja päivätty 11.lokakuuta 2000.
*
Olen
aiemmin kertonut Robin de Ruiterin kirjasta
Worldwide Evil and Misery. Pääsin eilen sivulle 317, missä löytyy muutama poiminta siitä mitä (kaavailtuun) Euroopan Perustuslakisopimukseen sisältyy. Muistutan siitä että sekä Hollanti että Ranska aikanaan äänesti tätä silloista EU Perustuslakisopimusta vastaan. Mitä tapahtui? No, sopimuksen ostikko muutettiin Euroopan Perussopimukseksi - eli jätettiin sana
perustuslaki pois otsikosta ja muutama kosmetologinen muutos tehtiin. Näin se siis edelleen on sama EU-perustuslaki mutta eri otsikolla.
No loput tiedetään - nyt se liikkuu nimellä
Lissaboninsopimus . Suomen hallitus ja eduskunta on väitetysti hyväksynyt sen yksimielisesti (?) Irlanti, joka ainoana salli kansalaistensa äänestää asiasta - vastustaa sitä. Tshekki ja sinnikäs Vaclav Klaus ovat myös asettuneet poikkiteloin.
Asiaan.
Lissabonin sopimukseen kuuluu Ruiterin kirjan mukaan mm pykälä, joka kieltää jäsenmaiden hallituksia lainaamasta muualta kuin liikepankeilta. Katso kuva alla.
Eli Suomen nykyinen, Vanhasen keskusta-kokoomus-RKP-vihreät-hallitus on kenellekään ilmoittamatta omin luvin myynyt oikeutemme hallita valtion velkaantumista muilla keinoin kuin lainaamalla korkonkiskureilta.
"It is absurd to say our country can issue bonds and cannot issue currency. Both are promises to pay, but one fattens the usurer and the other helps the people."
-Thomas Edison
Vanhanen ja Katainen ovat tieten tahtoen suostuneet siihen että jäsenvaltio ei voi muuta kuin lainata rahaa liikepankeilta - ja maksattaa lyhennykset ja korkomenot kansalaisiaan verottamalla. (...eli näin mm eläkeikä korotetaan - ja valtion velkaantuminen johtaa vielä pidennettyyn työorjuuteen)
"This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money, we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is... It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied very soon."
-Robert Hemphill, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
Olisiko ehkä aika tajuta millaista politiikkaa tämä nousussa oleva Kokoomus piilossa harjoittaa?
Olisiko aika tajuta ettei Kokoomus ja puheenjohtaja Jyrki Katainen ole lainkaan suomalaisten asialla - vaan liikepankkien.
En tietenkään sano etteikö Keskustakin olisi yhtä syyllinen mutta haluan erityisesti moittia juuri Kokoomusta siksi että sen linja tuntuu petoksellisemmalta - tuoden esiin nuoria hymysuupoliitikkoja, joilla kansalaisia saadaan kuvittelemaan että puolue on reipas ja hyvällä asialla.
Kannattaisi muistaa että Jyrki Katainen taisi olla kutsuttu viime Bilderbergkokoukseen Washingtoniin, kesäkuussa 2008.
Ja mitä Ruiterin kirjan kautta paljastunut perustuslain sisältö sanoo EU-kiihkoilijasta nimeltä Alexander Stubb? Stubb propagoi edelleen jatkuvasti siitä miten perustuslaki on niin tarpeen ja pelkästäään hyvä asia. Mutta niin Stubb onkin ollut Rothschildien oman korkeakoulun opetuksessa. London School of Economics, missä Stubb väittely EU- intergraatiosta, tiedetään Rothschildien aivopesulaitokseksi.
Katainen Bilderbergiläiskokouksen rahaeliitin ehdollistama ja Stubb Rothschildien. Ja näitä kahta petoksellista pukupäätä kansalaiset pitävät suosituimpina poliitikkoina...Niinistön jälkeen.
Suomella ei siis varmastikaan tule menemään kovin hyvin...
Korjatkaa jos olette eri mieltä - mutta minun vaatimaton mielipide on että tällaisen sopimuksen allekirjoittaminen- jonakin Suomen kansan edustajina on ollut rikollista ja petoksellista. Tästä tulisi olla seuraamuksia nyt - "kun kansa tietää".
Tässä loput kohdat joita Robin de Ruiter tuo julki kirjansa sivulla 317. Voiko tuota lukea ilman että se herättäisi vihamielisiä tunteita? Kerro sinä.
Muita poimintoja:
EU perustuslaki ottaa käyttöön kuolemanrangaistuksen mm mellakoinnin estämiseksi.
[
Päivitys:Tämä on tulkinta joka nojautuu
tähän: A. Unionin Perustuslain Määräyksiä Koskevat Julistukset; Julistus perusoikeuskirjan selityksistä artikla 2. 2. selityskohta 3.]
EU perustuslaki sallii poliisin ampua kohti mielenosoittajia tappaakseen.
[
Päivitys: Tulkinta.
Lähde sama kuin yllä 2.2. selitys 3]
EU perustuslaki sallii sen että pidätystä voi jatkaa yhdeksän kuukautta ilman että syyte kerrotaan tai että todisteita pidätettyä vastaan esitetään.
EU perustuslaki sallii lapsityövoiman käyttöä - ja pitää 13-vuotiaita työikäisinä.
EU perustuslaki kieltää sosiaaliavun ja voi pakottaa meitä jopa 65 tuntiseen työviikkoon.
EU perustuslaki peruuttaa vapauden ilmaista mielipiteitään ja tiedottaa näistä.
EU perustuslaki aiheuttaa epäsuorasti sen että se laskee minimipalkkoja.
jne ei voi olla kysymättä itseltään kuinkahan moni kansaedustaja on nähnyt EU-Perussopimuksen koko sisällön liitteineen? Veikkaan ettei yksikään.
Päivitys: Huomasin etten ollut laittanut toista tekstikuvaa mukaan.Tässä se on alla. Viimeinen kohta on aika karmiva. EU:n ministerikokous ja Komissio voi tämän mukaan siis puuttua yksittäisen jäsenvaltion sisäisiin asioihin - esim talouspoliittisiin, jos jäsenvaltion hallinto lähtee "luovien epäortodoksisten ratkaisujen tielle". Eu voi siis intervenoida millä tahansa alueella. Entä jos jäsenvaltion eduskunta tai kansanäänestys sanoisi että Suomi haluaa irti koko pelleilystä?
Olen nimittäin melko varma että lähestymme tilannetta missä yhä useampi meistä tajuaa että liittyminen Euroopan Unioniin oli virhe.
***
Lisäys 28.7 2009:
Pyysin Robin de Ruiter´ia antamaan lisäselvityksiä koska kommenteissa oli kriittisiä ääniä (tosin anonyymejä kuten aina..ja anonyymejä ei voi ottaa vakavissaan)
Tässä de Ruiterin vastine kokonaisuudessaan:
A)
Professor Schachtschneider pointed out that it [the European Union reform treaty, a.k.a. the Lisbon Treaty] also reintroduces the death penalty in Europe, which I think is very important, in light of the fact that, especially Italy was trying to abandon the death penalty through the United Nations, forever.
And this is not in the treaty, but in a footnote, because with the European Union reform treaty, we accept also the European Union Charter, which says that there is no death penalty, and then it also has a footnote, which says, “except in the case of war, riots, upheaval” – then the death penalty is possible.
Schachtschneider points to the fact that this is an outrage, because they put it in a footnote of a footnote, and you have to read it, really like a super-expert to find out!
B)
How the Lisbon treaty introduces the death penalty in the EU
A few months ago a certain Professor Schachtschneider pointed out that the Lisbon treay will introduce the death penalty in ALL the countries of the EU.
See: http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=5932
Although this information was fairly well spread around on "alternative news" websites, nowhere online can you find an explanation of HOW exactly the Lisbon treaty does this, even when you will not find the term "death penalty" or anything akin to it, mentioned in the final consolidated version.
The fact is that when in the spring of 2005 I wrote 2 extensive articles about the EU "constitution" to help people make up their minds to vote against it, I already pointed out that the treaty would in actual fact introduce the death penalty.
As it was admitted by Giscard d'Estaing, the new Lisbon treaty is nothing else but the old EU constitution, put in a new package and with more tricks to make it impossible to (really) understand when reading through it.
Due to the incredible and deliberate confusion that is occurring over the Lisbon treaty, and due to it being so hard to track what its implications will really be, there are still many people who are dubious or totally ignorant about the fact that the death-penalty will indeed be (re-)introduced into the EU, in various forms.
For a long time it was pretty much impossible to check the text of the Lisbon Treaty, as it was not found online in any form until long after it was already ratified by many countries. This fact in itself shows to what extent this treaty and the whole procedure to get it ratified by all EU countries are un-democratic.
Nevertheless, in the mean time the full text of the "consolidated" version of the Lisbon treaty has been made available online. So if you're interested in verifying for yourself that the death-penalty will really be introduced in the entire EU, do this with the following steps:
First, find the text of the "Treaty on European Union" - Title I - article 6, as can be found at
http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-1-common-provisions/8-article-6.html
(also see http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/sitemap/sitemap1.php for an overview of the structure of the Lisbon treaty)
or find it at:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:0013:0045:EN:PDF
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:SOM:EN:HTML
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/st06655-re01.en08.pdf
(more languages & versions at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/showPage.aspx?id=1296 )
Article 6 reads as follows (emphasis mine):
===
1. The Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, as adapted at Strasbourg, on 12 December 2007, which shall have the same legal value as the Treaties.
The provisions of the Charter shall not extend in any way the competences of the Union as defined in the Treaties.
The rights, freedoms and principles in the Charter shall be interpreted in accordance with the general provisions in Title VII of the Charter governing its interpretation and application and with due regard to the explanations referred to in the Charter, that set out the sources of those provisions.
2. The Union shall accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Such accession shall not affect the Union's competences as defined in the Treaties.
3. Fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, shall constitute general principles of the Union's law.
===
Now please find this "Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union" at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/default_en.htm
On that page, you will find the basic text of the charter at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf
But this is NOT the FULL text, as it should be understood!!
In fact, this text is what corresponds to part II of the text of the old European Constitution made under supervision of G. d'Estaing, but without the critical addendums (which makes ALL the difference, as you'll see).
The new text that corresponds to the addendum can be found at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/convent49_en.htm (at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/04473_en.pdf ).
It's called: "EXPLANATIONS RELATING TO THE CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION".
In that text, we can now read the following:
On page 3 we find:
===
Article 2
Right to life
1. Everyone has the right to life.
2. No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed.
===
The above text is the basic text that can also be found in the "Charter of Fundamental Rights". Sounds great, no?
But wait... Now turn to page 4, where we find the "explanation" of this article:
===
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…"
===
The juridical implications of the part in bold are that under the Lisbon Treaty it will be considered "legal" to arbitrarily kill anyone deemed to be "unlawfully violent" (e.g. such as for destroying a field of Genetically Modified poisonous crops, or for throwing a brick through the window of a bank involved in the "financial crisis" scam? - what is the definition of "defending" a person and/or his goods? ), or when making "a lawful arrest" (e.g. for consuming or selling food supplements that are considered illegal, and resisting arrest?), and "for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection" (e.g. such as seen during the demonstrations in Genova in 2001, and those recently in London, when demonstrators were killed by the police?).
On top of that, it will be "legal" to arbitrarily (albeit "lawfully") condemn people to death "in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war". So this could mean detainees such as those held in Guantanamo Bay, whose arrest was in virtually all cases totally unfounded and unjustified, can now be condemned to death.
Note that in the text of the Convention, the concept of "death penalty" is only used in relation to "acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war", but the other examples are obviously just as much "death penalties", and they are even more ominous, arbitrary and contrary to what are supposed to be the values of civilised Western countries, making it possible to kill at random, with the sole excuse of maintaining "order".
There is an argument to be made for including the explicit right to kill someone when it's overwhelmingly evident (or to be understood) that the person is threating to kill one or more individuals. This is called acting in "self-defence" or in a situation that is "life-threatening", and there are already reasonable provisions for this in the laws of most EU countries. But these are precisely the terms that are so ominously absent from the texts that the Lisbon treaty refers to.
Also, it would of course be totally unthinkeable that an "ordinary citizen" would be allowed to kill a police or security officer, based on exactly the same vaguely defined terms of these texts (like the one described at 3 (a)(a), which could easily be imagined to apply in numerous cases). Something to consider in any assessement of how "fair" they are.
It's important to understand that the original version of these "Fundamental Rights" comes from the famous Geneva "Human Rights", as set up by Henri Dunant. However, through many amendments that have been added to it over time, little has been left of the original idea of human "rights", and it has been more and more replaced by a legal system that allows for what can be termed nothing less than brutal oppression.
As you can see, when reading the basic text of the Lisbon Treaty, nothing could lead one to suspect how easy it will make it to kill people arbitrarily (and do all sorts of extreme repression, as I've outlined in my original articles on the EU "constitution" of 2005). All it mentions is "Fundamental Rights", so all seems just fine. Even when you read the basic text of the "Fundamental Rights", everything still seems fine. Only when you get to the 3rd document with "Explanations" do things become clear! If the EU "constitution" of 2005 was said to be "impossible to read", the treaty of Lisbon has definitely topped that!!
What makes it even more confusing is that there are now many texts to be found online that are called "Lisbon Treaty" in one way or another, with "Chapters", "Titles", and "Articles" that can contain text that is very different than that of the consolidated version (see links above). You have to be VERY thorough to get to the real deal!!
Also note that when you look at the document with "explanations" of the "Fundamental Rights", at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/convent49_en.htm ( http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/04473_en.pdf ), it mentions on p. 1:
===
These explanations have been prepared at the instigation of the Praesidium.
They have no legal value and are simply intended to clarify the provisions of the Charter.
===
So when reading this, you are actually led to believe that the text of this "explanation" has no ultimate authority. But nothing could be further from the truth. Not only is it almost exactly the same text as what was found in the EU constitution, it has in the mean time been confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights, as a "convention".
You can find a more recent version from 2003, of what is called: "Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as amended by Protocol No. 11", at
http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/D5CC24A7-DC13-4318-B457-5C9014916D7A/0/EnglishAnglais.pdf
This is the version found at the official website of the European Court of Human Rights, at http://www.echr.coe.int/echr/
The text of the "explanations" dates from 2000. However, the application in the EU constitution treaty and in the "convention" of 2003 clearly establishes it as having far-reaching authority.
Unless the Irish and the Chechs will succeed at NOT ratifying the Lisbon treaty, the EU is bound to enter many years of terrible repression and bitter conflicts. The way the death-penalty will have been re-introduced by stealth will merely be a precursor of it.
Jim Corr uskoo irlantilaisten äänestäneen Lissabonin sopimuksen puolesta - lähinnä pelosta. Hän on myös todella pahoillaan että äänestystulos ei ole se jota sadat miljoonat ihmiset muissa EU-maissa olisivat toivoneet. (Kertausta: Hollanti äänesti ei. Ranska äänesti ei. Irlanti äänesti ei. Sitten perustuslakia muutettiin lähinnä nimellisesti ja nimi muutettiin "perussopimukseksi" ja tällä kikalla hallitukset Ranskassa ja Hollannissa katsoivat että nyt kansalta ei enää tarvitse kysyä koska kyseessähän ei ole perustuslakikysymys. Tämä oli tietysti petosta.)
