Até Mais, Lisbon

[Peter Korsten]

K9 Kai Niggemann schreef:

> there are things written into the constitution and the reform treaty  
> that are just outrageous. neoliberal economy is the grand standard for  
> the EU. nothing is allowed that "distorts the market". Then member  

The thing is, there are a lot of things happening in Europe that distort 
the market. Mostly, we're talking about artificial boundaries, permits, 
all that sort of thing that particularly Italy is good at, with layer 
upon layer of bureaucracy and red tape, that makes it impossible to open 
a business in less than a year's time. Especially if you're a foreigner.

> countries sign that they will increase their military armament. Then  

Because Europe's defence largely relies on the USA. Whist it would be 
great to live in a world where we don't need armies, this is not the case.

If you haven't seen the writing on the wall, the USA is rethinking its 
involvement in the defence of Europe. Already much of their capacity 
here has been decreased.

> there is something that is truely incredible: the deathpenalty. Only  
> in certain cases (during war or the danger of war (wtf?? does that  
> include war on terror?), riots and revolutions.
> 
> What's worse is that the EU-council can decide over the death-penalty  
> in such times and this surely isn't the most democratically legitmated  
> part of the EU...

Ah, I've done a bit of researching, and this is a typical case of 
completely misunderstanding/deliberately misinterpreting that footnote. 
Unless you're in favour of the death penalty, you have no reason to be 
against that paragraph including the footnote. This is the thing I hate 
so much about the scaremongering.

For one thing, the Lisbon Treaty does not supersede a country's 
constitution. So Article 114 of the Dutch constitution ("the death 
penalty cannot be given") still stands.

And if you'd done some research yourself into the death penalty in 
Europe and in the EU in particular, you would have known that everywhere 
it's either suspended, abolished for normal crimes, or abolished 
completely, with the exception of Belarus. And if you want to join the 
EU, you need to abolish it *for normal crimes*.

The crux is 'for normal crimes'. Some countries still retain the right 
to apply the death penalty for crimes during times of war, or rioting, 
or upheaval. So if the paragraph had just read that the death penalty 
cannot be applied, this would imply that every country would have 
acceded to the 13th protocol (unconditional abolition under all 
circumstances). And this is unfortunately not the case.

So next time, do your homework first. And yes, I'm pissed, because it's 
such a typical example of why such a treaty gets rejected for all the 
wrong reasons, because certain people will find *anything* to argue 
against it, and quite happily distort the truth in order to reach their 
goal.

> The part abot the neo-liberal economy was one of the main reasons that  
> France and the Netherlands rejected the EU-constitution. Almost the  

Wrong. In the Netherlands, it was dissatisfaction with the current 
government, and a general anti-immigrant and anti-EU sentiment growing, 
fuelled to no small extend by populist policies.

I can't comment on France, but the Polish plumber and ascension of 
Turkey were used as the main arguments against.

> exact same wording is used now in the reform treaty. This smacks of  
> undemocratic bullshit. Now German politicians are saying how  
> undemocratic it is, that only 53 percent of less than one percent of  
> the EU-population voted against the treaty -- instead of thinking  
> about how undemocratic it is to shove a constitution down our throats  
> that has been renamed, relabled and made less readable -- but rejected  
> by two major member countries of the EU...

And accepted by a much larger majority of the EU, including referendums 
in Spain and Romania.

The outset was to replace the multitude of treaties that are already in 
place, but no longer working well enough for a 27-member bloc, by one 
new treaty. It's not the creation of a European super-state, not with 
countries like Denmark, Sweden, the UK and Austria in it.

> I think there might be valuable things inside the reform treaty/ 
> constitution for the years to come. But why is there so much Lobby- 
> bullshit, why the deathpenalty and why the rearmament?

See above.

> If they would have more referendums I think many many more countries  
> would reject the treaty. They don't ask us. For a good reason...!

Exactly: because people don't get informed about it. Your rambling on 
about the death penalty is an typical example of that.

- Peter