Monday, April 21, 2008

Lisbon Treaty introduces EU-wide death penalty

Helga Zepp-LaRouche is no-one that Cranmer has ever heard of, but she is chair(wo)man of the German political party Civil Rights Solidarity Movement (BüSo). She spoke recently on the EU’s Lisbon Treaty, and drew attention by analysis by one Professor Schachtschneider, who is also not someone with whom Cranmer is acquainted.

However, it appears that the Treaty of Lisbon reintroduces the death penalty in Europe, which Helga Zepp-LaRouche thinks is ‘very important’ (just a bit), ‘in light of the fact that 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 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, like really like a super-expert to find out!

Cranmer has not bothered to check this footnote to a footnote, not least because, although he has never heard of Helga Zepp-LaRouche or Professor Schachtschneider, he is inclined to trust them impeccably against the scheming and manipulating liars in Brussels.

Let us not forget that the Union is acquiring the legal authority to ‘provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies’, which means raising its ‘own resources’ to finance them, which may be regarded as conferring on it revenue-raising powers, which will eventually be subject to QMV instead of unanimity. But it may also be the authority to crush any opposition, especially that which does not accord with its ‘objectives’.

The European Union not only possesses such symbols of statehood as its own flag, anthem, motto and annual official holiday. It now has its own government, with a legislature, executive and judiciary, its own President, its own citizens and citizenship, its own human and civil rights code, its own currency, economic policy and revenue, its own international treaty-making powers, foreign policy, foreign minister, diplomatic corps and United Nations voice, its own crime and justice code and Public Prosecutor.

And the citizens of the Union now owe allegiance to that Union, and to its aims and ‘objectives’, even though no-one in the UK has any idea what these objectives may be.

Buy Cranmer thinks it noteworthy that the death penalty is reintroduced for political offences, even as vague and undefined as ‘unrest’, but not for serial killers, rapists, paedophiles or child murderers.

One wonders why…


Anonymous mickey said...

An interesting insight and one which tends to confirm my view that there is not enough consideration, within the ongoing EU debate, as to where we might find ourselves should 'unrest' take root within one or more EU member states.

The tipping point will be the creation of an EU 'defence' force. It will then become inevitable that these forces will be barracked outside of their own countries, as this would be the only proven means of maintaining their loyalty to central command in the case of civil unrest (ie. few soldiers want to open fire on their own people).

A cheery thought for a Monday morning, eh, your Grace?

21 April 2008 at 08:45  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Subtle preparation for the reintroduction of the inquisition.
No wonder Roman priests advocate the union.
The inquisition still remains on the books of the Roman church - the heretics have not gone away you know.

21 April 2008 at 09:37  
Anonymous 2012 said...

Lets not complain too loudly or we may see one of those Chinese ships pulling in to Dover.

21 April 2008 at 10:04  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Your Grace

Anonymous said that Roman priests advocate the union. That's news to this Ultramontane Grumpy old Catholic.

But when faced with the alternative of being savaged by the baying jackals of the bien pensant left-liberals, feminists, decayed lecturers, foaming neomarxists, Heinz Kiosk et al in the BBC and the Grauniad, give me the Holy Inquisition any day.

What is intriguing is that there is no mention of the method of execution. Perhaps if the miscreant were constrained to read all the pages of an EU directive, he would soon lose the will to live. Or would this be regarded as cruel and inhuman treatment?

Slightly off the point, I recall that Blair and his cronies took care to have the death penalty for treason removed from the statute books before they embarked on their ten years of constiutional mayhem. Very wise of them....

21 April 2008 at 10:20  
Anonymous Homophobic Horse said...

One can still get life imprisonment for treason. I think Bliar would probably justify the changing of the treason law on anti-death penalty humanitarian grounds.

21 April 2008 at 10:41  
Anonymous Sir Henry Morgan said...


We already have it. It's called 'Eurogendfor' (European Gendarmerie Force).

You'll soon enough be policed by Italian - or whatever - Judge Dredds, looking like Judge Dredds and armed and armoured like Judge Dredds.

And apparently, they'll be equiped with the legal powers required to do their policing in Judge Dredd's inimatble - correction, imitable - ways.

21 April 2008 at 11:02  
Anonymous Sir Henry Morgan said...

I'm sure everyone is aware that in France the Gendarmerie is not a police organisation - it is a military organisation?

21 April 2008 at 11:05  
Blogger defender said...

Oh dear, seems that one must submit, comply or die.
4th Riech anyone.

21 April 2008 at 12:24  
Blogger dizzyfatplonka said...

They said long ago anyone against the EU is a terrorist, thats who the death penalty will be for no doubt. Although I dont't like to get bogged down in the whole sectarian thing, I was recently working with a British Gentleman that had relocated to South Africa in the 1970s and he said the Catholic Church over there was one of the greatest forces against Apartheid, sadly whether we think Apartheid was good or bad we know its alternative has become a Communist Red China dominated Africa.

21 April 2008 at 15:39  
Blogger Dark_Heretic said...

I've been saying for years the Guy Fawkes was the right guy in the wrong place and at the wrong time.

Volunteers anyone? Or does that mean that I'm for the gallows too?

21 April 2008 at 16:43  
Anonymous steadmancinques said...

Someone much greater than any of us said;

'If these things are done in the green wood, what will be done in the dry?'
(W.S. Churchill, Fulton, Missouri speech, 1946).

Like Enoch he realised that
'The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.
One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future. '
(E. Powell, speech, Wolverhampton, 1968)

When the traitor Heath joined us to the EEC, we were assured that it was nothing more, and would never be anything more, than a Customs Union.

And now the wood is getting very dry indeed, and the 'cloud smaller than a man's hand' is darkening over the sky, like that of Mordor.

21 April 2008 at 16:44  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Archbishop,

As one of your more loyal communicants, I feel saddened that you would trust the word of one Helga Zepp-LaRouche, who has been described as a political cult leader together with her husband Lyndon LaRouche.

21 April 2008 at 22:13  
Anonymous hear o israel said...

your grace

has come to closest yet to describing how nations become ships run and manned by fools when rights and disciplines are eroded or subconciously waived.

"the european union is accquiring the legal authority to provide itself with means neccessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies"

so is the UK and has been doing for the last 10 years.

the people that are aquireing the legislation have been unable to sign off there accounts for 13 yrs indeed the secret expenses document that was only seen privately suggest that at least 126 MEPs had been unacountably expensed for at least 175k perr annum , let alone all the none electable get up to .

people are being expensed to legislate for there own corrupt continuance , under the guise of honourable democracy .

the only real leap forward in communism is that it has decided to use cash instead of bullits to prove its theory. a theory which is becoming reality everyday this labour goverment lies

21 April 2008 at 23:14  
Blogger The Secret Person said...

Your Grace,

I have the details in my posts here and here.

It seems to exclude using lethal force in quelling riots, arresting prisoners or defending victims of crime from provisions stopping the death penalty as passed down by a judge.

I assume this means a police sniper shooting a hostage taker doesn't count as execution.

There was also something allowing the death penalty in times of war, though this has been superceded.

22 April 2008 at 07:54  
Anonymous thomas said...

Your Grace,

So the devil's in the detail as usual. It gets to the point where you only read the footnotes in legislation, because that's where everything is hidden, printed in font size 2.

Btw, do you know that it's an act of treason to stick a stamp with the monarch's head on it, upside down on a postage stamp?

22 April 2008 at 16:39  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...the citizens of the Union now owe allegiance to that Union, and to its aims and ‘objectives’..."

That'll be right.

I don't owe their "Union" anything.

Who voted for them anyway?

23 April 2008 at 12:55  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ultramontane grumpy old catholic

'Anonymous said that Roman priests advocate the union. That's news to this Ultramontane Grumpy old Catholic.'

You do need to get yourself out more and hear what is going on.

Was it not a certain David Millband who told parliament that the Lisbon treaty is supported by 'the Commission of Bishops'(COMECE = The Commission of the (Roman Catholic)Bishop's Conferences of the European Union'.

This body receives funding from the EU commission.

25 April 2008 at 20:57  
Blogger Michael Walsh said...

BAN, Italy was trying to BAN the death penalty. Ban and abandon are really quite different things! For the sake of point the EU's rights charter says:

"Article 2
Right to life
1. Everyone has the right to life.
2. No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed."

There's no footnotes!

26 April 2008 at 16:44  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The erroneous and counter-productive claim that under the Lisbon Treaty the EU could use the death penalty as a legal means of repression continues to surface, most recently in comments on Daniel Hannan's blog:

Firstly, it is necessary to distinguish between judicial killings, and extra-judicial killings.

A judicial killing requires that a person has been tried by a court and found guilty, and a legally prescribed death sentence is then carried out.

Article 2 of the 1950 European Convention (for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) did not prohibit such judicial killings, as many of the signatory countries wished to retain the death penalty for murder and some other crimes. In any case, over the previous decades the main problem had not been judicial, but extra-judicial, killings, in huge numbers.

So Article 2 was directed only against extra-judicial killings:

"1 Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law."

with some necessary exemptions.

Prohibition of judicial killings came later, with Protocols 6 and 13, and by incorporating the latter Protocol, far from allowing the EU to "restore the death penalty" the Lisbon Treaty would entrench an absolute protection against judicial killing.

Extra-judicial killings span a spectrum extending from completely intentional killings, including those carried out during war and when there is a state of martial law, to genuinely accidental killings.

This is where we have more cause to fear for our lives, with the possibility that the European Gendarmerie Force:

could be let loose on our streets, and potentially later foreign troops in an EU "peace-keeping" or "stabilisation" force being sent in "to restore order" and "secure the rights and freedoms of Union citizens within the United Kingdom".

About this misunderstanding, in more detail:

The consolidated texts of the EU treaties as amended by Lisbon, available here:

have Article 6 of the amended TEU, on page 7, which starts:

"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."

That December 2007 adaptation of the EU's Charter, and the Explanations, are here:

As in 2000, Article 2 of the EU's Charter states:

"Right to life
1. Everyone has the right to life.
2. No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed."

The Explanation of this Article is also unchanged from 2000, even though Protocol 13 to the European Convention, abolishing the death penalty in all circumstances:

came into force on 1 July 2003. Presumably this was because while all EU member states have signed Protocol 13, four of them - Italy, Latvia, Poland and Spain - have not yet finally ratified it. No doubt they will do so in due course: France was the latest to complete ratification, in October 2007.

Hence the last section, 3(b), of the Explanation no longer has any practical relevance.

The other words in this Explanation which have led to misunderstanding are actually quoted driectly from Article 2(2) of the 1950 European Convention. The UK has been a party to that Convention since its inception, so we have been living with that Article for over half a century. This is not something new which the EU is introducing with the Lisbon Treaty.

Note also how the Explanation refers to the necessary exemptions in Article 2(2) as ‘negative’ definitions.

"Explanation on Article 2 — Right to life
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…’."

28 April 2008 at 13:22  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We have already had the death penalty metered out here in the UK. Remember the innocent young gentleman on the train, Menezes? Bullets in the head?

Do you really question whether it is here or not?

18 May 2008 at 15:40  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We do not have to be in Eurogendarmerie for it to operate here in the UK. Ratify the Treaty of Lisbon, and here is what may happen, but please also remember that your Rights to carry a gun (see Bill of Rights 1688/9) have been removed from you after Dunblane.(Burke case Law Lords)

Article 5 of the Treaty of Velsen; “Eurogendfor (EGF) may be placed at the disposal of the European Union (EU) and also of the United Nations (UN), the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and other international organisations or an ad hoc coalition”. So basically Eurogendfor may be put into use anywhere that may be deemed a crisis situation by the EU, perhaps a country that objects to EU Treaties or Legislation, especially if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, or perhaps NOT ratified?

Article 16 (2) Eurogendfor Personal may possess, carry and transport arms, ammunitions, other weapon systems and explosives on the conditions that they are authorised to do so by their orders and that they do so in accordance with the laws of the Host State (HOST means the Party on whose territory the permanent HQ is located) and the Receiving State (The Party on whose territory EGF Forces are stationed or in transit).

Now what are they carrying such weapons for, if it is not to KILL?

Remember also that during the debates in the Lords, those in "Hot Persuit" across borders from the Continent to the UK had to leave their weapons on the continent. No such instructions re the Eurogendarmerie.

18 May 2008 at 15:53  
Anonymous antoin said...

Just typical of the sneaky power hungry nations of the EU to hide the truth until the treaty is signed but they are delarius if they think countries are stupid enough to pass a treaty that would manipulate smaller nations and alter there laws morally and legislatively against there will in my country Ireland the death penalty is removed completely from the constitution as it is an inhumane symbol of unmeasurable cruelty and if Ireland was to adopt the EU not only would it affect this area of our national constitution but also that of our firm stance on neutrality and that for any organization is too much to sacrifice

20 May 2008 at 16:56  
Blogger Modesto said...

Faced to TERRORISM MEDIA in favour of 'YES', to disseminate these arguments in favour of the 'NO'. Send this link '' to your email list
I am a Catholic who loves Ireland and Christian Europe say:
I am a Catholic.
Can I approve of the Treaty of Lisbon?
The violation of non-negotiable principles raises a grave question of conscience for
Irish Catholics in the face of this referendum.
A spectre is haunting Europe—it threatens you, the Christian future of your family, of Ireland, and of the Continent. It is a European Union without God and without moral principles.
The Treaty of Lisbon seeks to reform, for you and for all Irish Catholics, the fundamental values which govern the functioning of the European Union. These new values are in stark contrast to the non-negotiable principles given by Pope Benedict XVI.
The Pope insists that, in the construction of Europe, there are three areas in which the Church defends “non-negotiable principles”:
• “the protection of life at every stage;
• “the recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family;
• “and the protection of the right of parents to educate their children”.
To be at peace with his conscience, when casting his vote in the referendum, a Catholic has to give absolute priority to these non-negotiable principles. The moral preservation of our children and the future prosperity of Catholic Ireland and of all Europe will depend on the level of respect that the E.U. shows towards these principles.
Catholics must reject the Treaty of Lisbon
Our Lord Jesus Christ commanded: “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His justice, and everything else shall be added on to you.” In contrast to the Divine commandment, if the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified by Irish Catholics:
• The E.U. will ignore God and the Christian roots of Europe and will create a new European identity based on radical secularism and atheistic philosophies. We do not want our children to grow up in an Ireland without God!
• The E.U. will impose a relativistic and evolving idea of human rights, contrary to Catholic moral teaching. We do not want the relativisation of the principles that we will pass on to our children and grandchildren!
• The E.U. will considerably restrict the protection of human life and will facilitate abortion, euthanasia, and embryo experimentation. We do not want the mass murder of innocents being promoted throughout Europe!
• The E.U. will destroy the family by dissociating it from marriage between one man and one woman. Our children have the right to live in a normal home, in accordance with Catholic principles!
• The E.U. will impose excessive limits on the right of the parents to educate their children in accordance with their convictions. The freedom to pass on the Faith is a legacy that can never be challenged in Catholic Ireland!
• The E.U. will recognise, for the first time in the history of international treaties, “sexual orientation” as a basis for non-discrimination, opening the way for homosexual marriage and adoption of children by homosexuals. If today promiscuity and immorality already invade our homes and ruin the education of our children, what will it be like when these kinds of practices are imposed on us?
Catholics: only by uniting our voices can we be saved from this tragedy and this chastisement
To prevent Ireland and all of Europe from distancing itself even further from the Kingdom of God, Irish Society for Christian Civilisation is campaigning for a rejection of the Treaty of Lisbon in the name of the Catholic non-negotiable principles.
According to the late Pope, John Paul II, it is “the laity which by its particular vocation has the specific role of interpreting the history of the world in the light of Christ.”
If you consider it a matter of conscience to make heard the voice of Catholic Ireland in this debate, then you already are part of this campaign.
Click Here to read the study: “9 reasons why a conscientious Catholic citizen should reject the Treaty of Lisbon” (Click here for the document in .pdf format) or click here to order the printed booklet of this study, or to order flyers to distribute.
You will understand why this referendum is happening at this crucial time in our history, and why it is not right for a Catholic to abstain in this hour of need. Above all, you will be able to influence and direct others among your acquaintances, clarifying the issues for them to prevent them from voting for the Treaty of Lisbon through ignorance or because of media or peer pressure.
Participating in this campaign you will be doing your bit to alert our fellow Catholics so that, at the moment of casting their votes, they will remember what Jesus said: “He who is ashamed of Me and of My words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes into His glory.” (Lk. 9:26)
For the honour and glory of the Most Sacred Heart of Our Lord Jesus Christ, say no to the Treaty of Lisbon and you will be saying yes to a Catholic Ireland and yes to a Christian Europe.

7 June 2008 at 00:31  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We all have to start act as what we are! Human beeings. We have to stop splitting all things up (ex: all diffrent sciences; religons and so on) and start realising that there is only one and could only be one! just like that there is no future or past just an eternal now and oneness! there could only be one! and thats all spititual as well as sciences! it should be the same! we need the mystisism as well ass matrealism!

14 June 2008 at 17:27  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

EVERYONE who opposes the worlds leaders today is described as a political cult leader...!!!

24 February 2009 at 13:02  
Anonymous Leon Greenwell said...

I am a newcomer here, researching the subject of the death penalty in EU law

As a member of the Prayer Book Society, (as it happens), I must applaud anybody who can quote Frank Field. I invite you all to my piece on the Lib Dem Act site
Members of the congregation engage in fisticuffs of their own deliberate fault!

22 February 2010 at 00:49  
Blogger D. Singh said...

The Treaty of Lisbon .

The position of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights is declared in ARTICLE 6 (1) of the Lisbon Treaty. "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."

Charter of Fundamental Rights

Quotation from the preamble of the Charter of Fundamental Rights as for the position of the clarifying explanations (Dec. 14, 2007): "In this context the Charter will be interpreted by the courts of the Union and the Member States with due regard to the explanations prepared under the authority of the Praesidium of the Convention which drafted the Charter and updated under the responsibility of the Praesidium of the European Convention."
Clarifying Explanations to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
Source: Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union (official German)

3. The decisions of article 2 of the Charter correspond to the decisions of the mentioned article of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 (ECHR 1950) and the supplementary protocol . They have according to article 52 passage 3 of the Charter the same meaning and significance/reach . So the "negative definitions" of the ECHR 1950 must also be considered part of the Charter:

Article 2 passage 2 ECHR 1950:

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 escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

Article 2 of protocol nr.6 of the ECHR 1950:

"A state can in its legal system provide for death penalty for offences committed in time of war or on immediate danger of war. This penalty is only allowed in cases provided in the penal code and in accordance with its provisions…"
The Treaty has precedence over the legal system of member states

Here the relevant passages from the declarations of the supplementary protocol of the Treaties of Lisbon: 17. Declaration on Precedence: The Conference refers to the fact that the Treaties and the legal system laid down by the Union on the basis of the treaties in accordance with the permanent jurisdiction of the EU Court of Justice under the conditions laid down in this jurisdiction take precedence over the legal system of the member states.

Furthermore, the Conference has decided that the report of the Judicial Service of the Council on Precedence is to be attached to this final act in the edition of the Document 11197/07 (JUR 260):
Report of the Judicial Service of the Council as of June 22, 2007

After the jurisdiction of the (EU) Court of Justice the precedence of EC legal system is one of the pillars of the legal system of the Community. According to the Court of Justice this principle ensues from the special character of the European Community. At the time of the first verdict within the framework of this permanent jurisdiction (Rechtssache 6/64, Costa versus ENEL, 15 Juli, 1964 (1) this precedence was not mentioned in the Treaty. Nor is it today. The fact that the principle of this precedence has not been admitted to the future Treaty changes nothing at its existence and the existing jurisdiction of the Court of Justice.

From(…) ensures that no internal national regulations - no matter how they are composed - can have precedence over the legal system created by the Treaty, a system which, so to speak, flows from an autonomous (= self-made) source of justice, because of this autonomy, unless its character of Community justice is taken away and unless the legal basis of the Community itself is questioned.

3 March 2010 at 08:58  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older