Aren't some of the Euro area populations getting very unhappy with this situation? Do you think it's likely Greece will be kicked out of the alliance?
That would be so awesome in so many ways.
No civil war, no bloody secession, just a central government that asks some of the member states to get the fuck out.
So I take it you don't see that as a possibility then? Do you think it could get violent between the member states?
You think we would fight to keep Greece in the Union?
No I think you misunderstood me, I was responding to your comment about "civil war or bloody secession". I interpreted that as you saying it would take some act of violence for Greece to leave the EU.
People, this are the effects of centralizing government power. If you make it even greater the economic catastrophes only grow larger. Understand what I'm getting at?
The socialists and communists who have put the EU together are megalomaniacal, there is no way they will kick Greece out. They are going to ride this out to the bitter end. This EU has formed a multi-member paramilitary police force whose responsibility is to protect EU facilities in case of civil unrest and although the EU constitution bans the death penalty in criminal matters it does allow the use of the death penalty in cases of sedition against the EU.
The EU president Jose Barosso is not just a Marxist he is a Maoist. Mao was the worst mass murderer in human history. These people are not playing. They may present a soft exterior for public consumption while they amass ever greater power, but when push comes to shove they are going to be very brutal.
The death penalty for sedition?
The Treaty of Lissabon even put a mechanism in so that anyone can get out whenever he wants.
Here is a little discussion about the reintroduction of the death penalty. Also to get out of the EU is not as easy as is made out.
On 20th Feb 2008 a caucus meeting was held at the German Parliament in Munich to discuss the Lisbon Treaty.
At this meeting a previously unmentioned paragraph was bought to light by Professor Schachtschneider, Humanities Faculty -University of Nuremberg.
Professor Schachtschneider, explained that the undisclosed paragraph means on ratification of the Lisbon Treaty the DEATH PENALTY will be reintroduced to Europe. The Death Penalty will be applicable for the crimes of RIOTING, CIVIL UPHEAVAL and DURING WAR. (When are we not at war and who will define riot and upheaval?)
Professor Schachtschneider made the point that this clause is particularly outrageous as it had been cleverly hidden in a footnote of a footnote and would not have been detected by anyone other than an exceptional expert
The EU not-a-Constitution reintroduces the death penalty and not only in times of war, but for riots or upheaval. That gives governments a pretty free hand to use the death penalty - strikes, protests, vote of no confidence in the ruling party.
A quote from Helga Zepp-LaRouche in Executive Intelligence Review, 7 April 2008
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, â??except in the case of war, riots, upheavalâ?? â?? 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!
"Explanations relating to the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union".
The "footnote" in question, directly quoted, is as follows:
- 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
(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 provisionsâ?¦"
In my country it is the conservatives and centrists who wants to be a part of EU. The radical left or communists as sifu are calling them are ultra anti-EU. Is my country strange or is this how it really is, that
the europeen marxists arent really big fans of EU and that it is a conservative and liberalist pet project.
I am so happy the norwegian people voted no to EU membership time and time again
First of all, this does not meantion sedition, at least not from the EU, and second, that does not institute a death penalty but allows for it in certain sircumstances which would first have to be made a law before it is relevant.
Insurrection, sedition, it's fairly much the same thing. Although I do admit that sedition is trying to overthrow the government while article C is a much lower standard of merely putting down a riot or insurrection. It has been a few years since I read about this anyway.
You haven't refuted my essential point, that the EU has discretely permitted itself the use of deadly force in order to control the people and buried it in the Lisbon treaty in such a way that it would take someone with skills to find it.
Nowhere in there is an act of "sedition" even mentioned.
Not only that, if a law is interpreted it is interpreted as a whole and since the threaty allows for opting out if the union it would be a tough sell to construe the sedition from the EU as an insurrection.
The EU has very little to say in these matters and not even an army indepemdemt from teh nation states, who is going to send their soldiers if they know that they could be next?
Also, we have the draft system in lots of European countries, do you seriously believe that you could draft people to to occupy a nation that wants to leave?
If you tried that with Germans or Austrians youd have a mutiny on your hands.
I can't believe some of you are actually suggesting inflating to get out of debt. That's seriously one of the worst things you could possibly do. Inflation is a tax on capital. Capital is what fuels economic growth. Therefore inflation hampers economic growth and inflation on a scale so massive as to make the EUs debts irrelevant would near-annihilate any economic progress for years, maybe even longer.
If its either that or telling the sheeple that they will not get their pretty little ponies, inflation it is.
You don't have a problem with retarding everyones living standard or with hidden taxation? Are you like, evil?
No, I am like, realistic.
Either tell people that the party is over or inflate away and when in doubt blame evil capitalism.
I wonder what the average politician who wants to be re-elected is going to do.
Na, I really dont.
So you aren't for that policy, you just forecast it as being the most likely route?
My cristal ball is, um, crystal clear on this.
Howeva, there are ways to benefit from inflation, I shall set my sails accordingly.