Tagged: supranational treaties Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • ross1948 22:32 on March 13, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , , refeenda, , supranational treaties   

    How Dare German Patriots Offer The People Democracy! 


    Have a look at Deutsche Welle’s typically impartial, objective headline!

    Germany’s rightwing AfD wants to jettison postwar safeguards

    Note well, please, NOT change the law or amend the rules, but jettison safeguards.

    Yet as it turns out, all that’s involved is a two-fold call by Alternative für Deutschland, the German patriot party, one concerned with removing some limits to executive powers and the other sensibly aiming to strip ‘criminal migrants’ of citizenship.   https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/11/germanys-rightwing-afd-wants-to-jettison-postwar-safeguards


     

    ====

    So exactly what’s amiss with moves to revoke citizenship of “criminal migrants” who join terror groups or criminal gangs within 10 years of becoming German nationals?

    Aaah, the left-lib scribblers breathlessly tell us, naughty AfD will act against undesirables even if this renders them stateless!

    Big deal, who cares, I hear you say, as I do. But DW and its ideological clones are fretty, because the reform would not only break with the German constitution but also international law.

    So the constitution is immutable?

    It cannot be amended?

    Was Germany’s Constitution even ratified by a vote of the German people?

    Answers?

    No, it’s not.  

    Yes, it can.

    No, the people never got to vote!

    …although the amended Basic Law was finally to be approved in 1990 by the full Allied Powers (who thereby relinquished their continued reserved constitutional rights); neither in 1949 nor in 1990 was it submitted to a popular vote.

    And ‘international law’ should over-ride the elected government of a nation state? Countries cannot withdraw from supranational conventions that they deem outdated or pernicious.

    Hell, Canada withdrew from that Kyoto cr-p deal. so why on earth can’t German legislators decide what’s best for the people they represent…

    =

    =============

    …especially if the German people agree, in a free and fair referendum vote?

    And what other frightful threats does the AfD pose?

    ….further pledges…a Swiss system of direct democracy, whereby citizens can propose plebiscites on changes to the constitution, and


    Hasil gambar untuk referendum

    “a vote along the British model on whether Germany should stay in the eurozone and, if need be, the EU.”

    Democratic consultation!

    Whatever next?

    WHAT IS WRONG WITH ANY OF THAT?

    It’s fair to say the AfD won’t be forming a government after the elections. They’ve done well to advance so far so fast, but there’s a way to go before a parliamentary majority is attainable. 

    And in a echo of the Dutch in-crowd’s closing of ranks against the Freedom Party… …the bigger centrist parties have ruled out coalitions with the populist party.

    However, the political establishment has betrayed the citizenry at least as badly in Germany as in the rest of the West.

    Time will tell.

    And empty scare headlines like DW’s will make no difference to the voting intentions of the people.

    Indeed, the idea of being GIVEN a free and fair vote on issues of great importance may well boost AfD’s chances. 

     

     
    • Leo Cozijn 22:35 on March 13, 2017 Permalink | Reply

      *Yes, how dare they without consulting you!*

      Like

      • ross1948 23:34 on March 13, 2017 Permalink | Reply

        Good evening, Comrade – sounds like you’ve been sampling that fine Dutch ginever again.
        Please explain!

        Like

  • ross1948 21:05 on November 15, 2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , legal challenge, , , , , supranational treaties, , ,   

    Cast-Iron’s Anti-Jihad Strategy – Hitting ‘Legal’ Obstacles? 


    When the Battle of Britain was raging and all four of my offspring’s grandparents were in the uniforms of their respective homelands, all serving Queen and Country, did Churchill’s brilliant rhetoric come under scrutiny to see if his exhortations to fight on the beaches etc. would stand up to legal challenge?

    00000000000000000

    • churchill
    • ———-
    • I think not.

    The UK had, back then, not admitted millions of migrants a significant percentage of whom owed allegiance to an alien supranational ideology.

    Nor were major parts of its media/political establishment more concerned with ‘human rights’ than with the well-being of their own nation.

    EUSSR-Flag

    Nor of course was the realm subject to dictates emanating from a non-British authority on the Continent of Europe – that’s after all what the Battle of Britain was about! 

    A few thoughts that arise from reading another interesting article at ConservativeHome, by Paul Goodman, on Cast-Iron Cameron’s latest wobbly counter-jihadist speechifying. I was particularly fascinated by this part.

    Those who volunteer to be prosecuted or monitored may be admitted earlier – and it is this possibility that allows the Prime Minister to claim that government would not be rendering such people stateless.  We may see what the courts make of that.  It could be that he would have liked the time-frame for the ban to be longer, and has chosen one that he thinks will stand up to legal challenge.

    ————

    Who can launch a legal challenge to the law? If parliament passes legislation, it supersedes previous laws that it might contradict, not so? Thus if MPs vote to make traitors stateless, they are.

    If MPs were to evokes a million cheers from the British public by re-instating the death penalty for treason (and any ISIS terrorists who went out on a UK passport IS a traitor, because Britain is part of the coalition fighting ISIS) then that, too, would be the law. 

    If you break the law, you end up in court, if you don’t like the law, tough, you campaign to change it, but it’s not what the courts make of that.

    It’s their job to enforce it, like or no like.

    So what’s the problem? 

    Supranational sticky-beaks, given the right to stick their beaks in by parliament – a gift which can be retireved by parliament. Cameron has to go th mile – withdraw from any treaty that hnders British self-defence.

    The EUSSR and the European Convention on Human Rights are two obvious targets, but the UN Convention on Statelessness too appears to be getting in the way.

    • oooo
    • no-un
    • ooo
    • Scrap that nonsense and civilised countries could start kicking out disloyal scumbags instantly.

     

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel
%d bloggers like this: