Mass Debate in Europe
José Manuel Barroso and Margot Wallström request the pleasure of your company to Mass Debate in Europe
"Welcome to 'Debate Europe', our website for the wide debate on the future of the European Union. This website is our invitation to you to discuss with us your ideas, hopes and worries for Europe's future. With this site, we want to make contact with you and listen to what you think and propose".
Cum on, lets all pull together.... The following is my two penny worth.
Subject: RE: Example problem with European insitutions
According to Article 17 (8) ECT and Article 1–10 of the proposed EU constitution, every person holding the nationality of a Member State is a citizen of the Union. Nationality is defined according to the national laws of that State. Citizenship of the Union is complementary to national citizenship and comprises a number of rights and duties in addition to those stemming from citizenship of a Member State.
The above is a direct contradiction to the principles of the preamble of CETS 43 Convention of on the Reduction of Cases of Multiple Nationality where it states: (Considering that cases of multiple nationality are liable to cause difficulties and that joint action to reduce as far as possible the number of cases of multiple nationality, as between member States, corresponds to the aims of the Council of Europe;) Britain is a signatory to this convention and has been since 1971.
It is also a contradiction to the principles of ETS No 166 European Convention on Nationality, Entry into force: 1 March 2000.
In the Preamble (ETS 166) it clearly states: 'Recognising that, in matters concerning nationality, account should be taken both of the legitimate interests of States and those of individuals;' It goes on to say 'Desiring to avoid discrimination in matters relating to nationality;' and it further states, that it is aware of the right to protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; (the UK is not a signatory but other EU states are)
According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 31 General rule of interpretation
1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.
2. The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text, including its preamble and annexes:
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 53 Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of general international law (jus cogens)
A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognised by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.
CETS 43 was signed by the UK in 1971 before the UK joined the EU, therefore the Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and the proposed Constitutional Treaties, conflict with a peremptory norm of general international law.
As the European Union is even now only an association* of sovereign nation states and is not in itself a State, much as it might like to pretend otherwise. Under international law, it is impossible to be the citizen of a non-state. The notion of dual citizenship, implied under the new constitution and Article 17 (8) ECT is nonsense and the imposition of EU citizenship upon me is therefore in breach of article 11 Human Rights Act 1998 as defined by (Young, James & Webster v. United Kingdom ECHR 1981)
The negative freedom of association, by contrast, aims at protecting the individual against being grouped together with other individuals with whom he does not agree or for purposes which he does not approve. It tends to protect him from being identified with convictions, endeavours or attitudes which he does not share and thus to defend the intimate sphere of the personality. In addition, it may serve the purpose of protecting the individual against misuse of power by an association and against being manipulated by its leaders. However strongly such protection of the individual may sometimes be needed, it is neither in logic nor by necessary implication part of the positive freedom of association.
It is also a clear breach of Article 20 (2) of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Article 20. (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
How do you explain this fundamental contradiction?
If you want to renounce your EU Citizenship then you can do it by writing to the government. There is a template here and there is an alternative route via the UN 1503 procedure here
.
"Welcome to 'Debate Europe', our website for the wide debate on the future of the European Union. This website is our invitation to you to discuss with us your ideas, hopes and worries for Europe's future. With this site, we want to make contact with you and listen to what you think and propose".
Cum on, lets all pull together.... The following is my two penny worth.
Subject: RE: Example problem with European insitutions
According to Article 17 (8) ECT and Article 1–10 of the proposed EU constitution, every person holding the nationality of a Member State is a citizen of the Union. Nationality is defined according to the national laws of that State. Citizenship of the Union is complementary to national citizenship and comprises a number of rights and duties in addition to those stemming from citizenship of a Member State.
The above is a direct contradiction to the principles of the preamble of CETS 43 Convention of on the Reduction of Cases of Multiple Nationality where it states: (Considering that cases of multiple nationality are liable to cause difficulties and that joint action to reduce as far as possible the number of cases of multiple nationality, as between member States, corresponds to the aims of the Council of Europe;) Britain is a signatory to this convention and has been since 1971.
It is also a contradiction to the principles of ETS No 166 European Convention on Nationality, Entry into force: 1 March 2000.
In the Preamble (ETS 166) it clearly states: 'Recognising that, in matters concerning nationality, account should be taken both of the legitimate interests of States and those of individuals;' It goes on to say 'Desiring to avoid discrimination in matters relating to nationality;' and it further states, that it is aware of the right to protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; (the UK is not a signatory but other EU states are)
According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 31 General rule of interpretation
1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.
2. The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text, including its preamble and annexes:
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 53 Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of general international law (jus cogens)
A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognised by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.
CETS 43 was signed by the UK in 1971 before the UK joined the EU, therefore the Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and the proposed Constitutional Treaties, conflict with a peremptory norm of general international law.
As the European Union is even now only an association* of sovereign nation states and is not in itself a State, much as it might like to pretend otherwise. Under international law, it is impossible to be the citizen of a non-state. The notion of dual citizenship, implied under the new constitution and Article 17 (8) ECT is nonsense and the imposition of EU citizenship upon me is therefore in breach of article 11 Human Rights Act 1998 as defined by (Young, James & Webster v. United Kingdom ECHR 1981)
The negative freedom of association, by contrast, aims at protecting the individual against being grouped together with other individuals with whom he does not agree or for purposes which he does not approve. It tends to protect him from being identified with convictions, endeavours or attitudes which he does not share and thus to defend the intimate sphere of the personality. In addition, it may serve the purpose of protecting the individual against misuse of power by an association and against being manipulated by its leaders. However strongly such protection of the individual may sometimes be needed, it is neither in logic nor by necessary implication part of the positive freedom of association.
It is also a clear breach of Article 20 (2) of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Article 20. (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
How do you explain this fundamental contradiction?
If you want to renounce your EU Citizenship then you can do it by writing to the government. There is a template here and there is an alternative route via the UN 1503 procedure here
.
posted by Anoneumouse at 9:19 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home