Univ. Prof. Dr. Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider:




more infos to the
"lisabon- treaty "
Mothers Aliance Irland


Press Releace

The lisbon-treaty:
Mor power
for the elites, not for the
people - flyer
(by T. Bush)






Irish arguments against the Treaty of Lisbon

Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider

1. Repetition of the referendum on the same treaty
a) Rejection of the Treaty by the Irish

 The Lisbon Treaty of December 13 th 2007 replaced the Treaty on a Constitution for Europe of October 29 th 2004 which was rejected by plebiscites in France and the Netherlands . The President of the State of France and the Government of the Netherlands did not provide for a plebiscite on the Lisbon Treaty and disregard the fact that their peoples had said NO in referenda. The Lisbon Treaty is only marginally different from the Constitution Treaty. It changes the Treaty on the European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Foundation of the European Community which shall now be called Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The Lisbon Treaty does no longer speak of a “Constitution for Europe”, although it remains such a constitution, it no longer ordains symbols of the Union like the Hymn, the Flag, the Euro, although these symbols are being practised, and it conceals the overruling of the Law of the Union over the Law of the member states in the 17 th Declaration, although this overruling is permanent usage of decision making in the European Court of Justice. more

- - -

No to the Lisbon Treaty
Irish Arguments against the Lisbon Treaty
Short Version
Dublin, 21 September 2009

Prof. Dr. iur. K.A. Schachtschneider Nuremberg/Germany


•  Repetition of the referendum on the same treaty

a) Rejection of the Treaty by the Irish

The Lisbon Treaty is only marginally different from the Constitution Treaty. The Lisbon Treaty does no longer speak of a “Constitution for Europe”, although it remains such a constitution, it no longer ordains symbols of the Union like the Hymn, the Flag, the Euro, although these symbols are being practised, and it conceals the primacy of the Treaties and the low adopted by the Union on the basis of the Treaties over the law of the Member States in the 17th Declaration, although this primacy is permanent usage of decision making in the European Court of Justice.

The people of Ireland rejected this treaty in the referendum of June 12, 2008. This means the treaty is a failure. In Germany , foregoing ratification, the Federal Constitutional Court had to decide on constitutional law suits by myself and others. It accepted approval of the Lisbon Treaty by the German parliament (“Bundestag” and “Bundesrat”) only “in consideration of the reasons” as stated in the decision of the Court issued on June 30 th 2009. Due to the reservations in the Court decision the Treaty has been changed essentially.

The repeated referendum on the Lisbon Treaty is illegal, because a plebiscite must not be repeated only because the government does not accept the result on pressure exerted by its contractual partners. The people have the sovereignty, in other words:

The people are sovereign, not the government, not the parliament. All people in Europe thinking in terms of freedom and justice are enraged that Ireland is forced to repeat its referendum. For this fact alone all Irish people should vote NO.

- - -

Say No to the EU Death Penalty

The Lisbon Treaty Allows Death Penalty and Killing of People by the State.

An interview with Professor Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider

Oliver Janich, “Focus-Money”: Professor Schachtschneider, according to your lawsuit against the EU Treaty of Lisbon at the Bundesverfassungsgericht (The German Federal Constitutional Court), the treaty allows the reintroduction of the death penalty and the killing of humanes. This sounds outrageous. What is the base of your argument?
Professor Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider: The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in its “explanations” and “negative definitions” accompanying the fundamental rights, allows a reintroduction of the death penalty in case of war or imminent war, but also the killing of humans to suppress insurgency or riot. This is in contradiction to the abolishment of the death penalty in Germany (Article 102 of the German Constitution), in Austria and elsewhere which results from the principle of dignity.

But does not the Charter prohibit capital punishment?
The relevant text for this is not article 2, clause 2 of the Charter which prohibits condemning people to death or executing them, but the explanation of this article which was incorporated into the treaty, originating from the European Convention Human Rights of 1950.
According to article 6, clause 3 of the EU Treaty in the Lisbon Version, the rights, freedoms and principles of the charter are interpreted according to the general provisions of chapter VII of the Charter which defines the interpretation and application of this Charter and under due consideration of the “explanations” listed in the Charter giving the sources of these provisions. more

- - -

The Lisbon Treaty - a Trojan Horse

 by Dr. Titine Kriesi and Gisbert Otto, Switzerland


In its ruling of 30 June 2009 on the Lisbon Treaty, the highest German court refers to the structural democracy deficit of the Treaty, and adds that Germany should not be allowed to surrender its sovereignty. At the same time, the judges contradict themselves, because they say that such a relinquishment is not included in the Lisbon Treaty. Actually a new constitution will be established when the Lisbon Treaty comes into force – this, however, will be contrary to the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz, GG). The German people would have to be asked their consent, because a new constitution can only come into force by resolution of the German people (Article. 146 GG). Considering these deficiencies, the German Federal Constitutional Court had ascertained that a refusal of the Lisbon Treaty would have been the only consequence. Unfortunately, the court lacked the necessary independence to oppose the political project “EU” in its present unconstitutional form – regardless of the dreadful consequences: In the Lisbon Treaty, the EU even attributes itself a right to war! One of the few personages, who is independent enough and feels obliged to point to the true contents of the Lisbon Treaty with its devastating consequences for the citizens' daily lives, is the expert for constitutional law Professor Karl-Albrecht Schachtschneider. He justifies a refusal of the Lisbon Treaty, which the Federal Constitutional Court should have expressed, on the grounds of right and truth. Some of the most important points of criticism are presented below.

The Lisbon Treaty will extend the undemocratic and antisocial conditions already prevailing within the EU. In the present treaty, the nation states transfer nearly all their rights to the EU. The almost 500 million citizens nearly lose all their possibilities to realize a democratic structure. The EU will intervene in all areas of the citizens' lives. The gap between the poor and the rich will widen. This development is in contradiction to Article 1 of the German Basic Law (GG), which declares the dignity of man as sacrosanct and binds Germany to the human rights. more

- - -

Reintroduction of Death Penalty Possible Due to Lisbon Treaty

Europe's citizens demand wide discussion

by Dr Titine Kriesi, Switzerland

Following a ruling of the Federal Constitution Court of Karlsruhe, democracy in general, states under the rule of law and welfare states remain at the mercy of the Brussels dictate. The supranationality of the EU is hardly debilitated. Not much change can be expected in terms of depriving national states of their power and nations of their rights. Yet only nations have the legitimate right to exercise legal power. Large or small scale politics requires a plebiscite free from manipulation. The Lisbon Treaty is a decision from the “top”, and not based on the knowledge of free people of their rights. So called “guarantees” and “side laws” do not help get over this fact. Similarly, the possibility of reintroducing death penalty on the basis of the Lisbon Treaty requires objective discussion and a plebiscite.  Whoever wants to build a European Europe can still leave the Union (Art. a (50) EUC in order to force a treaty that is in the interest of nations and citizens and that takes the freedom of citizens and peoples into serious consideration.

Ireland is the only one out of 27 EU states that allows its citizens to vote on constitutional issues. On 2nd October the Irish people will be asked a second time to go to the polls for that same treaty, because those in power in the EU did not like the ‘No' with which the treaty was rejected in a clear and well-founded fashion back in 2008. The remaining almost 500 million EU citizens will not even be asked! This starkly contradicts the ideal of democracy where, as the Greek suggests, it is the people that hold sway over the land, and not the governments.


- - -

EFTA as an Alternative to the EU-Reform Treaty

by Dr Titine Kriesi, Switzerland

The European Free Trade Association EFTA was founded in the 1960s in order to achieve economic growth, full employment, an increase in productivity, financial stability and a constant improvement of living standards by abolishing trade restrictions among the member states.
Today there are four member states remaining, among them Switzerland, Norweiga, Iceland and the Principality of Liechtenstein; the others have joined the EU.
The EFTA never aimed at becoming a political body and was strictly against the principle of supranationalty. This compared to  today's EU, which is an undemocratic centralistic colossus. Without giving up their state sovereignty, the EFTA member states agreed on a gradual reduction of customs duties on industrial products. Since 1994, the EFTA has with great success established free trade agreements with countries of the former Eastern Bloc, with Israel, the Palestinian National Authority. Moreover, there are cooperation agreements with Albania, Egypt and Macedonia.
The EFTA never aimed at establishing a common market. It only regulated the free trade on a commercial basis under just competitive conditions. The member states excluded agrarian products as a common market for agricultural products would have contradicted the basic structure of a loose association and restricted the free range of activity for the individual states.
The EFTA states acknowledged the principle of self-supply as a national task and is a credible and proven alternative to the EU. Through their establishment of a free trade zone in Europe, the EFTA countries could maintain their own political interests und were able to resist any political centralism.This was of special importance for countries like Switzerland as it served the security of self-supply and helped to support traditional small-scale agricultural units which is so typical for this country.
Moreover, it added a humane dimension: the active self-help, self-determination, and the right to decide on the countries' own food supplies. This is another reason why the EFTA is a viable and genuine alternative to the EU.

- - -

The Judgement of the German Constitutional Court on the Treaty of Lisbon

by Karl Müller

Some weeks after the 30 June judgement of the German Federal Constitutional Court on the Treaty of Lisbon a glance at the reactions so far shows that there are quite divers interpretations. There are proponents and opponents to the treaty who feel themselves confirmed by the judgement. And there are also proponents and opponents of the Treaty who criticize the judgement.
This can not only be explained by the political quarrels in which each side is looking for suitable arguments. The judgement itself is providing sufficient connecting factors.
The following article is not aiming at presenting a detailed constitutional and national-political examination of the judgement, even if some on the readers might welcome such an analysis. What we have to take note of however are the head-notes of the judgement (see box), which are of particular quality since they are legally binding. more

- - -

In Democratic Ireland ‘No' Means No
Against EU chicaneries and mind control

by Dr Titine Kriesi, Switzerland

In June 2008, Ireland said ‘No' to the Lisbon Treaty. Next autumn the Irish are to vote again. The EU functionaries' attitude towards the Irish becomes obvious in their attempts to persuade them to change their mind. In doing so, they do not even refrain from manipulation, chicanery or tricks. As if the two million euro EU juggernaut propaganda, which rolls in Ireland with high-ranking EU commissioners' lecturing, were not enough! (See Current Concerns No 6/2009) Now it is the Irish government that follows with a propaganda tour and squanders tax funds. In times of enormously rising unemployment rates, the majority's opinion is to be manipulated with the hollow promise that a ‘Yes' to the Lisbon Treaty would provide the country with assistance in times of a serious economic and financial crisis. The Irish should finally understand that if they changed their opinion, they would be better off… This time, citizens' movements expect the campaign against the Irish ‘No' to be even harder and dirtier.

The heads of state and governments of the EU refused to admit defeat concerning the result of the Irish vote. In order to make the majority change their minds, the most primitive manipulation methods and offenses were used, also on the part of EU Germany. The Irish were for example called “choleric” (by the Social Democratic Party of Germany, SPD); the German Ambassador warned of “terrible consequences” after a ‘No' vote in autumn. Patricia McKenna, chairman of the Irish People's Movement, says, “It is extremely arrogant of Germany to be putting pressure on Ireland to accept a treaty that they have not even ratified themselves, yet. Chancellor Merkel would be well advised to study the genuine concerns of her own citizens instead of trying to browbeat Ireland into voting again on something they have already rejected. ”1 . more

- - -

The Irish Say “No” Despite Juggernaut Propaganda
EU triggers off a second campaign against Ireland's “No”

by Titine Kriesi

Litmus test for the EU: “Now tell me, what do you think about democracy?”
Answer: “And if thou art unwilling, my dear Ireland, then force I'll employ.”

On 18 March there were discussions in Brussels, how by means of a second propaganda roller worth 2 million pound, a “Yes” in favour of the Lisbon Treaty could be squeezed off the Irish. They also discussed how the economic crisis situation in Ireland could be made use of for the same purpose. Ireland is the only one of the 27 European Union member states that is obliged to ask its voters when a change of the integration treaty is ahead. The Irish voted “No” on the EU reform treaty, called Lisbon Treaty, on 12 June 2008, thus making use of their democratic right (whereas about 500 million European Union citizen were not asked for their consent by their own governments). The Irish “No” meant for the remaining European Union member states as a consequence that the treaty was not ratified. The Irish government who  had expected a “Yes” at that time now wants its population to vote “Yes” in a second vote next October about exactly the same treaty. more

- - -










Irish arguments against the
Treaty of Lisbon

- - -
Irish arguments against
the Treaty of Lisbon

Short Version

by Univ. Prof. Dr. Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider














Die Bandbreite: Ich habe Angst vor dem "Lissabon-Vertrag"


Killezz More - Nein Zum EU Vertrag
(Please Vote No!) (with english subtitles

Prof. Schachtschneider am 10. September in Wien :

Der "Lissabon-Vertrag" vor der Entscheidung in Irland







more information
and 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6


Letter to eire / 2

- - -




- - -