english french german greek italian lithuanian russian serbian spanish
Inicio arrow newsitems arrow Eurofora's main Project Published at EU Conference on Europe's Future (on Day of 1st Plenary)

Eurofora's main Project Published at EU Conference on Europe's Future (on Day of 1st Plenary)

Escrito por ACM
19.06.21

 cofoe_1st_plenary_ep__eurofora_400

*Strasbourg/Angelo Marcopolo/- In view of the Forthcoming EU Reforms, a Brief but authoritative Summary of "Eurofora"'s main Project on EU Citizens - Politicians' Dialogue Before Decisions Affecting their Lives and/or Society at large, whose Ideas (Legal, Mediatic, Technological, Political, etc) were Prepared during a Long Period of Time, including a Series of Key Events, (1981/1997/2006/2018+), was Published Today Morning at EU's Conference on the Future of Europe's Official Website, which contains an UpDated List of European People's Ideas Presented in order to be Examined, Discussed and eventual Adopted, entirely or partly, in one form or another, by that Landmark 2021-2022 Mega-Conference (due to Highlight the most Important Reforms of the EU by European Heads of State/Government asap), that just Started Now in Strasbourg its 1st Plenary Session.

    => All Interested Readers Can, from now-on, Read, Comment, Endorse, and/or Follow relevant Developments on that "Eurofora"'s Project inside EU's Conference on Europe's Future Official Web Platform at the following link : https://futureu.europa.eu/processes/Democracy/f/6/proposals/32770

    + In Addition, Here we Publish also the Full, Original Version for such a Brief but Overall Presentation of that "Eurofora"s main Project in view of EU's Conference, (since the Version visible in EU's Platform is Even quite Shorter, for Technical Reasons of available Space, fixed by the Oganisers' technicians, there) :

_______________________________________________

eurofora_logo_1_01 

Idea Proposed :

Dialogue EU Citizens - Politicians Before Decisions affecting their Life and/or Society


How to Overcome the apparent Contradiction between 92% of EU Citizens' Wish to be Taken into Account Before Final EU Decisions, and EU's Elected Representatives' will for a more Efficient Decision-Making ?

>>> By Establishing a (Judge-controled) Dialogue between EU Citizens and Politicians Before Decisions affecting their Lives and/or Society at large.

=> In this way, EU Citizens would have a Right to :

- Be Informed Before such EU Decisions might be taken.

- Be Heard (on their Objections, Proposals, etc), also Beforehand.

- Receive a Reply from the Competent EU Politicians  Beforehand, which must be :

    * Founded on a "Sufficient" Motivation, (Compared to the EU Citizens' Arguments).

    * with "True" Facts, and

    * with "Legal" Arguments,

    * Pursuing an Aim of General Interest.

+ The chosen Measure must Not be Out of Proportion vis a vis its Legal Aim.

++ If, despite all these guarantees, that Measure proves, Afterwards, to be totaly InEfficient, vis a vis its Legal Aim, then, the Politicians who Decided that, can be Easily Exposed to the Public Opinion as UnTrustworthy or InCompetent, and, in Consequence, Loose the Next Elections.

------------------------------

    The Legal Feasibility of such a System Can be Based on a Series of Relevant Legal elements, Most of which are Already Existing in almost all EU Member States, (as well as some elements of EU Lisbon Treaty).

    This results mainly from an Original Legal Research of more than 1.000 Pages, (Chosen by the Faculty of Law of Strasbourg's University for a Prize awarded to PhD Thesis, on a written proposal by Professor Paul Amselek, of Paris II University), that we ha prepared and Succesfuly presented, receiving a "Très Bien" Mention.

    Our Proposal was, Afterwards, presented to a 2-Days Long Collective Conference of many Citizens, organized by Strasbourg's EuroMetropole, Discussed and Endorsed by them, afterwards deposed Officialy in a Report to the French Government in Paris, in the Framework of  "the Great Debate" organized by President Emmanuel Macron at the Spring of 2019.

    Meanwhile, we have Presented and Discussed, at least the Substance of this Project, during a Long Period of almost 20 Years, with Many Top EU and/or CoE Politicians, Officers, Rapporteurs, etc., Including All EU Parliament's Presidents, (F.ex., concerning the Current President, David Sassoli, See : .... + ...,  etc, as well as a relevant Paper on such Succesful EU/CoE Top Contacts).

    We Firmly Believe that, if it's Properly Used and Developed, throughout Europe, such a System Could Help Bring the European People closer to their Political Representatives, considerably Strengthen Modern Democracy, and Stimulate a Wide Momentum for the Emergence of a Strong Europe in the World, at the foreseable Future.

 

 

***

 

(Draft-News)

 

------------------------------

 


Multi-lingual Interface

Statistics

Visitantes: 59192077

Archive

Login Form

Syndicate

RSS 0.91
RSS 1.0
RSS 2.0
ATOM 0.3
OPML

Other Menu

 

pace_freeze_meps_400_01

They voted to "freeze" UK Government's draft to put People in jail for 42 Days on "anti-terrorist" suspicion without charge, or they abstained. Don't they look suspect ?
-------------------------

CoE's debate on UK controversy stirs PanEuropean check of anti-terror suspects' imprisonment

Former Leftists of the Sixties would boil in hot water if they heard PACE's debate on the controversial 42 days detention without charge, currently drafted by the British Government :

A "Socialist" Government, a Socialist PACE Rapporteur and a Socialist Chair of PACE's Legal Committee, opposed a .. "Conservative" amendment (supported by .. Liberals, Democrats, etc), to freeze the measure, in order to protect Citizens' Freedom, by "waiting" until CoE's Venice Committee checks its conformity with Human Rights' principles.

"Left"'s support to Conservative-Lib.Dem's criticism, wasn't enough to obtain a majority, nor to make things as they were back in the good old days, when "Left" and "Right" had a clear meaning, as "liberty" and "restrictions"...

Conservatives and most Democrats were joined by the Left in voting for the "freeze", as well as Liberal Paul Rowen, while Socialist MEP Ivan Popescu, an experienced MEP from Ukraine (PACE Member since 1996-2008) abstained. But most Socialists, added to a few Liberals and EPP's Right, voted against.

Fortunately, someone inside PACE had the wise idea to shorten the Debate for less than 1 Hour, and put it on the Agenda only at the end of an exceptionally busy day, towards the end of the Evening, when most MEPs had already gone to taste wins and foods at various Receptions all around Strasbourg's "European" area : As a result, not even 42 MEPs weren't present..

Socialist Lord Tomlinson accused the leaders of the PanEuropean Assembly, in its highest body : the "Bureau", to "lack wisdom" by deciding to hold a Debate on an issue that neither the Socialist Chair of the Legal Committee, nor its Socialist "reluctant Rapporteur", did "not want to do", ...

tomllinson

Finally, everybody (critics and supporters alike) was happy to agree, in substance, that the controversial measure "may" gravely violate Human Rights, and therefore, PACE asked Legal Experts of Venice Commission to check UK Government''s plans.

But this might take more than .. 42 Days to do, since PACE's Rapporteur asked the Experts to enlarge their study in a PanEuropean comparison of all that is happening on "anti-terrorism" legislation in 47 CoE Member Countries, including Russia, Turkey and Azerbaidjan..

Bad lack : "The existing 28 days’ detention without charge in the UK is, in comparison with other CoE member countries, one of the most extreme : In Turkey, the period is 7,5 days, in France 6 days, in Russia 5 days, and in .. the U.S. and Canada just 2 and 1 days respectively", denounced Democrat MEP Ms WOLDSETH from Norway..

woldsteth

"Numerous respected human rights organisations, including Liberty and Human Rights Watch, have expressed serious concern" "The proposed legislation ...could easily lead to extensive abuses. ...Detention for 42 days means six weeks in which one is taken away from one’s family, friends, home and livelihood only to be let off without being charged. That will destroy lives and isolate communities", she added.

- "3 years ago, the UK Government sought to increase the period of pre-charge detention from 14 days to 90 days. Not long before that, it had been only 7 days. There was a vigorous debate ...and a ...compromise was reached of 28 days. We have to ask whether there are proper safeguards in place to extend the period to 42 days. I suggest that there are fatal flaws", reminded British Conservative Clappison.

- "What sort of society holds someone in detention for 42 days and does not have to tell the person who is in prison why they are there, or explain the suspicions that arose and led to their detention? What sort of society believes that that is the way to treat its citizens? That is an appalling injustice, ...A 42-day detention period will not make the UK safer. Instead, it will be the first step to giving in to terrorists; it is saying that we are prepared to sacrifice our democratic rights and the principles for which we have stood for centuries", criticized British Liberal Michael Hanckock

hancock

"Comments made ...by Norwegian delegates are unfortunate", replied British Socialist MEP Ms.Curtis-Thomas, accusing them to "besmirch the reputation of our police force, which is one of the Best in the World", as she said, believing that "there are significant safeguards ...to ensure that individuals are not subjected to unlawful detention"

curtis

PACE "has serious doubts whether ...the draft legislation are in conformity with the ...case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. A lack of ..safeguards may lead to arbitrariness, resulting in breaches of ... liberty and ...right to a fair trial". PACE "is particularly concerned that: ..the judge ..may not be in a position to examine whether there exist reasonable grounds for suspecting that the arrested person has committed an offence;"; that "... representation by a lawyer may be inappropriately restricted or delayed;" that "information on the grounds for suspicion of a person ...may be unduly withheld.. ;" that this "may give rise to arrests without the intention to charge;", and; in general, that "prolonged detention without proper information on the grounds for arrest may constitute inhuman treatment", says Klaus De Vries' Report, adopted with 29 votes against zero.

vries

Records don't say if it took him 42 Days to draft his Report, but, at least, he knew why...

Polls

2009 EU Elections were won by Parties against Technocracy and Turkey's controversial EU bid, while the 1999-2004 Majority Abstention trend decelerated. What should be done in 2009-2014 ?

Mostrados

SMF Recent Topics SA

PHP WARNING 
PHP WARNING 
PHP WARNING 
PHP WARNING