[Politics] Brexit

[pastafarian]

Currently in, having been flirting with out. Hate bureaucracy, TTIP, increasing control by the transnational corporation, suspicious of CAP, monumental wastage and gravy train of Euro jobs. However UK will be an environmental disaster / basket case if left to the Tories ... which sways my vote.

whilst i cant agree with your IN stance,its refreshing to see that you recognise there are a raft of different subjects that will influence peoples decision IN or OUT.
its not all about the economy for many people if not the majority(just my opinion)

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Currently in, having been flirting with out. Hate bureaucracy, TTIP, increasing control by the transnational corporation, suspicious of CAP, monumental wastage and gravy train of Euro jobs. However UK will be an environmental disaster / basket case if left to the Tories ... which sways my vote.

A slightly short term view !!!! The Tories won't be in power forever you know ?

 

[Two Professors]

It looks like the clever people on the Remain team have tried to turn off Tapatalk and turned off their phones altogether,leaving us to put up with a sulky schoolkid and some foreigners masquerading as British!

 

[JC Footy Genius]

A slightly short term view !!!! The Tories won't be in power forever you know ?

And rather undemocratic. There seem to be quite a few inners who want our EU overlords to try and stop the UK government doing things they don't support.

 

[pastafarian]

Not to disagree with your on Breivik, but ECHR is nothing to do with the EU and the result of this referendum won't affect how the ECHR affects us. There are 28 countries in the EU; all 47 members of the Council of Europe are signed up to the ECHR.

whilst not directly linked to the referendum or The EU, The ECHR plays a wider role in the plan that all things European are greater than the state. Remember how it took our government years of jumping over hoops to even get Abu Qatada to trial abroad as he played the ECHR card.

Norway courts had decided Breivik would be a danger if he came into contact with other sympathetic nazi inmates,he could persuade others to commit vile acts on their release in the name of their daft nazi ideology therefore he should spend up to 23 hours in solitary. Does anyone think this is a bad idea? No of course they don’t,except of course the higher European court.

Whose bloody business is it to overrule the Norwegian court except the Norwegian court themselves? Its just wrong.

 

[pastafarian]

A slightly short term view !!!! The Tories won't be in power forever you know ?

im also struggling with this viewpoint,on the one hand it will take years if not an eternity to come to agreements with countries if their is a brexit and yet its always the tories that will use the opportunity to wipe out workers rights. Does this mean their is zero faith in a Corbyn Labour party to win an election in 2020 or even a Labour victory in 2025 when Corbyn is a distant memory. Nothing like be pessimistic i suppose

 

[drew]

Long story short we have (for at least the last 5000 years) been an Island nation... technically we are what we have been for a very long time and that is out..

Is it really only 5000 years?

 

[drew]

whilst not directly linked to the referendum or The EU, The ECHR plays a wider role in the plan that all things European are greater than the state. Remember how it took our government years of jumping over hoops to even get Abu Qatada to trial abroad as he played the ECHR card.

Norway courts had decided Breivik would be a danger if he came into contact with other sympathetic nazi inmates,he could persuade others to commit vile acts on their release in the name of their daft nazi ideology therefore he should spend up to 23 hours in solitary. Does anyone think this is a bad idea? No of course they don’t,except of course the higher European court.

Whose bloody business is it to overrule the Norwegian court except the Norwegian court themselves? Its just wrong.

How is it wrong if they signed up to it?

 

[beorhthelm]

Serious question for the inner: would you like to see us adopt the Euro. i'm reminded this morning that about a decade or so ago the Treasury was in favor, citing the improvements to the economy, and obviously would make us more involved, with a bit more say on how the Euro, and by proxy the EU is governed.

 

[Gwylan]

Remember how it took our government years of jumping over hoops to even get Abu Qatada to trial abroad as he played the ECHR card.

Not true in the slightest. It was the Court of Appeal (and the Law Lords) in the UK who stopped his deportation, not the ECHR. And of course, the Breivik case has nothing to do with the EU either as Norway is not a member.

It's posts like these that worry me. I've been a confirmed outer for years but every time someone mosts some nonsense about the EU costing us £55m a day or the EU won't let us deport criminals, I inwardly groan.

There's a great write-up in the Guardian of Dominic Cummings' appearance before a Commons committee. Even if you take into account the pro-Remain bias of the piece, the fact is that too many Leave campaigners are cavalier with the facts and, I fear, it's this that will subsequently doom the Leave campaign

 

[DTES]

CUT ALL THE CRAP, IT'S A STRAIGHT IN OR OUT VOTE
regards
DR

YOUR RIGHT, THIS SCANDAL IN NORWAY SHOWS WE SHOULD DO THE OPPOSITE OF THE NORWEGIANS. VOTE REMAIN!

Am I doing it right?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Not true in the slightest. It was the Court of Appeal (and the Law Lords) in the UK who stopped his deportation, not the ECHR. And of course, the Breivik case has nothing to do with the EU either as Norway is not a member.

It's posts like these that worry me. I've been a confirmed outer for years but every time someone mosts some nonsense about the EU costing us £55m a day or the EU won't let us deport criminals, I inwardly groan.

There's a great write-up in the Guardian of Dominic Cummings' appearance before a Commons committee. Even if you take into account the pro-Remain bias of the piece, the fact is that too many Leave campaigners are cavalier with the facts and, I fear, it's this that will subsequently doom the Leave campaign

Unfortunately it is completely true. There was a reason the Court of Appeal stopped his deportation.

On 9 April 2008, the Court of Appeal ruled that Abu Qatada could not be returned to Jordan as he would face a further trial where there was a strong probability that evidence obtained by torture might be used that would amount to a breach of the United Kingdom's obligations under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.[64] He was released on bail by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission on 8 May 2008, subject to a 22-hour home curfew and other restrictions. His bail security was provided by former terrorist hostage Norman Kember, whose release Abu Qatada had requested before Kember's rescue by the SAS in 2006.[65]

On 18 February 2009, the Law Lords ruled that Abu Qatada could be deported to Jordan,[67][68] with Lord Hoffmann declaring that "There is in my opinion no authority for a rule that...the risk of the use of evidence obtained by torture necessarily amounts to a flagrant denial of justice".[69][70] On the same day Home Secretary Jacqui Smith served a deportation order against Abu Qatada. No step was taken to enforce the order pending Abu Qatada's appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). In the same month the ECHR awarded Abu Qatada £2,500 in a lawsuit he filed against the UK, after judges ruled that his detention without trial in the UK breached his human rights.[71]

2012–14[edit]
See also: Othman (Abu Qatada) v. United Kingdom
On 17 January 2012, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Abu Qatada could not be deported to Jordan as that would be a violation of his right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This was the first time the court has ruled that such an expulsion would be a violation of Article 6.[72]

 

[Gwylan]

Unfortunately it is completely true. There was a reason the Court of Appeal stopped his deportation.

On 9 April 2008, the Court of Appeal ruled that Abu Qatada could not be returned to Jordan as he would face a further trial where there was a strong probability that evidence obtained by torture might be used that would amount to a breach of the United Kingdom's obligations under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.[64] He was released on bail by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission on 8 May 2008, subject to a 22-hour home curfew and other restrictions. His bail security was provided by former terrorist hostage Norman Kember, whose release Abu Qatada had requested before Kember's rescue by the SAS in 2006.[65]

On 18 February 2009, the Law Lords ruled that Abu Qatada could be deported to Jordan,[67][68] with Lord Hoffmann declaring that "There is in my opinion no authority for a rule that...the risk of the use of evidence obtained by torture necessarily amounts to a flagrant denial of justice".[69][70] On the same day Home Secretary Jacqui Smith served a deportation order against Abu Qatada. No step was taken to enforce the order pending Abu Qatada's appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). In the same month the ECHR awarded Abu Qatada £2,500 in a lawsuit he filed against the UK, after judges ruled that his detention without trial in the UK breached his human rights.[71]

2012–14[edit]
See also: Othman (Abu Qatada) v. United Kingdom
On 17 January 2012, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Abu Qatada could not be deported to Jordan as that would be a violation of his right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This was the first time the court has ruled that such an expulsion would be a violation of Article 6.[72]

If you're going to quote Wikipedia you should quote it more fully,

"His lawyers said they had lodged an appeal at the European Court of Human Rights, amidst confusion whether the three month deadline for reappealing following 17 January ruling had passed or not.[80][81]

On 20 April 2012, Abu Qatada requested the Home Secretary to revoke the deportation order of 18 February 2009. On 18 May 2012, the Home Secretary notified Abu Qatada of her refusal to revoke the order. The European Court of Human Rights had already denied Abu Qatada leave to appeal earlier in the month without specifying a reason, normally taken to indicate that the court considers no new issues have arisen.[12] Abu Qatada was granted leave to appeal in the UK and the case was heard by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC). On 12 November 2012, SIAC upheld the appeal, ruling that Abu Qatada was still at risk of having evidence obtained under torture used against him and that the Home Secretary was wrong not to revoke the deportation order against him"

But you're right that it was European legislation that was deployed to block his deportation so it wasn't fair to say that it had nothing to do with the ECHR but it was the British courts that were blocking it not a European - indeed, as mentioned above, the ECHR said that he had no grounds for appeal.

And, anyway, the moot point is that all this has nothing to do with the EU

 

[5ways]

Serious question for the inner: would you like to see us adopt the Euro. i'm reminded this morning that about a decade or so ago the Treasury was in favor, citing the improvements to the economy, and obviously would make us more involved, with a bit more say on how the Euro, and by proxy the EU is governed.

No, we're not joining the Euro. There are no plans to join the Euro. We have the best of both worlds and are the envy of many eurozone countries. Greater control of currency and great benefit of internal market.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

No, we're not joining the Euro. There are no plans to join the Euro. We have the best of both worlds and are the envy of many eurozone countries. Greater control of currency and great benefit of internal market.

Why aren't the IN lot arguing the merits of joining the euro?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

If you're going to quote Wikipedia you should quote it more fully,

"His lawyers said they had lodged an appeal at the European Court of Human Rights, amidst confusion whether the three month deadline for reappealing following 17 January ruling had passed or not.[80][81]

On 20 April 2012, Abu Qatada requested the Home Secretary to revoke the deportation order of 18 February 2009. On 18 May 2012, the Home Secretary notified Abu Qatada of her refusal to revoke the order. The European Court of Human Rights had already denied Abu Qatada leave to appeal earlier in the month without specifying a reason, normally taken to indicate that the court considers no new issues have arisen.[12] Abu Qatada was granted leave to appeal in the UK and the case was heard by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC). On 12 November 2012, SIAC upheld the appeal, ruling that Abu Qatada was still at risk of having evidence obtained under torture used against him and that the Home Secretary was wrong not to revoke the deportation order against him"

But you're right that it was European legislation that was deployed to block his deportation so it wasn't fair to say that it had nothing to do with the ECHR but it was the British courts that were blocking it not a European - indeed, as mentioned above, the ECHR said that he had no grounds for appeal.

And, anyway, the moot point is that all this has nothing to do with the EU

I quoted the sections that were relevant in showing your dismissal of Pastafarians point was inaccurate which you graciously concede.

I wouldn't say the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU as belonging to the former is a precondition to joining the latter.

 

[DTES]

Why aren't the IN lot arguing the merits of joining the euro?

Because we don't want to join the Euro...? Isn't that obvious? Or is it really that difficult to tell the difference between the two debates? (If it is, it's covered on this thread several pages back...)

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Because we don't want to join the Euro...? Isn't that obvious? Or is it really that difficult to tell the difference between the two debates? (If it is, it's covered on this thread several pages back...)

I understand and I'm being facetious. It just seems to me that no-one much on the remain side actually likes much of what is going on in the EU anyway.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

No, we're not joining the Euro. There are no plans to join the Euro. We have the best of both worlds and are the envy of many eurozone countries. Greater control of currency and great benefit of internal market.

HAS YOUR LIFE STYLE CHANGED SINCE BEING IN THE EU??
regards
DR

 

[5ways]

I understand and I'm being facetious. It just seems to me that no-one much on the remain side actually likes much of what is going on in the EU anyway.

It's about balance and pros and cons. Brexiters have very few unemotional arguments and if all else fails they just lob in a word they don't like to avoid having to properly weigh the pros and cons. For example, experts (all of them pretty much) say Brexit will damage the UK economy severely. Answer: Well didn't some of them maybe want to join the Euro?