When considering in or out:

[Himaginn]

And how does that prevent some of them from being in favor of an all-controlling European superstate?

They're elected, or representatives of those elected!

 

[Himaginn]

Remanded in custody is only where bail can't be posted or there's a strong expectation of flight.

It depends on the seriousness of the crime also.

That is not so in many parts of the Continent, where a person may be arrested on suspicion and held for weeks on end without charge while the police go out and try to find enough evidence for a charge.

Examples?

 

[Gerrydelasel]

Are you pushing the Outist fantasy that the EU is composed of evil alien goblins? Rather than the truth, that it is composed of elected representatives from the constituent countries, and representatives provided by the constituent governments.

I'm calling BS on this. Our representatives make all our deals in Europe yet are completely unaccountable to the British public. They weren't elected by us to that position, they were appointed personally by the PM -parliament can't even veto his choices. So we have the PM who was elected by only 37% of the public, appointing a tiny club of career civil servants who were never elected by the public at all.
Do these elite have your best interests at heart? How would you know? And how would you stop them if they didn't? Wait for the next general election and hope a new PM appoints someone else you never heard of? If that's your Innist fantasy then you can keep it.

 

[JohnD]

You are making the point that the government of the UK might not do what the citizens of the UK want it to.

Regardless of the EU, what are you going to do about that? What have you done to prevent the Cabinet being crammed with multi-millionaire Old Etonians? How did you prevent Yo Blair from taking the country into a war by false pretences?

You are then going on to postulate that by unanimous agreement, all the elected members and all the government representatives of all the other countries do the same. Do you think they are Lizards?

 

[Gerrydelasel]

You are making the point that the government of the UK might not do what the citizens of the UK want it to.

Not the government, the PM. One man. If the government (parliament) had a say in who was respresenting us then the wisdom of crowds would work for us. As it is we have a democratic bottleneck.

 

[JohnD]

Your quarrel then is not with the EU.

Regardless of the EU, what are you going to do about that? What have you done to prevent the Cabinet being crammed with multi-millionaire Old Etonians? How did you prevent Yo Blair from taking the country into a war by false pretences?

 

[PBC_1966]

Do you think Britain would have to come into line with Europe in these regards or vice versa or the status quo will be maintained?

I think the U.K. (and Ireland) will gradually move closer to European methods because they're dominant in the EU. Just look at how much debate has taken place in recent years about removing the right to a jury trial for certain cases.

Well, it definitely didn't used to be.

I'm not saying it was perfect, because I don't think there's a country is the world which has had true, complete freedom in a long time. But I do think it was much better than now.

It was just a small example of the EU regarding the people over big business.

I really can't get too worked up about mobile phone charges. The cheapness of use now has contributed to the incessant yacking that now has to be endured in so many public places, the careless attitude of many of those when driving or even just walking, etc.

I was just commenting on your point about countries being prohibited from leaving.
All established countries take this attitude about independence by parts of their territory.

But the EU is not a country.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Oh dear.

I think the U.K. (and Ireland) will gradually move closer to European methods because they're dominant in the EU. Just look at how much debate has taken place in recent years about removing the right to a jury trial for certain cases.

Maybe you are wrong in your thinking.

I really can't get too worked up about mobile phone charges.

The working hours directive, then.

The cheapness of use now has contributed to the incessant yacking that now has to be endured in so many public places, the careless attitude of many of those when driving or even just walking, etc.

Ah, an unrealised concept on my part.
I now see the fiendish plan behind overcharging.

But the EU is not a country.

I can't be bothered to look back - did you not complain about the US of Europe being the objective and prohibition of leaving?
Perhaps I linked the two wrongly.

 

[PBC_1966]

The working hours directive, then.

Interference in things which were no business of the EU.

I now see the fiendish plan behind overcharging.

Were they overcharging? The cost of calls and the basic subscription for mobile phone service had been falling for years. Look at how much mobile telephones cost to use 20 years ago, then say 30 years ago. I don't think they were overcharging at all.

I can't be bothered to look back - did you not complain about the US of Europe being the objective and prohibition of leaving?

Yes, that's the whole point. The EU is not a nation in itself, but it's clear that the ultimate aim of some EU politicians is to make it into one. And with the ever-increasing "harmonization" of everything, the former individual member nations of the EU will end up having less autonomy than the individual states of the U.S.A. have.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I can't argue with such beliefs and clairvoyance.

 

[PBC_1966]

And how does that prevent some of them from being in favor of an all-controlling European superstate?

They're elected, or representatives of those elected! They're elected, or representatives of those elected!

And?

 

[PBC_1966]

I would submit that in the long term, remaining within the EU is far more likely to end in disaster than withdrawing. The signs are all there.

What signs?

We could start with the things Vladimir Bukovsky outlined here:

because so many European nations have long been used to the idea that the individual is subservient to the state rather than vice versa.

That's the fundamental idea in Fascism.

And communism.

There was the European Commission statement some years ago about how most of Europe regarded the U.K. (and Ireland's) system of presumed innocence, right to jury trials and so on as "quaint" and felt that the U.K. should move more into line with Europe.

Source?

I did a quick search, but I can't remember the name of the Commissioner now. Sorry, I'm not going to spend an hour trying to locate it. It was several years ago, maybe up to 10.

Less free that the rest of the EU countries - No. Less free than British citizens used to be - Most certainly. The U.K. has already started down that path.

Examples?

I've already mentioned one: That a person suspected of certain crimes can now be held by the police for an extended period without charge.

 

[PBC_1966]

While trying another quick search, I did come across a reference which reminded me of another very worrying aspect of the way the EU is headed.

RUIZ-JARABO COLOMER the Advocate-General of the European Court of Justice gave a legal opinion (in case C-274/99) in 19 October 2000 that criticism of the EU, its institutions or its leading figures was akin to blasphemy. Further, that, because laws against blasphemy were acceptable both under the common law of England and the existing European Human Rights Convention, it then followed that punishing someone for allegedly criticizing the EU was not an infringement of free speech

http://www.theeuroprobe.org/2013-002-it-is-now-against-the-european-law-to-criticise-the-eu/

And you still think that the direction the EU is headed isn't very dangerous to freedom?

 

[JohnD]

very worrying .....

in 19 October 2000

Wow, you scoured the internet, and you found somebody said something, sixteen years ago, that you don't like? And what's more, he had a foreign-sounding name?

really scraping the bottom of the barrel with your Project Fear of Foreigners. I see you've got the memo now.

Keep burrowing into your favourite Europhobe websites, won't you.

And be sure to selectively quote, so you can omit the paragraph that begins "However, it dropped an argument put forward three months ago by the advocate-general..."

It's wonderful that you can distort and fabricate to support your shabby argument by attempting to mislead the credulous.

Did you not know that numerous Presidents of the United States were slaveowners. And as you are a migrant to that country, we can safely assume that you support slavery, right? Furthermore, during WW2, your adopted country interned people of Japanese heritage in prison camps, so perhaps you support concentration camps.

 

[Himaginn]

While trying another quick search, I did come across a reference which reminded me of another very worrying aspect of the way the EU is headed.

RUIZ-JARABO COLOMER the Advocate-General of the European Court of Justice gave a legal opinion (in case C-274/99) in 19 October 2000 that criticism of the EU, its institutions or its leading figures was akin to blasphemy. Further, that, because laws against blasphemy were acceptable both under the common law of England and the existing European Human Rights Convention, it then followed that punishing someone for allegedly criticizing the EU was not an infringement of free speech

http://www.theeuroprobe.org/2013-002-it-is-now-against-the-european-law-to-criticise-the-eu/

And you still think that the direction the EU is headed isn't very dangerous to freedom?

I totally agree John. This little gem of PBC's is completely out of context.
The official concerned was an employee and he wrote a book criticising (slating might be a better word) his employers, the department that he worked for, so he was sacked.

The EU’s top court found that the European Commission was entitled to sack Bernard Connolly, a British economist dismissed in 1995 for writing a critique of European monetary integration entitled The Rotten Heart of Europe.

The ruling stated that the commission could restrict dissent in order to “protect the rights of others” and punish individuals who “damaged the institution’s image and reputation”.
The journalist added this sentence which was their opinion, not that of the court! "The case has wider implications for free speech that could extend to EU citizens who do not work for the Brussels bureaucracy."

The court called the Connolly book “aggressive, derogatory and insulting”, taking particular umbrage at the author’s suggestion that Economic and Monetary Union was a threat to democracy, freedom and “ultimately peace”.

As John said the reference to blasphemy, and therefore the restriction of free speech, was dismissed by the court.

Nice try PBC, but it's backfired rather, demonstrating your willingness to misconstrue events in order to make your point.