EU referendum
- Thread starter JBR
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Ahh, but they do have their own laws Aaron.. They don't have laws dictated to them from Brussels. Another point, if you break the laws in these four countries and are found guilty, you can't appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. (like you can in this sceptred isle)
Another point,,, Why is it that EU laws are supposedly applied across all EU countries, but it's only the UK who seem to have to abide by them? (example,, asylum seekers are supposed to seek asylum in the first EU country they arrive in,, but country after country, steer and advise them to make their way to the UK ? )
( A prime example being the French accusing the UK of creating the problems in Calais)
You're quite right, Jock.
But when you think about it, it's our own fault for kow-towing to Brussels. If we still had any pride in ourselves as a nation we'd be telling them where to get off, just like other EU countries seem to do.
Weak politicians combined with an indolent electorate. Like her or loathe her, Maggie wouldn't have stood for this crap.
There's an obvious solution, but I don't want to sound like a cracked record!
But when you think about it, it's our own fault for kow-towing to Brussels. If we still had any pride in ourselves as a nation we'd be telling them where to get off, just like other EU countries seem to do.
Weak politicians combined with an indolent electorate. Like her or loathe her, Maggie wouldn't have stood for this crap.
There's an obvious solution, but I don't want to sound like a cracked record!
A lot of people make mistake of thinking Thatchers rhetoric matched the reality of her actions. The facts are different if we look beyond the simplistic image her friends (and enemies) adhere to.
Maggie favoured making the EU bigger . She also signed the Single European Act. The EEA already allowed for Free Trade without merging of sovereignty that would be involved in the EU. So the argument of ' we only signed up to a Free Trade Area' is not quite true - it is either disingenuous or genuinely ignorant of history .
Like a lot of politicians, she was good at saying one thing and doing another.In other words, playing to their rank and file with the right noises, but making decisions based on other agenda.
Sponsored Links
Well, actually they do, shows what you know.
They have to comply to various EU laws regarding trade and regulation, and are signed up members of the European Convention on Human Rights.
http://www.udi.no/Norwegian-Directorate-of-Immigration/Annual-Report-2011/Migration-2011/Verdicts/
What they do retain is some control over their own trade resources (like icelands ability to maintain it's fishstocks compared to the EU's complete ransacking of them).
The ECHR and the Council of Europe are separate from the EU.
And I don't think we need either. We have shown the world how to apply our laws fairly for many years and we don't need an unelected body in foreign countries to tell us what to do.
How else could the Queen exercise the powers she doesn't have?
Fair enough, but why is it seen as a means of circumventing our own courts?
Interesting take on history!
The raison d'etre of empire was securing trade.
The 'white man's burden' came later as a justification for subjugating others.
That aside, here is an old one on our legal system being copied abroad
-------------
An English anthropologist was doing research in an isolated African village, the tribal chief asked if he would like to attend a trial his people were conducting that afternoon.
"You`ll be surprised," said the chief, "at how well we`ve copied your country`s legal procedures. You see, we have read accounts of many English trials in your newspapers, and incorporated them into our judicial system."
When the Brit arrived at the wooden constructed courthouse, he was truly amazed to see how closely the African court officials resembled those of England. The counsels were suitably attired in long black robes and the traditional white powdered wigs worn by all British jurists.
Each argued his case with eloquence and in proper judicial language. But he couldn`t help being puzzled by the occasional appearance of a bare-breasted native girl running through the crowd waving her arms frantically.
After the trial, the anthropologist congratulated his host on what he had seen and then asked,
"What was the purpose of having a seminude woman run through the courtroom during the trial?"
"I really don`t know," confessed the Chief, "but in all the accounts we read in your papers about British trials, there was invariably mentioned something about `an excited titter` running through the gallery."
Well, it's no different than the appeals system; it just happens to be the last step.
Actually I was quite amazed recently on the decision in Italy regarding the murder of Meredith Kercher.
The two accused originally found guilty, then, on appeal, not guilty have now been declared guilty again.
Meanwhile a third accused has been guilty all along.
Is the only conclusion to be drawn from this that no one knows?
Sarcasm often goes unnoticed.
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
- david and julie
- General Discussion
