Europe

[Beskar]

Paying people not to farm is a pretty stupid idea though.

[Furunculus]

it is a very stupid idea, agreed.

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

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...-leave-the-eu/

Ten reasons to leave the EU by Daniel Hannan -

1. Since we joined the EEC in 1973, we have been in surplus with every continent in the world except Europe. Over those 27 years, we have run a trade deficit with the other member states that averages out at £30 million per day.

2. In 2010 our gross contribution to the EU budget will be £14 billion. To put this figure in context, all the reductions announced by George Osborne at the Conservative Party Conference would, collectively, save £7 billion a year across the whole of government spending.

3. On the European Commission’s own figures, the annual costs of EU regulation outweigh the advantages of the single market by €600 to €180 billion.

4. The Common Agricultural Policy costs every family £1200 a year in higher food bills.

5. Outside the Common Fisheries Policy, Britain could reassert control over its waters out to 200 miles or the median line, which would take in around 65 per cent of North Sea stocks.

6. Successive British governments have refused to say what proportion of domestic laws come from Brussels, but a thorough analysis by the German Federal Justice Ministry showed that 84 per cent of the legislation in that country came from the EU.

7. Outside the EU, Britain would be free to negotiate much more liberal trade agreements with third countries than is possible under the Common External Tariff.

8. The countries with the highest GDP per capita in Europe are Norway and Switzerland. Both export more, proportionately, to the EU, than Britain does.

9. Outside the EU, Britain could be a deregulated, competitive, offshore haven.

10. Oh, and we’d be a democracy again.

[Furunculus]

Happy new year Orgahs from your resident xenophobe and nationalist racist with militaristic [edit] populist, [/edit] and autarkic tendencies, it is once again time to delve into the beautiful question; what right does brussels have to bind us with its decisions......

The european court is about to tell us who we are obliged to pay social security money too:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...einstated.html

Wives of terror suspects could have benefits reinstated
The wives and families of suspected terrorists could soon have benefit payments reinstated, following opinions expressed by the European Union's most senior law chief.

By Martin Evans
Published: 8:40AM GMT 15 Jan 2010

Ministers stopped the handouts following the September 11 attacks in America in order to prevent money being channelled towards banned groups.

Current Treasury rules state that social security payments cannot be made available, directly or indirectly, to, or for the benefit of, anyone who is on the UN terrorism sanctions list.

But remarks by the senior advocate of the European Court of Justice, Paulo Mengozzi, could soon mean the Government is forced to reverse that decision and reinstate the payments.

Mr Mengozzi said the decision to halt the payments was unfair on the grounds of human rights.

Europe's highest court is due to consider three test cases, brought by the wives of British based terror suspects later this year, at which Mr Mengozzi's observations are likely to prove crucial.

The court has agreed with eight out of ten of the advocate general's previous rulings.

Any decision by the European court, which is expected to issue a judgement within the next six months, will be binding on courts throughout the EU.

The identities of the families bringing the case are not known, but it is understood they have been linked by security officials to al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and the Taliban.

They have argued that the ban on benefits amounts to a violation of their human right to a family life.

If the Government's ban is overturned the taxpayer will soon be funding benefits – including child benefit, housing assistance and income support – to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds a year.

Matthew Elliot of the TaxPayers' Alliance said: "It is absurd that this unaccountable European Court is trying to dictate to the British Government how we spend our own money. British taxpayers are already sick of bankrolling the lifestyles of people who preach hate against our country and there is no way that they should be able to fund their activities or their families through milking the welfare system.

"Whether you agree with the judgement or not, it is a choice that should be made by our country, not these lawyers, who are answerable to nobody."

Earlier this week the European Court of Human Rights dealt a separate blow to UK anti-terror policy when it ruled that the stopping and searching of suspects without grounds for suspicion was unlawful.

The only important question here; is this the will of the British people?

I suspect it is not, and this is just one more reason to remove ourselves from the jurisdiction of the european court.

[Subotan]

Are judges in the UK meant to represent the will of the people? The answer is No, they're meant to defend and enforce the law as passed by Parliament. As Parliament has passed the Human Rights Act, then it is the job of legal experts to enforce it, whether they're European or not.

[Furunculus]

Are judges in the UK meant to represent the will of the people? The answer is No, they're meant to defend and enforce the law as passed by Parliament. As Parliament has passed the Human Rights Act, then it is the job of legal experts to enforce it, whether they're European or not.

That law is an expression of what the will of the people is.

Our government has no business foisting off final arbitration on legal matters to unaccountable third parties, who are neither drawn from, representative of, or interested in, what the the people of Britain believe to be justice in this case.

[Subotan]

That law is an expression of what the will of the people is.

So there's no problem then.

Our government has no business foisting off final arbitration on legal matters to unaccountable third parties, who are neither drawn from, representative of, or interested in, what the the people of Britain believe to be justice in this case.

You could say just the same things about judges in the UK.

[al Roumi]

Happy new year Orgahs from your resident xenophobe and nationalist racist with militaristic and autarkic tendancies, it is once again time to delve into the beautiful question; what right does brussels have to bind us with its decisions......

The european court is about to tell us who we are obliged to pay social security money too:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...einstated.html

The only important question here; is this the will of the British people?

I suspect it is not, and this is just one more reason to remove ourselves from the jurisdiction of the european court.

What the hell is the will of the British people? Are you so naive as to think politics and legislation actually has very much to do with the direct "will" of the British people?

I would suggest you add "populist" to the list of adjectives you have ascribed yourself...

[Furunculus]

What the hell is the will of the British people? Are you so naive as to think politics and legislation actually has very much to do with the direct "will" of the British people?

I would suggest you add "populist" to the list of adjectives you have ascribed yourself...

shock horror, i wish my representative democracy to actually be, well........... representative!

perhaps it might be better stated; does this represent the will of the British people? because if doesn't then we live under tyranny.

and those attributes were ascribed to me by others in thread, not myself.

[al Roumi]

perhaps it might be better stated; does this represent the will of the British people? because if doesn't then we live under tyranny.

Ok, which British people? I'm a British person and this particular judgment might very well be my will, so IMO we don't live under tyranny.

shock horror, i wish my representative democracy to actually be, well........... representative!

Well it is, just as long as the person you elect votes exactly as you will him to.

Voodoo Zombies for election! Damn it, who went and resurected Ming Campbell again? Have they no respect for the existentially challenged???

[Furunculus]

Ok, which British people? I'm a British person and this particular judgment might very well be my will, so IMO we don't live under tyranny.
Well it is, just as long as the person you elect votes exactly as you will him to.

so, in your esteemed opinion, are we more likely to get a judicial opinion that better represents the will of the British people if the final court of arbitration is british judges, or some random collection of continentals?

because if you argue that it doesn't matter which you will find yourself on the wrong side of public opinion by a vast margin.