f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Lies usually!

dpb

What is 100k as a proportion of our population again please?

And what is the figure for brits emigrating into Europe again please?

I think we desperately need to curtail Brussels power, but pulling out Europe all together -

I'd be very surprised

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Erm, if you would care to google the media was especially vocal in dishing out this information with annual rates between 100 to 250k. Including the Daily Mail, the Express, the Star, and the Independant.

What was their agenda?

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

It doesn't matter. The point is Cameron promised as part of his election fantasy document (he called it a mainfesto) to get net immigration down to 100K during the term of this government.

It has in fact risen to 220K in 2013 rather than gone down, but he still says he will achieve it by 2015. He cannot of course give any guarantee over immigration as it is not the UK government that controls EU immigration. He is basically lying again!!!

I am not even that fussed abut immigration personally, I see it as a low priority issue compared to several other more major issues facing the UK, but it is a good barometer of what is wrong with the country's governance as we in the UK have very little control over it just as we don't control many other things that have been handed over to Brussels and that is not right!

Due to EU laws we could not even deport Abu Qatada depsite the fact he was preaching hatred throughout our country and wanted on terrorism charges in at least two other countries. Despite Theresa May proudly jumping up and down over finally 'deporting' him, she did nothing of the sort....he did in fact leave of his own volition, the ECHR making sure we could not rid ourselves of him right up to the end!!

If you think that is a good way to be governed may I suggest you step aside and have a word with yourself!

dpb

I think EVERYONE realizes its not an achievable figure!

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

So why does Cameron keep insisting it is? It's not like he's adverse to breaking his election promises e.g. NHS Direct, power of recall, anonymity for rape suspects, forest sell-off, Lisbon Treaty referendum, winter fuel allowance, VAT rise etc. etc.

hodgy0_2

what EU laws


it was the European Court of Human Rights that blocked his extradition

I am not sure that has got much to do with the "EU" and it's "Laws"

just because both have "Europe" in them does not make them the same

I believe we would still be bound by the European Court of Human Rights whether we are in the "EU" or not

it is a simple geographical fact that we are part of Europe

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Nope. The Human Rights Act of 1998 is a UK act of parliament aligning us with/signing us up to the European Convention of Human Rights which is in turn enforced by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Theresa May could have quite happily deported Qatada and taken on the Strasbourg court and probably would have done were it not for the conditon that as a member of the EU we agdree not to deport people to countries where they may face torture or worse which was the key point of Qatatda's argument against deportation and what the ECHR kept throwing up as their reason for upholding his appeals!

This EU directive is key to being a member state and is in place regardless of whether or not we are part of the ECHR and even I would agree with May that p1ssing off the whole of the EU was not something she should have done!

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

we signed up for the ECHR and can fek it off just as quickly.

Other countries ignore it's rulings..........we are the onll one to enforce every rule, every law, every directive coming out of Europe.

An0n0m0us

I had you both down as lefty Lib Dem types

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

I am a socialist if anything, but there is no mainstream socialist party any longer therefore I shall vote for a) a party who wants us to govern our own country and end this increasingly disastrous EU 'experiment' and b) for a party who, while I don't agree with everything they do or say, at least give me the opinion they are trying to do what is right for the country rather than their own careers.

An0n0m0us

Well I may disagree with you on a lot of things and vice versa however the above couldn't be any closer to my own opinion too and I hope much of the rest of the country

hodgy0_2

sure - but again not the "EU"


are you sure - I think it is being a signatory to the European Convention of Human Rights that does not allow deportation to "a place where they would be subject to inhumane or degrading treatment"

being a signatory to the "European Convention of Human Rights " may be a condition of entry to the EU - but that is a slightly different argument

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Absolutely sure!

Martin2005

I think you know the answer to that as well as I do - the Independent is probably the only one of the 4 that isn't vehemently anti-EU.

hodgy0_2

Cool, can you show me the link sources

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Trying to find anything like that in the thousands of web pages of legal speak from the EU is a hard task and I don't have the time right now, but I did read it on there after a lot of digging a few years ago when the Qatatda case was rearing its head again and this was discussed.

It is mentioned in the second point of this article for instance:

http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2013/03...-human-rights/

hodgy0_2

Yes very good article - and the link to another of his post explains my position perfectly

http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2013/02...is-not-the-eu/

And point 2 states

Second, the European Convention on Human Rights is only one of a number of international conventions and EU (yes, those guys) rules which stop the UK from doing things like sending people back their home countries where they would face a real risk of torture or doing things which disproportionately affect children (even the children of foreign criminals). Withdrawing from Strasbourg would do little or nothing to untangle that web. Nor would we want to untangle it. I would be surprised if even staunch Daily Mail readers would be willing to withdraw from international conventions which outlaw torture or protect children, if given a well-informed choice.

My bold btw

My point is simple, that it is not "simple" and not good enough to blame the EU

Otherwise you have anti-knowledge

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Yes but my poimt is that Theresa May/Tories are not that worried about the ECHR, but she/they is/are about the EU and if the EU weren't party to these rules she would probably have deported Qatatda a long time ago!

Carnut

We don't need the EU to set are morel compass, we have a good one of are own. We also don't need them to set our standards either,in most cases UK standards are some of the highest in the world despite the EU .

hodgy0_2

Yes I see that, but I'm not so sure she would be as blasé about the echr

After-all as the article goes on to state

Legally, the UK would probably have to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights – a treaty – completely since the court is so integral to the Convention system, as well as the Council of Europe, which it was instrumental in creating. States’ adherence to the ECHR has also become a central tenet of membership to other organisations such as the UN and the EU – see this article for more.

My bold

And just to reiterate for the thickorati out there the Council of Europe is not, i repeat is not the EU

It has sort of come to point where simply the mention of Europe in any context has people foaming at the mouth

Don't succumb to anti-knowledge

hodgy0_2

What ones did you have in mind, name some - genuine question

I am sure there are quite a few

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

I think one point that needs making again here is the number of times that other EC states ignore rulings by the ECHR and the EC, (that would be many), and the number of times the UK does so, (that would be zero).

Is there, then, any wonder that lots of folk in the UK are anti EC/ECHR?

Martin2005

This was you circa 2 mins ago on another thread 'Anyone can make a statement without backing it up.....as you know well Martin'

And then you go and post this!

Carnut

Farming/healthcare/food/electrical appliances/ cars safety standards just to say a few,any product you buy in the UK has a high standard and its the way of the UK not just because were in the EU .

RA Dunk

Obviously you never watched the thing on Panorama a while back about inferior products comming over from China, mainly sofas not being fire retardant being sold in 'every' major retailers in the UK.

To even allow these inferior products into the country tells me standards are slipping.

Carnut

Your just being stupid,iam talking in general and I think that you know this.What you have said has and would happen despite the EU.I am not saying that the UK is perfect but am proud to be British and if I wasn't then I would move else where.

If you look at the big picture, we are at the top with regards to standards etc and its not because of the EU. If you disagree then maybe you should move and stop taking part of the way the British do things.

Maybe if you think that the standards are slipping its because of the EU hence the UK has good standards and does not need the EU

Martin2005

I think we're all still waiting for you to produce some evidence to back your claim...

So far all you've done is mentioned a whole bunch of sectors and said our standards are higher - that's not exactly convincing evidence

Carnut

oh shut up Martin,so what you think that the UK does not have good standards then? you Know it does, your nothing more than a troll.

p.s no good with computers,how do you upload links/pics etc.

Martin2005

Go ask someone who isn't a 'troll'