Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

[Politics] Brexit

If there was a second Brexit referendum how would you vote?

  • Total voters
    1,081


pastafarian

pastafarian

Well-known member
Sep 4, 2011
11,902
Sussex
Seagull said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Westdene Seagull

aka Cap'n Carl Firecrotch
NSC Patron
Oct 27, 2003
21,029
The arse end of Hangleton
Seagull said:
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.
Click to expand...

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


Two Professors

Two Professors

Two Mad Professors
Jul 13, 2009
7,617
Multicultural Brum
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!
 




pastafarian

pastafarian

Well-known member
Sep 4, 2011
11,902
Sussex
DTES said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

pastafarian

Well-known member
Sep 4, 2011
11,902
Sussex
Westdene Seagull said:
A slightly short term view !!!! The Tories won't be in power forever you know ?
Click to expand...

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

drew

Drew
Oct 3, 2006
23,070
Burgess Hill
pastafarian said:
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.
Click to expand...

How is it wrong if they signed up to it?
 




beorhthelm

beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,315
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.
 


G

Gwylan

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
31,341
Uffern
pastafarian said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 






JC Footy Genius

JC Footy Genius

Bringer of TRUTH
Jun 9, 2015
10,568
Gwylan said:
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
Click to expand...

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]
 


G

Gwylan

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
31,341
Uffern
JC Footy Genius said:
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]
Click to expand...

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
 


5

5ways

Well-known member
Sep 18, 2012
2,217
beorhthelm said:
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.
Click to expand...

:timmy:

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

Green Cross Code Man

Wunt be druv
Mar 30, 2006
19,723
Eastbourne
5ways said:
:timmy:

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.
Click to expand...
Why aren't the IN lot arguing the merits of joining the euro?
 


JC Footy Genius

JC Footy Genius

Bringer of TRUTH
Jun 9, 2015
10,568
Gwylan said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 




Green Cross Code Man

Green Cross Code Man

Wunt be druv
Mar 30, 2006
19,723
Eastbourne
DTES said:
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...)
Click to expand...
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

Pretty pink fairy

Banned
Jan 30, 2008
31,981
5ways said:
:timmy:

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.
Click to expand...
HAS YOUR LIFE STYLE CHANGED SINCE BEING IN THE EU??
regards
DR
 


5

5ways

Well-known member
Sep 18, 2012
2,217
Green Cross Code Man said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 


You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here