England and EU

[Kathianne]

Hmmm:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/553241/80-per-cent-Britons-leave-EU-poll-reveal


EXCLUSIVE: 80 per cent of Britons want to quit EU in biggest poll for 40 years

BRITAIN is marching towards the EU exit door today after eight out of 10 people voted to leave in a historic poll.

<time pubdate="" datetime="2015-01-21T00:05:00Z" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; clear: left; color: rgb(181, 161, 158); float: right; -webkit-transform: none !important; transform: none !important;">Published: 00:05, Wed, January 21, 2015</time>By MARTYN BROWN (http://www.express.co.uk/search/Martyn+Brown?s=Martyn+Brown&b=1)


The biggest vote on this country’s ties to *Brussels for 40 years saw 80 per cent say they no longer want to be in Europe, the *Daily Express can reveal.

It marks a huge leap forward in this news*paper’s crusade to get Britain out of the EU.

Some 14,581 people voted – 11,706 of them want the UK to quit compared with 2,725 who want to remain part of the EU.

The mini-referendum – the first on the issue since 1975 – was organised by two senior Tory backbenchers and a prospective Tory MP.

They believe the overwhelming result, which will be presented to David Cameron today, will force him to bring forward his planned in-or-out vote on the UK’s future in Europe to next year instead of 2017.

The landslide result heaps further pressure on the Prime Minister to act as it comes just days after European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker compared British membership of the EU to a doomed romance and suggested it was time for Britain to get a divorce.

...



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/9769458/Jacques-Delors-Britain-could-leave-the-European-Union.html


Jacques Delors: Britain could leave the European Union

Britain could leave the European Union and enter into a looser economic relationship with it as the eurozone moves towards becoming a federal state, Jacques Delors said today.


The former European Commission president, who is credited as the architect of the modern EU (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/) and the euro, has broken ranks with other European leaders to offer Britain an exit from the Union.

"The British are solely concerned about their economic interests, nothing else. They could be offered a different form of partnership," he toldHandelsblatt, a German financial newspaper.

"If the British cannot support the trend towards more integration in Europe, we can nevertheless remain friends, but on a different basis. I could imagine a form such as a European economic area or a free-trade agreement."

The comments will add weight to growing demands from Conservative backbench MPs and Euro-sceptics for David Cameron to renegotiate Britain's relationship with Europe and to bring back powers from the EU to Westminster.

The Prime Minister has said that he supports continued EU membership but wants a "new settlement" which will involve Britain opting-out of justice measures and seeking exemptions to any further centralisation of power in Brussels.

...

[Drummond]

Hmmm:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/553241/80-per-cent-Britons-leave-EU-poll-reveal



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/9769458/Jacques-Delors-Britain-could-leave-the-European-Union.html

Thanks for this, Kathianne.

Yes, there's now a considerable strength of movement in the UK to see to it that the UK leaves the EU. The Daily Express, the first newspaper you quoted from, has been campaigning for a very long time to see this happen. They were the first newspaper to take a stand on the issue.

We now have 'UKIP', or the UK Independence Party. That Party was formed specifically as a 'protest' Party, its mission to end our membership of the EU. Nigel Farage, its leader, also has his presence in the EU Parliament, and regularly 'puts the boot in' during his many speeches there.

Here's a personal favourite .. his attack on a newly-appointed senior EU figure. Farage was attacking (amongst other things) the lack of democratic process involved in the appointment of such a powerful figure ...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bypLwI5AQvY

... and while I'm at it, here's another, more detailed speech from him ...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFXSj5WofYA

Here's one of the BBC (BBC's 'Breakfast' programme, transmitted daily on the BBC News and BBC-1 channels) .. here, an attempt is made by the interviewer, Charlie Stayt, to attack his reputation -


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idxUlYsSqKo

Farage may be leader of a 'minority' Party .. nonetheless, his Party won two successive local elections recently, overturning the support for the more 'major' candidates in each case. This time last year, they had no Members of Parliament. In just a matter of weeks, they installed two of them there.

In terms of more supposedly more 'mainstream' politics .. two Parties are opposed to our leaving the EU. The Conservative Party has senior members within it who are disenchanted with the EU .. and it's the one major Party offering any chance of an exit. However, the Conservatives offer a Referendum on membership only as a result of their WINNING the next General Election (due later this year). In other words, they're trying to say that they must be returned to power for 5 years as a condition of giving the British people that 'right'.

David Cameron is known to want our EU membership to continue, though he wants to renegotiate aspects of it to make our relationship with the EU more favourable to our interests. Farage, by contrast, isn't interested in such deals. He wants us out of the EU .. end of story.

As matters stand, there's a European Court of Human Rights which has judicial powers over us .. it can act as an appeal court in cases referred to it. Its judgments overrule UK judgments. This has been an avenue of appeal used by, amongst others, terrorist suspects.

Abu Hamza was extradited to the US and is serving a life sentence for terrorism convictions. He tried to block extradition by appealing to the EU Human Rights court, hoping to overturn British rulings against him and to stymie the US's power to move him to the US to stand trial. The case he and other co-defendants tried to raise was an appeal against the anti-humanitarian treatment they'd expect to get from US authorities if extradition took place. Happily, in this case, the EU court rejected the argument advanced (though as you'll see, these cases drag on for YEARS) ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9195074/Abu-Hamza-extradition-European-Court-of-Human-Rights-ruling-in-full.html

Selective quote, showing the Court's judgmentality about the US system. No doubt those here fighting for terrorists' so-called 'human rights' will be delighted -


We should add that, subject to detailed argument which may be advanced in another case, like Judge Workman [the Senior District Judge], we too are troubled about what we have read about the conditions in some of the Supermax prisons in the United States. Naturally, the most dangerous criminals should expect to be incarcerated in the most secure conditions, but even allowing for a necessarily wide margin of appreciation between the views of different civilised countries about the conditions in which prisoners should be detained, confinement for years and years in what effectively amounts to isolation may well be held to be, if not torture, then ill treatment which contravenes Article 3. This problem may fall to be addressed in a different case.”

I think that speaks volumes for them ... don't you, Kathianne ? [I fully expect the pro-terrorist arguers here to post something congratulatory in response .. !!]

'Meanwhile' ... Al Jazeera isn't happy ....

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/08/201382191422495321.html


The original decision to rely on diplomatic assurances (the UK began its Deportation With Assurances (DWA) policy in 2005) flew in the face of international human rights judgments on the subject, and therefore the government must have known its attempts to deport suspects under this policy would meet with lengthy and costly appeal procedures.

As early as 1993 the European Court of Human Rights had blocked the UK's attempt to deport terror-suspect Karamjit Singh Chahal to India, despite assurances that he would not face torture or ill treatment. The UK's own Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, in a May 2006 report, spoke of "grave concerns that the Government's policy of reliance on diplomatic assurances could place deported individuals at real risk of torture or inhuman and degrading treatment, without any reliable means of redress". With these judgements in mind, the very attempt to formalise diplomatic assurances into UK policy is remiss, and unthinkable outside the context of the post-9/11 "war on terror".

The shift in UK policy from indefinite detention to diplomatic assurances is in fact no shift at all, but a move from one violation of international law to another. The conclusion of the Abu Qatada case last month shows a history of resistance from the courts against the government's policy, but at the same time reveals how critical the situation has become.

... Ditto my comment on the 'congratulatory' response that can be expected from pro-terrorist arguers, who care so much about terrorist 'human rights' ...

Anyway, to conclude .. in my view, the sooner we're separated away from this Leftie cloud-cuckooland madness, the better .. !!!