Liverpool FC Forum

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ead_module

The British high court is overruled again by the European court of human rights, preventing Britain to deport "radical" cleric Abu-Qatada to Jordan. Meanwhile he gets to live the 'life of riley' on taxpayers money.

The sooner Britain gains its autonomy away from the totalitarian state of [strikethrough]Germany & France[/strikethrough] Europe, the better for Briton's I reckon.

What's wrong with a totalitarian state?

metalhead » Tue Mar 27, 2012 6:30 am wrote:What's wrong with a totalitarian state?

What's right with them?   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqUGoVez ... re=related

This is a good explanation of how a recession works.

Kenny Kan » Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:09 am wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2120236/Abu-Qatadas-delight-handed-expensive-taxpayer-funder-home.html?ICO=most_read_module

The British high court is overruled again by the European court of human rights, preventing Britain to deport "radical" cleric Abu-Qatada to Jordan. Meanwhile he gets to live the 'life of riley' on taxpayers money.

The sooner Britain gains its autonomy away from the totalitarian state of [strikethrough]Germany & France[/strikethrough] Europe, the better for Briton's I reckon.

Why did you let him in, in the first place?

What would happen if they just said fk off to the high court and booted him out? This country has lost it's balls.

Im america i am sure they could make him "dissapear"

This actually has nothing to do with the European Union. It's a decision made by the ECHR, which is part of a separate European institution to the EU, namely the Council of Europe.

Next you'll be saying Britain should withdraw from the Eurozone

LFC2007 » Thu Mar 29, 2012 10:48 pm wrote:This actually has nothing to do with the European Union. It's a decision made by the ECHR, which is part of a separate European institution to the EU, namely the Council of Europe.

Next you'll be saying Britain should withdraw from the Eurozone

The "institution" (ECHR) still flies under the same EU flag and it's still totalitaerian in nature. 

Same meat but with different gravy - in the end, anything with an "E" in the begining of its acronymn can veto or push, to oppose something undertaken under British law/rule.

tonyeh » Wed Mar 28, 2012 5:51 pm wrote:

Kenny Kan » Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:09 am wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2120236/Abu-Qatadas-delight-handed-expensive-taxpayer-funder-home.html?ICO=most_read_module

The British high court is overruled again by the European court of human rights, preventing Britain to deport "radical" cleric Abu-Qatada to Jordan. Meanwhile he gets to live the 'life of riley' on taxpayers money.

The sooner Britain gains its autonomy away from the totalitarian state of [strikethrough]Germany & France[/strikethrough] Europe, the better for Briton's I reckon.

Why did you let him in, in the first place?

"I" didn't let him in.

He was allowed to enter Britain in 1993 after travelling on a false United Arab Emirates passport.

He later claimed asylum, despite his family admitting there was  no specific threat against him  from the Jordanian authorities at that time

Kenny Kan » Fri Mar 30, 2012 8:36 am wrote:
The "institution" (ECHR) still flies under the same EU flag and it's still totalitaerian in nature. 

Same meat but with different gravy - in the end, anything with an "E" in the begining of its acronymn can veto or push, to oppose something undertaken under British law/rule.

That flag was actually first adopted by the Council of Europe, long before the EU ever existed. 

Strictly speaking, neither institution forces the UK or any other member/signatory state to do anything against its wishes, because every one of those countries retains the right to withdraw from either the EU or the ECHR, and I'd say that's a pretty fundamental limit to their authority 

LFC2007 » Sat Mar 31, 2012 7:49 pm wrote:

Kenny Kan » Fri Mar 30, 2012 8:36 am wrote:
The "institution" (ECHR) still flies under the same EU flag and it's still totalitaerian in nature. 

Same meat but with different gravy - in the end, anything with an "E" in the begining of its acronymn can veto or push, to oppose something undertaken under British law/rule.

That flag was actually first adopted by the Council of Europe, long before the EU ever existed. 

Strictly speaking, neither institution forces the UK or any other member/signatory state to do anything against its wishes, because every one of those countries retains the right to withdraw from either the EU or the ECHR, and I'd say that's a pretty fundamental limit to their authority 

You make it sound so easy to withdraw from the EU especially. If life were that simple. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7ybR_OesyA

Kenny Kan » Sat Mar 31, 2012 9:23 pm wrote:
You make it sound so easy to withdraw from the EU especially. If life were that simple. 

I didn't say it would simple or easy. I said it was a possibility open to those countries.

Whatever the practical difficulties involved, EU countries and signatories to the ECHR nevertheless have the right to withdraw from those institutions if they wish. They are not forced into accepting the authority of those institutions; they agree as a condition of membership to cede a certain degree of their national sovereignty to those institutions. Ergo, neither can be described as being "totalitarian in nature".

LFC2007 » Sat Mar 31, 2012 9:42 pm wrote:

Kenny Kan » Sat Mar 31, 2012 9:23 pm wrote:
You make it sound so easy to withdraw from the EU especially. If life were that simple. 

I didn't say it would simple or easy. I said it was a possibility open to those countries.

Whatever the practical difficulties involved, EU countries and signatories to the ECHR nevertheless have the right to withdraw from those institutions if they wish. They are not forced into accepting the authority of those institutions; they agree as a condition of membership to cede a certain degree of their national sovereignty to those institutions. Ergo, neither can be described as being "totalitarian in nature".

Absolute dross.

The very fact a nation has to cede a "a certain degree of their national sovereignty" marks the notion that the undemocratic and unelected foreign organisation is actually totalitarian by nature. Obviously, you cannot overtly coerce a country to membership or rule, as the Nazis' tried and subsequently found out, so other means of diplomacy ensure more covert ways of this organisation flex their totalitarian nature.

Just ask the Irish, in regards to the Euro, who are in over their head more so than the British, taking upon their 'flawed' financial monetary system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gm9q8uabTs

He's bang on (excuse the pun) money. 

Kenny Kan » Sun Apr 01, 2012 12:16 am wrote:Absolute dross.

The very fact a nation has to cede a "a certain degree of their national sovereignty" marks the notion that the undemocratic and unelected foreign organisation is actually totalitarian by nature. Obviously, you cannot overtly coerce a country to membership or rule, as the Nazis' tried and subsequently found out, so other means of diplomacy ensure more covert ways of this organisation flex their totalitarian nature.

Just ask the Irish, in regards to the Euro, who are in over their head more so than the British, taking upon their 'flawed' financial monetary system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gm9q8uabTs

He's bang on (excuse the pun) money. 

You f'ucking wally.

The EU cannot by any reasonable definition be accurately described as being "totalitarian in nature" because, as I have said, it cannot force its members to remain members if the elected governments of those countries wish to withdraw. The defining feature of totalitarian states is that they recognise no limits to their authority, and having the right to withdraw is the ultimate limit on the authority of the EU. That right is provided for in the Treaty on the European Union, which all member states agree to accept as a condition of membership.

And, for the record, the EU has a Parliament which is elected by the citizens of the member states. The people are also indirectly represented by their governments in the Council of Ministers and the European Council, which, along with the EU Parliament, are the institutions responsible for creating EU law.

This isn't to say that the democratic credentials of the EU aren't in doubt (this is a matter of more complex debate) or that the governments of EU member states necessarily respond adequately to the wishes of their electorates, but it does prove beyond question that the EU is neither "totalitarian in nature" nor "unelected".