| The Comments |
Some people don't read things properly, so I'll post for the last time on this issue.
Britain has opposed seventy-two EU measures in the European Council and been defeated seventy-two times, says Peter Lilley MP. .... is he lying?.....
I didn't mention David Cameron. The seventy two times is FACT -I have checked
As for people arguing about £18 billion and £8.5 billion it still costs £23 million pounds a day. Not as much as £51 million, but enough to make a big difference to the NHS or other needy services in the UK.
I have been part of this EU debacle since I was 17 years old (I missed having a choice by a few months). This time I will have my vote which will be for common sense and I what I believe is best for my country, and that vote will be to leave.
4
Like
|
I agree withe you Jarvi the English must be kicked out of the EU because they don't deserve to be in it. They are just a load of winging poms that don't deserve to better their standard of living. They can go back to to the Victorian times when they suffered the worst poverty despite having an empire where the wealth of the country was in the hands of the aristocracy this is how it's going to end.We don't need you in the EU
_______________________
Omarell
0
Like
|
My, My, My OMARELL.....
The EU will not 'kick the UK out', it is a choice of the people of the UK, but I am guessing you may have helped some people in making 'their choice'. by the way I am not too sure who the 'WE' is in 'We don't need you in the EU', could you clarify?.
0
Like
|
Hi Mr BigA12105
I consider myself as a member of the EU living in Spain. I have no desire to return to the hellhole which is the UK
_______________________
Omarell
0
Like
|
Hi OMARELL
I totally agree that you if you wish to leave the 'hellhole UK' that is your decision and good luck to you.
Surely then it is acceptable for those left in 'hellhole UK' to want to try and improve their 'hellhole', now some may feel that the way to improve this is to stay in the EU and some may feel it is better to leave the EU. Just as you made your decision, those left behind should be able to make theirs without fear of 'being kicked out'?
You also mention about going back to Victorian times when they suffered the worst poverty, so then surely the UK is not quite the 'hellhole' you portray it to be, because it has obviously been worse than now.
Playing 'Devil's advocate' the UK that is such a 'hellhole' is onewhich is currently a member of the EU, I rest my case.
0
Like
|
If some members consider this thread 'boring' the usual way to deal with that is not to take the trouble reading it.
For those of you who have a serious academic interest in this subject there is an excellent essay entitled ‘Britain outside the European Union’ published here by Ben Clements of The Institute for Economic Affairs..
http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/Clement%20BREXIT%20entry_for%20web_0.pdf
Although it is contrary to my own personal views it makes the best case for Brexit I have read so far. However I am unsure of the legal position on some of the author’s contentions.
Ads wrote:
However the European Court of Human Rights only has jurisdiction over matters covered by the European Convention on Human Rights. Cases in the ECHR have to be against a state, not an individual or company.
That statement is incorrect ads.
The European Court of Human Rights is an international court set up in 1959. It rules on individual or state applications alleging violations of the civil and political rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1998 it has sat as a full-time court and individuals can apply to it directly.
Anyone can apply and present a case to the ECHR if they feel they have suffered discrimination against the European Convention of Human Rights. That convention is all encompassing.
That put simply is surely the best form of legal protection any EU individual can have. If Britain leaves the EU it will also lose the individuals ability to appeal to the ECHR. Their only redress then is through legal case appeals to the UK Supreme Court.
I believe that is a factor in right wing Tory MP's dislike of the EU.
This message was last edited by Mickyfinn on 05/03/2016.
This message was last edited by Mickyfinn on 05/03/2016.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
0
Like
|
Mickyfinn
If Britain leaves the EU it will also lose the individuals ability to appeal to the ECHR
Are you mixing that up with the European Court of Justice (ECJ)? The ECHR is not a EU institution and was set up long before the common market, EEC or EU came into existence. It would only be if UK left the ECHR that this may happen and that is a totally different subject. It would mean the repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998 first and then withdrawal from the ECHR. Although membership of the EU is conditional on accepting the ECHR, it doesn't necessarily work the other way round.
0
Like
|
Yes bobal you are right ECHR is an international court created in 1959. The Court of Justice ECJ) interprets EU law to make sure it is applied in the same way in all EU countries, and settles legal disputes between national governments and EU institutions. It this court the British would lose any right of appeal to. Unsuprising since EU will no longer apply in the UK after Brexit.
However disentangling integrated laws will be a tricky business as the paper I posted explains.
This message was last edited by Mickyfinn on 05/03/2016.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
0
Like
|
Welcome back bobaol, not exactly the longest goodbye in history.
0
Like
|
Well, it's difficult to avoid correcting things. I'll be quiet now until the first Outer comes up and blames the EU for the snow in UK.
0
Like
|
How is it that the inners know more then the outers when we have never been out but have been in.
0
Like
|
Hi bobaol
I don't think anyone could blame the EU for the snow in the UK, Maybe they could complain about possible EU restrictions on the shape and size of snowflakes (lol).
0
Like
|
Mickeyfinn, the statements quoted were from an MEP who acknowledged the harsh realities associated with trying to get the EU to support citizens who were being denied their rights associated with all manner of problems associated with illegal demolitions (Priors being the case in point), with lawyer/ agent/ developers/ Banks malpractice when failing to adhere to existing law Ley 57/68 which provided offplan purchasers with inalienable rights (for which Keith Rule compiled a very detailed Bank Guarantee Petition, www.bankguaranteesinspain.com ), with purchasers through no fault of their own being exposed to retrospective changes in Costa Ley laws which in effect blighted their properties, etc. The list of "abuses" sadly was growing exponentially.
The reality was that the EU were in effect impotent to assist and ensure that the rule of law and moral authority was enforced.So now, with regard to Ley 57/68 claimants, there are thousands of cases clogging up the Spanish Justice system, that the Banks are fighting tooth and nail to defend via submission of appeal after appeal, and when innocent claimants fighting for their inalienable rights finally achieve a successful ruling after a decade or more of fighting for their rights, all too many are now being denied full return of costs, which acts as a green light to the Banks to keep defending their position, in full knowledge that they have not from the outset adhered to all articles of law in place to protect offplan purchasers once developer breach has occurred. How the judiciary cannot effect their moral authority to award costs until such time as Supreme Court Doctrine is fully established (which is taking decades to achieve given the major court delays as more and more cases are submitted into the system) in full knowledge that the Banks have been proven to be negligent in lawsuit after lawsuit, is beyond comprehension.
Sadly its realities such as this that need to be exposed as a failure of the EU in the protection of citizens rights when purchasing properties across member states.
0
Like
|
'More often honoured in the breach than in the observance' ads. Interpretation of legislation is the national sport of all lawyers. That does not change the fact that inviduals can appeal to ECHR and many have successfully.
Every case has its merits and weakness. Courts exist to interpret law and the intentions of the legislators. The EU as an institution should not be blamed for that.
Had your case achieve success your view of the EU I suspect may have been different.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
0
Like
|
I highlight issues relating to all too many instances where the rights of purchasers have been abused in all manner of ways, and the fact that the EU failed to take action to effect moral authority or address abuses to the rule of law when growing evidence was presented is a sad reflection of their willingness or ability to respond.
The inadequate protection of property rights was well known, indeed a conference/seminar was initiated quite some time ago (2011) by Diana Wallis MEP, Vice President of the European Parliament no less, "The seminar will be a discussion on the practical solutions to the problems of inadequate protection of property rights, from some experts in the field. We are hoping to follow the seminar up with a publication. "
Sadly as MEP members moved on in their career paths , or were not reappointed for whatever reason in the European elections, momentum was lost, and as we now are witnessing, innocent citizens are STILL struggling to gain the attention of the "powers that be" in this whole sorry scenario relating to property rights across member states.
With regard to Ley 57/68 which affords inalienable rights, individuals are having to take on the might of the Banks, which is a growing problem in terms of failure to gain timely rulings (it now can take up to two years from submission of lawsuit to even gain a preliminary hearing, let alone achieve first instance ruling which is subsequently appealed by the Banks) and as many are now realising, this also plays a significant role in the delay of achieving Supreme Court Doctrine, not to mention a growing costly exercise as Bank appeals are submitted as standard practice in the interim lengthy periods. The Banks are playing the system of delays to their own advantage, hence the need for adequate disincentives in the form of moral judicial rulings to afford costs when Banks have been found guilty of their negligences....
Best I leave it there, but I trust you see the realities that all too many are being subjected to and how many have sadly become disillusioned with the EU in their ability to realistically protect citizens rights.
This message was last edited by ads on 05/03/2016.
0
Like
|
|
'We should join the euro'
We could have a referendum on it. 
_______________________
I'm Spartacus, well why not?
0
Like
|
ads:
It is not just the EU legal system that is 'failing to protect human rights' in your interpretation. You have now had firsthand experience of the way bureaucratic systems and organisations behave toward individuals. I can tell you that is not exceptional. In fact it’s fairly normal behavioural procedure. Your assumptions and expectations have collided with the actualite.
I sympathise with your case and I am well familiar with it. However it is not, I would submit sufficient cause to support Britain withdrawing from the EU. Or to throw up your hands and cry the EU is a failing organisation.
Take for instance abuse within the priesthood of the Catholic Church. It took many decades to expose the failings within that organisation. The church behaved in a similar way to Spanish banks. Prevaricated, denied and obstructed. The same with the Magdalene Laundries scandal. Does all that make Catholicism a failed doctrine?
I can write on here many such instances of legal obtuse procedures that amount to neglect of human rights. Have you ever tried suing the NHS for negligence? You would have a similar experience to the one you describe but would you then go on to suggest Britain abolish the NHS?
The reality is you have to fight from within to achieve any satisfaction. You have to belong to that institution for them to even acknowledge your existence. It’s an exhausting business because vested interest always close ranks and make it difficult.
Imagine for one moment Spain was not in the EU and you made the same complaints of inadequate protection of individual property rights. I would suggest in that hypothetical scenario you would achieve considerably less than you already have. You would in short be ignored.
That is why in my view the EU matters. There is a purposeful and treaty agreed route for redress even if it takes years of fighting the good fight. I don’t think the EU is perfect. There are many failings. However I subscribe to the belief that on balance it’s better there for the people of Europe than not. It is more preferable to belong than not. The alternative is to step back into history with all that involves.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
0
Like
|
I understand completely Mickyfinn and appreciate your observations but I think what many take issue with is the rhetoric giving inference that moral authority and rule of law are being addressed by the EU. We have yet to see first hand that this rhetoric is followed through in reality, but I live in hope....
Sadly this disillusionment by EU citizens only adds to voter apathy, in so much as many feel they are fighting against the tide of bureaucratic systems in this regard, and failing to believe that in the case of the EU there is a willingness to realistically reform and address major issues that directly affect individuals.
Therein lies the dilema, as the system appears to transpire against them and all too many feel that they have little sway in getting their voices heard. So much depends upon those who are prepared to educate and highlight the uncomfortable realities and keep fighting for reform (ironically to the benefit of all), but at the end of the day it relies upon others to be proactive and to actively support them in their endeavours, to write of their concerns to their MEPs, to be signatories to campaign groups fighting for change.....
0
Like
|
'How is it that the inners know more then the outers when we have never been out but have been in.'
We were out for the first 26 years of my life. 3 of those years were spent in Germany and Belguim so, unlike many others, I knew about the European project when I voted to remain in in 75.
What it is to be young and foollish!
0
Like
|