Political naivety

I'm 48, never done drugs, and am rabidly pro-Europe.

Considering the decades of negative press Europe has had, and the passivity
of succeeding governments on the topic, you're got to marvel that there's
any support for the idea at all.

 

Sorry, but the magna carta doesn't apply to "Britain". It was written
specifically for feudal England and for the major nobles of the day. It
had fek all to do with the common people.

 

Would that mean we'd all get BMW's?

 

Nice rant, Doc. We miss you round here.

 

Since when did 16% equal a triumph?

It's a mid-term protest vote, nothing more.

 

I couldn't quite work out who he was directing it at though.. or was that
the point?

 

China?

Shall we join up with North Korea too?

And leading what exactly?

 

No. MEP "gods" are exempt from such mortal sins. The bastards
even still get duty-free booze and fags.

riccip

 

And you assume that when (more likely if) this apparently apathetic group of
voters gets voting,they'll definitely vote no to Europe?

 

You're at least 3 counties south of Stupidshire with this rant, aren't
you?

There is no such thing as duty-free within the borders of the EU, and I
see no issue with someone working elsewhere in Europe paying the local
"duty paid" prices, be they politician, brick layer, or asylum seeker.

 

riccip wrote:

Did you read the newspapers last week where they indicated that the majority
of new UK employment has
been created in the public sector - in some parts of the north, it's
something like 60% of employment in some areas.

That, to me, doesn't seem a sensible long term strategy, nor IMO, does it
highlight a particularly positive
growth in employment, as those jobs are reliant on someone else paying them
IYSWIM.

However statistics can say whatever you want them to.

 

Not what I've heard from a QC-m8. She's not really all that good. She's
frequently late, and gets away with a lot of careless errors and procedural
gaffes because of who she is. Which is why she got made up to QC.

Or does having a hubby who happens to hold a high

Just like Bliar himself, she takes an extremely elastic approach of truth,
reality, accuracy, consistency and reliability. Which is not to say that
she wouldn't be a better PM than Bliar, and that he shouldn't be consigned
to the kitchen.

 

Logorrhea wrote:

No, that's *all* barristers.

I'm not going to put any faith in any opinion given, or anecdote
related by someone who actually writes "m8".

 

There was a prime example of "how things are done in Europe" with
regard to motorcycling issues when the standard for impact protectors
EN 1621-1 came up for review in 2002/3. This will hopefully provide
you with an indication of why the UK experts fought so long and hard
to ensure the clothing, boot and glove standards set meaningful
targets (full details on my website: www.pva-ppe.org.uk, repeated in
the BMF "Riderspace" briefing documents section).

Since the time the original EN 1621-1 document had been drafted,
during the early-to-mid 1990s, significant advances had been made in
foam technology, and the manufacturers of impact foams were motivated
by the publication of standards for a wealth of industrial and
sporting applications which all created increased demand for impact
energy attenuating foams. Impact protector manufacturers were also
developing "engineered" solutions to reduce thickness, stiffness or
mass of their products (e.g. Knox "Advance", Davies Odell "Armourflex"
and Pro-Life products).

EN 1621-1 had been outdated by these developments by the time that it
was published, and the technological gap progressively widened up to
the point the five year review of the standard was due. However,
although the UK and Scandinavian experts, through their national
standards bodies, asked for the standard to be updated, the German and
Italian industry lobby argued that the standard's provisions
represented a continuing "state of the art" and therefore a suitable
benchmark for assessing products.

One would expect any suggestions for the betterment of a document, or
the well-being of those affected by its provisions, to be
constructively debated and a decision reached. This is the system in
operation by the British Standards Institute, where a document can be
recalled and amended even before the five year review period is up, if
technological advances render the standard out-of-date. Not in the
European Standardisation system, however! Unless a majority of members
consider a standard requires revision, it is permitted to continue
unchanged through progresive five year reviews... The pleas of a
minority for improvement will be disregarded.

I do hope the propsoed European Constitution doesn't operate in the
same way as the European Standardisation programme.

 

Not bad, but I much prefer Doc's version.

 

What do you think being a barrister is all about, then?

 

True. We get the crap because we're British and your EU comrades
know we'll accept rubbish anyway with a polite "thank you".
That's no reason why they should take advantage of our good
nature. They, on the other hand, insist on only our very best so
that's what they get.

It grows best in North America and Canada. We should be importing
our requirements from there and growing our own requirements. If
you really believe the Common Agricultural policy is a good thing
then it's you who has lost the plot.

Strangely enough we never had "warehouses full of rotting
produce" before the CAP. Farm produce sold locally was not only
fresh but less transportation helped the environment.

In the 20's no country was "a land fit for heroes". However by
1945 it was, and flourished until the 70's when Britain became
"the sick man of Europe" as the Germans used to call us. Now the
jackboot is well and truly on the foot. We have already been
stripped of our fishing and farming industries. We'd be foolish
to give up the competitive edge we've gained after all the work
we've put in getting where we are today.

Remember Bernard Connolly, author of the "Rotten Heart of
Europe"? At the time the EU's advocate-general suggested that Mr
Connolly's criticism of the EU was akin to "extreme blasphemy",
and therefore not protected speech. in 2001 the European Court of
Justice tried the case and ruled that the European Union can
lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of
leading figures, sweeping aside English Common Law and 50 years
of European precedents on civil liberties.

The ruling stated that the commission could restrict dissent in
order to "protect the rights of others" and punish individuals
who "damaged the institution's image and reputation". The case
established a precedent that could legally be extended to all EU
citizens.

Today it's all there in the CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS,
especially Articles 52 and 54. I'd like you to read this quite
carefully then explain how free speech as we know it could
survive this charter:

Article 52 allows "limitations" of basic rights "if they are
necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest
recognised by the Union".

Article 54 forbids any political campaigning to reverse any
aspects of the Charter. Keith Vaz said this would have 'no more
significance than the Beano'. Three years ago the Govt claimed to
be completely opposed to giving it legal force. Now it's been
rubber stamped and will have full legal force.

Article 10 establishes the primacy of EU laws over those of
national governments.

Article 41 - The EU criminal justice system doesn't have juries
or habeas corpus (the right to be brought before a judge to have
your detention legally and publicly justified). Article 41
'harmonises' national laws and "mutual recognition of judicial
and extra-judicial decisions". This means, for example, the
British nanny recently tried in Italy for starting a fire by
"witchcraft" (telekinesis) could be extradited for her crimes.

Article 172 - The EU is given the right to set common definitions
of criminal offences and sanctions.

Article 174 -The role of EU court is strengthened from just
'co-ordination' of criminal prosecutions to also include their
"initiation" and allows the EU to extend the "structure,
workings, scope of action and tasks".

Article 175 establishes an EU Public Prosecutor's Office.

Article 177 - The EU assumes the right to extend the powers of
their rapidly-expanding police force, Europol (the EU's
Gestapo?).

Article 177 also establishes Europol's immunity from criminal
prosecution. Europol will be free to act above and beyond the
law. There are no proposals to make them accountable.

Article 41 creates an EU Foreign Minister, responsible for
implementing and conducting the "common foreign and security
policy" (Goering?) answerable only to the unelected EU president.

Article 15 - member states will be required to "actively and
unreservedly support the EU in a spirit of loyalty and mutual
solidarity".

Article 16 gives the EU the power to take 'supporting,
co-ordinating or complementary action' in industry; protection
and improvement of human health; education, vocational training,
youth and sport, culture and 'civil protection'.

Not happened yet but that fact that it is legally possible is
astounding. The fact that you Europhiles refuse to acknowledge
the inherent dangers is, to say the least, quite frightening. We
all breathed a sigh of relief 20 years ago as 1984 came and went.
Today we appear to have forgotten Orwell's chilling premonition.

If Hitler were still alive he'd be most pleased to witness the
fruition of his vision of a federal Europe dominated by Germany,
where criticism of the state is a punishable offence. The EU
would warm his stone heart.

riccip

 

How can anyone be racist about vegetable oil?

riccip

 

Then go and tell someone in Milan why he should feel more
affinity to a Manchunian than someone in Rome. Be sure to fill in
your E111 for when you get the stiletto removed from your ribs.

riccip

 

No, it'll be even worse. All the stories about banning curved
bananas and such are, in the main, completely try however much
the Europhiles dismiss them as paranoia. Just imagine how things
will be in a few years time once our road safety lobby has
infested the corridors of the EU's pen pushers. You can expect to
see motorcycles legislated into museums.

riccip