European Union Vote

[Hugo]

I tried to find out what had happened to the illegal immigrants from Albania that came here recently but couldn't find anything and I can only assume that the Government are not releasing the details until after the EU vote.
I did come across this article from March 2016 and nothing has changed since then proving that we do not realistically have control over our borders

  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/12183475/Asylum-seekers-arriving-in-Europe-doubled-to-1.2-million-last-year.html

Britain cannot deport asylum seekers who have 'no place to go', says minister
Admission comes as official European Union body says asylum claimants across Europe doubled to 1.2 million last year

[Ian]

Hugo, the European court of Human Rights isn't a part of the EU as such: even if we left the EU we'd still be a signatory to the EU Human Rights convention so we'd still be bound by their deliberations and decisions. And while I grant you may have a point about deportation it's also important to remember that many of the things on which the court has ruled in the past were and are to the benefit of protecting UK citizens.

What is more interesting is that 96% of cases are rejected as being either inadmissible or as having existing law to cover them. Judges are also elected by majority vote in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe from the three candidates nominated by each contracted country, so in that sense the court is far, far more democratic that our own courts. But of course, thanks to the Barclay Brothers and Murdoch you wouldn't know that from reading the papers, since they only print what sells papers and makes them money and power, so they print, for instance, every application to the court, no matter how barmy, in order to whip up anti-EU feeling.

The court is criticised frequently by those who argue its rulings are both too narrow and too wide ranging (!) but there are some extremely important factors to consider: we as the UK are signatories to the convention and have agreed to abide by its rulings. Of course we might not like its rulings at times, but folk complain about UK legal rulings all the time. The judges are forced to retire at 70 yet UK judges can go on as long as they wish. Don't forget that the media are frequently found to have 'embellished' the truth of cases, yet retractions are rare and, if done, are printed in minute typefaces on page 25 or thereabouts. Frankly, the ECHR is a huge protection for every one of us and I wouldn't want to see us leave that, despite the fact that they take decisions which we don't always like.  But that's what the law is about, surely? And, let's face it, you only have to look at the shenanigans about Colwyn Bay pier to see how protracted legal systems are and yet how they also protect the individual. We may think the Law is an ass, but if we need it ourselves then it's a different matter. 

The European Court of Justice is the body to which many object, yet that has no connection whatsoever to the ECHR.

[Ian]

In fact, I suspect our legal system is possibly much better than many, but the ECHR has obliged the UK to take greater care of vulnerable prisoners, regulate the monitoring of employees' communications, protect the anonymity of journalists' sources, bring the age of consent for gay people in line with that for heterosexuals and force local councils to observe proper safeguards in evictions. Now, many of those won't be popular with Tory voters, I agree, but it does tend to demonstrate that even the UK has some discrepancies in its legislation. Which raises one puzzling point: although members states are supposed to be obliged to stick to ECHR rulings, they can apparently resist and appeal. This is currently happening in Ireland, where parliament is resisting calls from the ECHR to revise its abortion law which it said treated women as "a vessel, nothing more" and here, where the Government has (rightly, In my humble opinion) refused to allow serving prisoners the vote.

[Cambrian]

Just a factual point.  British judges do not hold office for life.  They retire at 70 or, in exceptional cases, 75. (Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993).  The Judicial Pensions Act 1959 stopped them serving beyond 75 an exception was Lord Denning who carried on and on as he was appointed Master of the Rolls before that Act came into force.

[Bosun]

........... Now, many of those won't be popular with Tory voters, ...............

Ian, I have to say that comment is beneath you.

(And no, I'm not a Tory voter.)

[Ian]

   

Now, many of those won't be popular with Tory voters,

Ian, I have to say that comment is beneath you.

Why, if it's the truth? As a matter of record it was Tory MPs who refused to even consider making the age of consent for all genders equal. In 1994 (Cons Govt) Conservative MP Edwina Currie brought forward an amendment to a Bill to equalise the age of consent at 16.

Large numbers of Labour MPs supported Ms Currie, including the then shadow home secretary, Tony Blair. Outlining the position of the pro-16 camp, Mr Blair said "People are entitled to think that homosexuality is wrong, but they are not entitled to use the criminal law to force that view upon others. A society that has learned, over time, racial and sexual equality can surely come to terms with equality of sexuality." The move failed.

It took the ECHR and Tony Blair's government, which said that they would do everything possible to change the law. Labour MP Ann Keen introduced an age of consent amendment to the Crime and Disorder Bill. It sailed through a free vote in the Commons with a majority of 207 MPs.

But in July 1998, the Lords (Cons Majority) threw it out with a majority of 168. Amid bitter exchanges, the amendment's opponents insisted that they were not anti-gay, but seeking to protect children.

Even worse, the opponents of the bill, Led by the former Conservative minister Baroness Young, pledged to scupper future attempts to amend the law.

Interestingly, then, legislation voted through by our own democratically elected MPs can be defeated by a non-elected group: the Lords. Wonder if the anti-Europeans ever stop to consider that?

Sources and quotes: Hansard / BBC / Guardian

[Ian]

Just a factual point.  British judges do not hold office for life.

The Lord Chancellor, however, can serve at any age.

[Hugo]

I had the TV on this morning and wasn't paying too much attention to it but then heard about David Cameron's attempts to renegotiate terms for the UK  within the EU.
It said that Cameron didn't see why the UK should be paying out child benefits for children who had never ever been to the UK.     The reply was that it was written in the EU constitution and couldn't be changed.
It's stupidity like that, that makes the ordinary person unsure of which way to vote in the EU election.
 

[Bosun]

   

Now, many of those won't be popular with Tory voters,

Ian, I have to say that comment is beneath you.

Why, if it's the truth?
Sources and quotes: Hansard / BBC / Guardian

Not EVERY voter who votes for a party agrees with EVERYTHING the party does, even Jeremy Corbyn himself has defied his party over 500 times. Condemn the party for action's it takes, but to blame EVERY voter of a party for the party's ills is extreme. No-one would suggest that every Labour voter approved of their leaders sharing a platform with terrorists.

[Ian]

I agree. But I don't believe it's part of the EU constitution as such. As far as I can see it's all to do with the EEA (The European Economic Area) which is larger than the EU.

[Ian]

Not EVERY voter who votes for a party agrees with EVERYTHING the party does, even Jeremy Corbyn himself has defied his party over 500 times. Condemn the party for action's it takes, but to blame EVERY voter of a party for the party's ills is extreme.

I didn't actually say 'Every' voter, Bosun, although perhaps I ought to have added a limiter: 'most'. But the facts do speak to Tory voters in general being the more reluctant of all to change certain issues. That's predicated on the Tory MPs in question following what they believe their voters want them to follow, of course.

[Ian]

I suppose what worries me most is that many voters will become obsessed with the minutiae of the EU arguments, and not even try to see the bigger picture.  But I do know that if we believe that leaving the EU will somehow magically save the NHS, make houses suddenly affordable and prove the answer to all our ills we're deluding ourselves. 

A lot of European voters want out of the EU: many it would seem, are watching to see what we do and the illegal immigration issue over the past couple of years could prompt them to make the leap if we vote to leave. But throughout the world there's a political shift towards extreme stances taking place. The far right is growing at a rate faster than pre-WWII and I doubt that's especially good news. We all know how each country likes to feel it's somehow special, somehow different. The twin factors of religion and language fuel that sense of difference and - as we saw from Serbia not that long ago - war can break out a little too easily. My own gut feeling (no evidence whatsoever) is that if the EU remains together it can at least give the younger generation some sort of aspiration as they grow. Youngsters do seem to feel more 'European' than many of us do, and I think we should afford them a chance to grow up in a multicultural society, relatively free of hatred, bigotry, war and Genocide. It's never going to be easy - sometimes the best things never are - but it could be worthwhile.   

[SteveH]

I had the TV on this morning and wasn't paying too much attention to it but then heard about David Cameron's attempts to renegotiate terms for the UK  within the EU.
It said that Cameron didn't see why the UK should be paying out child benefits for children who had never ever been to the UK.     The reply was that it was written in the EU constitution and couldn't be changed.
It's stupidity like that, that makes the ordinary person unsure of which way to vote in the EU election.

Hugo, I "Liked" your post and it got me thinking, so I questioned Google, and one of the articles in particular surprised me, see what you think...........

This is the last part of the article which makes a lot of sense.
“It’s obvious that EU citizens should use the freedom of movement to travel where they can find work,” Thorning-Schmidt said last year. “They shouldn’t use it to travel where they can receive the best welfare benefit.”

Unemployed Britons in Europe are drawing much more in benefits and allowances in the wealthier EU countries than their nationals are claiming in the UK, despite the British government’s arguments about migrants flocking in to the country to secure better welfare payments.

At least 30,000 British nationals are claiming unemployment benefit in countries around the EU, research by the Guardian has found, based on responses from 23 of the 27 other EU countries.

The research shows more than four times as many Britons obtain unemployment benefits in Germany as Germans do in the UK, while the number of jobless Britons receiving benefits in Ireland exceeds their Irish counterparts in the UK by a rate of five to one.

There are not only far more Britons drawing benefits in these countries than vice versa, but frequently the benefits elsewhere in Europe are much more generous than in the UK. A Briton in France receives more than three times as much as a jobless French person in the UK.

The research is being published after the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, visited London this month (2015) for talks with the prime minister, David Cameron, who is campaigning to “reform” EU freedom of movement as part of his attempt to rewrite the terms of Britain’s EU membership before putting the issue to a referendum in 2017, if he is still in power.

In Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, Austria, France and Ireland the number of Britons banking unemployment cheques is almost three times as high as the nationals of those countries receiving parallel UK benefits – 23,011 Britons to 8,720 nationals of those nine countries in the UK........

MORE.......https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/19/-sp-thousands-britons-claim-benefits-eu

[Fester]

My biggest concern about the EU debate, is how CERTAIN, everyone is that they are right.
Everyone I speak to (and the vast majority are voting leave), are unshakeable in their assertion that the borders will be closed, immigration will be 'solved' overnight, wages will rise, housing will be cheap, fantastic jobs will come cascading down for all.
Everything is going to be Utopia,  the trouble is, they might be wrong.... no one is considering that their firmly held views (from both sides) might be wrong.
I've never known anything like this.

[Ian]

Yep;  that's the problem in a nutshell.