Law Society of England and Wales - Press release
“But it is an abuse of power to place people under house arrest without evidence of criminal activity. If there is surveillance evidence, no matter how it has been obtained, it should be admissible in court. The Government has said that prosecuting suspects is their preferred option. It should be the only option when individuals face losing their liberty.â€
Thanks to Europhobia
Democracy is being systematically eroded
Sir - So ‘informality and improvisation are British virtues and the last thing we want is a man who is going to give us the details’ (News, Jan 25). Oh really? My husband used to work long into the night ploughing through the endless ’special cases’ that filled his red boxes when immigration minister under John Major. It is an awesome responsibility to determine the fate of a single human being, let alone an entire family. Before God one is accountable and so it is right that the consequences of our actions are not only transparent but defensible.
An effective democracy relies on trust between the electorate and its leaders. The primary duty of any government is to protect its citizens by recognising danger in all its many guises and alerting the electorate. The duty of the electorate is to make known its fears so that lawmakers may address them, ensuring sound government and harmony. Instead, our leaders have ridden roughshod over a people who are renowned for their equanimity. We have seen the law systematically brought into disrepute and our democracy undermined by our elected leader.
Meanwhile, the words spoken 35 years ago by Jean Monnet, founding father of the European Union, have come to fruition: ‘Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.’
Fear and complacency is a deadly cocktail. It is good that Michael Howard has shaken and stirred. My Dutch, Finnish, French and Belgian relatives will be immensely relieved.
Carol Baker, Blandford, Dorse”
The Scotsman - UK - Labour ends public right to see MPs debate Euro rules:
Labour ends public right to see MPs debate Euro rules
JAMES KIRKUP
POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT
EUROPEAN regulations that directly affect British life will not be subject to public scrutiny after a vote by Labour MPs.
The Labour majority on the Commons European scrutiny committee yesterday forced through an end to its public deliberations.
The committee has one of the most significant jobs of any parliamentary panel, assessing documents emanating from the European Commission in Brussels, judging whether they are compatible with EU and British law. In the event of potential conflicts, the committee can send documents to the full House of Commons for approval.
Last year, the committee examined more than 1,000 documents and orders from Brussels, and in some cases, forced fundamental changes.
In a closed meeting yesterday, a seven-six vote reversed a 2003 decision to deliberate in public. Jimmy Hood, the Labour MP who chairs the committee, defied parliamentary convention to cast the deciding vote for secrecy.”
Somebody is bound to call this a Euromyth.
The EU is not interested in Bananas.
The EU does not care about Bananas.
Bananas are not an EU interest.
Yes we have no EU Bananas
Roger Knapman, leader of the UK Independence Party, is quoted in the Guardian as saying
“Mr Straw has already launched the government’s misinformation campaign, claiming that voting for an end to self-government is somehow patriotic. If the consequence of a No vote is an end to British membership of the EU, then isn’t Mr Blair proposing to ask the wrong question?”
The last sentence gives the Eusceptic the perfect rebut to the argument we are going to be faced with, that a No vote means we will have to leave the EU. Blair has set the question and it is not about leaving the EU, yet they are going to be campaigning as if it were. What he has done and intends to do in the campaign is to set one question and then try to make us believe it means something else. If Blair wishes to judge the feeling in the country about leaving the EU he should pose that question not the other one.
Just a snippet from a stunning post
Europhobia: It’s for your own good, you know…:
“having been told by the Law Lords that the detention without trial of foreign terror suspects is illegal, Clarke has interpreted their ruling in such a way as to justify the adoption of a truly wonderfully Stalinist policy. Because, hey - what the Law Lords were obviously objecting to most of all was the discrimination, right? So if you end the discrimination it’ll all be fine!”
More:
eurealist.co.uk
Bad Behavior has blocked 948 access attempts in the last 7 days.
