Re: If you could remove one piece of legislation from the statute books, what would it be?

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:56:57 -0000, "Gaz" <gazter@xxxxxxx> wrote:

MM wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:46:54 -0000, "TD" <tdefries@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"MM" <kylix_is@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:g0f1q35rcsbhe80kcsk3hnihgdqbh8dies@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:28:53 -0000, "Ophelia" <O@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

MM wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:28:54 GMT, Paul Hyett <pah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 at 21:16:02, Periander
<4rubbish@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in uk.legal :

Rubbish it was a piece of tat cobbled together by British and
American Lawyers to try and stop Germany and its erstwhile
collaborators such as the French and Dutch from going down the
same hole we'd only just dug them out of. The whole concept of
European proles having rights was at the time anathema, no
Anglo-Saxon common law tradition. Of course at the time when we
also signed up for it we simply thought that we were setting a
good example and there was no idea that we would soon be under
the heal of those we'd just liberated.

Who said anything about being 'under the heel'? I want us out of
the EU for economic & social reasons, not political ones.

I want the right to decide whether to use the ultimate punishment
against murderers.

You'd have to vote in the BNP first. There's no way the mainstream
parties would ever agree, and neither would I.

I want the right to decide to we let into/exclude from our
borders.

Would you exclude the immigrants already here? How far back do you
want to go? This is a dangerous row to hoe.

I want decisions made on our behalf to be made *only* by people
directly accountable to us!

And we decided, by referendum, to confirm our membership of the
European club. We are accountable to our parents and grandparents
who voted. Have you asked any of them why they didn't take
account of any future offspring and what they might think?

Because it was sold to us as a Common Market! Heath lied!

Tough! That's what happened. Presumably you believe that the people
who voted discovered beforehand what they were voting for? (Perhaps
not, given your previous comments.) And what would motivate people
now to vote one way or t'other if Gordon granted us a referendum? I
expect you know as well as I do that a majority would vote "no",
simply because they have been brainwashed into believing that the
EU is all bad. The number of voters who would actually take the
trouble to study the treaty and then make their decision on the
basis of the facts would be disappearingly small. I expect the
majority of Westminster politicans have only bothered to skim-read
it, too.

MM

All the more reason to not sign it.

Do you enter many agreements that you don't understand?

Don't you think that this would in fact be the case, though, with a
large number, maybe a majority, of voters who get their daily "news"
from the likes of the Sun, the Mail and so on? One would need a degree
in something or other anyway in order to make head or tail of the
treaty. Ordinary Sun readers wouldn't even get to first base if they
read it until hell froze over.

MM

Your argument is soooo predictable. Lets talk about balance in the press.
Yes newspapers like the Sun and Mail are populist anti european, so what?
The granuiad, independent and mirror are quite strongly in favour of the EU,
and the BBC which has more influence over news output, then every other
newspaper and tv station put together has a very very strong pro eu stance.

You reckon the average man or woman on the street has an educated
opinion of the EU, do you?

No wonder Chris Morris has such successes!

MM
.

Relevant Pages