The EU: What is the European Union and why are we a member?

[hhiusa]

The EU: What is the European Union and why are we a member?

2015-05-20 19:11
Cameron is going to draw up a bill for the EU referendum the day after the Queen's Speech. But what would leaving the EU mean for us?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/eu-what-european-union-member-5730897

 

[Trader333]

Why this interest in this as you are not a member as you live in the US so this is irrelevant.

 

[hhiusa]

Why this interest in this as you are not a member as you live in the US so this is irrelevant.

We live in a global society nowadays. What the UK does, especially in regards to the EU will have an effect upon the US markets.

 

[Pader]

Oh so simple for you

The EU: What is the European Union and why are we a member?

2015-05-20 19:11
Cameron is going to draw up a bill for the EU referendum the day after the Queen's Speech. But what would leaving the EU mean for us?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/eu-what-european-union-member-5730897

Hhiusa. What for you may be a simple economic inconvenience should the UK leave the EU is for us the clawing back of National Sovereignty which has been illegally given away (according to the British Treason Acts) by our treacherous politicians who, possibly like you, are more concerned with personal agenda than the right for the UK to exist as a Nation.

Unlike the Federation of the United States, it is the intention of a Federal Europe to introduce a completely new set of jurisprudence totally unlike the British Common Law upon which both our countries at present enjoy.

Would you be happy for Wall Street to give away the sovereignty of the USA to, for example, Canada or Mexico for monetary gain? I truly hope that you would not.

 

[hhiusa]

Hhiusa. What for you may be a simple economic inconvenience should the UK leave the EU is for us the clawing back of National Sovereignty which has been illegally given away (according to the British Treason Acts) by our treacherous politicians who, possibly like you, are more concerned with personal agenda than the right for the UK to exist as a Nation.

Unlike the Federation of the United States, it is the intention of a Federal Europe to introduce a completely new set of jurisprudence totally unlike the British Common Law upon which both our countries at present enjoy.

Would you be happy for Wall Street to give away the sovereignty of the USA to, for example, Canada or Mexico for monetary gain? I truly hope that you would not.

Well as Atilla pointed out earlier, he said the purpose of the EU was for economic stability and to strengthen the member states' economies. Wall Street need not due such a thing. More to the point Wall Street already does this, except not to Americans but everyone else. Everyone wants their piece of the American dream. This is how America can continue to sell its garbage bad debt chopped into piece through collateralized debt obligations to bank in foreign countries, who sell it to their citizens. Then investment bankers like Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs can overleveraged themselves, default on their margin calls, make a quick buck (excuse me quid) and leave other countries holding bill with worthless notes to bad American debt.

To answer your question, Wall Street already does this to the Canary Wharf and Lombard Street.

 

[Pader]

Hhiusa. You are being obtuse. You persist in talking purely in monetary terms, I am talking about the physical well being of the population of the UK.

The original EEC that Britain was duped into back in the 70s has morphed from a Trading Bloc into the beginning of a totalitarian state. Most of the English speaking world has jurisprudence based on the British Common Law that together with Habeus Corpus allows us freedom. The EU however have 'Corpus Juris' which is based on the French Code Napoleon. In the EU, it is common for someone to be incarcerated for several months purely on 'suspicion' alone with no representation just while the case is 'investigated'. If it ever gets to trial, the Official Prosecutor works with the Judge to present the case and finally, the Judge enters the Jury Room with the Jurors to decide guilt.

You appear to be worried about money, I am worried for my children.

 

[hhiusa]

Hhiusa. You are being obtuse. You persist in talking purely in monetary terms, I am talking about the physical well being of the population of the UK.

The original EEC that Britain was duped into back in the 70s has morphed from a Trading Bloc into the beginning of a totalitarian state. Most of the English speaking world has jurisprudence based on the British Common Law that together with Habeus Corpus allows us freedom. The EU however have 'Corpus Juris' which is based on the French Code Napoleon. In the EU, it is common for someone to be incarcerated for several months purely on 'suspicion' alone with no representation just while the case is 'investigated'. If it ever gets to trial, the Official Prosecutor works with the Judge to present the case and finally, the Judge enters the Jury Room with the Jurors to decide guilt.

You appear to be worried about money, I am worried for my children.

I was not referring to the 1970s. Money talks and will continue to talk even as we have seen in the socialist EU. I was referring to the present. In England you are guilty until proven innocent, unlike in the U.S. where you are innocent until proven guilty.

Why would I speak in anything but monetary terms? The U.S. does not bear any fiscal responsibility to UK citizens.

 

[Pader]

American Law is based on British Common Law. They are almost identical systems except that you have a written constitution. Britain has a constitution too but it has been written over almost 1300 years. Like the US, the same assumption of innocence is not only practised here, it was invented by us.

 

[Pader]

"We live in a global society nowadays. What the UK does, especially in regards to the EU will have an effect upon the US markets."

You say that the US has no fiscal responsibility towards UK citizens but you desire that we should have responsibility for US markets.

 

[hhiusa]

"We live in a global society nowadays. What the UK does, especially in regards to the EU will have an effect upon the US markets."

You say that the US has no fiscal responsibility towards UK citizens but you desire that we should have responsibility for US markets.

We live in global society by virtue of money and information. I don't care about the social impact the Brexit or Grexit would have upon its citizen, except for the fiscal effects it would have upon the financial markets for investing purposes. I was never bringing into the issue.

By it is "guilty until proven innocent" in the UK, which is not the same as "innocent until proven guilty" in the US.
http://www.cotwa.info/2015/01/in-uk-if-you-act-normal-and-reasonable.html?m=1

 

[Pader]

As to the monetarist attitude of your argument, there is obviously no hope for such as yourself until it should happen in your country and affect you and yours. Even then, judging by your statements, it may not worry you unduly.

As to the example of 'British' justice that you gave in the link; as far as I know Stanford University and Franklin and Marshall Colleges are all in the United States and probably 3/5ths of the article concerned the United States Law and institutions. So what was your point? On second thoughts, I can no longer put up with your pedantry

 

[hhiusa]

As to the monetarist attitude of your argument, there is obviously no hope for such as yourself until it should happen in your country and affect you and yours. Even then, judging by your statements, it may not worry you unduly.

As to the example of 'British' justice that you gave in the link; as far as I know Stanford University and Franklin and Marshall Colleges are all in the United States and probably 3/5ths of the article concerned the United States Law and institutions. So what was your point? On second thoughts, I can no longer put up with your pedantry

While they are American University, more specifically, they are university specializing in law examining "British law" concerning "guilty until proven innocent". The article clearly states that it is about British law. You are correct about one thing. The article does mention US law only to contrast the differences. It is well known the British law differs in many ways from US law.

Money makes the world go round, not pixie dust and .

Interesting that you mention pedantry, which means excessive concern with minor details.

1. being guilty and having to prove your innocence is not a minor detail​

2. The devil is in the details. That idiom befits the situation.​

 

[Pat494]

The US has nothing better in their now outdated Constitution than the evolving UK law.
For instance many a criminal has escaped justice claiming the Fifth Amendment etc. The trials of mafia bosses in the 1930s were just a farce and very boring as no questions were answered.

The US pretends it is fighting for democracy but as soon as it doesn't like the majority it overturns the results. In Egypt for instance. Pure hypocracy as the US backed Egyptian army ousts Morsi etc and takes over.

The US isn't a proper democracy anyway. The party with the biggest monetary war chest always wins and then is beholden to contributors like the Jewish Lobby.

The US has for me some positives like it's music but some woefull failings e.g. rampant racialism especially in the police, the poor are screwed horribly etc. hhiusa is obviously one of most of USA citizens unable to see the truth from the political blurb, the American dream etc. Why should we care ? That 17 Trillion $ debt was tax payers money disappearing into dubious people's bank accounts for ... well you name it.

Really a country for the rich and mere crumbs for the rest. What is it percentage wise ? 90% of US wealth owned by 3% or something ? Show a bit of compassion to others and spread it around more for a happy country. Any country that produces so many criminals, Hell's Angels etc. is in bad need of psychological help. Oh and by the way Batman, Superman etc. are fictional characters so don't expect any help from them. lol

Most Americans think their country is the world's greatest and why ? Because the politicians tell them that is so. They wouldn't get elected if they told the truth and the USA is stuck in the past much worse than it realizes. No fluke that China could catch up in a mere 40 years from rock bottom. Harsh words ? I suppose, if they can stand the truth.

 

[counter_violent]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/28/europe-political-map

The maps show a decisive shift towards right of center

Socialism is a complete waste of everyone's time...it's a failed system.

This is why Cameron will make headway with his reform agenda of the EU.

 

[Pat494]

While they are American University, more specifically, they are university specializing in law examining "British law" concerning "guilty until proven innocent". The article clearly states that it is about British law.
Interesting that you mention pedantry, which means excessive concern with minor details.

1. being guilty and having to prove your innocence is not a minor detail​

2. The devil is in the details. That idiom befits the situation.​

I think cowboy has got his countries muddled up. It is French Law that a person has to prove their innocence. British law has the quaint notion that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

AND it is not a minor detail. Oh dear some people.

 

[hhiusa]

I think cowboy has got his countries muddled up. It is French Law that a person has to prove their innocence. British law has the quaint notion that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

AND it is not a minor detail. Oh dear some people.

I do not have my countries mixed up. In England you must prove your innocent in criminal cases. A man must prove his innocence of raping a woman, whereas in the United States, the man need not prove anything. The prosecution must prove that the man raped the woman. That is the difference between guilty until proven innocent and innocent until proven guilty. Also, in civil cases, if a case reaches the courts in England, then it is assumed that "on the balance of probabilities, the defendant was more likely liable than not liable".

The innocence tenet "Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat" has been destroyed in criminal cases. Translation: "The burden of proof is on he who declares, not on he who denies".

 

[Jack o'Clubs]

I do not have my countries mixed up. In England you must prove your innocent in criminal cases.

Absolutely wrong, you eejit*. Stick to posting about stuff you know something about, like er....

* from someone who has a) studied law in the UK. b) done jury service.

 

[Pat494]

Read your Magna Carta ole buddy.
Bet he is a redneck. Mostly pushed to tell one end of a car from the other, but a tractor oh yeah.

 

[hhiusa]

Read your Magna Carta ole buddy.
Bet he is a redneck. Mostly pushed to tell one end of a car from the other, but a tractor oh yeah.

Rednecks are no worse than Geordies, Scousers, Yorkies and bromies.

What do you call a Liverpudlian woman in a track suit? A bride.
What is the difference between a tea bag and Liverpool FC? The tea bag stays in the cup longer.
Shagging your cousin is better than shagging sheep.

 

[Forexmospherian]

Rednecks are no worse than Geordies, Scousers, Yorkies and bromies.

What do you call a Liverpudlian woman in a track suit? A bride.
What is the difference between a tea bag and Liverpool FC? The tea bag stays in the cup longer.
Shagging your cousin is better than shagging sheep.

Lol

Course they are ....... they all got guns !!!!

Also - its "brummies" - not bromies - even though I think you are really from this side of the pond and just a great wind up artist - who's probably from Ireland - or Scotland lol

Could you be a Paddy or a Jock than a HipHopInternationalUSA - or Hhiusa for short ??