More Brexit Humour
- Thread starter Phil Perry
- Start date
Without having read the court report (and I am not going to waste my time doing so), I think one has to be careful about drawing conclusions from that article. For example, as I understand, the EU and more specifically, the European Court of Justice has no jurisdiction over criminal law per se, so a prosecution over criticising the EU is highly unlikely. Although it is not accurate to compare a restaurant to a state (or in this case, supranational) institution.
One has to consider the context of the case before coming to the conclusion it is forbidden to criticise the EU. If the decision is in response to (what would be) an appeal against a decision in an unfair dismissal case, then the arguments cited may well be relevant and justifiable in that case - and the statements can only be said to be in that case. If the case is an appeal against a decision of a case brought be the economist asserting the EC (or an institution of the EC) acted unfairly in some way or another of, say a freedom of information request, then the arguments cited could give cause for concern that fundamental freedoms are being suppressed/oppressed.
I know of no law that suppresses criticism of the EU or its institutions. I know of no jurisdiction the EU has to enforce what amounts to a vilification law. It doesn't mean there is none or the EU doesn;t have the jurisdiction, but the details of the case should be reported. I am with @Litespeed on this one...
[edits to correct typos that I have seen]
One has to consider the context of the case before coming to the conclusion it is forbidden to criticise the EU. If the decision is in response to (what would be) an appeal against a decision in an unfair dismissal case, then the arguments cited may well be relevant and justifiable in that case - and the statements can only be said to be in that case. If the case is an appeal against a decision of a case brought be the economist asserting the EC (or an institution of the EC) acted unfairly in some way or another of, say a freedom of information request, then the arguments cited could give cause for concern that fundamental freedoms are being suppressed/oppressed.
I know of no law that suppresses criticism of the EU or its institutions. I know of no jurisdiction the EU has to enforce what amounts to a vilification law. It doesn't mean there is none or the EU doesn;t have the jurisdiction, but the details of the case should be reported. I am with @Litespeed on this one...
[edits to correct typos that I have seen]
Last edited:
The ruling over the ability to deport has nothing to do with criminal law..
Maybe you're mixing up deporting versus extradition... The EU will not interfere with extradition proceedings, unless those proceedings in some way violate some administrative EU law (I can't think of anythign applicable at the moment - but as an example, if they were going to extradite the person on a European registered aircraft using a PPL - of the case were brought to the European courts, they would direct a CPL/ATPL would be required - as an example).
Also, you may be referring to the European Court of Human Rights, which is NOT an EU institution.
Maybe you're mixing up deporting versus extradition... The EU will not interfere with extradition proceedings, unless those proceedings in some way violate some administrative EU law (I can't think of anythign applicable at the moment - but as an example, if they were going to extradite the person on a European registered aircraft using a PPL - of the case were brought to the European courts, they would direct a CPL/ATPL would be required - as an example).
Also, you may be referring to the European Court of Human Rights, which is NOT an EU institution.
The Deportee's were convicted of crime, and was to be deported, but his lawyer got the EU court to squash the English Deportation order.
SO
EU Rules England.
A lot of Kiwi's run foul of Australian law, in that "they do the time". ( even drink driving) Then get sent back to NZ. (and lots of humiliation).
spacesailor
SO
EU Rules England.
A lot of Kiwi's run foul of Australian law, in that "they do the time". ( even drink driving) Then get sent back to NZ. (and lots of humiliation).
spacesailor
Have you got a link to the case? I can't recall the ECJ intervening in such a deportation - I don't spend my life reading all court reports of the ECJ..The European Court on Human Rights has in many instances - both for UK and other non-EU member countries (as well as EU member countried) - but the European Court of Human Rights is NOT an EU court - More Brexit Humour
Note, the UK is not leaving the European Convention of Human Rights, and therefore will continue to be subject to the jurisdiction of European Court on Human Rights. The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), at least when enacted, basically copied and pasted the convention and then said when parliament makes a law that is inconsistent with the convention, the secretary of state for the department responsible for the law has to make a declaration of inconsistency (or some such apparatus) and there was something about the courts - I think if they had to interpret legislation in accordance with the convention unless a) the delcaration was made or b) if the legislatio was enacted before the HRA, the language of the law (or higher court decisions) was unambiguously inconsistent with the convention.
It has 47 member states - far more than the EU. To be a member of the EU, a country must be a signatory to the European Convention of Human Rights - but that is an entry criteria into the EU - rather like saying you have to have perfect vision to be an RAAF pilot... Just because you have perfect vision doesn't mean you are an RAAF pilot...
Also, there is criticism that the court of human rights may have shown itself to be influenced by the ECJ.. But that is the same as the RAAF being influenced by, say the USAF in its decision making.
Note, the UK is not leaving the European Convention of Human Rights, and therefore will continue to be subject to the jurisdiction of European Court on Human Rights. The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), at least when enacted, basically copied and pasted the convention and then said when parliament makes a law that is inconsistent with the convention, the secretary of state for the department responsible for the law has to make a declaration of inconsistency (or some such apparatus) and there was something about the courts - I think if they had to interpret legislation in accordance with the convention unless a) the delcaration was made or b) if the legislatio was enacted before the HRA, the language of the law (or higher court decisions) was unambiguously inconsistent with the convention.
It has 47 member states - far more than the EU. To be a member of the EU, a country must be a signatory to the European Convention of Human Rights - but that is an entry criteria into the EU - rather like saying you have to have perfect vision to be an RAAF pilot... Just because you have perfect vision doesn't mean you are an RAAF pilot...
Also, there is criticism that the court of human rights may have shown itself to be influenced by the ECJ.. But that is the same as the RAAF being influenced by, say the USAF in its decision making.
OK - I did a quick bit of research and found this: EU rules stopped Britain deporting murderers, rapists and violent criminals
Firstly, it is released by the Leave campaign, which doesn't automatically render it invalid or inaccurate, but one has to question their take on it. It seems these people are using the freedom of movement to stop their deportation to their EU country of origin. This is not the EU interfering and saying the UK cannot deport criminals; If you look at the reasoning, it is saying once they are released (early), presumably because they are no longer perceived by the parole board to be a threat to society or are sufficiently reformed (a questionable assumption given the Worboys case), then they are like any other EU citizen and free to move anywhere around the EU. As I mentioned earlier, it isn't tht the EU can interfere with a deportation per se; but they have relied on other facets of EU law to make a forced deportation of a) what have been considered to be low-risk criminals due to being paroled or b) criminals who have served their time to to EU citizens only void.
Let's put it another way.. Say I deported someone back to Poland after they spent their sentence (not their record); They can lawfully head back on the bus and return anyway. This applies to all EU members states.
Although, "Theresa May, the Home Secretary, admitted the Government needs to do more but said a record number of foreign offenders were deported last year." The EU certainly won't intervene in deportation of non-EU nationals, and their intervention in deportation of EU nationals is not based on an inherent jurisdiction over deportation law, but the fact that it was infringing the right of freedom of movement. There is nothing to prevent the UK deporting to the home country while they are incarcerated - the EU home country is, as I understand, under a duty to keep them incarcerated for the period of time they were to be subject to that country's parole regime.
Note, the article also said the EU were willing to give a bit on the deportation after serving jail - this would apply to all member states and would require either a) a relaxation of the interpretation of EU law; or b) rewrite of EU law... I will admit, if the EU were more flexible in their approach to things, then maybe the vote to leave the EU may not have succeeded...
Firstly, it is released by the Leave campaign, which doesn't automatically render it invalid or inaccurate, but one has to question their take on it. It seems these people are using the freedom of movement to stop their deportation to their EU country of origin. This is not the EU interfering and saying the UK cannot deport criminals; If you look at the reasoning, it is saying once they are released (early), presumably because they are no longer perceived by the parole board to be a threat to society or are sufficiently reformed (a questionable assumption given the Worboys case), then they are like any other EU citizen and free to move anywhere around the EU. As I mentioned earlier, it isn't tht the EU can interfere with a deportation per se; but they have relied on other facets of EU law to make a forced deportation of a) what have been considered to be low-risk criminals due to being paroled or b) criminals who have served their time to to EU citizens only void.
Let's put it another way.. Say I deported someone back to Poland after they spent their sentence (not their record); They can lawfully head back on the bus and return anyway. This applies to all EU members states.
Although, "Theresa May, the Home Secretary, admitted the Government needs to do more but said a record number of foreign offenders were deported last year." The EU certainly won't intervene in deportation of non-EU nationals, and their intervention in deportation of EU nationals is not based on an inherent jurisdiction over deportation law, but the fact that it was infringing the right of freedom of movement. There is nothing to prevent the UK deporting to the home country while they are incarcerated - the EU home country is, as I understand, under a duty to keep them incarcerated for the period of time they were to be subject to that country's parole regime.
Note, the article also said the EU were willing to give a bit on the deportation after serving jail - this would apply to all member states and would require either a) a relaxation of the interpretation of EU law; or b) rewrite of EU law... I will admit, if the EU were more flexible in their approach to things, then maybe the vote to leave the EU may not have succeeded...
GOOD.
I didn't dream it up , Old age you know, LoL
I think that the one (in my memory) was still in jail. and were deporting him, before release, as an undesirable alien, with no entry papers or passport.
"but the fact that it was infringing the right of freedom of movement" No freedom involved in this one !.
But still couldn't dump him on someone else's doorstep. And the Kiwi's don't have a chance, even with family (large) and employment being left behind.
I would hate to have my family decimated by the breadwinner (usually) for unlicensed driving.
spacesailor
I didn't dream it up , Old age you know, LoL
I think that the one (in my memory) was still in jail. and were deporting him, before release, as an undesirable alien, with no entry papers or passport.
"but the fact that it was infringing the right of freedom of movement" No freedom involved in this one !.
But still couldn't dump him on someone else's doorstep. And the Kiwi's don't have a chance, even with family (large) and employment being left behind.
I would hate to have my family decimated by the breadwinner (usually) for unlicensed driving.
spacesailor
