EU bans crucifixes in Italian classrooms

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/03/article-1224954-00E9776F000004B0-437_468x663.jpg



A European court has banned crucifixes in Italian classrooms as they are a 'breach of the religious rights of children'. Vatican officials were said to be 'furious' after the European Court of Human Rights made its landmark ruling today. The ruling, which could force a Europe-wide review of the use of religious symbols in government-run schools, rejected arguments by Italy's government that the crucifix was a national symbol of culture, history and identity, tolerance and secularism.

The court also ordered the Italian government to pay 5000 Euro moral damages to Soile Lautsi, the mother who had brought the complaint.
The judgement said that having a crucifix in the classroom was a 'violation of the right to parents to educate children as to their own wishes and a violation of liberty of religion of pupils'.

Italy immediately said that it would appeal against the ruling - which will be enforced in three months. Italy has been in the throes of national debate on how to deal with a growing population of immigrants, mostly Muslims, and the court sentence is likely to become another battle cry for the centre-right government's policy to restrict newcomers.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1224954/Vaticans-fury-EU-court-bans-crucifixes-Italian-classroom-breach-religious-rights-children.html

..coming to a country near you!

Thoughts?

[Agnostic Bear]

Damn I love the EU so much right now.

[GommeInc]

In a way, a government run school is meant to be open, but it depends if the government itself is open to all religions. If not, this ruling is stupid. If so, then it's fine. It doesn't touch the "privately run" or pay to go to schools that are strictly Christian schools. It's just stupid that it seems one complaint is what it takes. And should the EU even be touching country-specific rules and culture? This won't make them look good at all :/

[Technologic]

Shouldnt this be for italy to decide?

[Hitman]

Shouldnt this be for italy to decide?
Yeah they should... this is just outrageous... the EU shouldn't specifically make up laws/rules for a country.

[Caution]

That is disgraceful. They should not be in power, it should be a choice for the Italian government.

[Jamesy]

Shouldnt this be for italy to decide?

Pretty much banging the nail on the head there.

[alexxxxx]

the european court of human rights is not an EU institution.

more EU-phobia by the DM.

[Special]

the world is going crackers, literally

[Ardemax]

isn't christianity/catholic faith like the main faith in italy with the pope and everything?

man the EU is bonkers

[Suspective]

LOOOL

At my school people are allowed to wear crucifixes, due to the fact it is a Christian Church School. But I guess they might not be allowing it soon.

[Black_Apalachi]

If this is only Government-run schools, are there still separate Catholic schools which the rules does not apply to?


Shouldnt this be for italy to decide?

Exactly. If the EU is going to create rules, it should be forced to apply them to all EU countries respectively, not randomly decide who gets what. Not to mention, Italy is the most Catholic country in the world :S.

[alexxxxx]

THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IS NOT THE EU.

Notice that the headline has been changed on the daily mail article because the headline is false. Once again, sloppy journalism by the Daily Fail.

[Black_Apalachi]

Oh. OK thanks Daily Mail for making us all look like idiots by blaming the EU :eusa_clap:P.

[GommeInc]

The European Court of Human Rights, isn't it against aload of rights doing this? Surely it should be promoting rights, not removing them?

EDIT: Good old Daily Fail :P

[Eoin]

brussells is a ******* joke

[-:Undertaker:-]

European Union
European Court of Human Rights
European Economic Community

- whatever you want to call them they are all the same, all aiming for the idea of a european superstate, something which we do not want to be a part of. Of course people like Alex, Gordon and Tony wouldn't hold a referendum on any european issue because they know fully well what the result would be.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Apoligies for a double post (could you merge) - but here is proof that they are the same. The European Court of Human Rights was established under the European Convention of Human Rights, that in turn is adopted by the Council of Europe which in turn works with the European Union on joint-projects (meaning isn't an inch of difference between them both) and both are working towards 'European integration', oh and also here is the flag of the Council of Europe which looks strangely identical to the EU flag to me?

Flag of the Council of Europe

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Flag_of_Europe.svg/125px-Flag_of_Europe.svg.png (http://www.habboxforum.com/wiki/File:Flag_of_Europe.svg)


Flag of the European Union
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Flag_of_Europe.svg/125px-Flag_of_Europe.svg.png (http://www.habboxforum.com/wiki/File:Flag_of_Europe.svg)

[Ardemax]

the council of europe did this? or did someone else?

[Bun]

the european court of human rights is not an EU institution.

more EU-phobia by the DM.
this. oh my god thread fail.

[Alkaz]

What on earth have we let ourself into.

[alexxxxx]

Apoligies for a double post (could you merge) - but here is proof that they are the same. The European Court of Human Rights was established under the European Convention of Human Rights, that in turn is adopted by the Council of Europe which in turn works with the European Union on joint-projects (meaning isn't an inch of difference between them both) and both are working towards 'European integration', oh and also here is the flag of the Council of Europe which looks strangely identical to the EU flag to me?

Flag of the Council of Europe

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Flag_of_Europe.svg/125px-Flag_of_Europe.svg.png (http://www.habboxforum.com/wiki/File:Flag_of_Europe.svg)


Flag of the European Union
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Flag_of_Europe.svg/125px-Flag_of_Europe.svg.png (http://www.habboxforum.com/wiki/File:Flag_of_Europe.svg)

They are completely different institutions! With different people running them! The council of Europe was formed in 1949 just after WW2 of which the UK was a founder member. :eusa_wall This convention of human rights was signed in 1950. ALONG time before the EU came about. The flag is irrelevant as they both symbolise europe. Just because the BNP use the flag in their logo doesn't mean that it's somehow related to the queen or the government.

[-:Undertaker:-]

the council of europe did this? or did someone else?

They are all linked, basically the same. It is like saying the foreign office here is nothing to do with the government, it clearly is. Just because its got a different name doesn't mean its something totally different. Be prepared for more great EU interference, coming soon to a 'country' near you!

It is disgraceful.


They are completely different institutions! With different people running them! The council of Europe was formed in 1949 just after WW2 of which the UK was a founder member. :eusa_wall This convention of human rights was signed in 1950. ALONG time before the EU came about. The flag is irrelevant as they both symbolise europe. Just because the BNP use the flag in their logo doesn't mean that it's somehow related to the queen or the government.

I have just shown how they were all set up by eachother, its like you telling me that the foreign office and the ministry of justice have no link what so ever, both are under one government but have different names. The EU is split into different sections, all under the Union and will continue to become part of the Union.

All of Europe under one flag, just what Adolf wanted. :eusa_clap

[Ardemax]

im sorry but i dont like your connection at the end, Adolf wanted to eradicate the jews and anyone who apposed him, the nazi's used the swastika, i dont think that the european union are like that...

[alexxxxx]

They are all linked, basically the same. It is like saying the foreign office here is nothing to do with the government, it clearly is. Just because its got a different name doesn't mean its something totally different. Be prepared for more great EU interference, coming soon to a 'country' near you!

It is disgraceful.

They aren't linked. It's just plain ignorance to say they are.



I have just shown how they were all set up by eachother, its like you telling me that the foreign office and the ministry of justice have no link what so ever, both are under one government but have different names. The EU is split into different sections, all under the Union and will continue to become part of the Union.

No, they are not linked AT ALL. The Council Of Europe encompasses a huge number more nations than the EU (including Russia for example). The EU is made up from 3 sections: The European Council (Which confusingly is NOT the Council of Europe), The European Comission and the The European Parliament. These three are linked under one banner. the CoE is completley different.



All of Europe under one flag, just what Adolf wanted. :eusa_clap
Pathetic.

[-:Undertaker:-]

im sorry but i dont like your connection at the end, Adolf wanted to eradicate the jews and anyone who apposed him, the nazi's used the swastika, i dont think that the european union are like that...

The world isn't black and white babe, clearly the EU does not eradicate the jewish people, however where Nazi Germany and the EU are on the same lines is where they both wanted a federal Europe, get it?


They aren't linked. It's just plain ignorance to say they are.

I have just proven how they are linked. Check out sources, check out wikipedia, check out other sites - I have just shown how each organisation was formed/is supported by the other and how they all aim for a federal europe.


No, they are not linked AT ALL. The Council Of Europe encompasses a huge number more nations than the EU (including Russia for example). The EU is made up from 3 sections: The European Council (Which confusingly is NOT the Council of Europe), The European Comission and the The European Parliament. These three are linked under one banner. the CoE is completley different.

I have just shown, again look above.


Pathetic.

Europe under one flag, whats the difference? - you tell me.

[alexxxxx]

I have just proven how they are linked. Check out sources, check out wikipedia, check out other sites - I have just shown how each organisation was formed/is supported by the other and how they all aim for a federal europe.

Europe under one flag, whats the difference? - you tell me.

They are different institutions with different staff, different aims, different buildings.

The European Flag is just that, the european flag. It is not actually the flag of the european union but is used as an emblem of the european union. Infact the european flag was created before the european union and only started to be used in 1993.

just because the state flag of hawaii includes the union jack doesn't mean it's part of the commonwealth.

The starting basis for the European Union was from the ECSC. This along with the European Communities merged into different 'pillars' of the EU and are now these pillars will cease to exist after the Lisbon Treaty comes into force in December.

The Council of Europe have nothing to do with them apart from SOME joint projects, mainly to do with members of tcoe joining the eu.

The EU are expected to follow Council of Europe laws on human rights and the like but they are really very different things with different goals. tcoe is more to do with human rights and the eu is more to do with economic policy.

Those who sit in the EU parliament have no say in what happens at the Council of Europe and likewise.

[-:Undertaker:-]

They are different institutions with different staff, different aims, different buildings.

The European Flag is just that, the european flag. It is not actually the flag of the european union but is used as an emblem of the european union. Infact the european flag was created before the european union and only started to be used in 1993.

just because the state flag of hawaii includes the union jack doesn't mean it's part of the commonwealth.

The starting basis for the European Union was from the ECSC. This along with the European Communities merged into different 'pillars' of the EU and are now these pillars will cease to exist after the Lisbon Treaty comes into force in December.

The Council of Europe have nothing to do with them apart from SOME joint projects, mainly to do with members of tcoe joining the eu.

The EU are expected to follow Council of Europe laws on human rights and the like but they are really very different things with different goals. tcoe is more to do with human rights and the eu is more to do with economic policy.

Those who sit in the EU parliament have no say in what happens at the Council of Europe and likewise.

The foreign office has different staff, different building, different logo, different aims compared to the Home office, does not make it a totally different and unlinked thing - they are both part of a government. They (the EU and CoE) both aim to create a federal superstate, don't pretend you do not know and from what I gather you actually want a European superstate but are unwilling to say it aloud. The European Parliament has no power anyway, its merely a sham of a parliament (just like westminister now) because the laws/directives/rulings all come from the top of the European superstate, whether its from the Union part, the courts or any other part of the EU.

They actually say it in public, its no secret, no conspiracy.

[alexxxxx]

The foreign office has different staff, different building, different logo, different aims compared to the Home office, does not make it a totally different and unlinked thing - they are both part of a government. They (the EU and CoE) both aim to create a federal superstate, don't pretend you do not know and from what I gather you actually want a European superstate but are unwilling to say it aloud. The European Parliament has no power anyway, its merely a sham of a parliament (just like westminister now) because the laws/directives/rulings all come from the top of the European superstate, whether its from the Union part, the courts or any other part of the EU.

They actually say it in public, its no secret, no conspiracy.
Council of Europe is completely different. The EU only expands to states who have signed up and been accepted. The Council of Europe extends to all EU states plus other states including Russia. The European Parliament does have real power and it will recieve more with the LT. It has the power to sack the comission. The laws are 'dreamed up' by the comisison (elected by member states parliaments) and then are passed on to the EU Parliament. The Parliament HAVE to approve the comissioners in the first place.

and yes personally i am in favour a federal europe. grill me on it if you want.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Council of Europe is completely different. The EU only expands to states who have signed up and been accepted. The Council of Europe extends to all EU states plus other states including Russia. The European Parliament does have real power and it will recieve more with the LT. It has the power to sack the comission. The laws are 'dreamed up' by the comisison (elected by member states parliaments) and then are passed on to the EU Parliament. The Parliament HAVE to approve the comissioners in the first place.

and yes personally i am in favour a federal europe. grill me on it if you want.

..as I posted earlier on, here is how they are linked.

The European Court of Human Rights was established under the European Convention of Human Rights, that in turn is adopted by the Council of Europe which in turn works with the European Union on joint-projects and both are working towards European integration.

On the federal europe issue, you support the march towards a federal europe yet don't support the people of Europe having a referendum on it?

[alexxxxx]

..as I posted earlier on, here is how they are linked.

The European Court of Human Rights was established under the European Convention of Human Rights, that in turn is adopted by the Council of Europe which in turn works with the European Union on joint-projects and both are working towards European integration.

Which is a very weak link. That's like saying the UK is the same as the group who signed up for the Geneva Convention because we signed up for the Geneva Convention and we work with them on certain projects.

it's like this (i've literally made up this analogy): Alot of Milk is produced (this represents the CoE) and some of this milk is used to make Cheese (The EU). The EU is a harder, more matured version of the European Council as it makes alot more decisions in different sectors. However, calling the Cheese milk, isn't correct because they aren't the same thing as many people consume milk without cheese whilst some consume the two. It isn't possible to consume cheese without milk (as one makes the other) but they are not the same thing. Milk does not mix with cheese well because because they have different properties, ie, one is a solid substance to be used to eat and one is to drink.



On the federal europe issue, you support the march towards a federal europe yet don't support the people of Europe having a referendum on it?I support representative democracy. Referendums is a poor form of democracy. If they do not support the views of thier elected representatives then they should not vote them in.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Which is a very weak link. That's like saying the UK is the same as the UN because we signed up for the Geneva Convention and we work with them on certain projects.

it's like this (i've literally made up this analogy): Alot of Milk is produced (this represents the CoE) and some of this milk is used to make Cheese (The EU). The EU is a harder, more matured version of the European Council as it makes alot more decisions in different sectors. However, calling the Cheese milk, isn't correct because they aren't the same thing as many people consume milk without cheese whilst some consume the two. It isn't possible to consume cheese without milk (as one makes the other) but they are not the same thing. Milk does not mix with cheese well because because they have different properties, ie, one is a solid substance to be used to eat and one is to drink.

I support representative democracy. Referendums is a poor form of democracy. If they do not support the views of thier elected representatives then they should not vote them in.

I have shown before (again) how they are linked, in my eyes and the eyes of many others no European Union, Council of Europe, European Commission, Court of European Human Rights have been elected, wanted or voted in by the British people, they do not represent us, they are not wanted by us and finally they are all under the march towards a federal European superstate.

You do not support democracy, thats like socialism where they had the communist party incharge without anybody asking and the communists allowing parliamentary elections within. Nobody asked for a European Union.

Do you agree then with the very simple fact that if the United Kingdom was given a referendum on whether it wanted to remain a part of the European Union project to form a United States of Europe/Federal Europe that it would get a resounding no from the public?

[GommeInc]

Either way, this Council has interfered with a country which should have charge of its own rules, and possibly some human rights like freedom of speech and any to do with religion. If this one single woman is so offended, she has the right to move on. Imposing ideas is just going to make way for a giant circle of "ifs and buts" :/

[LuketheDuke]

Can a moderator please edit this threads title as its completely wrong:S

[alexxxxx]

I have shown before (again) how they are linked, in my eyes and the eyes of many others no European Union, Council of Europe, European Commission, Court of European Human Rights have been elected, wanted or voted in by the British people, they do not represent us, they are not wanted by us and finally they are all under the march towards a federal European superstate.

OK, *REMOVED* Bloody Churchill heped dream up the council of europe.


You do not support democracy, thats like socialism where they had the communist party incharge without anybody asking and the communists allowing parliamentary elections within. Nobody asked for a European Union.
How the bleeding hell is that not democracy. In your eyes on democracy, we might not bother with a parliament because everything should be held to a referendum. That's bordering anarchy. Are you saying that we don't have democracy in this country? Because you seem to think that we should vote in UKIP and that would be democractic when they would more than likely pull us out of the EU, however you don't respect the current government's actions as democratic. Flawed logic.



Do you agree then with the very simple fact that if the United Kingdom was given a referendum on whether it wanted to remain a part of the European Union project to form a United States of Europe/Federal Europe that it would get a resounding no from the public?No one is asking for a USE, i'm not asking for one. I'd support a democratic USE, but I think that is a LONG way off and I understand why people would be against it. What we have is not a federal europe and the lisbon treaty does not install this either.

Edited by Bolt660 (Forum Moderator): Please do not be rude to other forum Members.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Either way, this Council has interfered with a country which should have charge of its own rules, and possibly some human rights like freedom of speech and any to do with religion. If this one single woman is so offended, she has the right to move on. Imposing ideas is just going to make way for a giant circle of "ifs and buts" :/

Thank you, put simply and without how many branches the EU has split itself into.


Can a moderator please edit this threads title as its completely wrong:S

I forgot to laugh.


OK, *REMOVED* Bloody Churchill heped dream up the council of europe.Am I Churchill?


How the bleeding hell is that not democracy. In your eyes on democracy, we might not bother with a parliament because everything should be held to a referendum. That's bordering anarchy. Are you saying that we don't have democracy in this country? Because you seem to think that we should vote in UKIP and that would be democractic when they would more than likely pull us out of the EU, however you don't respect the current government's actions as democratic. Flawed logic.No I think you know fully well what I mean, 84% of our laws are made in the unelected European Union - that is more important than any other issue facing us, because the truth is; you cannot even consider/tackle any other issue without the EU being involved.

The current government were voted in on the promise of a referendum to the British people, so yes I do see that as undemocratic. They promised something to be elected, they got elected and then once in office they went back on that promise.


No one is asking for a USE, i'm not asking for one. I'd support a democratic USE, but I think that is a LONG way off and I understand why people would be against it. What we have is not a federal europe and the lisbon treaty does not install this either.We do have a federal Europe, 84% of our laws are made in the European Union. That is a federal Europe. The EU will now have the power with the self-amending treaty that is Lisbon to install whatever extra laws it feels it wants to install, that is a federal government.

It has a flag.
It has a anthem.
It has a currency.
It will soon have a President.
It will soon have a foreign minister.
It will soon have its own legal identity.
It will soon have a military.
It will soon be able to make decisions without the consent of all governments.
It will soon have embassies around the world.

What more could it possibly do to become a federal superstate in your books?

[alexxxxx]

Thank you, put simply and without how many branches the EU has split itself into.



..maybe read what i've read.



Am I Churchill?


[QUOTE]
No I think you know fully well what I mean, 84% of our laws are made in the unelected European Union - that is more important than any other issue facing us, because the truth is; you cannot even consider/tackle any other issue without the EU being involved.

WELL DONE! AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN? THE PEOPLE WILL ELECT IN MAY OR WHENEVER A PRO-EU GOVERNMENT. I DO NOT DOUBT THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE AND THEREFORE WHEN THE TIME COMES TO ELECT A GOVERNMENT OF WHICH REPRESENTS THE ELECTORATE, THE DECISION WILL BE SHOWN. IF THE CONSERVATIVES WIN, THERE WE HAVE IT, A PRO-EU GOVERNMENT, THEREFORE A PRO-EU ELECTORATE. THAT IS HOW OUR DEMOCRACY WORKS. IF UKIP WIN, WE WILL HAVE A ANTI-EU ELECTORATE. (Y)



They were promised a referendum on the constitution, which fell through. A similiar treaty got pulled up. If the people of Europe wanted to rid themselves of the EU, why did they not vote in an anti-eu parliament and dissolve the comission over and over until the EU itself was dissolved?

[QUOTE]
We do have a federal Europe, 84% of our laws are made in the European Union. That is a federal Europe. The EU will now have the power with the self-amending treaty that is Lisbon to install whatever extra laws it feels it wants to install, that is a federal government.
[QUOTE]
It has a flag.
It has a anthem.

Flag represents Europe as a whole. The Georgians use the European flag, it doesn't mean it's in the EU. The anthem is a joke and should be removed.


It has a currency.

Which is elective in if a member state wants to use it. We don't. Nor does Sweden or Poland.


It will soon have a President.

Who has no real power. We've had a president before hand, but the presidency rotated every 6 months.


It will soon have a foreign minister.

Which is a post formed by two posts which were already there in the first place.


It will soon have its own legal identity.
It will soon have a military.

The first is true but I doubt the latter will materialise, nor do I support one.


It will soon be able to make decisions without the consent of all governments.
It will soon have embassies around the world.

But the new voting system will be weighted in most cases on size of population.

Citizens already had the right to use other states' embassies.


What more could it possibly do to become a federal superstate in your books?
Criminal law, further taxation law, education law, an 'FBI,' Schengen agreement covering all states, common immigration and asylum law, official flag, EU sports teams, 'federal' courts in member states, president with actual power.

[LuketheDuke]

Seriously man take a chill.

people disagree with your arguments as their extremely easy to pick apart, not to mention that the title of this thread implies EU law imposes a crucifix ban when it was a judicial verdict reached by the European Court of Human Rights. If you try and lump them together you lose all credibility as it further suggests you know nothing about Europe.

and stop the percentages game, Ive heard so many conflicting numbers now it obviously isnt a fact.

Deep breaths!!

[-:Undertaker:-]

They were promised a referendum on the constitution, which fell through. A similiar treaty got pulled up. If the people of Europe wanted to rid themselves of the EU, why did they not vote in an anti-eu parliament and dissolve the comission over and over until the EU itself was dissolved?If you take it that way then, the Conservatives came first in the European Parliamentary Elections and UKIP came second, so we can have our referendum on Lisbon yes or no?


Flag represents Europe as a whole. The Georgians use the European flag, it doesn't mean it's in the EU. The anthem is a joke and should be removed.It still has a flag, believe it or not the Union Flag is not the offical flag of the United Kingdom and what i read on it a while back i'm pretty sure the United Kingdom doesn't actually have an offical flag.


Which is elective in if a member state wants to use it. We don't. Nor does Sweden or Poland.The European Union has been pushing for us to join the Euro and many Labour/Liberal Democrat MPs' also want the Euro to replace the Pound Sterling.


Who has no real power. We've had a president before hand, but the presidency rotated every 6 months.Who said they have no real power? - according to the European Union itself apparently the role hasn't exactly been set out yet. We were also told that Lisbon was a 'tidying up' exercise, when in reality it was the Consitution (which was rejected) just with bits moved about so don't be suprised if I don't believe a word any european union-phile tells me.


Which is a post formed by two posts which were already there in the first place.Thus centralising and making the European Union more and more like a superstate, I was not asked this and neither was the rest of the British electorate.


The first is true but I doubt the latter will materialise, nor do I support one.We were told years ago that the European Economic Community would only ever be a economic community and never a political, social and economic union - don't play us as fools.


But the new voting system will be weighted in most cases on size of population.The point still stands, national interests will now be dismissed and trod on.


Citizens already had the right to use other states' embassies.I-do-not-want-European-Union-embassies. That is the mark of a country.


Criminal law, further taxation law, education law, an 'FBI,' Schengen agreement covering all states, common immigration and asylum law, official flag, EU sports teams, 'federal' courts in member states, president with actual power.It already has immigration laws forcing us to accept immigrants from eastern europe, it already has its place in criminal justice, it already has a flag and it will have a President (unelected) fairly soon.


Seriously man take a chill.

people disagree with your arguments as their extremely easy to pick apart, not to mention that the title of this thread implies EU law imposes a crucifix ban when it was a judicial verdict reached by the European Court of Human Rights. If you try and lump them together you lose all credibility as it further suggests you know nothing about Europe.

and stop the percentages game, Ive heard so many conflicting numbers now it obviously isnt a fact.

Deep breaths!!

The only study ever taken on the transfer of powers from national parliaments around Europe to Brussels was a German study, its often shortend to 75% but the actual figure was 84%. I have not changed any figures, what you see is what you get. I have proven how the European insitutions are all linked yet you have dismissed it.

[Ardemax]

The world isn't black and white babe, clearly the EU does not eradicate the jewish people, however where Nazi Germany and the EU are on the same lines is where they both wanted a federal Europe, get it?



I have just proven how they are linked. Check out sources, check out wikipedia, check out other sites - I have just shown how each organisation was formed/is supported by the other and how they all aim for a federal europe.



I have just shown, again look above.



Europe under one flag, whats the difference? - you tell me.

you act as if im a 5 year old, when actually your not thinking through what you're saying...

you're acting like nobody agreed to it, and that everyone hates it? as you say "just like Adolf wanted" he would do far worse things to get it and rule it

[-:Undertaker:-]

you act as if im a 5 year old, when actually your not thinking through what you're saying...

you're acting like nobody agreed to it, and that everyone hates it? as you say "just like Adolf wanted" he would do far worse things to get it and rule it

I'm not the one who called UKIP rascist and refused to say how they were rascist now am I, so who really is the child making the story up as he goes along? - on the fact that everybody hates it, well yes they obviously do the majority at least, because that is exactly why we are not being given a referendum on the issue. Why do you honestly think we are not being given a say? - reality check mate.

If a referendum was held and people voted yes to European Union then I wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

[Ardemax]

I'm not the one who called UKIP rascist and refused to say how they were rascist now am I, so who really is the child making the story up as he goes along? - on the fact that everybody hates it, well yes they obviously do the majority at least, because that is exactly why we are not being given a referendum on the issue. Why do you honestly think we are not being given a say? - reality check mate.

If a referendum was held and people voted yes to European Union then I wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

reality check, you may wanna check that thread you quoted me from.

why did ireland vote yes then? or weren't they given a say?

[alexxxxx]

If you take it that way then, the Conservatives came first in the European Parliamentary Elections and UKIP came second, so we can have our referendum on Lisbon yes or no?

No. These were in the European Elections to represent people on the european level. If the Conservatives and UKIP formed a coalition government yes of course you can have a referendum on whatever you want. Lisbon has already passed and is law though.


The European Union has been pushing for us to join the Euro and many Labour/Liberal Democrat MPs' also want the Euro to replace the Pound Sterling.

And we refuse.


Who said they have no real power? - according to the European Union itself apparently the role hasn't exactly been set out yet. We were also told that Lisbon was a 'tidying up' exercise, when in reality it was the Consitution (which was rejected) just with bits moved about so don't be suprised if I don't believe a word any european union-phile tells me.

According to the lisbon treaty:
6. The President of the Commission shall:

(a) lay down guidelines within which the Commission is to work;

(b) decide on the internal organisation of the Commission, ensuring that it acts consistently,
efficiently and as a collegiate body;

(c) appoint Vice-Presidents, other than the High Representative of the Union for Foreign
Affairs and Security Policy, from among the members of the Commission.

A member of the Commission shall resign if the President so requests.
The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy shall resign, in
accordance with the procedure set out in Article 9 E(1), if the President so requests.

They are the powers it holds. Not a great deal.



Thus centralising and making the European Union more and more like a superstate, I was not asked this and neither was the rest of the British electorate.

We were told years ago that the European Economic Community would only ever be a economic community and never a political, social and economic union - don't play us as fools.

The point still stands, national interests will now be dismissed and trod on.

I-do-not-want-European-Union-embassies. That is the mark of a country.

It already has immigration laws forcing us to accept immigrants from eastern europe, it already has its place in criminal justice, it already has a flag and it will have a President (unelected) fairly soon.
Where is the criminal justice laws? Because there aren't any.

[-:Undertaker:-]

reality check, you may wanna check that thread you quoted me from.

why did ireland vote yes then? or weren't they given a say?

The Republic of Ireland were given a say, the first time it was ignored and was then forced on them again, you know, the kind of 'democracy' that crackpot loons like Robert Mugabe use in countries such as Zimbabwe?

..on a bigger point, we are not the Republic of Ireland. 5 million odd people do not speak for 60 million British people, or 500 million Europeans.


No. These were in the European Elections to represent people on the european level. If the Conservatives and UKIP formed a coalition government yes of course you can have a referendum on whatever you want. Lisbon has already passed and is law though.

Oh so because the results (which were as fair as you can get considering they are PR votes and not FPTP) do not suit your position, they are dismissed? - on the bigger scale, people do not vote soley on the European Union issue as you know fully well.


According to the lisbon treaty:
6. The President of the Commission shall:

(a) lay down guidelines within which the Commission is to work;

(b) decide on the internal organisation of the Commission, ensuring that it acts consistently,
efficiently and as a collegiate body;

(c) appoint Vice-Presidents, other than the High Representative of the Union for Foreign
Affairs and Security Policy, from among the members of the Commission.

A member of the Commission shall resign if the President so requests.
The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy shall resign, in
accordance with the procedure set out in Article 9 E(1), if the President so requests.

They are the powers it holds. Not a great deal.

The Lisbon Treaty is self-amending, what it says today will not be what it says a few months after the treaty comes into force. Barroso himself said that he cannot wait for the EU to take to the world stage and for the EU President to be on equal terms with the President of the US and PROC.


here is the criminal justice laws? Because there aren't any.
They are all linked in with other parts of the EU, death penalty ban, human rights, the European Courts.

[Ardemax]

when europe makes the decision we can veto against it?

[-:Undertaker:-]

when europe makes the decision we can veto against it?

No, as the voting will now follow the majority meaning if our national interests are at odds with the EU line, the tuff luck Brits. The impression I also get is that only certain areas were guranteed under a veto, hence why we have so many stupid and awkward laws imposed on us which costs us tens of billions to implement every year.

[hah]

lol its in all the papers in ireland today saying that it might happen here :lll

hope no ******* muslim complains :ll

always getting there own way

[Black_Apalachi]

Can a moderator please edit this threads title as its completely wrong:S

Or edit all the off topic posts. Your idea is the easiest though :P.

[adaym]

And if you don't vote UKIP this sort of thing will happen in our country.

Still, crucifixes should be banned everywhere - religion should be banned altogther. [/seperatepoint].

[Ardemax]

And if you don't vote UKIP this sort of thing will happen in our country.

Still, crucifixes should be banned everywhere - religion should be banned altogther. [/seperatepoint].

why? because Britain and Europe aren't Christian nations? :S

[adaym]

why? because Britain and Europe aren't Christian nations? :S
If you're referring to the second point, it's just my opinion that religion is a load of tosh. Talk about brainwashing suicide bombers etc/ religions brainwash their followers with all the craptosh about things. You can't deny that either, you "believe" in stuff which means they've brainwashed you. Still, I am a pastafarian myself but if you research that you'll find out why it's not hypocritical.

On the first point - because we pay some dude in Belgium like £40m a day to be part of the EU... and then that dude in Belgium does something like this to Italy and expect more to come because that dude in Belgium will have more power than Hitler.

Done and done.

[GommeInc]

Strangely, religion does have it's benefits. Alot of churches have day centres run by volunteers for the elderly and all the way down to new born babies. It's a free service, and without it, no-one would particularly want to do the volunteering and alot of vulnerable, elderly people and young mums and families will have some drawbacks. Charities obvious are set up to help, Macmilan etc, but asking them to do more would be strain on their resources, while churches can only just cope at the moment with theirs from services and hall renting. Not forgeting they are incredibly charitable towards the poor and other countries, a few from the local church when to Kenya to help at a orphanage and had done amazing work out there.

So don't start doubting the point behind Christianity in this country, because it's quite a valuable and under-rated asset to the country and the services provided. The religion side of things is arguably aload of pants, but they make up for it with what they do in their local communities. Heck, Parish councils is a kind of giveaway, and they do a damn better job than the normal councils, because unlike the normal councils, they have a guilty conscience (hell and all that evil stuff).

[Black_Apalachi]

And if you don't vote UKIP this sort of thing will happen in our country.

Still, crucifixes should be banned everywhere - religion should be banned altogther. [/seperatepoint].

As an atheist, I still believe religion has many benefits, as Gomme also mentioned. I think the biggest point is that religion leads to the fear of God which prevents people doing insane stuff. It creates the possibility of ultimate consequences. If you really think about what the world would be like had there never been any religions, it's extremely scary.

[Ardemax]

If you're referring to the second point, it's just my opinion that religion is a load of tosh. Talk about brainwashing suicide bombers etc/ religions brainwash their followers with all the craptosh about things. You can't deny that either, you "believe" in stuff which means they've brainwashed you. Still, I am a pastafarian myself but if you research that you'll find out why it's not hypocritical.

On the first point - because we pay some dude in Belgium like £40m a day to be part of the EU... and then that dude in Belgium does something like this to Italy and expect more to come because that dude in Belgium will have more power than Hitler.

Done and done.

I find you just insulted billions of people without even thinking about it.
Congrats? No.

It's not "craptosh" seeing how I haven't seen many Christian suicide bombers? Damn you're so hypocritical, I don't care if you're a pastafarian you're saying everyone religion brainwashes people to be suicide bombers which is not true.

Done and done.


Strangely, religion does have it's benefits. Alot of churches have day centres run by volunteers for the elderly and all the way down to new born babies. It's a free service, and without it, no-one would particularly want to do the volunteering and alot of vulnerable, elderly people and young mums and families will have some drawbacks. Charities obvious are set up to help, Macmilan etc, but asking them to do more would be strain on their resources, while churches can only just cope at the moment with theirs from services and hall renting. Not forgeting they are incredibly charitable towards the poor and other countries, a few from the local church when to Kenya to help at a orphanage and had done amazing work out there.

So don't start doubting the point behind Christianity in this country, because it's quite a valuable and under-rated asset to the country and the services provided. The religion side of things is arguably aload of pants, but they make up for it with what they do in their local communities. Heck, Parish councils is a kind of giveaway, and they do a damn better job than the normal councils, because unlike the normal councils, they have a guilty conscience (hell and all that evil stuff).


As an atheist, I still believe religion has many benefits, as Gomme also mentioned. I think the biggest point is that religion leads to the fear of God which prevents people doing insane stuff. It creates the possibility of ultimate consequences. If you really think about what the world would be like had there never been any religions, it's extremely scary.

Yeah it's kinda creepy, but I spose you can get used to it :)