Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What are you doing to get the US forces and bases out of the UK? Do you write to your leaders as much about it as you do here?? Or are you just content to constantly b*tch about it on the internet? Nothing much is gonna come from you constantly writing the same things here every day. Except allow you to get out your hatred of America and Americans, of course. But I know that's all you're really interested in here.
What are you doing to get the US forces and bases out of the UK? Do you write to your leaders as much about it as you do here?? Or are you just content to constantly b*tch about it on the internet? Nothing much is gonna come from you constantly writing the same things here every day. Except allow you to get out your hatred of America and Americans, of course. But I know that's all you're really interested in here.
I know,if he spent half as much time doing something concrete about it, instead of whining here constantly, something might be achieved. But instead,we are treated to daily diatribes. I actually find it sad & pathetic that so much time is spent voicing so much discontent online. Do somthing other than whine online.
What are you doing to get the US forces and bases out of the UK? Do you write to your leaders as much about it as you do here?? Or are you just content to constantly b*tch about it on the internet? Nothing much is gonna come from you constantly writing the same things here every day. Except allow you to get out your hatred of America and Americans, of course. But I know that's all you're really interested in here.
There have been plenty of mass protests regarding US bases and a number of MP's would like to see them held to greater accountability or closed, and I have spoken to my MP on a number of occasions.
The Visiting Forces Act 1952 has also been questioned in Parliament, and I have already quoted some of the parliamentary debate in relation to the deaths of British citizens, and the recent cases including Harry Dunn and Matthew Day, as well as Labour calls for a parliamentary inquiry, may yet bring about future change.
The US has already closed a lot of bases in the UK and Europe, and given that this is likely to be the last generation of manned fighter aircraft, further reductions are inevitable in the future, whilst strict new EU data laws may restrict US intelligence gathering.
As for the future of NATO itself is hardly guaranteed given the state of US politics and the division in the US, and the UK now has close defence links with France through the Lancaster House Treaties and Combined Joint Expeditionary Force, as well as with a number of mainly North European countries in relation to the UK Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF).
As for Britain it's currently reviewing it's Foreign Policy and Defence Policy, and our main focus has now become naval and tech rather than becoming involved in future large scale US led wars, and it now looks like we will be doing the bare minimum in relation to just meeting the NATO 2% GDP level.
Whilst many in the Labour party are committed to stopping the extradition of Julian Assange, and there is cross party support in relation to a review of the current US/UK extradition treaty.
So things are already starting to change.
Last edited by Brave New World; 11-18-2022 at 04:24 AM..
There have been plenty of mass protests regarding US bases and a number of MP's would like to see them held to greater accountability or closed, and I have spoken to my MP on a number of occasions.
The Visiting Forces Act 1952 has also been questioned in Parliament, and I have already quoted some of the parliamentary debate in relation to the deaths of British citizens, and the recent cases including Harry Dunn and Matthew Day, as well as Labour calls for a parliamentary inquiry, may yet bring about future change.
The US has already closed a lot of bases in the UK and Europe, and given that this is likely to be the last generation of manned fighter aircraft, further reductions are inevitable in the future, whilst strict new EU data laws may restrict US intelligence gathering.
As for the future of NATO itself is hardly guaranteed given the state of US politics and the division in the US, and the UK now has close defence links with France through the Lancaster House Treaties and Combined Joint Expeditionary Force, as well as with a number of mainly North European countries in relation to the UK Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF).
As for Britain it's currently reviewing it's Foreign Policy and Defence Policy, and our main focus has now become naval and tech rather than becoming involved in future large scale US led wars, and it now looks like we will be doing the bare minimum in relation to just meeting the NATO 2% GDP level.
Whilst many in the Labour party are committed to stopping the extradition of Julian Assange, and there is cross party support in relation to a review of the current US/UK extradition treaty.
So things are already starting to change.
Assange is not a UK citizen. I'd call that interference by UK politicians in US affairs, something you constantly decry when perceived in reverse of US politicians There's not even much call in Australia to prevent Assange's extradition.
As a good contrast to the UK claims against US immunity in the Dunn/Sacoolas case, the US has just confirmed that Saudi ruler Mohammed bin Salman enjoys immunity in the civil case the fiance of Jamal Khashoggi brought against him.
This is a much more serious case than the Dunn case because it involves premeditated murder as opposed to an accident.
As a good contrast to the UK claims against US immunity in the Dunn/Sacoolas case, the US has just confirmed that Saudi ruler Mohammed bin Salman enjoys immunity in the civil case the fiance of Jamal Khashoggi brought against him.
This is a much more serious case than the Dunn case because it involves premeditated murder as opposed to an accident.
Mohammed bin Salman - has immunity due to his new role as Saudi prime minister, just as the US President and other leaders enjoy certain immunities.
Which has nothing to do with the Criminal Case regarding Anne Sacoolas.
Which relates to a promise to waiver by the US, in relation to being allowed to have immunity at Croughton.
Britain was reluctant to allow immunity in the first place, but was assured by the US that any off base incidents would result in the waiving of immunity, however this turned out to be untrue, and not only did the US refuse to waiver immunity, it also sought out legal loopholes that have now been closed.
As for the UK/US extradition treaty, even the law society gazette believed it is unfit for purpose.
Assange is not a UK citizen. I'd call that interference by UK politicians in US affairs, something you constantly decry when perceived in reverse of US politicians There's not even much call in Australia to prevent Assange's extradition.
The extradition case in in Britain and in front of British courts and not Australian Courts, it is therefore up to British and the European Court of Human Rights, and the case will be inevitable be settled via the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and European Court of Human Rights, as Britain remains a member of the Council of Europe and is a signatory to the ECHR. The Council of Europe and ECHR being totally separate and independent entities to the European Union.
As for interfering and applying for extradition, the US is the prime suspect.
Here are useful Key points in relation to the Assange case -
1. UK is a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights, and has also further enshrined this in law. UK law must adhere to the European Convention on Human Rights and the 1998 Human Rights Act.
2. The ECHR applies to Courts in Britain, and Assange is subject to British and European Law in the Courts in London and not Australian Law. This is a very basic legal concept, and I feel embarrassed having to even point it out to you.
3. Merely an example regarding extradition in Europe, in order to demonstrate how the system works ad how ECHR can impact extradition and even trade in items that breach articles such as the 'Right to Life'.
4. The extradition is between the UK and US, and not Australia, however Assange's well being in the US would be an issue for the Australian Government. The Australian Government can not interfere in the UK or European court of Human Rights. Assange's fate will in the end be up to European Judges at the European Courts of Justice in Strasbourg in France, who will examine his case in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights, as the ECtHR is the final court of appeal.
5. The US can not recognise any laws that come in to conflict with it's own domestic law or constitution, and not does not ratify International Laws or submit to International Courts such as those at the Hague, whilst the US has not ratified much of the Geneva Convention and refuses to ratify most UN Law or international human rights.
The US has had to make all kinds of concessions in order to meet Article 3 of the European Convention, including promises that Assange will not be kept in solitary confinement or supermax prison conditions, and that any sentence may be severed in his native Australia.
Whilst this might have satisfied the law in relation to Article 3, there is still the question of Article 14 and other ECHR articles, which may ultimately be decided at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France.
It also should be noted that Dunja Mijatović, the European Commissioner for Human Rights, has already expressed her view that the extradition breaches press freedoms and is political,that what Assange published was in the public interest and as such could breach Article 10 (Freedom of Expression).
There have been plenty of mass protests regarding US bases and a number of MP's would like to see them held to greater accountability or closed, and I have spoken to my MP on a number of occasions.
The Visiting Forces Act 1952 has also been questioned in Parliament, and I have already quoted some of the parliamentary debate in relation to the deaths of British citizens, and the recent cases including Harry Dunn and Matthew Day, as well as Labour calls for a parliamentary inquiry, may yet bring about future change.
The US has already closed a lot of bases in the UK and Europe, and given that this is likely to be the last generation of manned fighter aircraft, further reductions are inevitable in the future, whilst strict new EU data laws may restrict US intelligence gathering.
As for the future of NATO itself is hardly guaranteed given the state of US politics and the division in the US, and the UK now has close defence links with France through the Lancaster House Treaties and Combined Joint Expeditionary Force, as well as with a number of mainly North European countries in relation to the UK Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF).
As for Britain it's currently reviewing it's Foreign Policy and Defence Policy, and our main focus has now become naval and tech rather than becoming involved in future large scale US led wars, and it now looks like we will be doing the bare minimum in relation to just meeting the NATO 2% GDP level.
Whilst many in the Labour party are committed to stopping the extradition of Julian Assange, and there is cross party support in relation to a review of the current US/UK extradition treaty.
So things are already starting to change.
Do you think the British navy is any match for the Russian or Chinese Republic Navies
As for a purely European Defence Force ? When I see that Europe can handle it's wars without US involvement I'll believe it Ha Ha
How would the UK go to the defence of a Commonwealth country ie Australia and New Zealand if China were to commit an act of war against either of them?
I dont think the Aussies or Kiwis would put much faith in that. Rather they are now very open to the US establishing more bases in that region.
Mohammed bin Salman - has immunity due to his new role as Saudi prime minister, just as the US President and other leaders enjoy certain immunities.
Which has nothing to do with the Criminal Case regarding Anne Sacoolas.
Which relates to a promise to waiver by the US, in relation to being allowed to have immunity at Croughton.
Britain was reluctant to allow immunity in the first place, but was assured by the US that any off base incidents would result in the waiving of immunity, however this turned out to be untrue, and not only did the US refuse to waiver immunity, it also sought out legal loopholes that have now been closed.
As for the UK/US extradition treaty, even the law society gazette believed it is unfit for purpose.
Why should Sacoolas have to face a criminal trial and possible prison time for what was an obvious accident. UK laws are incredibly stupid these days, there's a new law for every little thing, and most of them don't make sense at all. Driving laws in the UK have always been stupid, from the requirement to put the car in neutral and apply the parking brake to having to pull off the road, turn off the car, and throw the keys into the street before even touching a cell phone to put it back in a bag after it slid out.
thats because using a hand held phone at the wheel is illegal, if the engine is running then one is "driving", turning off the engine and removing the keys from the ignition is the only way to remove this definition.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
