Very cheap countries to emigrate to

[woodgnome]

MisterC wrote:

> 1. Commit a minor offence that somehow impacts on the USA
> without even setting foot in the country. In fact it doesn't
> even have to be an offence under British law e.g. put a few
> finest Havanas up for auction on Ebay.
>
> 2. Due to their expanding extraterritorial fascism an
> extradition warrant can be served in the UK without even any
> primae facae evidence. Note: evidence is required for
> extradition from the USA of course!
>
> 3. The British courts / Home Office have either no power or no
> desire to interfere in your case. I'm actually ashamed how a
> once proud nation willingly bends over and allows itself to be
> well and truly rodgered up the rear by Dubya and co.

yes, the uk/us extradition treaty 2003 is an absolute disgrace. to the point where, if the tories pledged in their manifesto to repeal it, i would probably (god help me!) vote for them at the next election.

for anyone unfamiliar with this pernicious piece of legislation, read about it here and weep!

how, you may ask, could something so draconian pass before our elected representatives and not induce howls of patriotic outrage? the extraordinary answer is that to all intents and purposes, it didn't...

this quote from the above link says it all: "There was no parliamentary debate or scrutiny of the new treaty. It was drafted by Home Office officials and their US counterparts, signed on behalf of the UK by the Secretary of State and then published two months later.

In the UK the treaty will become law through an arcane process known as "Orders in Council" as international treaties are agreed by the Privy Council (Cabinet Ministers automatically become Privy Counsellors) in the name of the head of state, the Queen . This procedure falls under what is called the "royal prerogative", that is where powers have never been passed over to parliament and Ministers exercise powers on behalf of the Monarch - a thoroughly undemocratic procedure.

The Queen calls a meeting of the Privy Council, usually four or five Cabinet Ministers, at which there is no discussion, simply agreement on matters before it. The decision to agree the new treaty on extradition then becomes an "Order", which as it relates to existing legislation (the 1989 Extradition Act) is subject to the 1946 Statutory Instruments Act. Under this latter Act the proposal will be "laid before" parliament (simply listed in the daily order paper) and if MPs do not demand a vote on the floor of the house it automatically become law. It is almost unknown for MPs to force a debate and vote on such a matter because it means disrupting the planned agenda of the government of the day [7]."

role on the republic...

[strictlybroadband]

That was a Blunkett decision... on that basis alone he should be barred from British politics for life.

We like to take the piss out of the French (naturally), but at least they had the balls to tell the US army to piss off home 40 years ago. Sure, the US contribution to fighting Hitler was impressive and shouldn't be knocked, but WWII finished 60 years ago. Having been under "occupation" for the past 60 years, we can barely call ourselves a sovereign nation. Blair's just the latest in a long line of poodle Prime Ministers.

[mart]

I think you should give serious consideration to this place.


Mart