US extradition treaty
Discussion
It appears Dave is just as spineless as Tony and Gordon when it comes to negotiating.
"David Cameron's pledge to reform a controversial extradition treaty with America is set to be blocked by Barack Obama's administration.
American government sources have said they believe the treaty is "fair" and is essential for the prosecution of people who have committed crimes in America but are in Britain.
However, senior Conservatives and Liberal Democrat ministers, including Nick Clegg, have claimed that the extradition treaty is "one-sided" and does not provide enough protection for Britons.
A series of high-profile extradition attempts, including that of Gary McKinnon, the alleged computer hacker, and three NatWest bankers, have sparked public anger over the arrangements.
Last year, Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General, described the extradition arrangements as a "mess" and pledged to reform the treaty.
"Our extradition laws are a mess," he said at the Conservative party's annual conference last October. "They're one sided. A Conservative government will rewrite them." Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, previously campaigned to stop Gary McKinnon from being extradited.
The treaty has long-proved controversial. It was adopted by the UK in 2003 although America did not ratify the treatment until 2006 following British pressure.
Telegraph story
"David Cameron's pledge to reform a controversial extradition treaty with America is set to be blocked by Barack Obama's administration.
American government sources have said they believe the treaty is "fair" and is essential for the prosecution of people who have committed crimes in America but are in Britain.
However, senior Conservatives and Liberal Democrat ministers, including Nick Clegg, have claimed that the extradition treaty is "one-sided" and does not provide enough protection for Britons.
A series of high-profile extradition attempts, including that of Gary McKinnon, the alleged computer hacker, and three NatWest bankers, have sparked public anger over the arrangements.
Last year, Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General, described the extradition arrangements as a "mess" and pledged to reform the treaty.
"Our extradition laws are a mess," he said at the Conservative party's annual conference last October. "They're one sided. A Conservative government will rewrite them." Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, previously campaigned to stop Gary McKinnon from being extradited.
The treaty has long-proved controversial. It was adopted by the UK in 2003 although America did not ratify the treatment until 2006 following British pressure.
Telegraph story
"The Coalition is committed to reviewing the treaty and is set to appoint a high-profile figure to consider alternatives."
What's spineless about that?
What's spineless about that?
tinman0 said:
I wish someone would explain why this treaty is one sided in the first place....
Are UK-US extradition rules lopsided?tinman0 said:
I wish someone would explain why this treaty is one sided in the first place....
It is down to the degree of proof before extradition is allowed. It used to be fair (court, convince a judge, both ways) but we signed our part of 'lesser proof, just extradite' and the US (senate I think) threw it out. It is one-sided.How exactly does the US refusing to consider revising a treaty signed in good faith with our previous government show Cameron to be spineless? Do you think it would be helpful to UK Plc and BP for him to pick a fight over this today?
Your posts are starting to sound like a broken record.
Your posts are starting to sound like a broken record.
"David Cameron's pledge to reform a controversial extradition treaty with America is set to be blocked by Barack Obama's administration."
.... I don't understand.
Cam:"We would like to renegotiate new terms for extradition"
Baz:"No"
Cam:"Ok"
f
king spineless.
We should have final say when it comes to who we give to the Americans. It shouldn't be a question, it should be a statement.
"We're going to renegotiate new terms for extradition"
.... I don't understand.
Cam:"We would like to renegotiate new terms for extradition"
Baz:"No"
Cam:"Ok"
f
king spineless. We should have final say when it comes to who we give to the Americans. It shouldn't be a question, it should be a statement.
"We're going to renegotiate new terms for extradition"
Frankeh said:
"David Cameron's pledge to reform a controversial extradition treaty with America is set to be blocked by Barack Obama's administration."
But Bush was an evil Moron and Obama is a nobel peace prize winning genious. A new direction and type of politics fair for all.I don't get it we should all be singing cum by yah by now.
Pesty said:
Frankeh said:
"David Cameron's pledge to reform a controversial extradition treaty with America is set to be blocked by Barack Obama's administration."
But Bush was an evil Moron and Obama is a nobel peace prize winning genious. A new direction and type of politics fair for all.I don't get it we should all be singing cum by yah by now.
Spinless or Clueless? Take your pick. Maybe he should have asked the UK public what they thought first.
Edited by Wanta996Gotta on Tuesday 20th July 10:34
Frankeh said:
"David Cameron's pledge to reform a controversial extradition treaty with America is set to be blocked by Barack Obama's administration."
.... I don't understand.
Cam:"We would like to renegotiate new terms for extradition"
Baz:"No"
Cam:"Ok"
fking spineless.
We should have final say when it comes to who we give to the Americans. It shouldn't be a question, it should be a statement.
"We're going to renegotiate new terms for extradition"
We need them far more than they need us. That doesn't put you in a strong bargaining position..... I don't understand.
Cam:"We would like to renegotiate new terms for extradition"
Baz:"No"
Cam:"Ok"
f
king spineless. We should have final say when it comes to who we give to the Americans. It shouldn't be a question, it should be a statement.
"We're going to renegotiate new terms for extradition"
We can negotiate for things but in the long run it's always going to be shuffling deckchairs. We can only hope to get things changed that are priorities at the time at the expense of things that aren't.
Rather than waste negotiating time on a newsworthy, but ultimately very minor extradition issue I would rather we were putting the priority into getting ourselves properly into trade bed with the States to reduce our exposure to Europe.
10 Pence Short said:
We need them far more than they need us. That doesn't put you in a strong bargaining position.
Is that actually true? There's a lot of times (I'm thinking the past 2 wars they've started) where we've been pretty important to them. What would have happened in Iraq if it was Germany, France and Great Britain were against it? You think the smaller states such as Poland would have backed the US anyway. Balls they would have.
The US would have been on its own and come under a lot more scrutiny..
10 Pence Short said:
Rather than waste negotiating time on a newsworthy, but ultimately very minor extradition issue I would rather we were putting the priority into getting ourselves properly into trade bed with the States to reduce our exposure to Europe.
Agreed. It's strange to see so many people willing to burn very important bridges over something so trivial as the extradition treaty, or fking congestion charges.There is an issue with the extradition treaty. Cameron is going to try and address it, but to go in all guns blazing would be counter productive, and fairly dim.
MX7 said:
10 Pence Short said:
Rather than waste negotiating time on a newsworthy, but ultimately very minor extradition issue I would rather we were putting the priority into getting ourselves properly into trade bed with the States to reduce our exposure to Europe.
Agreed. It's strange to see so many people willing to burn very important bridges over something so trivial as the extradition treaty, or fking congestion charges.There is an issue with the extradition treaty. Cameron is going to try and address it, but to go in all guns blazing would be counter productive, and fairly dim.
Fittster said:
MX7 said:
10 Pence Short said:
Rather than waste negotiating time on a newsworthy, but ultimately very minor extradition issue I would rather we were putting the priority into getting ourselves properly into trade bed with the States to reduce our exposure to Europe.
Agreed. It's strange to see so many people willing to burn very important bridges over something so trivial as the extradition treaty, or fking congestion charges.There is an issue with the extradition treaty. Cameron is going to try and address it, but to go in all guns blazing would be counter productive, and fairly dim.
I don't think we should have signed it in the first place, but to point the finger at the current government doesn't help much, and to turn it into an issue that could damage US/UK relations, at a time when they appear slightly rocky anyway, isn't very constructive.
Cameron has said that he will raise the issue. What more do you want him to do?
MX7 said:
What more do you want him to do?
Fittster wants him to get aggressive with Obama, fatally damage US/UK relations on top of the BP crisis and it all end in parliament having a vote of no confidence against the coalition because he doesn't want them in government.Edited by OnTheOverrun on Tuesday 20th July 12:33
OK then, hypothetically suppose Call Me Dave goes in today and gets a reaming from various senators grandstanding on the matter of the release of Al-Megrahi the Libyan PanAm bomber.
Remember this wasn't Dave et al who did this. He is unfortunately for him the current incumbent, who I think has publicly said didn't agree with the release.
How should Dave react if and I stress the if he is not afforded the respect our PM should get. Because I'd bet a hundred bucks he won't get the right respect.
How the hell can these colonial retards not understand the concept of devolution. Hilaary, Barry et al you should be ringing Edinburgh!!!!
Go on USA, just bloody invade us and have done with it you twunts. If not then feck off!
Note to self :calm down F i F grumpy today it seems:
Remember this wasn't Dave et al who did this. He is unfortunately for him the current incumbent, who I think has publicly said didn't agree with the release.
How should Dave react if and I stress the if he is not afforded the respect our PM should get. Because I'd bet a hundred bucks he won't get the right respect.
How the hell can these colonial retards not understand the concept of devolution. Hilaary, Barry et al you should be ringing Edinburgh!!!!
Go on USA, just bloody invade us and have done with it you twunts. If not then feck off!
Note to self :calm down F i F grumpy today it seems:
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff