Once Sweden issued a European Arrest Warrant they effectively commandeered the British police and "justice" system. EU law requires the police to enforce the warrant and requires our court to issue a deportation order regardless of evidence. This would be the case even if the alleged crime was not a crime in Britain.
It makes our extradition treaty with the US look positively fair and just.
UK Government: Our aim for the Olympic site, with better connectivity than anywhere else in the country, is to encourage internet companies to set up offices there in order to create a UK version of Silicon Valley.
Silicon Valley (specifically Google): No way dude! Your libel and free speech laws are screwed man! And that Digital Economy Act you voted for last year is designed to destroy the digital economy on behalf on the recording industry. On top of that the EU is determined to undermine any internet company that isn't based there - even going to the extent of state funded research into an EU alternative the "American" internet. Why would be go any where near London or the UK? Everyone that is currently there is thinking of leaving and coming here?
UK Government: Really, oh, maybe we should look at that.
What you say might have some merit if our libel laws influenced, in any way, the behaviour of the tabliod press. They don't. What our libel laws do is cause the shelving of good reporting because the cost of fighting any potential law suit is not worth the risk.
Reporting the facts as you know them, and then commenting on them, is fraught with danger. Making up a story and then retracting it, and paying compensation, the minute a law suit is mooting is much cheaper than defending a well researched story in the courts.
I have to wonder why you hate England so much. I don't mind that you do, everybody hates the English, but please hate us for the right reasons. All your assumptions in your post appear to be wrong, starting with the part that the Royal familiy live off the income from their land.
Like many rights in the UK freedom of speech was thought so fundamental that it didn't need writing down.
As I understand it this was the position of the Founding Fathers when writing the constitution. There was also concern when drafting the Bill of Rights that only the rights specified would be deemed to exist.
Ironically it is the human rights movement in general that has nicely destroyed that concept by insisting that fundamental and social rights are equal. Social rights (education) have to be written down to have any standing, fundamental right (life, speech) should never have to be "granted" by the state - they simply are (and the state can only take away that right not grant it).
"Has anyone yet laid a trademark claim upon the word green?"
I don't think it is trademarked but accross large parts of Europe they use "blue" to avoid confusion witt (or sugguested endorsement by) pre-existing, non-environmental political parties. Hence the VW "Bluemotion" series of cars.
Since the EU is relatively new, not as corrupt as the US
Ha ha, ha ha ha, hahahahahahaha. Ha, ha ha, huh. *cough* Heh. Um...
and the citizens there actually take an interest in government
But are consistently ignored or told to think again whenever they vote the "wrong" way.
However, the rest of what you say does stand up. Especially if you ensure to highlight that ACTA is being pushed by US owned vested interests. Keep banging on about it being written for and by US companies and you're bound to attract their attention.
Are you seriously suggesting this shouldn't be allowed? That once a law has been passed it should not be possible to repeal it? Or maybe you believe the next government should not be able to repeal it? What then the point of changing governments? Why not simply do away with those pesky elections all together?
There is currently a Great Repeal Bill being drafted. The intention being that all the poorly drafted acts or parts of acts that were forced through by the Labour government of the last 13 years are simply revoked. Also included may be acts that are not performing their intended function and acts from before 1997 (where hard cases have resulted in bad laws).
The Tories may support the inclusion of the DEA on the basis that any debate and review of the bill was cut short and it therefore was not subjected to proper parliamentary scrutiny. As Labour did that a lot it hands the Tories and the Liberals a handy excuse to include acts for repeal that they previously voted for but the other part of the coalition wants repealed. It is Labour's abuse of parliamentary process that will unite the coalition in this case.
We're told that public opinion will be sought so hopefully Nick Clegg (I think he is the lead on this) will read this carefully:
Those specifically in Crown Countries are required to pay a yearly "TV License" to the Commonwealth which was originally started in the days where Europeans were required to pay a "Radio License" This is not uncommon even to this day. For example, in the UK, a fee of £145.50 (or roughly USD$215) is collected by OfCom for EACH television set. That's the magic of Sky, or NewsCorp's model.
Collected by the BBC for the BBC. Some of this "license fee" (a tax in all but name) does go elsewhere but Sky gets nothing. It would in fact be beneficial to Sky (and, I believe, the public) if it were scrapped. OfCom does not collect or enforce TV licenses it is all done by the BBC by "private" prosecution.