The new "deal" guarantees UK citizens living in EU all of EU's Human Rights protection, while denying all these rights* for EU citizens living in UK. Why?
* Even within the proposed eight year period when UK courts "could be advised" by The European Court of Justice, there's no guarantee whatsoever.
Klevius citizenship tutorial:
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has stated that muslim sharia isn't compatible with Human Rights. That's a problem for Britisharia, so to avoid it Theresa May had to eliminate The European Court of Justice from any involvement in UK's sharia future. However, at the same time she said UK should remain with ECHR - without mentioning how or to what extent. So how does this make sense?
It's very simple. As Klevius noted already in 1991, 1993, 1994 and 1996 (see e.g. Angels of Antichrist) ECHR applies a so called 'margin of appreciation' to its rulings, which means a "pre-judgement" whether a state party to the European Convention on Human Rights should be sanctioned for derogations. The threshold varies but is certainly much higher for a country outside EU.
The European Court of Justice - whose judgments are based on the value foundation of ECHR - is the main channel for legal issues in EU and therefore the root cause to why Theresa May so vehemently opposed it.
EU citizens can't take British citizenship without abandoning their EU citizenship.
Why? Because if you don't abandon your EU citizenship then you can be deported from UK equally easy as if you were still an EU citizen. In fact, you could be even worse off. Meaning you don't have the same rights as other citizens in England and you would no longer be even "morally" connected to the "deal".
UK - the open security hole for islamofascism
Saudi muslim war criminal and Human-rightsophobe is loved by BBC
Thursday, August 24, 2017
Mrs Theresa May thinks Saudi sharia islamofascism is "good for the Brits" - but what about non-muslim EU residents in England?! Not to mention non sharia muslim Brits.
Mrs May hates Human Rights because they stand in the way of Saudi islamofascism and sharia. Will EU residents in the future be ruled by sharia rather than Human Rights?
By getting rid of European Court of Justice (ECJ) she can rob EU residents of more rights than any other group of people in England. Not surprising keeping in mind that London is a muslim city steered by a muslim mayor notorious for defending islamofascists, and that Theresa May is totally under the foot of the islamofascist Saudi dictator family.
This is why Mrs May used to be so keen on getting rid of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) - which has ruled (2002) that islamic sharia is against Human Rights - that she (together with Cameron) used fringe exeples out of context to make the people in England believe Human Rights was something bad (compare e.g. that she blamed ECHR for not deporting Abu Qatada etc.). But not a word about the dangers of sharia that Human Rights could protect the English people from.
Mrs May now wants to get rid of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for the purpose of robbing EU residents of their most basic Human Rights.
This would mean robbing EU residents in England from their most basic Human Rights under which they were originally promised to be able to live in England - while English citizens residential in EU would still have their Human nRights protected by ECJ which sorts Human Rights issues in accordance with ECHR.
And for those who naively think that England would still belong to ECHR Klevius wants to remind of what he already in the 1990s wrote about and worked with
namely ECHR's "margin of appreciation" (see e.g. Klevius groundbreaking article Angles of Antichrist, or the cases Klevius as a solicitor brought to ECHR)) which means that ECHR avoids national laws to a certain extent within EU - and much more so with countries outside EU.
Ron Jones who was tortured by the islamofascist Saudi dictator family: "I have had little support from the UK government. It has shown itself to be more interested in maintaining good trade relations with Saudi Arabia."
Klevius: So English courts chose to defend Saudi islamofascism while ECHR let them do it because of the margin of appreciation.