What are you on about?

There is no "EU legal system". All the countries in the EU have their own legal systems that work in whatever way they do.

There is the There is the European Court of Justice but that doesn't preside over a legal system. The EU has many rules and regulations such as how duty is applied etc and it is up to member states national courts to enforce those rules. The European Court of Justice tries to ensure the rules being applied by the national courts are applied consistently across the EU but that doesn't sit in judgement of cases directly. National courts do that based on guidance form the ECJ if required.

It only gets involved in its so called areas of competencies where it determines if national governments are applying the law properly. That doesn't affect how our courts reach judgements in terms of precedent or the way in which our legal system works. The ECJ is in effect the final court of appeal on EU law but only EU law. Not national law or criminal law etc.

There is nothing incompatible with the our legal system and the ECJ. It is in effect a court of appeal relating to very specific areas - EU law.

Then we have the European Court of Human Rights which is completely different again which we have always agreed to be subject to ever since we helped set it up in 1959.

Bottom line is neither the ECJ or the ECtHR are incompatible with our legal system.

I was just being brief and sloppy. As I said most European countries operate under a different legal framework. That includes all the dominant EU members. They influence EU policy and thinking.

Absolutely spot on. I really dont know why people can't see this.

It's gonna be interesting to see Theresa May and some of the pitchfork brigade define how serious a "serious crime" will be. Or will it be simply an arbitrary decision after conviction?

They've seconded Ken Clarke to be the judge of this

I don't believe a word of that.
You said "[iIt is for this reason that until the EU legal system is changed (to ours - superior in my opinion), then we should not be in the EU[/i.".
That cannot mean what you then said it it meant, regardless of brevity and sloppiness.

Each country has its own legal system ... isn't that what you want?
Then you say they should change to fit ours ... christ almighty .. you really, really don't get what the EU is for, you just want-out.
Why? you don't know, you just want-out.

Under which part of the law can you deport a British citizen? or have you just not thought this through properly?

I'd be quite happy to pay for British citizens to join their foreign spouses overseas. As I said, they could be given the option.

I do not believe that we should allow foreign citizens to stay in this country if they commit rape , murder, drug smuggling, people smuggling, armed robbery etc. As soon as they are sentenced we should start to set in place the paperwork for deportation once their sentence has been completed. Personally I would have them in a van to the airport directly from the prison.

The issues, as in most human rights cases or H & S, are poorly worded legislation or poor interpretation. I don't believe that anyone should be tortured, put to death, jailed without trial etc. I am quite happy to have refugees, EU citizens and those that jump through hoops to get work permits or become British citizens stay providing they don't abuse the hospitality of our country by committing violent crimes.

And if they don't want to go, or feel that the payment isn't enough? What then?

The point Dave O made was that the ECHR exists regardless of the HRA. You have those rights and so do I, again, pretty much regardless of what any British politician does.

By deporting a foreign criminal married to a British person, you could be seen to be infringing on the right to family life of the British citizen, who has the right to live here and benefit from the terms of the ECHR. The court would need to decide whether that was the case and UKBA would, by and large, have to go along with the courts's decision.

I'd suggest that it is UKBA's, and Theresa May's, poor interpretation of the legislation that is the main root of the problem here. Why else do they lose so often in court? Partly because they take it to court in the first place, for political and ideological reasons, rather than common sense.

Bringing a cat wouldn't help, as there's no reason why the cat could not go back with them. Far better to get a cat here.

I don't get the "right to a family life" issue, not in the context of deportation for serious crime, which if proven, would otherwise require a custodial sentence.
A custodial sentence, by its very nature, deprives a person of freedom and thereby deprives them of a family life.