EU election...

[Kadagar_AV]

So, EU just had the election... What do you guys think?

As for Sweden, a somewhat more nationalistic party got almost 10% of the votes, and a feminist party got just barely enough votes to get one seat.

Both are new on the Scene, and have never made it in before.



Sooo... To summarize Sweden, our far left is now further left than before (the feminist party), while the far right is further right than before (the nationalistic party).

So, basically more extremism - along with a refusal to even listen to the arguments and thoughts from people of other political leanings.

Rubbish :no:

[Fragony]

Eurosceptic parties seem to have done well everywhere, especially in the UK and France. It's shame the UKIP refuses to work with the FN, understandible as that might be given their past (and a lot of their voters) in the EU they share common ground.

[InsaneApache]

UKIP have nothing in common with the FN.


Nigel Farage claims to have secured the "most extraordinary result in British politics for 100 years" as UKIP topped the European polls.

With only Scotland left to declare, UKIP has 27.5% of the vote and 23 MEPs.

Labour, on 25%, is narrowly beating the Tories to second place thanks to a strong showing in London but both parties have 18 MEPs so far.

The Lib Dems, on 7%, are coming fifth behind the Green Party, on 8%, and have lost all but one of their seats.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27567744

Poor, poor Cleggy. I almost feel sorry for him. Almost. Did you see him on the second tv debate, at one point I thought he was going to burst into tears. He must be worried about his EU pension. LMFAO.

[Fragony]

UKIP have nothing in common with the FN.

I know, but a marriage of convenience on some things shouldn't outright be refused. I fully understand it though.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think its hard to guage how much the Euroskeptic success in this election can actually be put down to Euroskepticism, and how much can be put down to general disillusionment with the political establishment.

On a side note, I think that's it for the Lib Dems, they've passed the point of no return. They lost all sense of meaning as a party when they entered the Tory coalition, and now they are feeling the consequences of that. The only way they can step back from the abyss is through a Labour-Lib Dem coalition come the general election. If that doesn't happen they are gone for good.

[Husar]

I'm a horrible person and forgot to vote, not that it would have changed much in hindsight.

We have mostly elected the usual suspects, but I hope the UK have gained the proper momentum to finally leave the EU.

[Beskar]

UKIP have nothing in common with the FN.

You know by sharing a similar position on Europe, they do have something in common? This can be said for a lot of other factors too. They have far more in common than you are suggesting.

However, UKIP getting in bed with FN is just inviting disaster.

[InsaneApache]

Isn't it striking that in the last month all the MSM and the BBC have been shrieking waycist at UKIP only to watch their share of the vote go up each time.

I dearly hope the legacy parties and their lackeys in the MSM do the same again at the GE.

[Kadagar_AV]

I'll go out on a limb here...

I honestly believe the population in the EU countries have absolutely no ******* clue what they vote about. Ask the general citizen about the different umbrella groups dictating EU, and they will know absolutely nothing.

Nothing at all.

Let's remember that EU is so fresh, that most people voting haven't even learnt about it in school... So their knowledge base consist of what they have decided to learn on their own... Which of course translates to absolutely NOTHING when it comes to the average person.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Isn't it striking that in the last month all the MSM and the BBC have been shrieking waycist at UKIP only to watch their share of the vote go up each time.

I dearly hope the legacy parties and their lackeys in the MSM do the same again at the GE.

Well - I do think UKIP are picking up the racist vote from the likes of the BNP. Even so, the wipe out of the Lib Dems and the disappointing Labour gains strongly suggest that people want something *different* from Europe, it doesn't mean people want out.

I doubt people do want out, generally, but I think they do want a change - something national parties have promised them before and failed to deliver. It's likely that many of those UKIP votes will go to the Tories next year with the implicit message that they must deliver the referendum they promised.

Paradoxically, it may split the Centre-Right and cause a Labour victory, preventing a referendum.

Meanwhile - the rest of the EU has (apart from Germany) turned increasingly towards one type of Eurosceptic or another - reflecting what thewy personally see as being wrong with the EU. It's not produced a caucus that can work together, though. The ultra-right FN are effectively a "dead" block that nobody will work with, making their every MEP virtually "wasted".

[Beskar]

Labour pretty much got their gains from the Lib-dem losses, UKIP got their votes from Conservatives and the BNP losses.

UKIP has definitely replaced the 'protest' vote of the BNP though, luckily, definitely a lesser evil even if they are misguided single-issue party.

Problem the Libdems had was that they attracted a younger audience who saw them as progressive, then they jumped into bed with the conservatives who had some serious policy conflicts, especially when Libdems said to scrap tuition fees and ended up raising them to 9k from 3k and they received a lot of flak for the coalition. This is made worse by constant media portrayals of them being Tory-lapdogs rolling over for David Cameron. The disaster of the AV vote, something that no one actually wanted because Tories said no to STV, which is what people actually did want.

With Europe, you have the populist right-wing rags blaming Europe for everything, including things Europe is not even responsible for... could go on for a long time.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Labour pretty much got their gains from the Lib-dem losses, UKIP got their votes from Conservatives and the BNP losses.

UKIP has definitely replaced the 'protest' vote of the BNP though, luckily, definitely a lesser evil even if they are misguided single-issue party.

Problem the Libdems had was that they attracted a younger audience who saw them as progressive, then they jumped into bed with the conservatives who had some serious policy conflicts, especially when Libdems said to scrap tuition fees and ended up raising them to 9k from 3k and they received a lot of flak for the coalition. This is made worse by constant media portrayals of them being Tory-lapdogs rolling over for David Cameron. The disaster of the AV vote, something that no one actually wanted because Tories said no to STV, which is what people actually did want.

With Europe, you have the populist right-wing rags blaming Europe for everything, including things Europe is not even responsible for... could go on for a long time.

Not to get too deep into this but - UKIP picked up votes everywhere, even from Labour - Labour's gians are disappointing at this point in an electoral cycle, and the Conservative losses are far from surprising - they are also not series. This isn't exactly a gloat-worthy result for the Tories, but I would be reasonably encouraged by this, were I Cameron.

In general - the Lib Dems have run foul of their own joke, encapsulated by the old spitting image gag, "We'll never brake our election promises, because we'll never get elected." The people who thought the Lib Dems were going to widen access and scrap fees were, at best, misguided.

As far as STV goes - some "people" wanted it, but by no means a majority did. The older generation, who are more likely to vote, distrust the part list system, and not without reason. It's also offesnsive for people to point to the Lib Dems as "progrssie" wehn it's the Tories who had raising the tax freshold as a policy first, and were the people to drive trhough Gay Marriage.

Although - Gay Marriage is an obvious Conservative Policy (as opposed to Civil Partnerships, an obvious progressive one.)

[Beskar]

As far as STV goes - some "people" wanted it, but by no means a majority did. The older generation, who are more likely to vote, distrust the part list system

STV =/= Party List. They are different electoral systems.

STV is the system used in Scotland, Ireland, Australia, Iceland, etc.

[InsaneApache]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27579108

Farage thanks Cleggy for his help.....:laugh4::hail:

[InsaneApache]

:tumbleweed:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

STV =/= Party List. They are different electoral systems.

STV is the system used in Scotland, Ireland, Australia, Iceland, etc.

Don't insult my intelligence - any "proportional" system includes lists submitted by parties, it generally favour mid-sized parties who have broad but shallow support. I.e. they get a moderate share of the vote over a given area but they can't actually get a majority or even a large minority) to actually vote for a given candidate.

Their problem is that while people generally think they're "alright" their candidates, as individuals, are not impressive.

As least under FPTP you know who to throw eggs at.

[GenosseGeneral]

In Germany, eurosceptics also have gained votes. The new-on-the-scene Alternative for Germany has won about 7 %. Its prime topic is Europe, apart from that it is a conserative party on economical and social issues with a tendency towards right-wing populism when it comes to immigration.
Apart from that, the last minute abolition of the 3%-minimum parties used to need in order to get a seat has led another 7 parties with one seat each into the EP. Amongst these are 2 radical green parties, neonazis, a joke party and the Pirates.

Apart from that, I am pro-European yet I am also highly critical towards the EU in its current form. The EP has virtually no power, in the end national governments hold too much power. The European institutions are too large, too bulky. We have to get beyond crippling compromises such as "every country gets a comissioner".
Imho, a pro-European should support the European idea and be critical of its institutions.

- - - Updated - - -

In Germany, eurosceptics also have gained votes. The new-on-the-scene Alternative for Germany has won about 7 %. Its prime topic is Europe, apart from that it is a conserative party on economical and social issues with a tendency towards right-wing populism when it comes to immigration.
Apart from that, the last minute abolition of the 3%-minimum parties used to need in order to get a seat has led another 7 parties with one seat each into the EP. Amongst these are 2 radical green parties, neonazis, a joke party and the Pirates.

Apart from that, I am pro-European yet I am also highly critical towards the EU in its current form. The EP has virtually no power, in the end national governments hold too much power. The European institutions are too large, too bulky. We have to get beyond crippling compromises such as "every country gets a comissioner".
Imho, a pro-European should support the European idea and be critical of its institutions.

[InsaneApache]

Something for that gobshite Nick Clegg.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p13yZAjhU0M&feature=kp

:laugh4:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...So, basically more extremism - along with a refusal to even listen to the arguments and thoughts from people of other political leanings..:

...and you may have thought this was unique to Congress....

[a completely inoffensive name]

The real question is whether or not the Euroskeptic parties will continue to gain ground next election or whether this was a fluke for various reasons.

[Fragony]

That's no question at all, yes they will.

[InsaneApache]

Out of the ashes of his third place in the European elections, a new and stoutly Eurosceptic David Cameron appears to have emerged. The European Union must stop interfering so much in our national life, he says. He has branded it “too big, too bossy and too interfering”, and insists that the Brussels establishment must wake up to the message sent to it by voters.

Well, an opportunity has arisen for the Prime Minister to show he is serious when he says his guiding principle is “nation states wherever possible and Europe only where necessary”. For Britain is currently negotiating with the EU over whether to opt back into dozens of justice and home affairs measures that are being turned into European competencies under the Lisbon Treaty.

We could stay out of them all. That would, after all, tally with the Cameron principle of “nation states wherever possible”. But it seems that instead, the Prime Minister is going to hand control to the EU permanently in 35 areas, the most notable of which is the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). It was under this warrant, remember, that Andrew Symeou was held in a Greek prison for four years before being cleared of involvement in a killing outside a nightclub.

There is nothing necessary about allowing the EU to acquire the power to extradite British citizens on demand. Opting back in will mean the European Public Prosecutor gains the power to instruct national judges to issue arrest warrants. Extradition will become automatic, on the say-so of this all-powerful figure.

This country has been managing extradition processes with other countries for centuries. Our courts have largely proved adept at balancing the rights of British citizens with the rights of foreign jurisdictions to uphold law and order. Extradition applications have been looked at on their merits, and the strength of the case weighed in the balance, without the automaticity of the EAW. This still works well in respect of many countries across the world: one thinks of the extradition of Shrien Dewani to South Africa last month to stand trial on a murder charge.

That kind of extradition process respects national sovereignty, and is an example of independent nation states cooperating to their mutual benefit. But the EAW is a very different animal indeed. It hands over legal sovereignty to the European Union. It is more like rendition than extradition. No prima facie evidence is required, and national judges have almost no discretion so long as the paperwork is in order. In many of the inquisitorial legal systems on continental Europe, the consequences of extradition can involve being held in custody for questioning for years at a time.

In a rational world, one would expect liberal opinion to be up in arms about this idea. But because it is about surrendering national sovereignty to Brussels, there is barely a squeak. Indeed, Nick Clegg is a particular cheerleader for the EAW, and championed it in his televised debates with me in March and April.

The main reason he cited for submitting to the EAW was the need for a shared anti-terrorist effort. But in reality, the warrant is increasingly being deployed in much more mundane cases. Britons of good character are learning, to their utter incredulity, that they can be carted off at the flick of a pen. This hardly accords with the British legal tradition of “innocent until proven guilty”.

I have never been soft on crime, and never will be. But our legal system evolved to include an extradition process that protected the ancient legal rights of individuals against the state, long before anyone thought of the EU, let alone the EAW. Our justice system is deeply embedded in our society and culture – and for all its faults, still commands a basic level of respect and assent.

Being in charge of your own legal affairs is a basic signifier of a nation. If you don’t have it, then you are just an imperial outpost. So if Mr Cameron is remotely serious about his mission to defend Britain’s sovereignty, he should not be opting into the EAW – or a raft of other EU home affairs and justice measures.

This is the first big test of Mr Cameron’s new-found Eurosceptic backbone. I would like to think he will pass it. But observing the behaviour of every Tory leader since Margaret Thatcher leads me to doubt that profoundly.

The European election results have shown that the British people have had enough of the salami-slicing of their sovereignty. Far be it from me to advise Mr Cameron on how to re-engage with Eurosceptic opinion, let alone to restore some of his lost credibility. But if he falls at the first hurdle, he will certainly confirm the widespread view that the Conservatives are a lost cause for Eurosceptics. That would be a gain for my party, Ukip, but a loss for my nation. I find myself hoping against hope that the Prime Minister will surprise me on this score.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10860528/Match-your-words-with-action-David-Cameron.html

What an extremist, racialist bastard.

oh in other news....


Conservative Party Leader David Cameron is trying to sabotage UKIP’s influence at the European Parliament, just days after trying to appear sympathetic to euroscepticism by telling the British people that their message at the polls was “received and understood.”

Instead of accepting UKIP's victory, Cameron has started a drive to cut off the legs of “the people’s army” in Brussels and Strasbourg. He has assigned Conservative Party fixers to do deals with hard-right and populist parties which, until now, the Conservatives claimed were “unacceptable.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/28/Tories-woo-EU-hard-right-and-anti-Muslim-parties-to-block-UKIP

....and they have the gall to call UKIP supporters racist!

Not to mention the same underlying tactic of "business as usual" for the miscreants in Parliament.

Utter contempt for the electorate from utter bastards.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Utter contempt for the electorate from utter bastards.

I assume you are using the "disagreeable person" definition, since it is vanishingly unlikely for them all to have been born out of wedlock.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I assume you are using the "disagreeable person" definition, since it is vanishingly unlikely for them all to have been born out of wedlock.

Though it does suggest an intriguing scenario: bastard politicians attacking one another for being utter bastards as part of the obligatory smear campaign... :thinking:

[Beskar]

Ever heard/seen this interview of Nigel Farange?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pyYoL9ngtE

[InsaneApache]

So what?

It didn't work before the election and it's laughable really that you even brought it up. Screaming 'waycist' is counter-productive. Try answering his arguments.

[Fragony]

So what?

It didn't work before the election and it's laughable really that you even brought it up. Screaming 'waycist' is counter-productive. Try answering his arguments.

Yep. I put on my wizard-hat and rope and cast populismus, a powerful spell that removes any argument.

Farrage is a boss, he has one big problem though: he is absolutily right.

Much to the grief od europhiles he has outlined everything years ago, they know he was right, reality resonates with him being spot on. He understands what the EU really is.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ever heard/seen this interview of Nigel Farange?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pyYoL9ngtE

Ask one of your Romanian friends what THEY think about criminality in their country?

Be prepared to be shocked to your Liberal core - and realise Farage REALLY pulled that punch, which is the only reason he sounds like he might be racist.

[Beskar]

Try answering his arguments.

I did in the Kipper thread.

He was embarrassing in that video though, clearly didn't have a clue. Always tickles me when he complains about immigrants and schools where children have English as a second language when his own wife is an immigrant and his own children speak German as a first-language.

He is someone who attempts to be 'down' with the people but he isn't working-class and is a parody of someone attempting to be, he is from the 'big-city' and he does have his 'big-city friends and media-buddies' like other political parties.

As for 'crying racist' I never said that once, but if you noticed, people stopped very quickly as HIGNFY jokingly put it "They are racists? This is a party I can get in touch with" and they get a surge in the opinion polls. It is actually more to do with rooting for the underdog, but alas.

[InsaneApache]

The only reason he goes on about immigrants is because he knows full well that we do not have control of our borders. As for being 'waycist', I'd say the opposite is true. Whilst we allow in Caucasians from the EU, we deny access to citizens from the New Commonwealth and beyond.

My step-mom had a hell of time getting into the UK with my dad. Nearly 11 hours at the border before they let her cross. Oh,and she's black.

BTW how is it possible to be 'waycist' towards fellows of the same ethnic group? I'd be fascinated to know.

[Beskar]

BTW how is it possible to be 'waycist' towards fellows of the same ethnic group? I'd be fascinated to know.

I could easily answer that by saying peoples definition of race is different based on where the concept of race they come from is manufactured. You have the American-esque 'White' and 'Blacks', where it is done purely on skin-colour. You have the European-School which Hitler was a fan-of which called Poles, Russians, etc, Sub-human Slavs. He also had the 'Aryan German Master-Race' which is different but related to the strong 'British Race'.

But reality is, 'Racist' is common-speak for 'Xenophobic'

Also, the definition of ethnic is: "relating to a population subgroup (within a larger or dominant national or cultural group) with a common national or cultural tradition."
Romanians are not in the same ethnic grouping according to this definition. :shrug:
Could be argued Welsh/Scottish/irish are different ethnic groupings too.

[Fragony]

What's xenophobic about being realistic? Racists are perfectly catered by the BNP, who are admittingly mostly scum. But the UKIP has nothing to do with them, nor do they want to have anything to do with them. It's just not fair to link libertarians like the UKIP to those who have some questionable thoughts. You aren't going to convince anyone, there is nothing to win there, so it's just as futile as it is unfair.

[InsaneApache]

The people of Britain have spoken and our political life will now have to be conducted on quite different terms, right? Wrong. Here’s another statement that seems to have passed for a truism over the past week which is equally wrong: large swathes of the populations of Europe have shouted a warning to their governments, and thus shaken the confidence of the whole European Union edifice. And another: national leaders in most of the major EU member states realise that they must respond to the demands of their electorates and reconsider the basic principle of ever-closer union.

When I say that all of these statements are false, I do not mean to detract from the thunderous importance of recent electoral events. I am not one of those delusional commentators who believe (or claim to believe) that nothing much of any significance has happened and that all this excitement is just overblown media froth. On the contrary, my reason for insisting that none of the things that are assumed to be self-evidently true about the post-elections world will actually prove correct, is that the results were too important – so devastating, so cataclysmically mind-altering that they cannot be assimilated. There is no way that the European Union – which is to say, those who run it, think entirely within its conceptual parameters, have their political and personal futures invested in it and can conceive of no reality outside of it – can come to terms with the consequences of these elections.

The facts do not compute. They are incomprehensible. Therefore they must be dismissed as some irrational, contemptible spasm to which the masses are occasionally susceptible and which the enlightened institutions of the EU were specifically designed to over-rule.

Here in Britain, in our own little bastion of denial, party leaders are jamming up behind one another to assure voters that they “get it”: they hear you, they understand your concerns, they are going to address your anxieties, blah-blah. So what does all this lesson-learning and self-abnegation amount to? David Cameron announces firmly that he knows the EU is seen as “too big, too bossy and too interfering”, which makes the whole thing sound like a children’s playground squabble. Is it just me or does the word “bossy” sound just a little bit patronising and trivial – especially given that what we are talking about here is the withdrawal of our right as a democratic polity to have power over own criminal justice system and our national borders?

Ed Miliband insists that he now recognises that people’s concerns about immigration must be taken seriously. I’ll bet he does – especially as so many of the voters with the greatest concerns are likely to have been ex-Labour supporters. But what exactly does this commitment to taking people’s concerns seriously amount to? A change of Labour policy on immigration? An explicit admission that the decision by the last Labour government to permit immediate unlimited migration from the new East European accession countries – when most other member states did not – was a mistake? Not that I’ve heard. Until it translates into some meaningful new policy, this is just pious codswallop. Saying “we hear you” in a soothing voice means nothing. It just buys a bit of time – which is the real object of the game.
Related Articles

David Cameron: Brussels has become 'too big and too bossy' 27 May 2014
Cameron 'warned Merkel over Britain quitting' European Union 01 Jun 2014

The Conservatives can play at this with the most confidence. So far as they are concerned, they emerged from the bloodbath with barely a scratch. All they need do is murmur a few attentive platitudes, re-affirm their promise of a renegotiation with a supposedly humbled EU, wait for the public hysteria to fade in the face of good economic news, and then face an utterly demoralised Labour party led by (ha, ha, ha) Mr Miliband.

What’s to worry? If they beat Ukip in the Newark by-election – even if their 16,000 majority is drastically cut – they will privately (and possibly even publicly if they are particularly foolish) declare the present emergency officially over. Their most urgent worry, bizarrely, is that the Lib Dems are now dead in the water, which leaves a lot of disenfranchised voters who could become a dangerously unknown quantity at the general election. (We could yet be faced with the nightmare possibility of a tiny rump of Lib Dem MPs still holding the balance in a hung parliament, if the Conservatives cannot manage a working majority.)

Yes indeed, the Tories know how to manage this “crisis”. Sit it out. Hunker down and let it blow over. I promise you that, within weeks, they will be doing and saying exactly what they had been doing and saying before The Earthquake. As will Labour, for a slightly different reason: because it simply does not have the philosophical resources to cope with this shift in reality.

So everybody in mainstream British politics – even Nick Clegg, the dead man walking – will lie low, stay calm, and hope that when summer comes, this will all be forgotten. Because the awful truth is that nobody in politics actually knows how to respond to a spontaneous demonstration of public anger any more. They have become so practised at manipulating, image-projecting and rebranding, that a full-frontal confrontation with raw democratic outrage leaves them stupefied.

But what about the EU itself? Hasn’t it been shaken in its sublime self-regard? Won’t the mass revolts of electorates across its member states force it to reassess its own size, role, power, fundamental precepts, etc, etc, thus making Mr Cameron’s mission to reform it more practicable?

Wrong again. EU institutions are transcendentally oblivious to the democratic will: they were, after all, created precisely to ensure that the serious business of government could never again be taken over by volatile popular movements of dubious provenance. One of the EU Commission’s first acts after the elections was to demand a further £1.76 billion in contributions from member states, in order to subsidise those whose problems are almost entirely attributable to EU economic policy.

The European parliament, supposedly the elected voice of the governed, is so committed to the momentum of the federalist project that even in the wake of those spectacularly anti-EU election results it nominated Jean-Claude Juncker, an arch-federalist, as president of the Commission. Has anybody learnt anything? Presumably if there was to be an honest statement of basic principle engraved over the doors of the Brussels headquarters it would say: “The people are dangerous. Don’t listen to them.”

It has become received wisdom that the reason for that massive electoral rebellion against the EU was that the people were throwing a harmless tantrum: they were just letting off steam because they knew that their votes in this election did not matter. And what do people do next when they realise that their votes don’t matter?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10866284/We-hear-you-is-just-pious-codswallop.html

It's the last sentence that worries me. If the EU keep ignoring this they are storing up an awful lot of trouble.

[Rhyfelwyr]

You know, in the past, I used to be a bit sympathetic to Europe. I felt (and still do feel) that some in this country would, if they could have their way, bring back workhouses, reinstate the death penalty and lock up everybody for everything like they do in America. I saw liberal-lefty Europe as a counter-balance to that.

But now some of the stuff coming out of Europe is really totalitarian. That European Arrest Warrant really freaks me out, another one of those so-called 'anti-terrorism' measures. We've already got the horror stories (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglascarswellmp/100272749/brits-are-being-carted-off-to-face-trial-in-foreign-courts-time-to-scrap-the-european-arrest-warrant/) coming through. If Britain is a sovereign nation then I don't expect to be carted off at the demands of some foreign court, especially with some of the freak shows that pass for legal systems in Europe (remember the Amanda Knox trial, for example?).

[Husar]

Amanda Know turned out to be guilty in the end, the freak show part must refer to her being helped to escape to a country that only cares about jailing murderers when they are blacks sentenced by a white jury and won't send her back for that reason even though it likes to jail tons of its own people and foreigners itself for all kinds of minor crimes as you say.

As for your horror story:

When a French court first issued my constituent with a court summons, he got straight on to HM Revenue and Customs. Not to worry, HMRC apparently told him. We’ll advise the French authorities accordingly. Except HMRC did no such thing. Next Mr Essex heard he had been tried by the French court in his absence.

Isn't that clearly a fault of this glorious English institution that could never be wrong because it's English and has Her Majesty in its name?
And what's so bad about French courts anyway?

[InsaneApache]

Isn't that clearly a fault of this glorious English institution that could never be wrong because it's English and has Her Majesty in its name?

Very funny.

Seriously though the EAW is terrible. Remember this?


Andrew Symeou was extradited to Greece in July 2009 to face charges in connection with the death of a young man at a nightclub on a Greek island. Andrew was extradited despite evidence that the charges were based on statements extracted by Greek police through the violent intimidation of witnesses, who later retracted their statements

http://www.fairtrials.org/cases/andrew-symeou/

I know when my dad lived in Greece the locals warned us to stay well away from the police. Even more corrupt than their fellow countrymen and that's saying summat.


And what's so bad about French courts anyway?

If you need to ask....

This is one of the myriad reasons why the UK (and Ireland) are unsuited to be members of the EU of A. In the common law system you are innocent until found guilty in a court of law. In the code civil, it's the other way around. We actually think this is intrinsically evil.


Amanda Know (sic) turned out to be guilty in the end

Aye keep trying her until you find her guilty. A bit like those EU referendums, keep voting until you get the right result. Again we regard this as intrinsically evil.

I notice you didn't address this...


And what do people do next when they realise that their votes don’t matter?

It never works out well when our 'rulers' ignore the wishes of the people. In the UK we'll probably have petitions and tea and cucumber sandwiches at No 10. In other parts of Europe......well I know for a fact that most of the Greeks on Corfu have guns. One guy I met told me he'd taken his off a dead Italian,who's throat he'd just cut.

He looked a little like my grandad. I nicer bloke you'd be hard pressed to meet.

[Husar]

Very funny.

Seriously though the EAW is terrible. Remember this?

http://www.fairtrials.org/cases/andrew-symeou/

I know when my dad lived in Greece the locals warned us to stay well away from the police. Even more corrupt than their fellow countrymen and that's saying summat.

No, but that's a good argument for more political integration to root out the corruption. It always amazes me that the EU or UN or so blame Germany for not having proper laws against corruption as apparently all other countries have, yet our corruption is apparently a lot lower than the corruption in all these other countries. I suppose having a law is not the same as following it.


If you need to ask....

This is one of the myriad reasons why the UK (and Ireland) are unsuited to be members of the EU of A. In the common law system you are innocent until found guilty in a court of law. In the code civil, it's the other way around. We actually think this is intrinsically evil.

Oh, but it's so wonderful that I asked and even more wonderful that and how you answered. I don't even know where to start poking all the fun. Do I start with the common law exceptionalism or that I heard the same thing being said about the USA? Well, you might know it's not true about the USA and let me tell you, it's not true about France either. Now I did not know that but since it surprised me when you said it and you seem so sure of what you say (which you really shouldn't be), I looked it up: http://www.overseas-exile.com/2013/09/innocent-until-proven-guilty-us-versus.html

Note that I pointed out that they live in the US. That's important, because the outcome would have been different here in France. Under French law:
Toute personne suspectée ou poursuivie est présumée innocente tant que sa culpabilité n'a pas été établie. Les atteintes à sa présomption d'innocence sont prévenues, réparées et réprimées dans les conditions prévues par la loi.
That translates as:
Any suspected or accused person is presumed innocent until he is found guilty. Damage to the presumption of innocence is prevented, remedied and punished as provided by law.
"Damage to the presumption of innocence"? It means, amongst other things, French police departments don't do perp walks (a disgusting US police practice), your mugshot is not published and even in serious crimes, the French don't name suspects until a conviction, barring issues where the names have been leaked. In court cases, the police lead the accused to the courtroom via discreet entrances to prevent photographs and damage to the presumption of innocence. If you violate this presumption of innocence, it will quickly be your turn to stand in front of a judge, but they'll protect your privacy too.

http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=82288

And the Déclaration clearly states, in its ninth article that (quoting Wikipedia) :

"As all persons are held innocent until they shall have been declared guilty, if arrest shall be deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential to the securing of the prisoner's person shall be severely repressed by law."

In fact, France goes farther than the United States in protectiong the presumption of innocence. While in America, that principle is only applicable in courts, in France, since june 15th 2000, that presumption extends beyond the court. One exemple: many people were outraged here because Dominique Strauss-Kahn was the victim of a "perp walk". That's because, in his own country, he would not have been subjected to that practice. People who are arrested in a criminal case have their faces masked, either by clothes, or by having their faces blurred on TV or in pics. Their names are not given until trial day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence#Common_law

The maxim or its equivalent has been adopted by many civil law systems, including Brazil,[7] France,[8] Italy,[9][10] Philippines,[11] Poland,[12] Romania[13] and Spain.[14]

So, there you have the advantages of your common law over the filthy barbaric French.


Aye keep trying her until you find her guilty. A bit like those EU referendums, keep voting until you get the right result. Again we regard this as intrinsically evil.
It was about evidence which was clearly there but not allowed to be used in the case where she was regarded innocent. Two courts found the evidence perfectly clear and it made her look incredibly guilty. If you don't like repeated trials, they could have stuck with the first verdict instead of "keep trying her until she is found innocent", that's not an argument.


I notice you didn't address this...

You were proudly parading around about having voted UKIP, so how does it feel then? I already said I didn't vote. Sorry, but the joke's on you...
Cameron singlehandedly preventing Juncker by threatening to leave also sounds very democratic and like a normal process. IMO they should have chosen Juncker and let Cameron and the UK leave. But for evil dictators our leaders lack the spine to do that apparently.


It never works out well when our 'rulers' ignore the wishes of the people. In the UK we'll probably have petitions and tea and cucumber sandwiches at No 10. In other parts of Europe......well I know for a fact that most of the Greeks on Corfu have guns. One guy I met told me he'd taken his off a dead Italian,who's throat he'd just cut.

He looked a little like my grandad. I nicer bloke you'd be hard pressed to meet.

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say with this? Are you talking about separatist terrorist insurgencies like in Ukraine?

[Furunculus]

Interesting times.

ECR down from ~55 to 46
ALDE down from ~75 to 55#

However, it looks likely that ALDE will lose two or three seats to the EPP, whereas the ECR is likely to gain as many as ten or twelve seats over the course of the next few months.

Which would make the ECR the third biggest party in the parliament!

A long way away from the prophecies or doom and fractured collapse all those years ago. ;)

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?118607-Europe

[Furunculus]

i'm delighted to announce that the right-wing eurosceptic group the ECR is now the third biggest group in the EU parliament, toppling the previous kingmaker ALDE back into fourth:

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/eu-elections-2014/liberals-embarrassed-n-va-joins-ecr-making-it-third-largest-parliament

[pops champagne]

not bad for a rag tag group of reprobates that were destined to explode mere months after their formation. ;)

[Furunculus]

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/28/Tories-woo-EU-hard-right-and-anti-Muslim-parties-to-block-UKIP

....and they have the gall to call UKIP supporters racist!
Not to mention the same underlying tactic of "business as usual" for the miscreants in Parliament.
Utter contempt for the electorate from utter bastards.

Actually, this is what i like about the tories; it is all about the manipulation of power.

It is why they have have been winning elections decade after decade for nigh on a quarter of a millennia!
They have no core ideology around which to become fossilised when it ceases to provide answers to the great questions of the age. You gotta admire the adaptability of the buggers, no one else has their staying power:

The liberals rolled in in 1680 as the Whigs and gave up the ghost 250 years later.
Labour arrived in 1865 as the IWA and are already looking pretty shaky as an ongoing force just 150 years later.

labour 1915 = less than 7 million trade union members (population 40m)
labour 1965 = more than 14 million trade union members (population 50m)
labour 2015 = less than 7 million trade union members (population 60m)

Is there any sign of a Labour 2.0, and if not, who comes next?
We retain an adversarial political culture and society (unlike our consensual continental neighbours), so there will be a next. have no doubt.

I was/am kind of hoping that it will be the Lib(-Dems)erals again, but it does rather depend on whether they can hold their p00p together until 2020. Labour is going to be really struggling to find a purpose then, and they may be dethroned as the natural home of the left in 2025 if the liberals make a good fist of it in the one previous.