Euro Area

[Kralizec]

I understand Common Law perfectly well thank you. It is what bound King John to the Magna Carta and ended up costing Charles l his head after he tried to impose a ship tax outside the port towns: It was illegal but he proclaimed 'Divine Right', God didn't save him from the headsmans axe though. Where I live in 'perfidious Albion' there are common law rights that date back before the Norman invasion. In theory anything that can be proved to be customary since 1189 (I think) is held to a part of custom and therefore protected by 'common law'. On the continent they use 'Roman Law' which is top down as opposed to English law, the basis of which is bottom up. Do some reading...

Don't you understand that the people are the only the court though? You sound like apologist for dictators... God forbid you ever have power.

Not exactly. Or rather, this is completely wrong. You should do some reading.

"Common law" as you know it today is a Norman innovation. The various customary laws that previously were held to be binding in the countryside were superceded by what was called the Common Law of the land; i.e. previous customs were supressed in favour of uniform law. Which isn't to say that changes in society can't affect common law, but the point is that as soon as the higher courts set a precedent it's binding for the entire jurisdiction and until it's superceded by a new ruling - a very much top down approach.
And please, let's view Magna Carta for what it is. Allthough we can broadly agree that it was a good thing in itself, it essentially was a bunch of lower aristocracy forcing the King to make certain concessions. That some have tried to pass it off as what God wanted has no bearing on history. Such charters were fairly common throughout the middle ages. If you know what the words "Magna Carta" would translate to in English you can claim to be more knowledgable than David Cameron.

I mean, Ireland excluded, we've been more politically stable and democratic than most place in Europe for the last four centuries.

That's debatable at best. If you make a selective comparison with France, then yes, Britain/the UK would seem to be a beacon of stability. But even so, England has been occasionally raided by Scots AFAIK during some ages, you've had a brief period of illegitimate dictatorship (Cromwell), the legal King removed in favour of his daughter and a foreigner (a.k.a. the glorious revolution) and so on. I don't feel like spending the time an an exhaustive comparative research of the history of European nations, but from what I know I'm confident that the British tale of stability and tranquility has been blown up to fairytale proportions.

As for "more democratic", I think that a lot of European countries (mine included) introduced universal suffrage around the same time as you did. What you English people call "democratic" in the 19th century was little more than elective olichargies with fairly broad, but still limited suffrage.

We shouldn't need to elect UKIP in order to be consulted on a transfer of Power from Westminster to anywhere else.

Yes, you do. That's how representative democracy works. If you want to influence the Tory platform you need to become a member of that party. Otherwise you'll be stuck with the choices offered at the ballot, and your FPTP system will ensure that only the traditional parties have a chance of getting in power.

Which incidentally is why I don't think the British system is better. Allthough the USA could be described as having a more rigid 2-party system than the UK I would say that theirs is better. The two parties in America are fairly diverse in themselves - there are reactionary democrats in the south, and there are socially liberal republicans in the north east. Congressmen can, and often do, vote against the party line. In contrast, the UK has 0.5 party more, but British parties have far greater party discipline and less local input.

As to our economy being in "ruins" if we leave - your beloved Europe is driving the entire bloody continent into bloody ruin without any regard to the human cost of "the Project". The Euro was never necessary, nor was the Constitution, nor the Lisbon Treaty, the current deadlock results from the democratic deficit - politicians in Europe have created a situation without any popular backing, and now they cannot move forwards or backwards without ensuring their own political Oblivion.

I wasn't saying that leaving the EU would inevitably lead to ruin. I was saying that giving Downing Street 10 to either the UKIP or BNP would do that, and incidentally only those two have promised to get you out of the EU. Subtle difference.

The bloody experiment in imposing political change top to bottom has failed - anti-foreign sentiment has been rising in various countries for the last decade and is now reaching a head. Greece is actually ungovernable now, the Executive can't do anything, Spain is facing a very serious prospect of fragmentation, Belgium continues to stagger on without a proper mandate at the Federal Level, France has elected a man who thinks the rich will pay 75% tax.

Don't get me started on what's happening in Germany.

LOL, so now the EU is to blame for that Spain has a history of regional seperatism? And that Belgium has a 150+ years history of tension between the Flemish and Walloons?

Revolutions and civil disorder are far, far less likely to break out in times of economic boom and prosperity. The EU has its share of the blame in the current financial trouble, but that's it. If Catalonia breaks away from Spain it's not the EU's fault. Honestly, you're a smart guy, but the conformation bias in your argument here is astounding.