Quote: (04-02-2019 01:36 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  

Quote: (04-02-2019 09:15 AM)the.king Wrote:  

Quote: (03-25-2019 04:49 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  

To answer your question on abusive EU legislation, one need look no further than the European Arrest Warrant, which mandates citizens be extradited to other member states to face criminal prosecution even if the alleged crime is not a crime in their home country, and even if (as has happened) the citizen then spends years in detention in a foreign country awaiting trial.

UK can refuse a European Arrest Warrant extradition request on such grounds (its called 'double criminality') unless it is a grave offence such as rape, weapons trafficking etc.

Can you name a case where an EU nation has abused in your opinion its extradition agreements with the UK ? Not trying to be sarcastic, i honestly want to understand rationale of people who support brexit. Personally I don't understand how an agreement to harmonise extradition of criminals between European countries can be an issue for people?

Well, your post in a sense shows why Europeans have such trouble understanding Britain.

'Harmonisation' of laws between member states, particularly between continental Europe and Britain has two problems. One is practical, the other more abstract.

As a practical matter, you cannot harmonise a common law system and a system based on the Code Civil. The two are fundamentally distinct and incompatible in their very natures. One is an organic, judge made system of laws that arises primarily based on the actual disputes and criminal proceedings that comes before it. The other is a codified system of laws that attempts to be complete from point of creation. The latter being, by its very essence, far more bureaucratic to enforce and less adaptable to particular injustice or criminal/legislative novelty. Trying to force one on the other leads to a very unhappy state of legal affairs, such as we currently have in the UK. It also encourages our government to legislate. Prior to our joining the European Union, the amount of actual legislation governments here passed was relatively limited, and it was enacted infrequently. Again, that has all changed, and it leads to legal incompatibility and injustice - something we are seeing a great deal these days here. As some have rightly pointed out, we do now have many more unjust and insane legislation that requires ever more enforcement. This is largely due to our membership of the EU.

As a more abstract point of opposition, the clear end point of 'harmonisation' is a pan-European legal framework, binding on all member states - and the corollary, which is the eradication of national laws in favour of a centralised code. It is the federalisation of Europe, and legal harmonisation is the most potent step to achieving that utopian goal. The legal system of the UK, gifted to many of our former colonies, underpins the greatest period of progress and innovation in the history of mankind, and it is no coincidence in my view that none of the countries that have adopted it have fallen prey to murderous ideology or demagoguery.

There is a third reason, and that is that as a British citizen I have absolutely no intention to be bound by the crooked, corrupt, and extremely inferior laws of other European countries, particularly the Central and Eastern European ones, but I would extend that description to almost all of Western continental Europe too. The idea of being bound by the decisions of Romanian or Polish judges now, or heaven forbid Moldovan or Albanian ones in the future, is simply disgusting to me. Not unfortunate, not modestly or acceptably inferior - unequivocally revolting and unacceptable. I meet and deal with these people regularly, and they are all politically connected and quite prepared to solicit bribes to make sure decisions go the right way. One of the vile implications of the European Arrest Warrant is that as a British Citizen, it is possible that my country will defer (for example) to Romanian standards of justice.

A lot of words here, but little accuracy. "Positive" law - law that actually has an effect - is distilled into summaries, either by legislative codification or secondary publications like jury instructions.

The USA is thought of as a "common law" jurisdiction, yet the law is overwhelmingly set into statutes, like 90% or more depending on which state. Close to 100% in the federal courts.

Yes, judicial opinions about the interpretation of statutes are law. If a statute is found to be unconstitutional, judges can limit it or strike it down.

This is also the case in many if not all European civil jurisdictions.

The European Arrest Warrant isn't much different than any other treaty of extradition.

To use the example you cited, if there was proof you committed a crime in Romania, would you expect to escape justice before a Romanian judge?

There are scores of Eastern Europeans being extradited home from the UK every week. It will be so great for the UK, now maybe they can remain.

Same thing with Brits who can commit crimes and flee to Spain.

Again, almost all of the EU laws are commercial regulations like product standards. The UK will have to follow these to do business with Europe.

The shitshow that's coming with a no-deal Brexit will be entertaining to watch.
Say goodbye to 20% of your GDP.

Quote: (04-03-2019 04:52 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

Again, almost all of the EU laws are commercial regulations like product standards. The UK will have to follow these to do business with Europe.

The shitshow that's coming with a no-deal Brexit will be entertaining to watch.
Say goodbye to 20% of your GDP.

You're talking about BS EN. British Standard European Norm. BS is pretty much on par with EN.

Quote: (04-03-2019 04:52 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

Quote: (04-02-2019 01:36 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  

Quote: (04-02-2019 09:15 AM)the.king Wrote:  

Quote: (03-25-2019 04:49 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  

To answer your question on abusive EU legislation, one need look no further than the European Arrest Warrant, which mandates citizens be extradited to other member states to face criminal prosecution even if the alleged crime is not a crime in their home country, and even if (as has happened) the citizen then spends years in detention in a foreign country awaiting trial.

UK can refuse a European Arrest Warrant extradition request on such grounds (its called 'double criminality') unless it is a grave offence such as rape, weapons trafficking etc.

Can you name a case where an EU nation has abused in your opinion its extradition agreements with the UK ? Not trying to be sarcastic, i honestly want to understand rationale of people who support brexit. Personally I don't understand how an agreement to harmonise extradition of criminals between European countries can be an issue for people?

Well, your post in a sense shows why Europeans have such trouble understanding Britain.

'Harmonisation' of laws between member states, particularly between continental Europe and Britain has two problems. One is practical, the other more abstract.

As a practical matter, you cannot harmonise a common law system and a system based on the Code Civil. The two are fundamentally distinct and incompatible in their very natures. One is an organic, judge made system of laws that arises primarily based on the actual disputes and criminal proceedings that comes before it. The other is a codified system of laws that attempts to be complete from point of creation. The latter being, by its very essence, far more bureaucratic to enforce and less adaptable to particular injustice or criminal/legislative novelty. Trying to force one on the other leads to a very unhappy state of legal affairs, such as we currently have in the UK. It also encourages our government to legislate. Prior to our joining the European Union, the amount of actual legislation governments here passed was relatively limited, and it was enacted infrequently. Again, that has all changed, and it leads to legal incompatibility and injustice - something we are seeing a great deal these days here. As some have rightly pointed out, we do now have many more unjust and insane legislation that requires ever more enforcement. This is largely due to our membership of the EU.

As a more abstract point of opposition, the clear end point of 'harmonisation' is a pan-European legal framework, binding on all member states - and the corollary, which is the eradication of national laws in favour of a centralised code. It is the federalisation of Europe, and legal harmonisation is the most potent step to achieving that utopian goal. The legal system of the UK, gifted to many of our former colonies, underpins the greatest period of progress and innovation in the history of mankind, and it is no coincidence in my view that none of the countries that have adopted it have fallen prey to murderous ideology or demagoguery.

There is a third reason, and that is that as a British citizen I have absolutely no intention to be bound by the crooked, corrupt, and extremely inferior laws of other European countries, particularly the Central and Eastern European ones, but I would extend that description to almost all of Western continental Europe too. The idea of being bound by the decisions of Romanian or Polish judges now, or heaven forbid Moldovan or Albanian ones in the future, is simply disgusting to me. Not unfortunate, not modestly or acceptably inferior - unequivocally revolting and unacceptable. I meet and deal with these people regularly, and they are all politically connected and quite prepared to solicit bribes to make sure decisions go the right way. One of the vile implications of the European Arrest Warrant is that as a British Citizen, it is possible that my country will defer (for example) to Romanian standards of justice.

A lot of words here, but little accuracy. "Positive" law - law that actually has an effect - is distilled into summaries, either by legislative codification or secondary publications like jury instructions.

The USA is thought of as a "common law" jurisdiction, yet the law is overwhelmingly set into statutes, like 90% or more depending on which state. Close to 100% in the federal courts.

Yes, judicial opinions about the interpretation of statutes are law. If a statute is found to be unconstitutional, judges can limit it or strike it down.

This is also the case in many if not all European civil jurisdictions.

The European Arrest Warrant isn't much different than any other treaty of extradition.

To use the example you cited, if there was proof you committed a crime in Romania, would you expect to escape justice before a Romanian judge?

There are scores of Eastern Europeans being extradited home from the UK every week. It will be so great for the UK, now maybe they can remain.

Same thing with Brits who can commit crimes and flee to Spain.

Again, almost all of the EU laws are commercial regulations like product standards. The UK will have to follow these to do business with Europe.

The shitshow that's coming with a no-deal Brexit will be entertaining to watch.
Say goodbye to 20% of your GDP.

You, like a lot of people labour under the misunderstanding that leaving the EU would be bad for UK business.

The opposite is true.

The UK buys good from the EU and sells goods outside the EU.

The EU restricts trade with countries outside the EU.

After Brexit, if the EU countries cannot sell their goods to the UK, they will plunge into recession.

After Brexit the UK will be free to sell to non-EU countries without the restrictions imposed by the EU.

All round, it will boost UK production and trade.

Quote: (04-03-2019 05:36 PM)Cuchulainn2016 Wrote:  

Quote: (04-03-2019 04:52 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

[snip]

Again, almost all of the EU laws are commercial regulations like product standards. The UK will have to follow these to do business with Europe.

The shitshow that's coming with a no-deal Brexit will be entertaining to watch.
Say goodbye to 20% of your GDP.

You, like a lot of people labour under the misunderstanding that leaving the EU would be bad for UK business.

The opposite is true.

The UK buys good from the EU and sells goods outside the EU.

The EU restricts trade with countries outside the EU.

After Brexit, if the EU countries cannot sell their goods to the UK, they will plunge into recession.

After Brexit the UK will be free to sell to non-EU countries without the restrictions imposed by the EU.

All round, it will boost UK production and trade.

Totally delusional. Rather than "restricting" trade with countries outside the EU, the EU is making trade pacts with a lot of countries. Look at this map:



EU Trade Agreements

The second the lunatics get their no-deal Brexit, the UK will be out of all those reciprocal trade pacts and will have to negotiate their own.

It may well be that the EU will exert pressure to stop any UK agreements with countries they already have pacts with.

The EU already locked up North, West, East and South Africa, leaving Ethiopia and a few basket cases like Congo in the middle.

Japan, Mexico, Peru, Colombia, Vietnam all have trade agreements with the EU.

The USA is a possibility, yes. Trump has said so. It's a matter of how much Trump will cuck for the UK and effectively go against his own campaign theme to make Farage happy, give equal footing to British products, and thereby screw American workers. If he does, the UK will be even more of a vassal state to the US than it has been.

Australia? Sure, but a smaller and remote market.

China and Russia? It would be great for Chinese goods, I'm sure. British exports, probably not so much. And what will that mean for UK foreign policy? The UK has already laid down for China, guess the Chinese will run the place soon, unless the USA runs it. Russia cares more about selling gas to Germany.

India and Brazil? Depends on whether they'd rather link up with the EU preferentially.

The more I watch Parliament and read about this, the more I'm convinced it's madness. All to keep the Poles and Bulgarians out? Ironic. If you're a "muh Western culture" guy, the Poles, Bulgarians and Romanians might be what saves you.

Quote: (04-04-2019 12:57 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

The more I watch Parliament and read about this, the more I'm convinced it's madness. All to keep the Poles and Bulgarians out? Ironic. If you're a "muh Western culture" guy, the Poles, Bulgarians and Romanians might be what saves you.

Are you deliberately misunderstanding this? It seems so.

Who gives a shit about the EE folks? I sure as fuck don't. What I DO give a shit about is not having any way to change laws. Not having any way to make new ones. Not having any way to kick out the bums in power.

When told this, Remainers like to talk about how the UK isn't really a democracy because it's so shit. Lots of oppression of stuff, etc. I believe you've done the same thing in this thread.

My answer: so what? Yes, Britain is shit right now. There's lots of reasons for that. What won't make it better is making yourself a state in the United States of Europe, except without any of the power that the States in the US have, and without the first and second amendment to fix them.

If in twenty years Britain has a violent revolution and wants to get rid of their EU masters, what do they do? Do the guys march down to the local EU parliament with their safety scissors (since every other weapon has been taken away) and string up the MPs and Lords?

No-because those guys won't have done any of it and removing them will do nothing. We'll have to invade fucking Brussels, or do what we're doing now. But in twenty years the EU will probably just send in their army to "pacify" the "unrest" in the region. Did you know that's in their plans as well? Dissolve the national armies and fold it into an EU force under the control of the bureaucrats?

TL;DR: The EU is the Fourth Reich and we want the fuck out.

EDIT: for the readers among us, I recommend this series. The world in it is a terrifying extrapolation of what the EU could become. You will notice the low ratings, that's because it got a lot of SJW-rage 1 stars. Neal Asher is a fantastic sci-fi author.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Departure-Owner...0330457616

None of you Brexiteers have one coherent argument based on a standing rule of the EU.

It's all "muh sovereignty" based on readings of The Sun headlines like "Brussels Bureaucrats to Abolish the Pint." And now, science fiction!

Honda plant closing, Airbus going away, PMI going down, it's all great!

UK composite PMI

Guess what? For the fourth time: After your economy takes the hit and Scotland secedes to return to the EU, Little England will still have to follow EU rules to trade with the EU! Except now, you'll be beggars at the door, with no voice at all in making the rules.

Quote: (04-04-2019 01:52 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

None of you Brexiteers have one coherent argument based on a standing rule of the EU.

It's all "muh sovereignty" based on readings of The Sun headlines like "Brussels Bureaucrats to Abolish the Pint." And now, science fiction!

Honda plant closing, Airbus going away, PMI going down, it's all great!

UK composite PMI

Guess what? For the fourth time: After your economy takes the hit and Scotland secedes to return to the EU, Little England will still have to follow EU rules to trade with the EU! Except now, you'll be beggars at the door, with no voice at all in making the rules.

Sure, that's how being a nation works. You don't get to set other nations' rules. So unfair, I know.

And again: What skin do you have in this game? Are you a UK citizen? Do you stand to lose a lot of money when Brexit happens? At least the brainless remainers in England can complain that they might have to get a visa when they holiday in Mallorca. What's your beef? Someone's WRONG ON THE INTERNET?

Quote: (04-04-2019 02:00 AM)Malone Wrote:  

Quote: (04-04-2019 01:52 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

None of you Brexiteers have one coherent argument based on a standing rule of the EU.

It's all "muh sovereignty" based on readings of The Sun headlines like "Brussels Bureaucrats to Abolish the Pint." And now, science fiction!

Honda plant closing, Airbus going away, PMI going down, it's all great!

UK composite PMI

Guess what? For the fourth time: After your economy takes the hit and Scotland secedes to return to the EU, Little England will still have to follow EU rules to trade with the EU! Except now, you'll be beggars at the door, with no voice at all in making the rules.

Sure, that's how being a nation works. You don't get to set other nations' rules. So unfair, I know.

And again: What skin do you have in this game? Are you a UK citizen? Do you stand to lose a lot of money when Brexit happens? At least the brainless remainers in England can complain that they might have to get a visa when they holiday in Mallorca. What's your beef? Someone's WRONG ON THE INTERNET?

I made money on Brexit.

I bought a bunch of Barclays Bank when it plunged right after the referendum, figured it was oversold down at $7 and I was right. I cashed out in the initial rebound past $10 in 2016.

I'm trying to think of a trade to make now, but I don't short stocks or trade options. Barclays has been in the doldrums, don't think it's going to pop after Brexit. Same with other UK stocks.

I'm interested in it the same way many who live in the UK or Australia comment on US politics. It might make my life more of a pain in the ass in small ways.

And I will be sad when the UK breaks up. A great nation destroying itself. I don't like the revival of 18th century antagonisms between England and France and Spain, either. I like stability.

As for "not getting to set other nations' rules," ever hear of the World Trade Organization? The UK will still be a member and subject to its rules.

So no skin in the game is your answer then. Just an opportunist. Carry on, then.

I'm glad I don't have skin in the game. Maybe if I decide to start shorting UK stocks.

You might be fucked, living in Spain and being a UK citizen. Spain might take away your right to work.

Quote: (04-04-2019 02:36 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

I'm glad I don't have skin in the game. Maybe if I decide to start shorting UK stocks.

You might be fucked, living in Spain and being a UK citizen. Spain might take away your right to work.

Yep! Gives my opinion some weight, doesn't it? Unlike yours which has none.

Yep, but I have one little issue.
When the UK leaves with no deal, does that mean roaming charges will be reimposed on voice and data between the UK and EU? As far as I know, the removal of roaming was an EU ruling, and neither the UK nor the EU carriers will be prevented from charging for roaming.

That will suck, won't it? But you'll have sovereignty!

Quote: (04-03-2019 04:52 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

Quote: (04-02-2019 01:36 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  

Well, your post in a sense shows why Europeans have such trouble understanding Britain.

'Harmonisation' of laws between member states, particularly between continental Europe and Britain has two problems. One is practical, the other more abstract.

As a practical matter, you cannot harmonise a common law system and a system based on the Code Civil. The two are fundamentally distinct and incompatible in their very natures. One is an organic, judge made system of laws that arises primarily based on the actual disputes and criminal proceedings that comes before it. The other is a codified system of laws that attempts to be complete from point of creation. The latter being, by its very essence, far more bureaucratic to enforce and less adaptable to particular injustice or criminal/legislative novelty. Trying to force one on the other leads to a very unhappy state of legal affairs, such as we currently have in the UK. It also encourages our government to legislate. Prior to our joining the European Union, the amount of actual legislation governments here passed was relatively limited, and it was enacted infrequently. Again, that has all changed, and it leads to legal incompatibility and injustice - something we are seeing a great deal these days here. As some have rightly pointed out, we do now have many more unjust and insane legislation that requires ever more enforcement. This is largely due to our membership of the EU.

As a more abstract point of opposition, the clear end point of 'harmonisation' is a pan-European legal framework, binding on all member states - and the corollary, which is the eradication of national laws in favour of a centralised code. It is the federalisation of Europe, and legal harmonisation is the most potent step to achieving that utopian goal. The legal system of the UK, gifted to many of our former colonies, underpins the greatest period of progress and innovation in the history of mankind, and it is no coincidence in my view that none of the countries that have adopted it have fallen prey to murderous ideology or demagoguery.

There is a third reason, and that is that as a British citizen I have absolutely no intention to be bound by the crooked, corrupt, and extremely inferior laws of other European countries, particularly the Central and Eastern European ones, but I would extend that description to almost all of Western continental Europe too. The idea of being bound by the decisions of Romanian or Polish judges now, or heaven forbid Moldovan or Albanian ones in the future, is simply disgusting to me. Not unfortunate, not modestly or acceptably inferior - unequivocally revolting and unacceptable. I meet and deal with these people regularly, and they are all politically connected and quite prepared to solicit bribes to make sure decisions go the right way. One of the vile implications of the European Arrest Warrant is that as a British Citizen, it is possible that my country will defer (for example) to Romanian standards of justice.

A lot of words here, but little accuracy. "Positive" law - law that actually has an effect - is distilled into summaries, either by legislative codification or secondary publications like jury instructions.

The USA is thought of as a "common law" jurisdiction, yet the law is overwhelmingly set into statutes, like 90% or more depending on which state. Close to 100% in the federal courts.

Yes, judicial opinions about the interpretation of statutes are law. If a statute is found to be unconstitutional, judges can limit it or strike it down.

This is also the case in many if not all European civil jurisdictions.

The European Arrest Warrant isn't much different than any other treaty of extradition.

To use the example you cited, if there was proof you committed a crime in Romania, would you expect to escape justice before a Romanian judge?

There are scores of Eastern Europeans being extradited home from the UK every week. It will be so great for the UK, now maybe they can remain.

Same thing with Brits who can commit crimes and flee to Spain.

Again, almost all of the EU laws are commercial regulations like product standards. The UK will have to follow these to do business with Europe.

The shitshow that's coming with a no-deal Brexit will be entertaining to watch.
Say goodbye to 20% of your GDP.

Some additional points:

1. There is no question of incompatibility, because precedent is binding in EU law as well (case law is binding in both EU + UK law).

The infamous 'freedom of movement' (for example) was shaped almost exclusively through court decisions.


2. Case law has advantages and disadvantages compared to civil law. Its not inherently good or bad. For example you regularly talk about 'unelected bureaucrats in Brussels' - why are you ok if an unelected judge has the power to make laws?


3. Legal precedent can be ignored ('exceptions'), overruled, and at any event statute law is superior. Case law complements parliament legislation. Judges interpret laws, they don't make laws.

On the other hand, in most civil law jurisdictions, prior rulings are taken into consideration, they are of course not completely disregarded (they are not 'binding', but they are not totally disregarded either).

Even dissenting judges opinions are taken into consideration (everywhere)! It is not a black/white distinction.


4. You will of course never be bound by Romanian or Polish law (unless like Sp5 said you do business, commit a crime etc in Romania). A Romanian judge obviously doesn't have the power to randomly summon you in a court there!

What you are bound by, is EU laws and regulations. Nigel Farage for example is an EU lawmaker (member of the EU Parliament!).

There are countries who repeatedly voted to stay out of the EU (see Norway and Switzerland for example), but then realised you either deal with reality or reality deals with you (= life is hard without access to the EU market).

These countries have no voting rights, and yet they submit to most EU laws and regulations (because they have no choice). They contribute to EU budget, accept free movement of people etc. Switzerland is outside the EU, but a member of the Schengen zone (!!).

The really strange part for me is the UK, together with Germany, were the 2 most influential countries in terms of shaping EU law. The UK (unlike smaller EU nations) had actual power to change EU policies.

Citizens of Slovakia or Malta or Estonia may have a point if they talk about lack of sovereignty, but the Brits? I don't understand why.

Quote: (04-04-2019 01:19 AM)Malone Wrote:  

If in twenty years Britain has a violent revolution and wants to get rid of their EU masters, what do they do? Do the guys march down to the local EU parliament with their safety scissors (since every other weapon has been taken away) and string up the MPs and Lords?

If a country wants to leave the EU, they just need to hand in a 2 years notice ('trigger article 50') then they are out. that's it.

Your parliament gave its 2 year notice. We are at the end of the 2 years, and your parliament currently:

1. Does not accept the deal the EU offers

2. Does not accept leaving without a deal

Quote: (04-04-2019 03:18 AM)the.king Wrote:  

Quote: (04-03-2019 04:52 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

A lot of words here, but little accuracy. "Positive" law - law that actually has an effect - is distilled into summaries, either by legislative codification or secondary publications like jury instructions.

The USA is thought of as a "common law" jurisdiction, yet the law is overwhelmingly set into statutes, like 90% or more depending on which state. Close to 100% in the federal courts.

Yes, judicial opinions about the interpretation of statutes are law. If a statute is found to be unconstitutional, judges can limit it or strike it down.

This is also the case in many if not all European civil jurisdictions.

The European Arrest Warrant isn't much different than any other treaty of extradition.

To use the example you cited, if there was proof you committed a crime in Romania, would you expect to escape justice before a Romanian judge?

There are scores of Eastern Europeans being extradited home from the UK every week. It will be so great for the UK, now maybe they can remain.

Same thing with Brits who can commit crimes and flee to Spain.

Again, almost all of the EU laws are commercial regulations like product standards. The UK will have to follow these to do business with Europe.

The shitshow that's coming with a no-deal Brexit will be entertaining to watch.
Say goodbye to 20% of your GDP.

Snip

We get it.. we get it. You're one or two of 5 trillion lawyers worldwide who think that their partial knowledge of law makes them experts on matters of state. Especially in countries not their own.

MPs betraying Brexit means that the British Nation overall is just stupid.

Oh.. also.. AOC is fantastic. Trump will have to resign soon. Forgot that.

You love the wonderful super-state that is the EU.
You don't like Britain..
Or you don't like working class British people whose ideology and world view doesn't elide with yours.

Well fuck the British then! Fuck em! Or better still.. hope that they suffer as much as possible with this new fangled thing called 'sovereignty'.

No problems with the EU extradition treaty silly British people.. (see below).

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatn...-laws.html

"Andrew Symeou, 22, was deported to Greece in 2009, after authorities there charged him with the manslaughter of Jonathan Hiles, a Welsh teenager who died in Zante two years before.

Speaking for the first time since his acquittal, he called on the Government to review current extradition arrangements – in particular, the European Arrest Warrant, which allows European authorities to demand fast-track extraditions which are difficult to fight, no matter how weak the case against an individual is.

“Being in a maximum security prison at that age in a foreign country when you can’t really understand the language at all – this was the worst stage of my life. I was accused of killing someone I didn’t... I don’t think people can understand how scarring that can be for a young person,” he told BBC 5 Live.
“British courts did not have the discretion to prevent my extradition… I want to stop this happening to other innocent people.”

Some of the most incriminating evidence against him came in the form of witness statements signed by friends he had holidayed with, who were questioned by Zante police after Mr Symeou had flown back home.

Mr Symeou said that he did not blame his friends, who later retracted their statements, as they hadn't understood what they were being asked to sign, and were under intense pressure. ”The way they work is not the way we work over here... you don’t beat up two people to sign things they don’t understand and then write statements in a language that five other witnesses don’t understand, saying what you want and asking them to sign it. That’s not an investigation, that’s a fabrication.”



But you all know better of course.

But..

See... Thats what Sovereignty actually means -

>>>Not Your Country Sunshine - Fuck Off Out of It.<<<

Quote: (04-04-2019 03:18 AM)the.king Wrote:  

Nigel Farage for example is an EU lawmaker (member of the EU Parliament!).

For the last time, the EU Parliament doesn't make any laws! It merely rubber-stamps the decisions of the unelected European Commission. It can't even propose legislation - that ability is so foreign to it that adding such a basic thing would be considered revolutionary.

https://www.debatingeurope.eu/2015/08/20...gislation/

While it of course doesn't mean that UK was powerless in the EU, the idea of a "European Parliament" is a sham.

Also, the sheer hatred that Sp5 displays towards the idea of a nation governing itself freely is disturbing. Like with atheists vs. religious preachers, it's not us atheists who need to prove that we should be able to govern ourselves, it's him the preacher who needs to prove that the benefits of giving up that freedom are so massive that there's simply no point in sovereignty (hint: they're not). Just screeching how we're all going to hell for not believing in the EU fairy is simply not going to cut it.

Quote: (04-04-2019 04:58 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Quote: (04-04-2019 03:18 AM)the.king Wrote:  

Nigel Farage for example is an EU lawmaker (member of the EU Parliament!).

For the last time, the EU Parliament doesn't make any laws! It merely rubber-stamps the decisions of the unelected European Commission. It can't even propose legislation - that ability is so foreign to it that adding such a basic thing would be considered revolutionary.

https://www.debatingeurope.eu/2015/08/20...gislation/

While it of course doesn't mean that UK was powerless in the EU, the idea of a "European Parliament" is a sham.

I was going to point that out but you beat me to it (and my appetite for Internet Arguments is almost non-existent these days).

Don't have a dog in the fight but gotta say I would be willing to give up a good chunk of my GDP not to be ruled over by guys who thought like Sp5.
It's honestly a little creepy reading your posts, man.

"You may have your sovereignty, but you'll have to pay ROAMING CHARGES! Won't you feel stupid then!"

No deal is coming I think.

Let's see if that whole "take back control" works. No sympathy will be given.

Quote: (04-04-2019 05:25 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

Don't have a dog in the fight but gotta say I would be willing to give up a good chunk of my GDP not to be ruled over by guys who thought like Sp5.
It's honestly a little creepy reading your posts, man.

"You may have your sovereignty, but you'll have to pay ROAMING CHARGES! Won't you feel stupid then!"

Been to Norway, not part of EU. I did not pay roaming charges.

It is amazing that Remainers say that Brexiteers built a campaign on fear, but they are the ones doing that.

All that shit, with treaties and agreements can be done even if you are not part of EU. Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, nor part of EU, but still did agreements with EU.
The question here is, will EU be having its normal giant dildo up their asses so that they will deny UK any chance of deals? Will EU allow UK to remain in Schengen?

Portugal is already negotiating a trade deal (and much likely a visa and citizenship deal) with UK. Any EU nation would be stupid at not doing the same.
UK has a huge market and has a shitload of hard spending tourists. If tourists don't go to Portugal, Spain, or EE, they will go to Carribean, Turkey, North Africa or Ukraine, and Russia.

I believe EU has more to lose on Brexit than UK itself.

I believe in an European Union, but not in the way this one is built.
I want people's voice to be heard. If they say no, it's no. If they say leave, it means get the fuck out. I don't want political or economic power centralized in Brussels.EU was built on free trade and open borders. Not on legislative power.

I am pretty sure the vast majority of Brexiteers would also like to be part of an European Union, but not as this one is formed, which seems to be where second rate politicians end up.

Quote: (04-04-2019 04:58 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Quote: (04-04-2019 03:18 AM)the.king Wrote:  

Nigel Farage for example is an EU lawmaker (member of the EU Parliament!).

For the last time, the EU Parliament doesn't make any laws! It merely rubber-stamps the decisions of the unelected European Commission. It can't even propose legislation - that ability is so foreign to it that adding such a basic thing would be considered revolutionary.

https://www.debatingeurope.eu/2015/08/20...gislation/

While it of course doesn't mean that UK was powerless in the EU, the idea of a "European Parliament" is a sham.

Thank you for being able to write a coherent, factual argument, without having an emotional breakdown.

You are right EP does not have legislative initiative, but the substance of the argument stands - the UK was/is in a strong position to influence EU legislation, in a number of ways.

Without wanting to get too technical, in a number of ways EP very effectively holds EC in check. Any law needs ratification from EU parliament - this is not 'rubber-stamping'! Essentially no unelected person can make laws, period. Also the President of EC needs to be ratified by EP, etc.

In addition, EC members are not directly elected, yes, but they are appointed by suggestions of national governments. For example current UK commissioner was appointed by David Cameron (ie the UK government, as voted by the people).

In addition to everything else you have the European Council as another very strong safeguard against EC, and clearly in favour of national governments' sovereignty (including veto rights for all very important decisions which actually could have a serious impact on your lives).

---

Anyway no reason for people to get heated for pointing out facts. Its absurd to think I support brexit because i secretly wish ill of British people.

I wasnt trying to be sarcastic or to sound clever, just to exchange facts with people who support brexit. At any event.

Quote: (04-04-2019 05:25 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

Don't have a dog in the fight but gotta say I would be willing to give up a good chunk of my GDP not to be ruled over by guys who thought like Sp5.
It's honestly a little creepy reading your posts, man.

"You may have your sovereignty, but you'll have to pay ROAMING CHARGES! Won't you feel stupid then!"

Like it or not, if you're lucky you will always be ruled over by guys who think like Sp5. Otherwise you might be ruled by con artists, fools, thieves and psychopaths. Which describes Farage, May, Rees-Mogg, Corbyn, and Boris in combination and in no particular order.

Guys like Sp5 - Guys who can evaluate the costs and benefits of policies based on data and not emotional stories.

Guys who know that unless you want to be something like North Korea or Enver Hoxha's Albania, no nation makes all of its own rules.

Guys who know that having RULES for a high common standard for products, agriculture, air and sea transportation, financial transactions and products, telecommunications, professional and technical work makes sense.

Guys who know that no system is perfect, and that trade and travel requires compromise.

About the Greek story Bienvenuto told: Is it true that nobody was ever falsely accused in the UK justice system? Of course not.

I can remember two fake rape cases in which the UK Public Prosecutors' Office hid exculpatory evidence from the defense - just in the last year or so!

And of course, Greece and the UK will have an extradition treaty in any event, so the story could happen in the future after Brexit.

Yes, it's true I am a lawyer. That's better than being completely ignorant of the law. I know something about UNCTAD, WTO rules, WIPO rules, ICAO rules, IMO rules, etc, etc. These are rules which every developed nation follows. They are surrenders of sovereignty.

I have no "hatred" for the idea of a nation governing itself, as HCE said. It's just that it's practically impossible for any nation to completely set their own rules in everything. Opposing or not acknowledging the existence of all these international rules or the utility of similar rules in the EU Customs Union is like arguing with the sun for being bright. Could the EU be more democratic? Maybe, but the way the European Commission is set up, it's to preserve national sovereignty, because for many matters unanimity is required.

I just don't get the benefit of Brexit other than the short term benefit to the Conservative Party in shutting the growing UKIP down in 2016, and to pathetic Theresa May being able to hang on now. Sometimes I wonder if it's a US neocon play to make the UK even more of a vassal of the USA than it was. Splitting up the UK makes so much sense! Maybe England will become the 51st state, and the Queen ceremonial head of state of the USUK (pronounced you suck)!

It's strange that two of the most hard-core Brexiteers here display the Spanish flag on their avatar. Brexit is as much of an unnecessary thing as Catalonia independence, the costs will far outweigh the benefits, except for a few opportunistic politicians.

It's almost as if their anxiety about the shit that's going to hit their fan, living in Spain, is being displaced onto me.

Maybe it's because I'm saying Brexit is going to suck, and they want to believe it's going to be great.

Quote: (04-04-2019 05:50 AM)Wreckingball Wrote:  

Been to Norway, not part of EU. I did not pay roaming charges.

It is amazing that Remainers say that Brexiteers built a campaign on fear, but they are the ones doing that.

All that shit, with treaties and agreements can be done even if you are not part of EU. Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, nor part of EU, but still did agreements with EU.
The question here is, will EU be having its normal giant dildo up their asses so that they will deny UK any chance of deals? Will EU allow UK to remain in Schengen?

Portugal is already negotiating a trade deal (and much likely a visa and citizenship deal) with UK. Any EU nation would be stupid at not doing the same.
UK has a huge market and has a shitload of hard spending tourists. If tourists don't go to Portugal, Spain, or EE, they will go to Carribean, Turkey, North Africa or Ukraine, and Russia.

I believe EU has more to lose on Brexit than UK itself.

Norway is a member of the EFTA which is in a customs union with the EU. It is also a member of the Schengen agreement and pays a contribution to Brussels.

If the UK agreed to what Norway did, there would be no problem. But the hard-core Brexiteers would revolt.

Different members of the EU will react differently. Portugal, being one of the poorer members with a large population of UK pensioners and holiday makers, along with an historic relationship with the UK going back to the Napoloenic era, is not the same as Germany or France. The bigger countries with large manufacturing and overlapping agricultural production might not be so quick to jump back into bed with the hag that jilted them.

Only 10,000 ?

@PrisonPlanet
16m

Quote:Quote:

10,000 specially trained police officers have been put on standby for potential Brexit riots in the UK, it has been revealed.

Quote: (04-04-2019 05:33 AM)mikado Wrote:  

No deal is coming I think.

Let's see if that whole "take back control" works. No sympathy will be given.

No fucks given either from this side of the debate mate.

Heh.

@Imamofpeace
27m

Quote:Quote:

For the first time Britain will witness the end of May before the end of April.