JimHackerMP wrote:Also, the passengers on those nice Eurostar trains between London and Paris would have to stop and ask for/stamp passports, wouldn't they? There'd be a "border" again, right?

Sass is correct. What happens now, and would likely happen into the future, is that border control happens at each end, not at a stop halfway under the Channel.

I've been reading a few more of the posts on Dominic Cummings' blog btw. I'd heartily recommend it to anybody with an interest in how government works. This one is awesome, very long but well worth reading:

https://dominiccummings.wordpress.com/2 ... sfunction/

What about crimes committed on a train on its way through the tunnel? They spoke of this in the episode of Yes, Prime Minister called "A Diplomatic Incident". The PM (Jim Hacker) was going to lay the foundation stone of the Chunnel along with the French President; and he was discussing this with the Cabinet Secretary (Sir Humphrey Appleby), and his principal private secretary, Bernard Woolley; including the problems it would cause if Hacker brought it up when he spoke to the French President at the ex-PM's funeral they were also planning.

It looks like 25 klicks from Dover to Calais on Google Maps. The train can probably cover that distance in half a minute, at most, if it's really hauling ass (or hauling arse, sorry)...well, that's just a guess....but I'm sure it has to slow down a little bit to go into the tunnel. But that's got to be damned inconvenient. Maybe they should "switch off" responsibility for checking passports, etc: this month it's at Dover, the next month, Calais; etc...

I remember reading about this in Time magazine when it was completed. A Briton was quoted as saying, "I'd rather Great Britain became the 51st state of the USA than be connected to that lot!" If such sentiments are common in the UK these days I would not be surprised, sitting where I am at least, if Britons end up withdrawing their country's membership from the EU.

But considering the Greeks are also pissed off at Brussles, and the Spanish; could this---at worst perhaps---sound the death knell for the European Union at precisely the moment its membership need to show a united front against crises like the Ukraine, ISIS, etc? If the once-proud European Union disintegrates, or at least reorganizes into something about as binding as the USA under its first constitution, you think the Russian Federation government would end up realizing its wet dream---excuse the vulgarity---of playing off the former EU states against each other to its own massive advantage? (and disaster to western democracies!) Especially the ones which are former Warsaw Pact members?

What exactly are your countrymens' most important grievances against the EU, if you don't mind my asking? I know Britain has always had a certain "independence" in its thinking from Europe, for centuries in fact, and I'm sure more than just geography is at work, here. And of course the traditional Anglo-French rivalry has often exploded at moments (De Gaulle twice vetoing the British entry to the EEC, and so forth). Though I'm sure if the UK did leave the EU, Brussles might take the hint and reorganize itself along more democratic (or less locally-interventionist) lines?

Thanks to the link of the blog, by the way, that's fascinating. (Plus I'm glad to see the word "dysfunction" on Redscape being used for something other than us, lol.)

Same problem as crimes committed on an airplane, or in international waters. Or a train crossing any border in most of Europe (where Thebschengen countries do not stop at the borders either.

Seriously, this would be sorted out as jointly investigated until it was established which side of the border it occurred on.

What don't we like? Being told what to do. We do, however like telling others what to do.

Yeah; having ruled the world before the Americans did (as a British comedian put it once) you probably wouldn't like to be told what to do.

And not to get off topic but the declaration of rights of the EU seems to have failed to include a double jeopardy clause. Does British law include such a prohibition [against Double Jeopardy]? (as does the American Bill of Rights?) Seriously, if European justice is so screwed up--and I know they don't typically have juries on the continent either, a very important point of English common law and individual liberty---I don't blame you for your desire to separate. Just ask Amanda Knox.

My only worry is how this would affect the present geopolitical situation (and future ones).

JimHackerMP wrote:Yeah; having ruled the world before the Americans did (as a British comedian put it once) you probably wouldn't like to be told what to do.

And not to get off topic but the declaration of rights of the EU seems to have failed to include a double jeopardy clause. Does British law include such a prohibition [against Double Jeopardy]? (as does the American Bill of Rights?) Seriously, if European justice is so screwed up--and I know they don't typically have juries on the continent either, a very important point of English common law and individual liberty---I don't blame you for your desire to separate. Just ask Amanda Knox.

My only worry is how this would affect the present geopolitical situation (and future ones).

No, it does not. About 10 years ago we implemented a change that allows cases to be reopened in specific circumstances, following high profile cases where the guilty were seen to get away.

In the UK, people are perhaps less sympathetic towards Amanda Knox than they are towards the family of Meredith Kercher (the British victim whose murder she was accused of).

There are concerns about double jeopardy, but not the one you have picked up on, and not really relating to law in other EU countries. The ECHR includes a right to due process.

Didn't know that. But at any rate, without getting on the subject of Amanda Knox, (and I think there are *certain* circumstances under which a crime can be retried with new evidence in the US, but there have to be other factors in place for the retrial to happen & I'm not sure what they are), it still would scare me if I was on trial in the EU, ex-UK and there aren't juries typically.

It seems to me, from what I know so far, that Brussels is trying to act like a government without having the sovereign right to really be one. The biblical idiom "be thou hot or cold" comes to mind: either be a loose economic confederation, or a United States of Europe (or Federal Republic of Europe, what have you) whose members agree has the popular, sovereign power to make laws that would be respected. Not exactly the same problem as the United States of America under the Articles of Confederation (1781-9) but something similar to it. (Although in the case of pre-1790's USA, the "federal" government was little respected and easily ignored by the member states. It was not a republic, nor an economic union of any sort.) Always a slippery slope to attempt to make a comparison between two different countries, and in two entirely different time periods, but I just did anyway, I guess.

Maybe that is also what people resent in some EU states about the Union? It interferes like a federal government, but without the popular sovereignty behind it to be one in this day and age? The governmental structure of Brussels (the parliament is in Strasbourg, right?) seems quite Byzantine as it was explained to me. Definitely not the sort of organization I would want meddling in my own country's affairs if I were an EU state.

But that's just me, and it's the opinion of an American with limited knowledge, 3,000 miles away...

In the UK, people are perhaps less sympathetic towards Amanda Knox than they are towards the family of Meredith Kercher (the British victim whose murder she was accused of).

I think this is only partially true. Most people in this country have never bothered to acquaint themselves with the facts of the case and so they still just assume that Knox is guilty without having bothered to follow the way that she was stitched up by the Italian judicial system (something which will understandably have received much greater coverage in the States). Those of us who have bothered to read into it (and I'm the only one of my friends who has, that I'm aware of), do have some sympathy for her. Also, I'm not aware that there's ever been any great outpouring of sympathy for the Kerchers. The coverage in this country has all been of the prurient variety.

Hacker, the EU is a truly enormous issue which can't be easily summarised in a few paragraphs. Dan gave you a very glib answer (we don't like being told what to do) which doesn't even come close to being satisfactory, but I sense that he was somewhat reluctant to really get involved with the sisyphean task of explaining British euroscepticism to an American, especially since he's a pro-European himself, so I can probably give him a pass on that. I'll make a stab at highlighting a few of the key issues which drive me towards the eurosceptic position. The list is by no means exhaustive and will inevitably have to be heavily summarised and lacking in nuance, but such is life...

Sovereignty. This is the fundamental issue for all eurosceptics. Membership of the EU entails a massive transfer of sovereignty away from the nation state towards a centralised supra-national body. This is a fundamental challenge to the very notion of our being an independent nation, and many of us are uncomfortable with that. It's estimated that anything up to about 70% of our legislation originates in Brussels, and while most of this will be fairly minor stuff, it's still the case that we have little if any power over the framing of it. Yes, we have a seat at the table when EU decisions are made, but that's all we have. Britain can be and regularly is outvoted on matters of national interest and we're bound by European law, which often comes from an alien judicial tradition and is interpreted by judges who are products of that tradition.

Democracy. The EU is a profoundly undemocratic institution. Power is centralised in the Commission, which is entirely staffed by appointees who are typically rabid EU ideologues whose reason for being is to grab ever more power to the centre no matter what the will of the demos (no different to most beaurocracies I guess, but with even less accountability). There is an elected element of course, in the shape of the European parliament, but this is essentially a joke of an institution. MEPs are mostly elected on very low turnouts and face no scrutiny whatsoever. There's also the mostly insoluble problem of a complete lack of a pan-European demos, meaning that a properly functioning party system can never develop. MEPs are elected as representatives of national parties but then band together into virtually indistinguishable blocs (or parties) in order to attract funding, but there isn't a single voter anywhere in the EU who actually voted for one of these 'parties' and as a general rule the voters are treated with outright contempt by the leaders of them.

Democracy is in many ways a dirty word in Brussels, and if you say the word 'referendum' then you're liable to become a social outcast. The EU has always been explicitly an elite stitch-up and the last thing they ever want to do is give the people a chance to have their say, for fear of getting the wrong answer. The French and Dutch both voted 'No' in referendums on the European Constitution a few years back, while Britain was set to have a referendum on it which never took place following those votes. So what happened ? Well, you'd assume that the expressed will of the people would have been respected, but what actually happened was the exact same document got a cosmetic tweak and was re-presented as the 'Lisbon Treaty', which was somehow so completely different from what had already been rejected by the voters that it didn't need any kind of referendum at all ! Gordon Brown certainly never honoured his promise to hold one, and neither did the French or Dutch, who had already voted No to this thing once. Only in Ireland was there a vote. This also produced a No vote, so they were forced into voting for a second time a few months later with a few token concessions and an awful lot of ominous threats from Brussels to ensure that the people got it right the second time around.

The populace have been consistently treated with the utmost contempt by the European elites. Personally I think we could do a lot better, and I don't trust the EU to ever be democratic enough.

Dishonesty. This one may be more of a UK thing, I'm not sure, but it's a big thing for me. We've been consistently told that the EU is just a trading bloc and that our sovereignty and democratic rights are not under threat, while all along the direction of travel in the EU has been for ever greater centralisation. The idea has been to sneak these reforms in via the back door. The modus operandi in the EU is always to try and achieve change via an anonymous Commission directive or Council of Ministers stitch-up rather than to actually seek the consent of the people for a transfer of powers. The results have frequently been calamitous. Exhibit A in this regard is the creation of the Euro. This was always an explicitly political project. They knew that European people would never vote for a massive transfer of economic power to Brussels so they created a single currency, sold it as a trade-boosting measure, specifically promised the Germans that they wouldn't be on the hook for Mediterranean debts and the rest that they wouldn't end up being subjected to economic domination by the Germans (lies in both cases) and went ahead. They did this knowing full well that you can't have a common currency without common fiscal policies and centralised economic governance. These things were in fact the point all along. In other words, it was yet another elite-driven project to push through changes that they knew the people did not want and would not vote for. The British eurosceptics warned at the time that the Euro would be a disaster and also warned that the inevitable logic would be a complete loss of economic sovereignty. They were belittled as 'little Englanders' and mocked at the time, but they were absolutely right. I'm still waiting for that apology...

Corruption. If you think Washington is bad for lobbying and corruption, you really need to take a look at what goes on in Brussels. At least in Washington there's some form of democratic accountability to keep people vaguely honest. Not so in Brussels, where even the few elected officials know full well that nobody pays any attention to what they do. The EU is a lobbyist's wet dream and inevitably it's become a hotbed of graft. The official auditors have refused to sign off on the EU accounts for over 20 years, but this is just what the EU spends out of its own funds and so doesn't come close to covering the full extent of the corruption. To my mind there isn't really a solution to this because the lack of a European demos and the contempt for democracy at the very highest levels of the EU means that nobody (voters or politicians alike) cares enough to force that change.

So yeah, these are a few of the reasons why I have grave doubts about continued membership of the EU. There are of course arguments for staying in as well, and no doubt Dan will be along shortly to present them for you. I haven't actually made up my mind how to vote when we get our referendum, but I'm assuming Cameron will come back with nothing meaningful from his negotiations and so I'll have a decision to make. As it stands I'm leaning towards Out, but I'm persuadable otherwise.

Wow...sounds like the EU is far more centralized than advertized. It's like an NGO of some sort that's managed to strip every member nation of its sovereignty. SEVENTY PERCENT of your legislation originates in Brussels? In the United States, which is actually a country and not just a "union" of states which are supposed to still be sovereign, NO legislation in the state legislatures "originates" in Washington to my knowledge. A federal judge can overturn a state law IF it conflicts with the US constitution or US law, and other certain circumstances based on American-style judicial review. But actual legislation?

If what you say is correct, I (were I a Briton) would have personally traveled to Brussels and thrown molotov cocktails through...whatever building the commission meets in. Jesus Christ...that's terrible. I think I'll now be rooting on the sidelines for a British Yes vote.

I'll explain what bothers me specifically about the Amanda Knox thing, it has to do with reciprocity, etc. We should have refused her extradition, because of our Bill of Rights' prohibition on Double Jeopardy; just as EU countries frequently refuse to extradite Americans who flee to Europe (for this very reason) because EU courts will refuse to extradite them to the United States due to your EU declaration of rights' prohibition on the death penalty. Reciprocity is the only way to enforce international agreements, and this would have been the perfect time and opportunity to draw attention to this dirty little fact. (I.E., American criminals getting off scot free bc European judges refuse to extradite them back to the US, for the reason I stated, despite the fact that we have extradition treaties with these countries that aren't being honored.) For this very reason, our president, who is obviously too much of a pussy to put his foot down about it, should have refused to allow her to be extradited back to Italy to be tried for the same crime a third time. (Especially considering the rather considerable corruption in the Italian government and justice system, so I'm told.)

You can't refuse to extradite somebody on the basis of wholly unrelated cases, that would have been silly. The issue with Amanda Knox was that the case against her was always flawed in the first place, given that the actual murderer was already in prison for the crime and there was no proper evidence to suggest that she was ever guilty. The right result has eventually been arrived at, albeit after way too long.

I am not convinced by that 70% stat. Sass, can you provide a link to an objective source?

It's certainly a disputed stat. I think it sort of depends on how you interpret 'legislation', but since so many EU directives have to be waved through government departments the figure will certainly be a very large one, albeit much of this will be fairly inconsequential stuff relating to the functioning of the single market. I'll look it up and see what I can find.

Ok, this seems pretty good:

http://businessforbritain.org/2015/03/0 ... of-uk-law/

You'll no doubt raise your eyebrows at the source since it's a study carried out by a group called Business for Britain, which I've never heard of but which must surely be some kind of a eurosceptic organisation. The paper itself appears pretty even-handed though, and the methodology they employ seems sound. They put the figure at 64.7%. As I said though, much of this is going to be fairly minor regulations so context is important.

I understand, Sass but I was referring to reciprocity, the only way to enforce international agreements, since the EU bill of rights has been used so many times to refuse to extradite an American back to the United States---because of your prohibition on the death penalty---DESPITE the fact that these countries may have signed extradition treaties with the United States and are therefore shirking their obligations. What I was saying is that this was the perfect opportunity to redress that problem. Wasn't trying to change the subject but we've got murderers on the loose and EU countries are refusing to give them back to us--despite having signed treaties promising to do so--yet we have to give back to them people who their justice system is totally screwing, from our viewpoint. a double standard I think.

That said however, Danivon, if his figure is even close to accurate, even if it was...30%....I know I'm not British, but that is terrible intrusion into the legislation & administration of a sovereign state (the UK) by a supranational entity which ought to mind its own business and is barely elected. That's just how i would feel. I wouldn't quibble over the exact percentage.

This is actually not an EU thing at all. The European Convention on Human Rights includes certain optional protocols which not all signatories to the treaty have signed up to but many have. One of these is a prohibition on the death penalty. What's happened is that over time the courts have come to interpret this in a way which means that not only is the death penalty outlawed within their jurisdiction, they will also refuse to allow extradition where the subject is likely to face execution if found guilty. It isn't a case of European governments deliberately refusing to extradite murderers, who I'm sure they'd be delighted to be rid of, it's just that their hands are bound by the established jurisprudence. Also, you'd have to see the terms of the extradition treaty to discover whether or not there's any breach of it. I suspect when it was negotiated that it excluded anything which would entail a breach of our ECHR obligations.

The way round it is for American prosecutors to strike a deal which promises that the suspect will not be subject to capital punishment, which would remove the principal objection of the European courts. You should possibly be asking why they're not willing to do this but instead would rather allow suspected murderers to go free in Europe than merely face life imprisonment at home.