Maybe they have. Then again, maybe they haven't, because that would mean placing your human rights declaration higher than our own constitution. Like ceding power to European courts as having power over our own? I am not sure entirely.

Or it could be passing the parcel like, thank god we don't have to take the f***** back to the States to try him! Better you than us! (??) (It actually costs more to keep the guy alive on death row whilst appealing a stay of execution to a higher authority, than to just keep him alive for the rest of his life for "life without parole" believe it or not. Except in Texas.)

I can only speculate at this point, but my first explanation sounds likely...

Anyway, sounds like it sux to be an EU member government....unless you're France or Germany or Belgium.

There's nothing in the constitution that says murderers must be executed. Also, plea bargaining is a thing that happens all the time in the States, so it's obvious that prosecutors have an awful lot of leeway in the punishments they can ask for if they want to.

Well, all right, I don't want to get off on a tangent. Good point. But if I run into someone in the legal profession I'll certainly ask them, it brings up an interesting point.

So when is this referendum to take place? And what's Cameron's position on it? Or is the Prime Minister playing both sides to see which gets him more political capital?

Sassenach wrote: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.

Well, yes. I expect a lot is about regulation of goods and services across the EU (and EEA) market.

it also only looks at laws since 1993 (when Maastricht came in). We had a fair amount before then.

Also, there is a footnote saying that the figures have changed, but I can't open the table ta the foot of the artice. So it may not even be 64.7% as according to this Euro-sceptic group.

JimHackerMP wrote:So when is this referendum to take place? And what's Cameron's position on it? Or is the Prime Minister playing both sides to see which gets him more political capital?

Good questions...

The original promise was that it would happen by the end of 2017. Cameron has since suggested it could be earlier (perhaps October 2016).

His position seems to be to be in favour of staying, but he also wants to negotiate reforms to be agreed across the EU before then. That part is easier said than done, and it's not immediately clear what he is demanding - or whether failure to achieve it would alter the position. My guess is that Merkel and others will throw him limited bones and he will back remaining in.

JimHackerMP wrote: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.

It's not imposed if we agreed to it, surely?

In 1986 and 1993 our Parliament agreed to major changes in what was called the EEC and is now called the EU. And in doing so, agreed to the legislatiive changes that they brought in. Later we signed up to the Social Chapter which brought more in.

Sass is also a little determined to repeat the idea that no-one ever mentioned the EU being a political project. It was stated in the original treaties, and in the subsequent treaties; it was debated in the UK in the 1970s and again in the 1990s during Maastricht. Losing that argument is not the same as not ever having it.

Well, yes. I expect a lot is about regulation of goods and services across the EU (and EEA) market.

Sure, I said as much myself.

it also only looks at laws since 1993 (when Maastricht came in). We had a fair amount before then.

Maybe so, but it does provide a breakdown on a year-by-year basis since 1993, and the 64% figure is the average over that period. As such it's not unreasonable to say that this is the rough proportion of our legislation that originates in Brussels, which is the point that was being made.

Also, there is a footnote saying that the figures have changed, but I can't open the table ta the foot of the artice. So it may not even be 64.7% as according to this Euro-sceptic group.

If it has changed then I suspect it won't have been by much. They seem to have been quite open about the potential caveats to this study, and also to have made pains to try and place it in context, so I don't think you can really use their bias against them on this one. Besides which, the source of the information was the HoC Library and data supplied by the Commission itself. Incidentally, the 70% figure that I quoted earlier, which came from memory, turns out to have come from a quote by Viviane Reding, a former Commissioner and current MEP from Luxembourg. The fact that it was picked upon and subsequently quoted by Nigel Farage was probably what caused you to doubt it, but he was only repeating what he'd heard from a rampant europhile.

Sass is also a little determined to repeat the idea that no-one ever mentioned the EU being a political project. It was stated in the original treaties, and in the subsequent treaties; it was debated in the UK in the 1970s and again in the 1990s during Maastricht. Losing that argument is not the same as not ever having it.

Oh come on. The 'debate' in the 70s was over membership of a trading bloc and the political implications of ever closer union were consistently downplayed or outright ignored. Since then we've never been given the opportunity to give our consent to further surrender of sovereignty and the only people who have been trying to seriously debate these issues have been routinely mocked as paranoid loonies. It's delusional to suggest that we had a debate in the UK about deeper European integration which was won by the pro-Europeans. I distinctly remember the lies that were told about the Euro. "Oh no, of course this isn't a political project designed to bring about common economic policies. Don't listen to the silly little Englanders, they're a bunch of swivel-eyed loons." That was about the standard of 'debate' we had over here, although thankfully we never actually joined the Euro.

What irritates me about the pro-European crowd is that they haven't got the balls to actively make the case for political integration. They prefer to tell outright porkies about how nothing could be further from their thoughts while simultaneously pushing that agenda at every turn. Perhaps there's a more honest debate in other countries, but there certainly hasn't been one in this country. If you think otherwise then no doubt you'll find me all kinds of examples of British politicians making a positive case for the surrender of our sovereignty and honestly admitting that the inevitable drift of the EU is for more of the same. I won't hold my breath.

Sass, if the only people who opposed joining the Euro were derided as you claim, how come we never joined?

Could there have been aspects to the debate that eluded you?

Gordon Brown kept us out to spite Blair. Even then however, the entirety of the debate centered on economic issues. He set out his 5 tests, which were all economic ones, and the assumption must be that if these had been met then he'd have recommended that we join. There was no meaningful debate about the clear political goals of monetary union, despite these being of profound importance to the project.

This is my point really. The political elite in Britain have consistently tried to frame the debate on the EU in exclusively economic terms while downplaying the underlying political agenda. This is fundamentally dishonest.

Sassenach wrote:Gordon Brown kept us out to spite Blair. Even then however, the entirety of the debate centered on economic issues. He set out his 5 tests, which were all economic ones, and the assumption must be that if these had been met then he'd have recommended that we join. There was no meaningful debate about the clear political goals of monetary union, despite these being of profound importance to the project.

This is my point really. The political elite in Britain have consistently tried to frame the debate on the EU in exclusively economic terms while downplaying the underlying political agenda. This is fundamentally dishonest.

I don't actually agree with your assumption. I think Brown was not in favour at all and that is why he created tests we could never meet.

One of the reasons for lack of meaningful debate, frankly, is that as much as you claim it was the mean old "pro" side demeaning the "anti", it was also largely a visceral reactionary set of rhetoric from the sceptics, and a pretty lowbrow media coverage (eg: "Up yours, Decors") which hardly sets the tone for a reasoned debate.

And still, the point of all those regulations is the single market. Which is indeed what we wanted to enter and was clearly a major aim through the 70s, 80s and 90s.

Also, many of those regulations would still apply if we took the "Norway" option and left the EU but remained in the EEA (according to Open Europe, who seem to be pro-reform of the EU, 93 of the 100 most costly regulations would still apply if we left the EU but remained in the EEA: Top 100 EU rules cost Britain Britain £33.3bn).

Of course that looks at the economic impact of the EU. But that is a large part of it frankly.

Now, leaving the EU is one thing. Leaving the EEA quite another.

Thought this might be in a mild way relevant to the whole EU discussion. Especially when Humphrey asks Hacker why he thinks Britain went into the EEC in the first place.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV9mruE0wNg

The real funny bit is about 3 minutes into it ;)

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... urosceptic

So this was an interesting read. Are we about to see a long overdue resurgence of Left wing euroscepticism ? Probably not, but the way Greece has been treated must be an eye-opener. The referendum could end up being a lot more interesting than we thought.

In other news, there's reportedly a poll putting Jeremy Corbyn on track to win the Labour leadership election. I find this a little difficult to believe, but it's certainly true that none of the alternatives has really captured the imagination, so you never know. Who are you voting for Dan ?

Sassenach wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/14/left-reject-eu-greece-eurosceptic

So this was an interesting read. Are we about to see a long overdue resurgence of Left wing euroscepticism ? Probably not, but the way Greece has been treated must be an eye-opener. The referendum could end up being a lot more interesting than we thought.

In other news, there's reportedly a poll putting Jeremy Corbyn on track to win the Labour leadership election. I find this a little difficult to believe, but it's certainly true that none of the alternatives has really captured the imagination, so you never know. Who are you voting for Dan ?

Well, I am somewhere between Corbyn and Burnham politically. I can't stand Kendall or Cooper, but also see Corbyn and Burnham as potential liabilities. My intention was Corbyn 1, Burnham 2 on the basis Corbyn was not going to win, but to show support for less Blairite positions.

You said that, to pick a new party leader, one or the other of the parties actually has something resembling a primary these days? Not like under the Thatcher years? (Where the party rules allowed the sitting PM to be dumped by the parliamentary party vote?)

guess everyone's too busy now talking gay marriage and a possible President Trump, lol.