May 2011 Election

[Reynard]

would you be an elected Prime Minister of your own house, or a President-for-Life, with a big sash, some tinted glasses and a chest full of medals?

Already have been. Apart from when the wife is around. Then I'm very much in the role of Dennis Thatcher.

[Swampy]

I thought the Nationalists disputed this? Virtually every time that one gets trotted out there will be a nat with a different set offigures

It's not disputed who is net contributing to the EU and who is taking.

If you accept Barnett - as PF does - Scotland is a net recipient. The question's really for him.

Also, why is it that Germany is a massive net contributor yet repeatedly report among the highest levels sympathy towards the EU project?

It's almost as if sometimes economic gain isn't the sole driving factor of peoples' opinions or something!

[Ad Lib]

How is it a lot less certain?

Ordinarily statutory intention cannot be circumvented. The nature of s3 of the Human Right Act, however, gives the judiciary quite a generous scope with respect to interpretation of clauses which engage fundamental rights under the European Convention. Increasingly it's being observed that the literal, and even the purposive meaning one might naturally deduce from a piece of primary legislation is not the reading given effect to. At times primary legislation is being read so liberally (to ensure compatibility with the ECHR) that Parliament's intent (in reality if not in theory) has been subverted.

It's also interesting to note that the use of delegated legislation has increased substantially as laws have become more complex. Whilst a set of regulations or other SI might derive from a piece of primary legislation which is prima facie unchallengeable, the meat of the provision is typically contained in the secondary legislation and (again) the Human Rights Act (s6) strikes down provisions incompatible with Convention (and indeed other fundamental common law) rights.

[Reynard]

If you accept Barnett - as PF does - Scotland is a net recipient. The question's really for him.

Also, why is it that Germany is a massive net contributor yet repeatedly report among the highest levels sympathy towards the EU project?

It's almost as if sometimes economic gain isn't the sole driving factor of peoples' opinions or something!

I'm not sure those sympathy levels have been running too high lately. There's a fair bit of debate in Germany about their role in the Euro project for one thing and why they gave up a strong currency to have to start bailing out the southern nations. It's maybe not quite at the "the whole things fucked" stage but there are far more doubting voices being heard there than there have ever been.

[Swampy]

Ordinarily statutory intention cannot be circumvented. The nature of s3 of the Human Right Act, however, gives the judiciary quite a generous scope with respect to interpretation of clauses which engage fundamental rights under the European Convention. Increasingly it's being observed that the literal, and even the purposive meaning one might naturally deduce from a piece of primary legislation is not the reading given effect to. At times primary legislation is being read so liberally (to ensure compatibility with the ECHR) that Parliament's intent (in reality if not in theory) has been subverted.

It's also interesting to note that the use of delegated legislation has increased substantially as laws have become more complex. Whilst a set of regulations or other SI might derive from a piece of primary legislation which is prima facie unchallengeable, the meat of the provision is typically contained in the secondary legislation and (again) the Human Rights Act (s6) strikes down provisions incompatible with Convention (and indeed other fundamental common law) rights.

I'm not a law student like you so forgive me if this is a dense question, but how can there be a judicial interpretation of repealing the law that signed the UK into the EU?

[Swampy]

I'm not sure those sympathy levels have been running too high lately. There's a fair bit of debate in Germany about their role in the Euro project for one thing and why they gave up a strong currency to have to start bailing out the southern nations. It's maybe not quite at the "the whole things fucked" stage but there are far more doubting voices being heard there than there have ever been.

True enough, support has dropped particularly in the last two years - but it's still above EU average, and this at a time when the false economic promises of reunification are really starting to bear fruit.

[Reynard]

True enough, support has dropped particularly in the last two years - but it's still above EU average, and this at a time when the false economic promises of reunification are really starting to bear fruit.

That's a part of the problem. Justifying throwing money at other countries who got into trouble when they could be spending that money in their own back yard. It will be interesting to watch their enthusiasm levels wane if ,as expected, some of the other southern European countries start to crash and burn and Germany and others have to start lobbing money at them as well.

[Swampy]

That's a part of the problem. Justifying throwing money at other countries who got into trouble when they could be spending that money in their own back yard. It will be interesting to watch their enthusiasm levels wane if ,as expected, some of the other southern European countries start to crash and burn and Germany and others have to start lobbing money at them as well.

With any luck any crashes - as much as we'd like to avoid them - could serve as the impetus to finally finish the good work of reforming the CAP that didn't start until a few years ago.

[Ad Lib]

I'm not a law student like you so forgive me if this is a dense question, but how can there be a judicial interpretation of repealing the law that signed the UK into the EU?

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking...

Essentially there are two competing legal arguments about the relationship between the UK and the EU. Some argue that EU law only applies to the UK in so far as the European Communities Act and the Human Rights Act give effect to it. Increasingly, though, that (historically orthodox) view is being eroded. From a legal perspective EU withdrawal is not as simple as repealing the European Communities' Act.

If it were off the back of an EU referendum there would no-doubt be political pressure to yield to the "settled democratic will" ( ) but to a certain extent, EU law is now regarded as being of supremacy to national primary legislation in certain circumstances. Constitutional traditionalists would boak their dinner at the suggestion, but essentially the EU's mandate could continue in spite of a national Parliament expressly repealing the instrument which gave it authority. A prime example of this was the inane drivel that came from the Tories about repealing the Human Rights Act and replacing it with a British Bill of Rights. This wouldn't exempt Britain from its ECHR obligations; the only difference would be domestic courts could no longer give overt effect to European law and the government would face constant legal battles at the ECJ and ECtHR.

Edit: as it happens there's a similar (actually legally more extreme) constitutional discussion about exactly how Scotland would be granted independence should the popular mandate for it ever be established. It's arguable that it can't be done by simply repealing the Acts and Treaties of Union as (at least notionally) the respective states which signed it no longer exist.

[Reynard]

With any luck any crashes - as much as we'd like to avoid them - could serve as the impetus to finally finish the good work of reforming the CAP that didn't start until a few years ago.

That was one giant steaming turd of a policy. The fisheries one is also shit. It's a bit poor that French fisherman can catch more fish in British waters than our own fisherman can land.

I am about to get bombarded by texts in ten minutes time from my mate who owns a fish suppliers about what a c**t Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall is and how he is about to kill whats left of the fishing industry here, and how he hopes a stray nuke takes out strasbourg..

[Pink Freud]

There is a great parallel to be drawn between the idea that other countries join the EU simply for a hand-out and the kind of demonisation that goes on in the UK about immigrants and asylum seekers.

Is there? Really? I'm sorry, I thought one of the Scottish arguments is that it would do so much better economically as a member state in the EU rather than as part of the UK? Scots are xenophobic are they?

What utter tosh. The demonisation of asylum seekers and immigrants is split neatly between those who rightly or wrongly feel that they are being discriminated against by their own government and the usual right wing suspects. Compared to France, Germany, Italy and Spain, the UK is pretty relaxed about immigration. If you are going down this lazy path, I'd like you to tell me how well the Turks are treated in Germany by Angela "multi culturalism has failed" (although it was never, ever tried in Germany, compared to the UK. You know, Germany? THe great champion of the European experiment?

It's bollocks, and you know it. Britian has its fair share of rascist yahoos of all political strains, but the comparison with other European states shows us to be pretty fucking good at this. Certainly better than those already mentioned, and arguably better than the US.

Oh yeah, and try asking any black people that you know about attitudes in eastern Europe. Xenophobia? Do f**k off.

[Swampy]

A prime example of this was the inane drivel that came from the Tories about repealing the Human Rights Act and replacing it with a British Bill of Rights. This wouldn't exempt Britain from its ECHR obligations; the only difference would be domestic courts could no longer give overt effect to European law and the government would face constant legal battles at the ECJ and ECtHR.

Repealing the HRA wouldn't remove Britain's obligations... presumably because we'd still be subject to the obligation of the Communities Act. What would happen if both were repealed?

I'm seeing a lot of bluster and no clear evidence on your part that it would take anything other than an act of parliament to end the UK's EU obligations.

[Swampy]

Is there? Really? I'm sorry, I thought one of the Scottish arguments is that it would do so much better economically as a member state in the EU rather than as part of the UK? Scots are xenophobic are they?

Can you see the difference between seeking a better deal for one's own country and grunting about how the bloody foreigners are taking all the EU subsidies?

What utter tosh. The demonisation of asylum seekers and immigrants is split neatly between those who rightly or wrongly feel that they are being discriminated against by their own government and the usual right wing suspects. Compared to France, Germany, Italy and Spain, the UK is pretty relaxed about immigration. If you are going down this lazy path, I'd like you to tell me how well the Turks are treated in Germany by Angela "multi culturalism has failed" (although it was never, ever tried in Germany, compared to the UK. You know, Germany? THe great champion of the European experiment?

It's bollocks, and you know it. Britian has its fair share of rascist yahoos of all political strains, but the comparison with other European states shows us to be pretty fucking good at this. Certainly better than those already mentioned, and arguably better than the US.

Oh yeah, and try asking any black people that you know about attitudes in eastern Europe. Xenophobia? Do f**k off.

So that'll be a "no, I don't have the data" then?

[H_B]

Our Europhilia knows no bounds it would appear.

I'd be interested to know how many people could name their MEP. I certainly couldn't. I've never voted in a European election.

It's interesting to note from the paper I linked to earlier, the SNP's relatively recent transition from Euro skeptics to Europhiles.

As with most polls, it probably depends what question you ask people :-

1) Do you like Europe as a continent?

2) Did you cheer on Martin Kaymer in the last Ryder Cup?

3) Do you like being able to buy Euromillions tickets?

4) Do you want to abandon the pound and join the Euro?

[Pink Freud]

Can you see the difference between seeking a better deal for one's own country and grunting about how the bloody foreigners are taking all the EU subsidies?

WHen it means taking money from the richest countries in exchange for your sovereignty? Yeah, just about. How that fits in with the notion of independence though is not quite so clear.

So that'll be a "no, I don't have the data" then?

Well I seem to be the only one being asked for it. A couple of "peer reviewed" political science papers that convince, er, political scientists, a couple of mori polls, you're all happy.

A fact, that noone disputes, that less than half of European voters bother to participate, and in the "pro Europe" petri dish that is Scotland, fewer than a third, and it's up to me to tie myself in nots proving that people aren't disinterested? I really don't think so.

No, I don't have data that proves that the UK isn't a foaming isolationist. I'd be really grateful if you could point me towards it. After all, in your world, provided people aren't actively against something, that's fine.

[Reynard]

WHen it means taking money from the richest countries in exchange for your sovereignty? Yeah, just about. How that fits in with the notion of independence though is not quite so clear.

Well I seem to be the only one being asked for it. A couple of "peer reviewed" political science papers that convince, er, political scientists, a couple of mori polls, you're all happy.

A fact, that noone disputes, that less than half of European voters bother to participate, and in the "pro Europe" petri dish that is Scotland, fewer than a third, and it's up to me to tie myself in nots proving that people aren't disinterested? I really don't think so.

No, I don't have data that proves that the UK isn't a foaming isolationist. I'd be really grateful if you could point me towards it. After all, in your world, provided people aren't actively against something, that's fine.

These are swots and geeks you are dealing with here. You know the drill where these sorts are concerned.

[Ad Lib]

Repealing the HRA wouldn't remove Britain's obligations... presumably because we'd still be subject to the obligation of the Communities Act. What would happen if both were repealed?

I'm seeing a lot of bluster and no clear evidence on your part that it would take anything other than an act of parliament to end the UK's EU obligations.

In answer to the first question, no, it's not just the ECA that would continue to bind us. Despite our nominally dualist system much EU law can have implications for the UK because of the Treaties they have entered into, irrespective of their domestic enforcement. It would require the EU to permit rescission of the actual Treaties with respect to UK involvement to end fully the UK's liability with respect to EU law. That applies both in the HRA repeal context and in that of the ECA.

[chico]

Does Gail Sheridan know that the election will have a swingometer?

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Does Gail Sheridan know that the election will have a swingometer?

[vikingTON]

Well I seem to be the only one being asked for it. A couple of "peer reviewed" political science papers that convince, er, political scientists, a couple of mori polls, you're all happy.

You asked me for the data, I provided the data. I asked you for data, you failed comprehensively.