One of the key issues in relation to the 2014 European Parliament elections is the potential for an unprecedented number of Eurosceptic and populist parties to secure seats. Simon Usherwood writes that while Eurosceptic parties such as UKIP in the UK, the Front National in France, and the PVV in the Netherlands may come out on top of their national votes, there are real obstacles to them actively influencing the work of the parliament itself. Ultimately the main issue may be whether they can use the platform gained in 2014 to secure real power in the next European elections in 2019.
One of the most long-standing predictions about the May elections has been that Eurosceptics will do well. From the UK to Greece, Finland to Italy, voices that are critical of the EU and of European integration in general have been on the advance. While that is likely to translate into success in seats, it will be important to remember that such groups will operate under some severe constraints.
Eurosceptics have always been present in European Parliament elections and have always won seats, starting with the Danish People’s Movement in 1979. Typically small in number, these MEPs normally operated on the margins of the Parliament’s life, at best adding a critical edge to some reports, but more likely self-excluding themselves (as described by Nathalie Brack). A series of somewhat ramshackle groupings ensued, but to little effect.
With the current elections there is potential for this to change significantly. Firstly, the pervasiveness of Euroscepticism is much more striking. In traditionally more sceptical member states, anti-EU parties are likely to further increase their vote share: UKIP in the UK is likely to take first place in both vote share and seats won, even if it’s not yet evident in the polls. In some previously pro-EU countries, sceptical voices are likely to do well too: Golden Dawn in Greece and the Dutch Freedom Party (PVV) are both polling well. Even in states that have traditionally driven integration, sceptics are likely to make their influence felt, as in Germany, with the AfD, or France, with the FN. In short, the volume and spread of sceptics will increase markedly.
Secondly, the degree of interaction between individual parties will be greater than before. Historically, sceptics have been motivated primarily by nationally-constructed priorities, with little concern for what happened elsewhere. By contrast, this cycle has seen the formation of an electoral pact between the FN and the PVV, with support from the Belgian Vlaams Belang and the Italian Lega Nord. With the possible success of the French and Dutch parties, this will be more than likely to produce enough MEPs to secure a grouping in the EP with a common agenda that extends beyond the usual sceptic minimalism of “we all dislike the EU, but don’t agree on anything else.”
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the 2014 elections have seen a growing wave of concern from non-sceptics about the coming entrants. From politicians to the media and even in academia, the view is very much that scepticism is a genuine point of concern and requires action. Seen in this light, the recent challenge by the pro-EU Liberal Democrats to UKIP to a TV debate makes more sense – the first debate having been held yesterday, with a second debate scheduled for 2 April.
Constraints on Eurosceptic parties
Taken together, there is every reason to suspect that Euroscepticism is about to enjoy at least a moment in the limelight, from which it can potentially develop further. However, it is also important to take all of this with a large pinch of salt, since a number of constraints are going to come into play.
The first key limitation will be the European Parliament itself. Over the past couple of decades, it has tightened up its rules of procedure on the thresholds needed to form a group, primarily because it wanted to ring-fence more marginal voices in the hemicycle. The consequence of this will be that Eurosceptics will find it hard to organise themselves.
As I have discussed in more length elsewhere, the key problem will be that the parties likely to have most MEPs, that is UKIP, the FN and the Conservatives, have mutually excluded themselves from working together, which either means three separate groups, or two groups and a party – most likely the Conservatives – sitting as independents. The most recent Pollwatch figures are instructive on this point, with a big increase in Independents, rather than in the sceptic groupings.
This matters because an institutionally fragmented set of sceptics will wield less power in the EP’s system of allocating key roles and duties, as well as having less access to institutional support. This latter point has been vital for a series of parties over the years in securing a funding stream to develop their activities in their home country.
All this points to a second area where the impact of sceptics will be weaker. UKIP recognises that it would be political suicide for the 2015 general election to be aligned with a far-right grouping in the European Parliament. So while part of the antipathy between the FN and UKIP is policy-driven, it is also about personalities. A large number of the sceptical parties have strong, charismatic leaders – Nigel Farage, Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders, Timo Soini, Beppo Grillo, etc. – who have built up parties around themselves and who have either implicit or explicit modes of operation that reject working with others.
In many cases, this is about marking their parties out as being different from the rest and offering a genuine place for protest and alternative politics. But whatever the reasoning, it has the result that the culture of building common cause with others will be that much more difficult. Witness the current Eurosceptic block in the Parliament – Europe of Freedom and Democracy – which asks nothing of its constituent parties beyond holding a position of opposition to the European Union, with a commensurate lack of voting cohesion.
Finally, even if there is more cooperation than in previous cycles, Eurosceptics remain a very diverse bunch. Indeed, it is important to note that it is precisely this diversity that has bolstered the rise of critical voices across Europe. Sceptics are drawn from across the political spectrum, with myriad critiques of the EU and its operation, so to see them as all of a piece would be to miss their differences. In particular, the focus on populism and far-right variants of Euroscepticism – while understandable – is to conflate different things: the green critique of integration lies far from that of a radical right party, for instance.
Eurosceptics are divided by more than what they share in their scepticism. Beyond noting their dislike of the EU, they struggle to agree on why they dislike it and – even more so – what should be done about it.
The upshot is that while sceptics are likely to do well in May, their impact on either the Parliament or the Union more generally will be relatively small, for the reasons outlined above. The real danger will lie in pro-integration elements assuming that this will solve the underlying problems. In that case, 2014 risks looking like a gentle preparation for what is to come in 2019.
Please read our comments policy before commenting.
Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics.
Shortened URL for this post: http://bit.ly/OW40jV
_________________________________
Simon Usherwood – University of Surrey
Simon Usherwood is Senior Lecturer in Politics and Deputy Head of the School of Politics, University of Surrey. After study at the College of Europe and the LSE’s European Institute, his work has focused on euroscepticism, both in the UK and more widely across the EU. He is coordinator of the UACES Collaborative research Network on Euroscepticism and co-author of The European Union: A Very Short Introduction (OUP 2007).
Simon, You may be correct in your observations of countries outside the UK . I do not have enough knowledge about them but I am aware of UK law. What amazed me in last night’s Clegg Farage debate was Farage’s comments including the words constitution and common law. He also mentioned the relevance of a 17 hundred act.
This surprised me because I had previously written to him about the treason committed by Heath and subsequent Prime minister and received the reply that he dare not involve himself with that because it would reinforce opponent’s opinion that he is a crank. I assumed from that that he was just being polite and did not know much of the law of treason etc. but last night he showed that he does.
His difficulty previosly, was that treason cannot be discussed in sound bites but as last night in a public debate the subject can be discussed and challenged during which process the public will become aware how illegal our treaties with the EU are..
If and when this reaches our courts we will have to follow the common law which Lord Kilmuir told Edward Heath to follow. He of course hid the law and illegally signed the treaty..
P.S.On a previous EUROPP exchange I was attacked by so called knowledgable people who were at pains to point out their legal qualifications. They gradually ceased writing when I was able to produce chapter and verse the present state of UK law.
“On a previous EUROPP exchange I was attacked by so called knowledgable people who were at pains to point out their legal qualifications. They gradually ceased writing when I was able to produce chapter and verse the present state of UK law.”
I think you’re confusing people giving up trying to reason with you for winning an argument. As I wrote on the other article, the letter from Lord Kilmuir (extract available here: http://www.cib4freedom.co.uk/?p=921 ) barely mentions common law, and at no point states that Heath should have refused to sign up to the EEC on that basis. It simply doesn’t say what you’re claiming it says – just click on the link and see for yourself.
What you’re doing is repeating odd gibberish from websites such as this one: http://www.englishconstitutiongroup.org/LordKilmuir.html#.UzQRWIUQ9rN
These websites are simply taking the phrase “I have no doubt that if we do sign the Treaty, we shall suffer some loss of sovereignty” and using it to justify a completely separate argument, that Lord Kilmuir does not mention, that anything which impacts upon English sovereignty is illegal under common law (as dictated by a ruling roughly 700 years ago).
In fact Kilmuir doesn’t even advise against signing the Treaty. He says explicitly: “At the end of the day, the issue whether or not to join the European Economic Community must be decided on broad political grounds and if it appears from what follows in this letter that I find the constitutional objections serious that does not mean that I consider them conclusive.”
Please, stop posting complete and utter nonsense and engage with the issue seriously. Going around the internet spamming gibberish about supposedly secret letters is a complete waste of time. If you must do it then at the very least make sure the letters actually say what you claim they say – it would still be a complete irrelevance to the debate in 2014, but it might at least have some factual accuracy.
I accept that for reasons of brevity I summarised LK’s advice however
He did state that if the treaty was signed we would be giving up areas of our sovereighty and stated that British law would be subservient to European law. . I will not use use opinion comments as you do ,like talking nonsense etc I’ll simply ask you, and otheres who might visit the site, to answer the following questions.
(1) do you accept that common law is superior to statute law.
(2) do you accept that large parts of the common law were adopted into various statutes over the years and these are still current law..
(3) in those statutes do you accept that no one can give away any sovereign powers to another state unless we are defeated in war. and if they do they will be guilty of treason.
As you will no doubt know, there is a process going on in parliament codifying out dated laws such as the vagrancy act. The government tried to include one of the acts detailing treasonable offences.
When challenged they said it was a mistake.and removed it from the list..It remains law as do all the rest.
Answer those honestly and do not use words like ‘Barely mention’ or decry laws as not being suitble for modern times…
These may be your opinions, but if it is law it is the law and should be obeyed. The fact that it stood the test of time shows that it was good at the beginning and i still good today as is shown by the people in this country , perhaps not knowing these laws, but realising that losing controls of our border and our laws is wrong.
I do understand that universities may teach otherwise and it is like looking for hens teeth trying to get the government to tell the truth, but if you persist and argue against the sort of language and reasons that you use they will eventually admit that the three questions above are correct. They will even say that if parliament produces a law contrary to common law it is null and void..
A huge difference between our law and continental law is that we can do anything provided it is not against the law whereas on the continent they can do only that which is lawful..
If I might stand for the others here,there is more to this issue than meets the eye.In recent times,the concept of globalisation has been much advanced as an excuse or reason for change.Often,this change appears as a dis-continuity upon established principles.In the matter of globalisation,and also federalisation in Europe,people are led to believe by its advocates that there is only one way to globalise the world,only one way to federalise the EU.This could be no accident.Inherent in the politics of centralised power is the stonewalling of dissent.In terms of civil administration,decisions have to be made which are bound to advantage some and dis-advantage others.The political system works to smooth the process of deciding which way to go.Political philosophy and a host of derivatives in this veritable mine-field is deemed to analyse how it works and find ways to make it work more satisfactory.
However,in our day and age,we are certainly meeting some new phenomenon in the political life of the western democracies.The boundaries of age-old concepts and principles are being blurred,and the concepts and principles,which have guided people in some instances for centuries,are being twisted,deformed or quietly overridden to be replaced by the fait accompli of a continues series of new law,new regulation and new practices much like a flood which keeps on coming.
Like so much in this world,there are cycles in politics and related human affairs,and cycles within cycles.Many people who grow up believing in a certain reality are dis-abused of their beliefs some time or other.Human nature being what it is,many people hold on to outdated concepts long after the political vanguard has assumed,and is practising,new ideas.Herein lies the disconnect often found in debate on issues which are mutually exclusive.Almost as if opposing camps are possessed of a mutually exclusive zeitgeist.No doubt,as we debate these issues,some people are busy analysing events and writing new theses and books about current affairs.
As to the questions at hand:In the last two thousand years there has been much change and ferment in Europe.In Britain,likewise.There have been revolutions of sorts,and evolutionary growth spurts at other times.The Glorious revolution was one of them.At any time,when change happens,there are forces at work which will show themselves in the resultante at various stages of the fermentation process,so to speak,until the system settles down again for a period.Common law has most certainly been overridden in recent times.However,the principle stands for all time,no matter whether it is ignored or honoured.
Statutes and other mechanisms are an overlay which may at times be overly dominant and prone to such change as to be dis-continuous from one period to another.In this case,technically speaking,much that has happened in Britain,as in many other western democracies,has been treasonous indeed,but the political trend of the moment is served by a mindset which finds at its disposal ways and means to deflect specific criticisms,whereas general criticisms can be ignored if the debate does not serve the new trend.Globalisation,and in Europe specifically also federalisation,present a challenge to those who would wish to see alternative solutions to those on offer under the current regime,and to those,often in the same opposing camp,who wish to see any change implemented be in accordance with the existing basic structure.However,as time goes by,the weight of new law and regulation,even if contrary to the underlying people’s Common law,will allow the new trend to go its way until it,in turn,is overridden by new developments.
Unfortunately,for those who would resist the current brand of Euro-federalisation and globalisation,which,inter alia,are on one side of the same coin(The other side constitutes every imaginable kind of dissent and resistance),there is not much to be done in an active political sense just yet.The reason being that in order to meet this existential challenge,those opposed to this current trend need first to understand the reality of today’s political situation.There is a lot of catching up to do in that regard,because the corporate brand of federalisation and globalisation effected at the moment is way ahead as to political philosophy and practical means to effect the changes implicit and deemed necessary.
Jacob I agree, but your phrase “those opposed to this current trend need first to understand the reality of today’s political situation” needs more examination.
I am confining my remarks to the British position because our common law is different to that on the continent.
I agree that most Eurosceptics argue from the various beliefs/observations they have without taking account of the political situation. A few do understand the political situation and try to use the treason law to effect change. Then the true political situation becomes apparent,which using street parlance is “corruption rules OK!”.
I can give examples how I found this to be true which anyone can independently check.
Eleven separate police forces recorded the crime of treason against the prime minister and senior politicians. You can bet your life the Chief constables did as the law requires of them and checked the evidence and surrounding law to make sure there was a prima facie case.because it involved the prime minister.
These complaints were passed to Sir Bernard Hogan Howe to investigate. He refuses to do so which is illegal.(check it out).Possibly this was the reason he tendered his resignation in Jan. This year.I have made complaints about BHH in several police forces on two counts, first by him failing to investigate a crime is a crime itself. Obviously stealing a pint off a doorstep is overlooked because the police can’t do everything, but treason? Secondly once a person becomes aware of a treason he is required to act on it otherwise he becomes guilty of misprison of treason. Realising that most people, including lawyers and policemen, do not know of the offence of treason and because they don’t know and are too arrogant to find out I chose a different tack. I chose a serious offence that was not being investigated and tried to report that..
Most know of the plebgate affair and the low ranking polce officers being placed before Courts. Very few know that the three chief constables of the same forces as the low ranking officers met and took the legal document in which the investigating officer had recommended further investigation by the Independant Police Complaints Commission; and then removed his recommendations They then substituted their own recommendation of no further action. A clear case of attempting to pervert the course of justice..It’s all there in the Home Affairs Select Committee Minutes..I tried complaining to the IPCC who stated”as you are not personally affected we cannot investigate this”. I them made a complaint of the crime to Gloucestershire police who downgraded the crime offence to a complaint against the police. I let this go as I thought by appealing against their decision not record the crime the IPCC would correct things. It was then that I realised how all pervasive corruption is in our society.
I found that no police force in the country will investigate treason offences.So far no police force in the country will investigate the Chief constable offences.
The IPCC will not investigate the corrupt police who refuse to record the crimes.
The corrupt secretary to the HASC will not allow my evidence of the unlawful working of the IPCC to be placed before the Select committee.
As you will know, because an honest policeman blew the whisle on serious crime not being recorded, he was disciplined for showing the police in a bad light whereas no investigation was done about the unlawfulness of not recording crime. Now the shredding of’ ‘lorry loads’ of discipline documents involving a Met Commisioner is coming into the light.
So that’s the police. What about the press ?
Did you read about the three chief constables in the press?
Did you read in the Eurosceptic Mail and express about the Prime minister accused of crime. Have you heard any eurosceptic MP mention treason in the House of Commons. No you haven’t, and no you will not because the establishment has a stranglehold on the press.
I don’t exactly know how this stranglehold is achieved but one way you might find surprising and almost certainly you will at first think it’s far fetched, but just examine the evidence. It’s out there f you look.
Consider why it was only after they died that the crimes of Jimmy Saville and Cyril Smith MP came out.
Consiider why BHH will not investigate the crimes of Cyril Smith using the excuse that he is not wasting time investigating the crimes of a dead man when any policeman will tell you that if Smith’s crimes were investigated it would lead to other offenders.
Even without this investigation Cyril Smith and ex home secretary Leon Brittan have been connected because they both visited Elm House where boys in care were abused, There is a photograph of Leon Brittan at the house which the police have had for over a year but you will not know of this unless you dig.
Then you have the evidence of a constable in the Met. Police unit looking into paedophilia, who was reported in the press as saying that paedophilia is going on in an industrial scale in the police force in parliament and in the legal profession. This paedophilia unit is grossly underfunded so very rarely does anyone get arrested.
I suspect that even Jacob didn’t “understand the reality of today’s political situation’ because the establishment are past masters at covering up their evil doings. The fact that all treaties with the EU are illegal are easily dismissed, BUT and it’s a big BUT. Up to the present day when push comes to shove the senior judges will allways follow precedent if they are forced to decide.
If someone in this country can get the matter before the courts I believe that the lower courts using the corruption will dismiss the charges but if an appeal gets to the Queen’s bench division or the supreme court I believe that the judges will have to pronouce that the treaties are illegal.
So Europhiles, Eurosceptcs and don’t kows surely you all care for the rule of law. Surely your heart bleeds to know that children are being abused “on an industrial scale”. Don’t you think that you should do something about it.?
Is there someone out there rich enough to push this through the courts.
Hi John,my,you are at it hammer and tongs.Good on you.However,to realise the political reality of the world we live in is an Apocalypse,a Revelation.You are getting close,but be warned,when you realise the truth of the matter you will be hugely distraught-You are a classic case of someone who is pure and innocent.As to your investigations and measures taken,well done,it is work which will some day be of some considerable use,provided it will not get lost in the purges to come.As it is,you may have noticed that you are still able to obtain and check records.I cannot see this prevail much longer under the circumstances.
The reality is that Year Zero is not simply a book about 1945 written by Ian Buruma,it is the world in which we find ourselves,every day.In fact,it has always been like that to a degree,but the people have come to believe in the society which they made,in Common Law,or whatever they choose to call it.British history,though,has known many a period of chaos or severe instability.Since globalisation you cannot get around the fact of influences from abroad,notably the US,China and Brussels,the last one is only a facade.Brussels is really located somewhere else.Not Strassbourg either,that is another distraction.There is a cabal with a mission,working on behalf of Washington,the which is working for God knows some other mighty clique.In Bitain,as you have so recorded,there is a new Zeitgeist.This mentality goes deeper than you suspect.This is more the field of philosophy proper than political philosophy,but essential to understand what is going on.
The law has been increasingly abused,and used selectively.Forget about the technicalities.In due course you will find that rather than continue to stonewall your persistent crusade to make the authorities uphold the law,they will bury you under the stonewall,as it were.The law has become a tool of oppression.When serves the purpose,those in control will use it,when it goes against their interests of control they will ignore it,and all protestations with it,unless they find a way to usefully subvert the intent/content of the law to wrongfoot the people.This is the world we live in.Some advice:
Certain religious sects have made it their business to try and understand the unconscious workings of human society.Some of these sects are millennarian,apocalyptically inclined.To study their beliefs gives one an insight into cyclical subconscious trends in humanity.Anyway,over the last several centuries many commentators and writers/philosophers have made and published insightful observations and predictions.
I read the rest of the comments after my last contribution.You are writing for the record,unless you get to communicate with someone not taken in by the new world “order”.
I will not discuss this with you further David Walker. My previous comments were in respose to your question where I answered the ” the answer to your question lies in the 1351 and subsequent treason acts. I will leave others to research those acts which do give Chapter and verse.of our constitution etc.
You argue using phrases everybody knows, Perhaps everybody is llke you. I have seen letters from the Ministry of justice giving the same views as yourself. It is only when you challenge them step by step and go through the treason acts etc that they admit that people like myself are correct,.
Hopefully next year on the anniversary of the signing of the Magna Charta the subject will be discussed and the FACTS that I have stated will become public knowledge..
@John “(1) do you accept that common law is superior to statute law.
(2) do you accept that large parts of the common law were adopted into various statutes over the years and these are still current law..
(3) in those statutes do you accept that no one can give away any sovereign powers to another state unless we are defeated in war. and if they do they will be guilty of treason.”
There isn’t a single court in the land that accepts common law is superior to statute law. You claim it’s “chapter and verse” of UK law, yet it’s applied precisely nowhere within the UK. I could just about accept someone arguing that common law *should* be superior to statute law (even though it would render our parliament powerless in many key areas and generally doesn’t make any sense at the best of times), but to argue that it actually is superior, when essentially nobody practising law in 2014 upholds that principle, is just plain wrong.
If you want to argue, as some people have argued, that in some kind of abstract sense parliament’s legislative authority ultimately derives from common law then you’re entitled to make that argument: it’s completely wrong, as recently demonstrated by Jeffrey Goldsworthy among others, but you’re entitled to argue the case. If you want to argue that common law should act with a kind of constitutional authority paralleling the US constitution/bill of rights, then fine. That doesn’t mean, however, that we actually uphold the right of common law to limit parliament’s authority to draft legislation, or indeed for a government to sign up to a treaty in the kind of manner you’re describing. Kilmuir didn’t say that, our courts don’t abide by it, and it has no bearing on how law is actually applied in 2014.
Even more confusingly, your second two points make recourse to statute law, not common law. If you want to make that argument then post a specific statute that you believe renders our membership of the EU illegal.
David,I scarcely need to reply to this as it is evidence that your claim to be law student seems False. Any law student would check his facts before writing .
Common Law. Many offences go through the courts under common law. In fact this very morning I am taking out a summons in the Magistrates court against my Chief Constable viz Being a constable and failing to record and investigate a crime. Contrary to common law.(see my comments below regarding paedophilia)
Then look up the offence of murder. It is a common law offence.
I’ve already explained to you in a previous answer that the Queen’s bench division is a common law court why didn’t you check it out before writing what you did.
the 1351 treason act is still on the statute book. The last person to be prosecuted under it was William Joyce in 1945 . He was executed. The answer to your last question lies there and in subsequent treason acts.
You are angry because your long held beliefs were challenged.
When mine were challeged as indeed yours are now, I did not get angry. I quietly thought to myself ” i don’t think he is right but i’ll check it out”. When I found out that I was wrong I was grateful to the person for putting me right.
Now to really more important things. Read my reply to Jacob above.don’t believe a word I write but seek out and challenge what I say. You will find that what I claim is miniscule to the amount of paedophilia that is going on covered up by senior politicians the police and some high ranking law officers. Then don’t waste your time arguing with people like me. If you are qualified in law, use the law to expose the crimes and the criminals . The constiution, treason, paedophilia and murder are all interlnked..
Oh! and by the way the Amercan constitution is almost a direct lift from ours
@John There’s no debate about this. There isn’t a single court in this country which accepts that common law is superior to statute law. There isn’t a single law student (and I think you’re confusing me with someone else who rightly dismissed your opinions on another thread here) who would accept what you’ve written either. There isn’t a single law textbook in the country, used in any undergraduate, postgraduate or properly accredited course of any standing, which articulates a general principle of common law being superior to statute law. Not one – and if you dispute that then show me one.
What you’re doing is displaying an incredible misunderstanding of what common law actually is. You seem to think that the fact that common law is still applied means that it has supremacy. The areas in which it’s applied are those where it hasn’t been formally replaced by a statute, or where a statute isn’t comprehensive enough to account for every area of application. In the case of murder, for instance, it’s never been defined formally in statute but it has been modified countless times by statute.
Far from being “angry” I’m simply baffled that someone can display such an incredible misunderstanding of this subject and yet still continue to argue the point. You may as well be arguing that grass isn’t green, or the sky isn’t blue. For the sake of my own sanity I’m not even going to attempt to engage you on “The constiution, treason, paedophilia and murder are all interlnked”…
If you want to believe incoherent nonsense (and lord knows where you got all this stuff from) then that’s your issue. My only advice would be to pick up any standard law textbook, turn to the first chapter on common law and read it – then feel free to berate the pages on their apparent ignorance if you like.
So there’s no debate about this. ie shut up.
You do as many,so called legal experts, have done and ask aquestion expecting a negative reply. When I reply positvely you ignore my reply and resort to more abuse.
I ansewred your question ans told you the statute was the 1351 treason act. plus further teason acts . You choose to ignore that
Actually your first comment is accurate “there is no debate about this” because there are none so blind who will not see. Carry on with your illusion and continue to cover up injjustices by stating “and lord knows where you get this stuff from” when by researching the court records of Elm House and other court records you can see where I got the stuff from. By supporting the status quo, effectively you are assisting the cover up of further injuries to defenceless children.
@John Of course there’s no debate about this – you’re attempting to “debate” a basic fact. We can no more debate that than they we can have an argument about whether the planet revolves around the sun. It’s just flat out wrong to claim that common law is superior to statute law – and to try and present that as some sort of insight on the subject is completely ridiculous.
Instead of pointlessly “debating” basic facts known to literally everyone with any understanding of this subject, accept them and move on to a coherent point. Your argument about Kilmuir and common law doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense – you don’t appear to have read Kilmuir’s letter (or are at least willing to wildly misrepresent what it actually says), and have for some unknown reason pinned it to this odd belief that common law is superior to statute law (despite Kilmuir saying almost nothing about this subject).
You also quote the “1351 Treason Act” to back this up, despite the only parts of that act still being in force (read the entire thing here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw3Stat5/25/2/section/II ) saying absolutely nothing about giving away sovereignty. There isn’t a single mention of the subject – it relates entirely to physically murdering public officials or “levying War against our Lord the King in his Realm”. It says nothing, whatsoever, to back up your argument.
What it is we’re supposedly “not seeing” in these sources is beyond me – feel free to quote the exact passage of the 1351 Treason Act that you believe has even the slightest impact on our membership of the EU. So far you’ve quoted a letter that says almost nothing of what you’ve said is contained within it, and a 14th century act of the English parliament that does likewise.
Apparently living in the real world and actually reading these documents (instead of misrepresenting them) is tantamount to covering up child abuse… and you’re somehow surprised that the response to your comments here has been negative?
I broadly agree. Sending UKIP to Brussels is like sending Eunuchs to an orgy, though a UKIP vote in the EU elections would not be wasted. It is always good to highlight the UK’s level of dissatisfaction with the EU.
The right time to vote UKIP is in the 2015 General Election.
UKIP need to get into Westminster before they can do anything…
Sending UKIP to Strassbourg may be the way to go.However,EU sceptics in the EU “parliament” have their hands tied,so to speak,unless they constitute a large minority.There may come a day when anti-Euro(currency) delegates-I would hardly call them representatives,as they are mere stooges for the people who control EU policy-become a majority.That should put the cat amongst the pigeons.
The way things EU are structured,however,means that supporters of the federalisation drive are well-looked after financially.EU “parliamentarians” are on a ridiculous good wicket to a degree that it is in effect a bribery.Once on the EU gravy train,people have to be really committed to those who voted them in to withstand the temptation to just make a meal of it-Mouth the EU-sceptic platitudes and otherwise enjoy the cushy ride with a good pension or directorship in the offing.The structure has been set up to buy support from a large minority in the EU at the expense of the rest.The number of academics doing studies and writing articles in support of the EU and Euro policies seems to be the give-away.It looks phoney from my perspective,even a lot of the EU critical academic writing does not seem to hit the mark.There appears to be a kind of orchestration going on to manufacture debate.The substance of lay critical comment,however,is put aside.There is an attitude amongst the federalisation technocrats which is dismissive of people’s opinions,or even the votes,unless they are in favour of technocrat policy.Enter the post-democratic era.A challenge indeed.