Bolitics The New Condem Government

[drat01]

 

 

I past govts of both colours, Home Secretaries were sacked for single effups. May has overseen a whole sequence but stayed in place. Border agency, immigration figures, prisoners, inquiry appointees and so on.

They're incompetent, the Tories. They mess everything up.

 

Do you think her gender has anything to do with it?

 

No, I think she is seen as a potential threat if she was allowed to stand outside the tent pissing in. Boris is nailed on for next leader if he wants it but May would fancy a tilt at it too. 

 

 

One of the common things thrown at Cameron is the lack of women in the Gvmt and sacking May would be an own goal of massive size - probably will do it then going on past performance :-)

 

Also as Eames says you get the feeling that May sees herself as a Thatcher type who could run the Tory party, and she will certainly be the anti-Boris when Cameron gets booted out next year

[bickster]

On the larger issue of the European Arrest Warrant, not the bumbling buffoonery of the incumbent incompetents. I don't get it, what is the objection? My only objection to it is the way this government has misused it beyond the scope it's remit. But that is an internal UK matter and not a reason to not resign up to the thing. What are the UKIP wing of the Tory Party objecting to? Do they want people skipping off to Europe when they should be facing justice here? Do they want every other countries criminals bunking over here so they can't be arrested and deported? This is the so called party of Law and Order isn't it? I confess I've not read up on their objections but to me it seems like such a no brainer I'm baffled as to the objection.

Cameron's so shit scared of his UKIP wing he tries to appease them at every turn, so he promises a debate solely on the EAW, then it turns out not to happen for whatever reason and he angers them even more. It's pretty comical stuff, this slow burn Tory implosion. Makes for great armchair viewing. As for Labour wanting to have a EAW debate in their time, what a waste of parliaments time that is, that is being done just to add to the Tory Party's embarrassment, its hardly constructive use of Parliaments time, they should be embarrassed for themselves. Debate something else, something that needs debate, these measures have had their debate and been ratified. To debate part of it again is just the politics of the wendy house especially as they are in favour of it anyway.

[Eames]

That was an absolute farce yesterday - utterly ridiculous.  The Tories are doomed at the next election, not through Ed Miliband's genius, but Farage's rabble rousing and Cameron's inability to deal with it. 

 

There can be no sensible objection to the EAW so long as they are applied correctly. Ashya King's parents should never have been subjected to the EAW, that was a gross abuse of power, so I understand the need for safeguards, but beyond that the EAW, like most of the rest of Europe is universally a good thing. 

[MakemineVanilla]

That was an absolute farce yesterday - utterly ridiculous.  The Tories are doomed at the next election, not through Ed Miliband's genius, but Farage's rabble rousing and Cameron's inability to deal with it. 

 

There can be no sensible objection to the EAW so long as they are applied correctly. Ashya King's parents should never have been subjected to the EAW, that was a gross abuse of power, so I understand the need for safeguards, but beyond that the EAW, like most of the rest of Europe is universally a good thing. 

 

Totally agree.

 

The independence of the judiciary from the executive may be doubtful but these days the influence of the media on the judiciary is a national disgrace.

 

Whether it is the treatment of Ashya King's parents or the decision to reveal the name of a minor (Will Cornick) found guilty of murder, after requests from the press, the judiciary's lack of independence seems obvious.

 

When you hear May droning on about 'safeguards' you know it is nonsense because the whether it is the police or the judiciary, we know that they take more notice of Twitter and Facebook, when making their decisions, than to concepts of justice.

[bickster]

That was an absolute farce yesterday - utterly ridiculous.  The Tories are doomed at the next election, not through Ed Miliband's genius, but Farage's rabble rousing and Cameron's inability to deal with it. 

 

There can be no sensible objection to the EAW so long as they are applied correctly. Ashya King's parents should never have been subjected to the EAW, that was a gross abuse of power, so I understand the need for safeguards, but beyond that the EAW, like most of the rest of Europe is universally a good thing.

Completely agree, the safeguards are required here as the Ashya King situation showed. Its the UK judiciary, the police and the hospital that fecked up there all of which are our problem. That problem should easily be solved in a court of law as long as judges are given the correct guidance in the first place.

[snowychap]

On the larger issue of the European Arrest Warrant, not the bumbling buffoonery of the incumbent incompetents. I don't get it, what is the objection?

I'd say that as the EAW is based upon mutual recognition (i.e. the mutual trust in the justice systems of all EU member states) (Fair Trials International 2011 report - point 25 - link to pdf document) and that Article 6 rights (the right to a fair trial) were held by the ECtHR to have been infringed by EU countries in 1,696 cases in the perios 2007-2010 (same report - point 26. there's a fundamental flaw right there.

I haven't read further in to the report but that organization has been campaigning for the reform of the EAW for a while according to this page and on it they say that they believe changes are being made (at least in the UK):

In January 2014, the European Parliament adopted a report calling for the Commission to put forward legislative proposals to introduce new safeguards to prevent injustice in the operation of the European Arrest Warrant.

This EU-level development has been mirrored in changes to the UK’s extradition law, adopted in March 2014, to prevent disporportionate use of the arrest warrant for minor offences and allowing judges to refuse to surrender someone to another member state when they may be likely to spend long periods in detention while waiting for the trial to commence.

I don't think those opposing the EAW as is (other than perhaps a very few) are suggesting not having extradition proceedings with other EU member states (whether that be a much reformed EAW or other mutual treaties) so the criminal haven idea (which is surely predicated on that kind of vacuum) would appear to me to be a bit bogus.

I think that the EAW is an important issue - far too important to be wrapped up in any anti-EU shenanigans from whichever side.

Edited November 11, 2014 by snowychap

[snowychap]

Ashya King's parents should never have been subjected to the EAW, that was a gross abuse of power...

Should they not have been? I guess it's possible and the public comments of the police force involved (It purely gives us the power to arrest and then we will be able to speak to them) would suggest that the basis wasn't correct but perhaps the request itself was put in more proper and correct terms.

Who issues the EAW in the UK?

Surely the decision is made on the same basis as any other under the extradition act (in that there is no prima facie case requirement for extradition to Part 1 countries)?

Edited November 11, 2014 by snowychap

[Awol]

I thought the main objection to the EAW was the lack of any requirement to provide a British Court with Prima Facie evidence that the accused had done anything wrong? That, and the fact that some EU member states have judiciaries that couldn't honestly be described as upstanding and transparent, and British citizens could end up spending many months in a foreign jail without even being charged. Habeas Corpus is a fundamental principle of the British legal system and the right of British citizens, unless the EAW is involved, in which case it can be ignored...!!

If one responsibility of the state is the protection of its citizens then the EAW seems to fly in the face of that.

If actual evidence against an individual is available then traditional extradition treaties provide an effective mechanism to render them to the appropriate authorities for trial. If such evidence can't be presented then the authority requesting transfer of an individual should be told to foxtrot oscar anyway.

As Snowy suggests the idea people would otherwise escape justice is blatant spin.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Awol

[chrisp65]

well done tories and well done labour

 

Tory leaders running so scared of the euro sceptics / ukip types that they promised them a debate they were never really going to have - May's reasoning this morning? They could still debate the EAW if they wanted to, I told them they could, it just didn't need to be put in the bill. Well done on the lateral thinking, shame nobody else was quite as brilliant as you on working out that particular line of logic.

 

Labour sensing a short term victory get a debate on something they are in favour of - that they already have - 1 day before the Rochester bi election. The possible result? An increased chance of a UKIP win. Good for Labour is it? A UKIP 'momentum'? 

 

Retarded career politicians the lot of them.

[peterms]

...If one responsibility of the state is the protection of its citizens...

That is indeed the main and overriding duty of the state, and in fact the only basis on which we consent to be governed. When states neglect this, they exceed their authority.

This being so, the recent conduct of the British State almost makes you sympathise with the anarchists.

[villaajax]

I can't defend the Government on this, they got it wrong

 

On the EAW or just in general over the past 4 and a half long years?

[bickster]

I can't defend the Government on this, they got it wrong

 

On the EAW or just in general over the past 4 and a half long years?

I would have thought it was quite clear he was talking about the EAW farce

[blandy]

Call me Dave says it's time to "move on" on this EAW thing.

 

That's how it works see. Tell a lie, get caught, people need to just move on,

[Jon]

Call me Dave says it's time to "move on" on this EAW thing.

 

That's how it works see. Tell a lie, get caught, people need to just move on,

It's a lot easier to 'move on' when you don't have an effective opposition holding you to account.

[bickster]

Call me Dave says it's time to "move on" on this EAW thing.

 

That's how it works see. Tell a lie, get caught, people need to just move on,

It's a lot easier to 'move on' when you don't have an effective opposition holding you to account.

Wouldn't matter in this instance, the official opposition has the same view as the government. The opposition to the EAW comes from the UKIP wing inside the Tory Party oh and that fella that left the Tory Party to join the standalone UKIP.

[Xann]

A former schoolboy claims he was drugged and assaulted by a serving UK Coalition minister when he was a mere 14 years old. The man alleges police were reluctant to investigate the matter because of the politician’s position of power in Government.

 

RT - Clicky

Edited November 12, 2014 by Xann

[villaajax]

 

 

I can't defend the Government on this, they got it wrong

 

On the EAW or just in general over the past 4 and a half long years?

 

I would have thought it was quite clear he was talking about the EAW farce

 

 

...I was being facetious...

[villaajax]

 

A former schoolboy claims he was drugged and assaulted by a serving UK Coalition minister when he was a mere 14 years old. The man alleges police were reluctant to investigate the matter because of the politician’s position of power in Government.

 

RT - Clicky

 

 

Calamity May will get to the bottom of this.

[VillaForever1970]

I dont pretend to know anything about politics but can someone explain this please.

Everyone moans the blue lot cut taxes for the rich, surely this means more rich people will live here, contributing?

i.e rich in this country get taxed 100quid for example, but they get taxed 150quid in Germany. They are going to live here and still pay tax, its not like they don’t pay any tax, thus thats more people in the country paying tax isn’t it?

[bickster]

I dont pretend to know anything about politics but can someone explain this please.

Everyone moans the blue lot cut taxes for the rich, surely this means more rich people will live here, contributing?

i.e rich in this country get taxed 100quid for example, but they get taxed 150quid in Germany. They are going to live here and still pay tax, its not like they don’t pay any tax, thus thats more people in the country paying tax isn’t it?

Most "Rich" people avoid paying any tax at all. Is that fair do you think?