TOT: Not for EU

Oh he doesn't want to hear facts.

The EU was set up as a zone (ECSC) to protect European iron and steel from competition from elsewhere., It started life as, and has always been, a protection racket. Later on it was to protect the way of life of small French farmers and the right to ingest salmonella as long as it was locally sourced.

The plan was to give European manufacturers and farmers protected access to European markets and keep non EU products out of it.

From the first communists infiltrated it as the perfect vehicle to construct a European superstate, a process which is still ongoing.

It is of course failing abysmally as it nears its target of a stranglehold bureaucracy.

Yes I agree and accept that additional import taxes may be applied and there may be extra bureaucracy, but until we left all our standards on food safety etc. were identical or accepted by the EU, or more the case the the oversight of those standards in the UK being accepted. Overnight some those standards became unacceptable!

Of course, Have to punish the Brits! Pour encourager les autres...

Well if the EU update theirs, that will happen.

The problem these days is judicial overreach, leading to lawyers and judges becoming unelected policy-makers. The Yanks suffer more from it than us, but we're getting there.

Discourager, Shirley?

I think the real issue is that the EU had tow choices - accept that the UK was within EU standards, or make it demonstrate with the right paperwork, that it was. The chose the latter purely as punishment.

You have no idea how bitterly EU people resented Brexit.

Encourage them to stay.

Presumably it's pure envy, they don't have the guts to do it.

Interesting. When I was studying for my insurance qualifications (admittedly 60 years ago) the ability of judges to extend the law was put forward as a benefit of the English legal system. We had decent judges, like Denning, back in the day though.

My BIL is typical. An ex Nazi, he fervently believes in the power of large central organisations, and obeying all the rules. And that Germany owes its post war success to this, whereas countries like Italy and Greece are in economic trouble because they do not.

He has worked in the public sector all his life.

He simply could not understand why the UK could possibly vote to leave such a wonderful organisation which he believed was part and parcel of Germany's supremacy and prosperity.

My sister likewise has always worked in the public sector and so too do her children They are all card carrying vegans and woke liberals.

They all think the EU is fantastic, as are heat pumps, solar panels and windmills. And why shouldn't Muslims and transgender self identifiers get a chance to behave as they want to?

They think they are the way of the future.

Not one of them has any STEM qualifications whatsoever.

I think it is a bit more nuanced. Parliament creates Law, but judges interpret it and give rulings based on what they *think* was intended by the law, even if its bad law, when it needs to be passed back to the government to be amended. Case law becomes the principle evidence for interpretation of the law and a lawyer may argue that there is precedent for a particular decisions to be found in it.

Sadly latterly its become infected by politics and interpreted not as was intended, but as they wish it to be interpreted, to comply with a political ideology, rather than the original intention.

E.g. the original human rights law applying to refugees, was there to stop them being maltreated and exploited.

But today, simply *claiming* you are a refugee gets you entitlement to what you are not entitled.

But instead of interpreting the law as 'no, you cant have that' people making enormous sums out of the public purse to defend 'immigrants rights;' argue using this law to win against common sense.

The net result is the rise of Reform to surf this wave of resentment against what people clearly find unjust.

And it will right itself. When people are pissed off enough to start to elect what the incumbents try to dismiss as 'the far right' you know things have gone too far.

I have no idea because it didn't and hasn't happened.

Much as many sensible folk couldn't give a s*it what their exes get up to.

Imagine Brexiteers grumbling about a peculiarly English thing.

From the man who says he doesn't give a s*it.

Methinks he doth protest too much

Who are you asking and what?

He probably wanks over her.

The function of judges is, in the case of ambiguity only, to understand Parliament's intention when the Act in question was passed. They have no business "extending" the law. Creating the Supreme Court was a serious error and an invitation to judges to stick their noses in where they have no business. Further, incorporating something like human rights into law must have had all the lawyers salivating. Such a thing is far too vague, too general. That's why it's a matter for the legislature only.

In the US the glaring example is abortion. Whether that is to be allowed or not is a *policy* matter, not a *constitutional* one, and as such, should fall to the legislature to decide upon. Or legislatures plural, if it's a state matter. Trying via Roe v. Wade to make it a constitutional one, to be decided by the Supreme Court of the US, merely led to 50 years of dispute, because what you've ended up with is that 9 unelected judges in effect pass a law. In Europe, generally, the legality of abortion has been decided by the legislature, and is the reason that the issue is relatively uncontroversial in Europe.

Er, so the Law Lords ?