European Politics Thread.

[Iroquois Pliskin]

Mr Farage is pretty much usually correct in my opinion. It's more likely he's the working clock and EU is only right twice day.

But I wouldn't exactly describe him coming out as with anything about EU failures as "brave".
It's his default setting.
Brave for him would be to stand up and wax lyrical about something or other the EU is getting right.

LMAO or maybe to get back in a light aircraft.

He's trivial in his theatric opposition, though a plane crash does resemble similarities to that of Polish high-ranking staff elimination in the Katyn crash, who had been opposed to some vital areas of European integration. Next time they ought to use.a.bigger.plane for this kind of endeavors.

... and let the Russians deal with the next one. Hehehe.

[Baff1]

I would not pay any attention to Nick Robinson, he can hardly be expected to be impartial after his cosy role in 'government' and close relationship with certain politicians was ended at the last election. His bitterness is more than obvious ROFL

While it's obvious that the BBC is torn between it's institutional bias and it's position as mouthpiece of the government I don't particularly notice Nick Robinson.
The one who sticks out on my radar is Stephanie Flanders. The Economics editor who repeatedly dresses up political theory as economic theory. It's pretty poor in my opinion.

In the end, not a great news source for me.

[mrcash2009]

As regards Nick Robinson, on the day Cameron entered number 10 he did a small piece to camera kneeling down with paps at the front of number 10, as Cameron pulled into downing street with wife to exit car and enter number 10 Nick Robinson uttered "entering new world order" in his skit to the camera. I remember it as I was watching live, no one has placed this online from sky news live reel and have been looking for it, so yeh, good ole nick, he knows what side his breads buttered and that whoever is in at the time.

Hes kneeling down to camera in the longer shot in this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cHYDVP0JUo&t=2m4s it was around this point.

[nettrucker]

This is a nice one . . . watch and enjoy.

[kavoven]

This is a nice one . . . watch and enjoy.

I never thought I'd say that - but please read the Youtube comments. Its just propaganda from people who actually are stupid enough to think that the breaking of the Euro would be a good thing. In some way, they're like those who keep on making debts - they don't look in the future.

[nettrucker]

I never thought I'd say that - but please read the Youtube comments. Its just propaganda from people who actually are stupid enough to think that the breaking of the Euro would be a good thing. In some way, they're like those who keep on making debts - they don't look in the future.

For being honest I didn't read the comments below the vid. I'm more concerned what ESM represents for us Europeans and our future . . . if a future we have.
cheers

[batto]

This is really sad:

http://boingboing.net/2012/07/03/hom...medium=twitter

He faces up to 10 years in US for making a website with links to other video hosting sites. There is a petition in UK against extradition with 160000 signatures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TVShack

[Tonci87]

That is a shame, it seems like US entertainment giants can get away with everything

[PELHAM]

RE the O'Dwyer thing, I don't really give two hoots either way, but, there is much untruth posted all over the internet regarding the case and many of the facts are left out. You all know how that irritates me lol. I would suggest reading the actual Judgement before making up your mind on this.

-Earnings from the website are over $230,000.
-It is in fact a crime in the UK, the fact that the CPS has not chosen to follow through a case or prosecute one does not nullify the Statutory Act of Parliament.
-While physically in the UK, The US believes a crime under US law was committed in the US. They are therefore perfectly entitled to seek extradition. That is what extradition is for, it stops criminals using borders to get away with it.
-Arguments as to whether O'dwyer has committed a crime or not, his guilt or innocence aren't really relevant to an extradition hearing, those arguments are decided at a trial. The US only has to provide significant evidence and they have it, much from O'Dwyers own statements to police.
-Some websites claim no US citizen has ever been extradited to the UK - untrue.
-Some websites claim the UK has never refused an extradition request - untrue.
-Some websites claim the Home Secretary has the power to intervene, she does, if there is a doubt over human rights, there isn't one at the moment. She signed the extradition document after the Judgement and hearing as she was obliged to do. Unless the evidence shows that extradition would breach the European Convention on Human Rights it would be unlawful for the Home Secretary to refuse extradition.

While I don't think crucifying this kid is the right thing to do, they could have just taken his money from him in a civil case?, the Media giants want to set an example and unfortunately for O'Dwyer they can do it perfectly legally. Guilt or innocence aside - he willfully got himself into this mess and made matters worse by opening up another website when the 1st was shut down and taunting the US authorities on it! We all know where that gets you and Judges take a particularly dim view of people putting 2 fingers up at the law.

The Government of the United States of America -v- O'Dwyer
Westminster Magistrates’ Court. Ruling of District Judge Purdy dated 13th January 2012. Extradition Act 2003. Issues:
(i) Extradition offence/dual criminality see S.78 (4) (b)/137
(ii) passage of time: S.82
(iii) Human Rights: disproportionate: Article 8 ECHR/forum? Section 87(2).
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/ju...-odwyer-ruling
Detailed judgement is in the pdf at the bottom. It's worth a read to get the full picture.

A detailed study of the US/UK extradition treaty was undertaken recently by an independent member of the Judiciary and it was found to be balanced. He recommended few changes:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/feedarticle/9900651

[Celery]

Acta: Controversial anti-piracy agreement rejected by EU