This is within the EU: and yes, to me, places within the EU which do not have habeas corpus setc do not protect human rights. The ECJ obviously disagrees.

I didn’t say there wasn’t any bribery going on, I said “almost none”. I base this on first hand experience and various sources. The American system is way more corrupt than the European one, the newsreports support me in this. A man is innocent until proven otherwise, so, do you have any evidence that there is consideral bribing going in the EU?

and then another dogmatic reaction to my post:

““The EU now uses the common law principle in most cases”

Waldo, are you actually a cretin or just mimicking one? We now have the situation whereby it is possible to extradite a UK citizen, to a country which does not have haebeas corpus nor jury trial, for a crime that is not a crime in the UK and upon the basis of no evidence being presented nor court hearings being held.”

That is not a reaction to the topic being discussed here: common law principle on the subject of regulation and furthermore, is not correct.

Firstly, I clearly pointed out earlier with the example of the ‘cassis de dijon case’, that the system currently being used is not EU regulation based but is more an example in the direction of the common law principle. This example is to found in every textbook on the EU, perhaps you should try reading one.

Secondly, your extradition story… Can I have a source please? For I have heard of a recent ECJ ruling that stated that a EU citizen should not be extradited to a country which does not respect human rights.

I have the feeling you only react to those arguments you can react to, but neglect the other arguments that don’t fit in your story. Retorics is the key to your arguments. Education, arguments and facts is the key to mine… or so it seems.

So you’re unaware of the basics of public choice economics then? Or as PJ O’Rourke puts it:

“When politicians decide what can be bought and sold the first things to be bought and sold are politicians”

“The EU now uses the common law principle in most cases”

Waldo, are you actually a cretin or just mimicking one? We now have the situation whereby it is possible to extradite a UK citizen, to a country which does not have haebeas corpus nor jury trial, for a crime that is not a crime in the UK and upon the basis of no evidence being presented nor court hearings being held.

No, that ain’t the Common Law. And anyone who wants to impose that upon a formerly free people can, well, there’s some good Anglo Saxon that starts with F and ends with off.

I was born free in a free country and I intend to die that way.

please, let’s stick to facts and not clichés. The European institutions make a very good report on fairness and bribes from interest groups to officials are almost not heard of.

However, you just fail to recognise that such a system is currently in form in the EU, as I stated and proved some posts ago. The jam-regulation-mechanism is an exception. The member states felt the need for a political consensus for jam that was not determined by judges so that’s why it is now in place (same thing goes for GB). The EU now uses the common law principle in most cases (as I pointed out earlier), except in politically difficult issues (like the jam).

Don’t point to a broken leg if that leg is already cured.

Yes please, because the system is more responsive. Let us assume that I decided to make apricot jam with essential oils of citrus. It is, under the current rules, not allowed.

Under a common law system it is not specifically banned, thus it is legal to make it. If someone starts to complain about it after I’ve started making and selling it then yes, it does get to court. And we have a judge sitting there who considers, does oils of citrus constitute a crime against the essential jamminess of the product, or do apricots constitute such against the essential marmaladeness of it?

Note that this only happens after I have started selling and found out whether it’s in fact worth pursuing the case. Also, note that it only happens if someone actually complains about it. And note also that it can be soprted out at a very low level of the judicial system, not the ECJ. It only gets there if people really complain about it.

Compare that to the current system. In order to even test market my product I first need to mount a lobbying campaign in Brussels to get the law changed. Then I have to wait while that law change is adopted by 27 national legislatures. Only then can I even start test marketing.

Which system is likely to lead to the EU being the most innovative economy on the planet, as the Lisbon Process insists we ought to be?

One where I have to bribe the politicians first or one where I get dealt with by the judges afterwards?

Don’t be so hard-headed.