'Innocent' student extradicted to Greek prison hell under EU arrest warrant

[-:Undertaker:-]

How you can equate candle lit dinners or facebook giving you cancer to the human created speeding up of global warming which is backed by the vast majority of Scientists is beyond me. Its not scare mongering, it's scientific theory which we need to respond to because if it does prove to be true then by then it will be too late.

How did you establish the majority of scientists agree with man-made global warming? you haven't and nobody has done so, so there you are. Again I will direct you to Lord Monckton and his fantastic videos/tours which simply blow the myth out of the water;

The same could be said for the Mail stories on food/things that give you cancer, too late when you have the cancer if you dont take note of those studies!

The British authorities do have power to stop the extradition of this man, extradition is only carried out after their approval. Once again, British law is above EU law. Whilst EU law is often called "supranational" it isn't because the UK can refuse to go along with any part of it that it wishes, nothing can stop British law which is ALWAYS sovereign.

Now you keep saying this but it is wrong, EU law is supreme to EU member states law - only parliament remains sovereign in monetary matters (since we have not joined the Euro) and treaty signing, in all others aspects which the EU rules/its court rules upon, British law is not superior; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suprema...n_Union_law%29

This is neither undemocratic nor illiberal because UK law isn't a democratic process, judges aren't elected by the people nor are juries unlike some other countries.

So you wish to make it more undemocratic whilst at the same time supporting a body which creates a large sum of our legislation yet has never been elected and is not accountable to the people? I would agree that the courts & justice system should also be made democratic like the American system is - however it is pointless reforming the UK courts to make them democratic when EU courts and law remain supreme to UK law because EU courts and the EU itself is not elected, has never been elected and will never be elected or accountable to the people of Britain and Europe.

If you're going to turn this into a 'party political' thread then please explain to me Lord Pearson's lack of understanding about even the most basic of UKIPs policies?

Because no party leader knows the entire manifesto, which is why I find it strange that trick questions are not asked of the Lib/Lab/Con leaders also - but speaking of party politics regardless I find it strange how the Liberal Democrats all of a sudden dropped all of their opposition to spending cuts and on a number of other issues as soon as they had the chance to form a government - the same goes for the Conservative Party.

Step 1 for a legitimate summary. Link to a completely independent and unbiased view of the order. Under no circumstances link to a political parties website. Thanks.

Actually you'll find I was linking to the Russia Today video which has covered the story, and of which is not on Youtube and is only on the UKIP website - hence why I posted so.

[MrPinkPanther]

How did you establish the majority of scientists agree with man-made global warming? you haven't and nobody has done so, so there you are. Again I will direct you to Lord Monckton and his fantastic videos/tours which simply blow the myth out of the water;

Lord Monckton? Fox News's go to guy, UKIP's deputy leader who has a degree in journalism? You must be kidding me, he hardly qualifies in a scientist. *Sigh*.

I suggest you watch this video. The same reports he quotes debunk the very theories he preaches.

Now you keep saying this but it is wrong, EU law is supreme to EU member states law - only parliament remains sovereign in monetary matters (since we have not joined the Euro) and treaty signing, in all others aspects which the EU rules/its court rules upon, British law is not superior; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suprema...n_Union_law%29

The EU's relationship with the UK in terms of the law is based on the process of factortame. This means that it is agreed that the UK courts only surrender to the EU on certain issues which the UK has agreed to. It may change the terms of factortame as it wishes and therefore remains supranational in all areas.

So you wish to make it more undemocratic whilst at the same time supporting a body which creates a large sum of our legislation yet has never been elected and is not accountable to the people? I would agree that the courts & justice system should also be made democratic like the American system is - however it is pointless reforming the UK courts to make them democratic when EU courts and law remain supreme to UK law because EU courts and the EU itself is not elected, has never been elected and will never be elected or accountable to the people of Britain and Europe.

The process of how the EU conducts itself and is elected has nothing to do with the Greek courts. You have a weak argument about whether or not the Briton should be extradited and have therefore turned it into your typical supranationalism and I hate EU argument. It has little relevance to the case in hand.

Because no party leader knows the entire manifesto, which is why I find it strange that trick questions are not asked of the Lib/Lab/Con leaders also - but speaking of party politics regardless I find it strange how the Liberal Democrats all of a sudden dropped all of their opposition to spending cuts and on a number of other issues as soon as they had the chance to form a government - the same goes for the Conservative Party.

So you think going up against the likes of Paxman is easier than going against a standard BBC presenter with the charisma of a carrot? The other leaders were asked difficult questions but they coped with them, Pearson melted down, even you can't deny that. When asked questions on policy he tried to change the subject and at one point in a BBC interview even admitted UKIP's policy was insignificant before hearing how ridiculous he sounded and trying to deny he'd said it...it was caught on tape.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Lord Monckton? Fox News's go to guy, UKIP's deputy leader who has a degree in journalism? You must be kidding me, he hardly qualifies in a scientist. *Sigh*.

As far as I understand Lord Monckton doesn't work for Fox News so I have no idea why you [the left] has the need to bring in Fox News to attempt to slur people time and time again, I could say the same of the UK media with Michael White of the Guardian who is constantly on the BBC giving his opinion despite the fact he represents a small portion of the population who buy the Guardian newspaper.

Who determines who qualifies as a scientist? is there a special test you need to become a scientist? he is not offically a scientist no and nor does he claim to be one, however I believe he has challenged the likes of Al Gore to a debate (you know the guy whos made millions out of climate change, another champagne socialist) and has been turned down time and time again.

I have seen those 'debunking' videos and they also mock his character, which is what the left usually does when its out of things to say. The man states the facts such as the scientists measuring surface area rather than volume (ice and warmth temperatures) so back to what you said originally, no the majority of scientists do not agree on this man-made global warming runaway train.

I suggest you watch this video. The same reports he quotes debunk the very theories he preaches.

The video again, mocks things such as his talking in latin - what has that got to do with anything? I myself have done demographics in Geography and can back up what he says on demography and energy consumption - anyone who has covered the topic can back this up. I will post the video below. To conclude or to add to this, we have found numerous government-funded studies debunked and actually caught fixing data. If you are in flux on the issue (as I used to be and as you should at least be), then the simple solution is not to throw money at a problem - especially when if that problem does infact exist, it would only help food stocks across the world grow and not decline.

(more a hitback video whislt at Copenhagen)


(Monckton in an actual debate/discussion with a scientist)

The EU's relationship with the UK in terms of the law is based on the process of factortame. This means that it is agreed that the UK courts only surrender to the EU on certain issues which the UK has agreed to. It may change the terms of factortame as it wishes and therefore remains supranational in all areas.

Of course, so as I said earlier; EU Law and Courts are supreme to UK Law and Courts so I do thank you for that gracious climbdown. While we remain outside of the EU on issues such as monetary sovereignty and other areas (which the Liberal Democrats would be all too glad to hand over) then we still have the ultimate pullout tool of the European Union.

I will phrase Jean Monnet (one of the founding fathers of 'Europe') to state simply why I believe the UK should stop the transfer of powers and reclaim powers that the European Union has taken away, because whether you (and others) like to believe or not - the EU project is a federalist project which will end this country and will end British democracy, the oldest in the world.

"Europe's nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening... This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation." - Jean Monnet

The process of how the EU conducts itself and is elected has nothing to do with the Greek courts. You have a weak argument about whether or not the Briton should be extradited and have therefore turned it into your typical supranationalism and I hate EU argument. It has little relevance to the case in hand.

It has nothing to do with Greek courts - exactly. It has something to do with the European Union (well everything to do with the EU, otherwise he would not be extradited under this warrant in the first place) and my problem is the fact that he is being sent to a foreign country to stand trial without any evidence or control being exercised by British authorities.

Maybe if you are ever facing 18 months in a foreign jail and your government leaves you, you'll sit and think about the issue and have some care. Was it not the Liberal Democrats who campaigned against extending the time that British police can detain terror suspects? - yet at the same time have no problem with somebody being sent to a foreign prison for upto 18 months whilst awaiting trial.

Double standards time and time again.

So you think going up against the likes of Paxman is easier than going against a standard BBC presenter with the charisma of a carrot? The other leaders were asked difficult questions but they coped with them, Pearson melted down, even you can't deny that. When asked questions on policy he tried to change the subject and at one point in a BBC interview even admitted UKIP's policy was insignificant before hearing how ridiculous he sounded and trying to deny he'd said it...it was caught on tape.

That policy was insignifigant, and the likes of Paxman are very good because they grill just about everyone (including Farage before the election) - what I don't agree with is singling out Lord Pearson (who did fall flat on the floor) and then having the likes of yourself parade it about when your own leader never has to face the same heat that Pearson did as a result of the BBC bias.

The policy was insignifigant, not a major policy (I recall it was on getting retired police back on the streets?) and does not provoke debate at all. So of course they chose to pick that subject rather than the popular policies of withdrawal from the EU, more prison building, a referendum system introduced, the banning of the burka + many more.

It cannot be one sided.