Racism, xenophobia, in Brexit Britain

[Mark]

Great post Smudger!

[William Morris]

Thank you, Domonic, Smudger, et al and I agree also. Great post.

It is some kind of snowball effect. The benefits scrounger, too many Polish corner shops, another Mosque being built. Then suddenly it all get confused and muddled and every Johnny Foreigner is the enemy.

I just think that it is so sad. Not the world that I thought I had been brought up in.

[William Morris]

Brilliant programme on bbc4 with Ian Hislop looking at immigration into Britain going back as far as 1853.

He explains that we have been in this position many times in the past.

A good watch indeed.

[jeba]

Whatever country they choose to live then I feel they must support themselves and not be a drain on the country in which they have chosen to reside.

Unfortunately, due to misinformed EU policies there are far far too many immigrants settling in EU countries without the means to support themselves and at the same time availing themselves of the very generous benefits in the countries where they choose to settle. Understandably, in my opinion, this inflames the indegenous population, which in turn then increases racial intolerance. This then inciting the use of 'foreigner' comments.

You make it sound as if EU citizens have the right to settle "...in EU countries without the means to support themselves and at the same time availing themselves of the very generous benefits in the countries where they choose to settle....". However, this is not the case under EU rules. That´s why you need to demonstrate your ability to maintain yourself when applying for your yellow slip. If a EU country grants benefits to those who settle in it without the ability to maintain themselves this is a choice, not a result of EU legislation. Germany for instance does not allow this. It was taken to the European court about it´s refusal to pay benefits to Romanians who were unable to maintain themselves and won the case.

So what misinformed EU policies are you talking about?

[Pete G]

You make it sound as if EU citizens have the right to settle "...in EU countries without the means to support themselves and at the same time availing themselves of the very generous benefits in the countries where they choose to settle....". However, this is not the case under EU rules. That´s why you need to demonstrate your ability to maintain yourself when applying for your yellow slip. If a EU country grants benefits to those who settle in it without the ability to maintain themselves this is a choice, not a result of EU legislation. Germany for instance does not allow this. It was taken to the European court about it´s refusal to pay benefits to Romanians who were unable to maintain themselves and won the case.

So what misinformed EU policies are you talking about?

Not really, no. The CJEU is a civil court not a common law court, and is therefore not bound by it's own previous decisions. I wouldn't dispute your example about Germany [though I'm not familiar with it myself] however the judgement in a recent case [Case C-449/16 Kerly Del Rosario Martinez Silva v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) and Comune di Genova if you're interested in the detail] where effectively Ms Silva [a non EU national] had been granted a work permit by the Italian local authorities to work in Italy, on the basis that should the employment cease, Ms Silva would not be entitled to benefits [and should therefore return home]. Ms Silva appealed to the CJEU, on the basis that she was not being treated fairly [despite being treated exactly according to the terms she agreed to]. The CJEU agreed and obliged the Italians to pay her the same benefits as they would an Italian national. Superficially you might think, none of their damned business, however the CJEU is the supreme court in Europe, set their own jurisdiction, and there is no further appeal available to the Italians without creating major political fallout. So the CJEU have just overruled Italian non-EU visa conditions

Also, your characterisation of the residency rules is slightly off. It is true that an intra-EU migrant is obliged to be able to support themselves for a year in order to look for work, however the period of right to remain is two years, and so full benefit payments should be available after the first year anyway and, even then, right to residency can be extended beyond that two year period [indefinitely] if the applicant can prove that they are actively seeking employment which they have a reasonable expectation of obtaining. The CJEU have proved, in the many times the ceasing of benefit payments by a member state has been overturned by them, proven that they have a very broad interpretation of 'realistic' expectation that most member states have completely given up on attempting to restrict benefit payments to EU citizens after the 2 year qualifying period

EU legislation also, of course, severely restrict a member states ability both to refuse entry to previously convicted criminals and deport those who gain that status whilst resident.

And all that of course is over and above the scandalous EU refugee quotas, for which half of Eastern Europe are now being prosecuted for not complying with.

[jeba]

Not really, no. The CJEU is a civil court not a common law court, and is therefore not bound by it's own previous decisions. I wouldn't dispute your example about Germany [though I'm not familiar with it myself] however the judgement in a recent case [Case C-449/16 Kerly Del Rosario Martinez Silva v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) and Comune di Genova if you're interested in the detail] where effectively Ms Silva [a non EU national] had been granted a work permit by the Italian local authorities to work in Italy, on the basis that should the employment cease, Ms Silva would not be entitled to benefits [and should therefore return home]. Ms Silva appealed to the CJEU, on the basis that she was not being treated fairly [despite being treated exactly according to the terms she agreed to]. The CJEU agreed and obliged the Italians to pay her the same benefits as they would an Italian national. Superficially you might think, none of their damned business, however the CJEU is the supreme court in Europe, set their own jurisdiction, and there is no further appeal available to the Italians without creating major political fallout. So the CJEU have just overruled Italian non-EU visa conditions.
Also, your characterisation of the residency rules is slightly off. It is true that an intra-EU migrant is obliged to be able to support themselves for a year in order to look for work, however the period of right to remain is two years, and so full benefit payments should be available after the first year anyway and, even then, right to residency can be extended beyond that two year period [indefinitely] if the applicant can prove that they are actively seeking employment which they have a reasonable expectation of obtaining. The CJEU have proved, in the many times the ceasing of benefit payments by a member state has been overturned by them, proven that they have a very broad interpretation of 'realistic' expectation that most member states have completely given up on attempting to restrict benefit payments to EU citizens after the 2 year qualifying period

EU legislation also, of course, severely restrict a member states ability both to refuse entry to previously convicted criminals and deport those who gain that status whilst resident.

And all that of course is over and above the scandalous EU refugee quotas, for which half of Eastern Europe are now being prosecuted for not complying with.

I don´t know about the case of Ms. Silva and whether or not she was treated unfairly. However, when you´re writing "... however the period of right to remain is two years, and so full benefit payments should be available after the first year anyway ..." you´re wrong. Only in October last year Germany for instance extended the waiting time to 5 years (see http://www.bmas.de/EN/Services/Press/re ... C8E652D07C). If Germany can do this I don´t see why other countries can´t do the same. And by the way: in Germany you have to pay for your (state-approved) health insurance (which is mandatory and not any cheap travel insurance will do). If you get caught not having it you´ll be backcharged to the time you arrived. So that´s another way to protect against freeloaders. If the UK doesn´t make use of the options available that can´t be blamed on the EU.

It´s also not true that convicted criminals can´t be deported. If a court decides after looking at the individual case that a crime is serious enough and if the sentence hasn´t been suspended expulsion is possible. Source (sorry, it´s in German but you can look at it using chrome and get it translated: http://www.eu-info.de/leben-wohnen-eu/a ... uslaender/

[Dominic]

Precisely, so no matter how much Brexiteers think they're going to be able to create their own little rules and regs in future, the reality is that they're going to have to abide by EU rules, just like they do now. So, no change there.

Actually you are wrong, there is a change. We will no longer have a say in making the rules.

[Poppy]

It seems to me that we have never had much of a say anyway Dominic,contantly being out voted by others, many of whom paid nowhere near as much as us into the pot. In fact that was one of my reasons for voting out.

[Varky]

Of course HiC has only given half the story when talking about current regulations being enshrined in UK law. Yes, this will happen under the 'Great Repeal Bill' but then those bits that are not liked will be repealed.

Do you really in your wildest dreams envisage that the government will have the time, the resources and the will to trawl through tens of thousands of laws, discuss and debate them, consider the impact on the wider community, then enshrine them in law though Parliament? Whatever they claim now, ain't ever going to happen!

Looking at the Queen's speech which will be the last for 2 years and its lack of domestic content, I would say that they will have plenty of time. Don't forget its only those parts that give powers to the EU instead of the UK that will be repealed. So I disagree with your broadsweep statement (as usual from you) that it will not happen. More false news from HiC!!!

[Pete G]

I don´t know about the case of Ms. Silva and whether or not she was treated unfairly. However, when you´re writing "... however the period of right to remain is two years, and so full benefit payments should be available after the first year anyway ..." you´re wrong. Only in October last year Germany for instance extended the waiting time to 5 years (see http://www.bmas.de/EN/Services/Press/re ... C8E652D07C). If Germany can do this I don´t see why other countries can´t do the same. And by the way: in Germany you have to pay for your (state-approved) health insurance (which is mandatory and not any cheap travel insurance will do). If you get caught not having it you´ll be backcharged to the time you arrived. So that´s another way to protect against freeloaders. If the UK doesn´t make use of the options available that can´t be blamed on the EU.

It´s also not true that convicted criminals can´t be deported. If a court decides after looking at the individual case that a crime is serious enough and if the sentence hasn´t been suspended expulsion is possible. Source (sorry, it´s in German but you can look at it using chrome and get it translated: http://www.eu-info.de/leben-wohnen-eu/a ... uslaender/

My point exactly, the CJEU is not bound by its own previous decisions, therefore it is at complete liberty to make a thing illegal in one member state, but still perfectly legal in another, the UK cannot 'take advantage' of German legislation on the assumption that it will be allowed in the UK.

There is no appeal against its decisions.

I'm afraid you might have missed the nuance regarding convicts. You are right in that the convict can be deported if the crime is serious enough, however the decision as to what is serious enough rests entirely with Europe. At the moment only two categories exist, those crimes that are not serious enough to prevent access, and those that may be serious enough. The Latvian recently found guilty of murder in the UK was allowed access to the UK despite having a previous conviction for murder on the grounds that a when a murder is committed in a domestic violence situation, the convict is unlikely to offend again in similar circumstances and therefore [under EU rules] the offender cannot be barred from access solely on that basis [having been fully rehabilitated by his previous sentence, and unlikely to offend again]

Didn't quite work out that way in this particular case, apparently

[Firefly]

Poppy

Two good posts. (yes 'like' button needed Dominic)

Jackie

[jeba]

My point exactly, the CJEU is not bound by its own previous decisions, therefore it is at complete liberty to make a thing illegal in one member state, but still perfectly legal in another, the UK cannot 'take advantage' of German legislation on the assumption that it will be allowed in the UK.

There is no appeal against its decisions.

It´s not surprising that a supreme court isn´t bound by previous decisions. That´s nothing extraordinary. However, I´d be very surprised if different legal frameworks were to be applied to different member states. I´m not a lawyer but I´d hazard a guess that the same EU laws apply to the UK and Germany when it comes to immigration of EU nationals (obviously, national law may well differ though). It´s also not surprising that you cannot appeal against decisions of supreme courts, is it? Who would you appeal to, after all?

I'm afraid you might have missed the nuance regarding convicts. You are right in that the convict can be deported if the crime is serious enough, however the decision as to what is serious enough rests entirely with Europe. At the moment only two categories exist, those crimes that are not serious enough to prevent access, and those that may be serious enough. The Latvian recently found guilty of murder in the UK was allowed access to the UK despite having a previous conviction for murder on the grounds that a when a murder is committed in a domestic violence situation, the convict is unlikely to offend again in similar circumstances and therefore [under EU rules] the offender cannot be barred from access solely on that basis [having been fully rehabilitated by his previous sentence, and unlikely to offend again]

Again, I don´t want to engage in discussing individual cases I have no knowledge about. However, according to the second link I posted above the decision whether a crime is sufficiently serious to strip the convict of the right to free movement is to be made by a national court. It doesn´t "rest entirely with Europe" as you claim. The European Court of Justice merely ruled that the national court will have to assess any cases only on the basis of individual merits and must not use the removal of the right of freedom of movement as a deterrent (Germany is currently being sued for having done just that - court case pending). There is currently a court case pending in Germany in which a Bulgarian national might be facing deportation for kicking a bypasser unknown to him (who suffered serious injuries as a result) down the stairs of a subway station (by his own admission because he was frustrated with his life situation). I can´t imagine that the UK should not have the right to deportation in such cases if a UK court deems the crime serious enough to justify that on the individual merits of the respective case.

[OhSusana]

If I can cut to the chase for a moment, people need to recall that the UK had a referendum on continued membership of the EU. The vote was to leave, as we know. However, the driver for the majority of those who voted to leave was that leaving would lead to the foreigners being forced to leave. You may recall the almost daily attacks on eastern Europeans that followed the vote. This in addition to the already existing attacks on Muslims and Mosques, Jews and Synagogues of course. This expulsion idea was encouraged by Farage and his ilk, supported by the media.
Some of you will challenge my view on what motivated the leave voters, but I tend to sit in a number of bars here and I listen to what UK people are saying, and 99% of that is anti-foreigner.
So racism is still alive and well in the UK. I agree it is different from Xenophobia, which is fear of foreigners, but is a result of it.

Thank you for that, Josef. I hope I am wrong, but I think maybe you and your relatives know more about racism and xenophobia than the rest of us on this forum put together, and then maybe 1000 times so.

I would value your opinion - racism or xenophobia - with regard to the following posts -
1.
Xenophobic attacks send shivers on foreigners in SA
http://bulawayo24.com/index-id-News-sc- ... 65457.html
An estimated 120 foreigners have taken refuge at Isipingo Police Station. A Congolese man, Noel Beya Dinshistia, was set alight and killed after he took a job as a bouncer at a local nightclub....
According to a police source in the area, the conflict erupted after a group of men pelted the foreigners with stones, accusing them of destroying local businesses.
2.
The "attack" on the German lady quoted in my first post -
A few months ago I walked down the street talking to my mother on the phone. I spoke German. I was told to ‘f- off back to your country’ by a bystander. Never before 2016, never once, has any such thing happened.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/03/0 ... in-the-uk/
[I assume the phrase "back to your country" would imply something "foreign", i.e. xenophobia? ]
3.
This seems quite similar in ways to no.2 - obviously not with regard to severity -
Fatal Beating of Polish Man Fuels Debate Over Xenophobia in Britain
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/worl ... rexit.html
“The police have told us he was attacked because they heard him and his friends speaking the Polish language,”
... Robert Halfon, the Conservative member of Parliament for Harlow, who lamented that a “very small minority” was using the referendum result to exploit divisions and pursue a racist agenda
But the terms racist and xenophobic seem to be used side by side here. In the Telegraph with the same story, we get -

Racists exploiting Brexit 'come from sewers' says Tory minister after killing of Polish man
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08 ... nister-af/
I have been to Harlow on many occasions. Only a few miles up the M11 from London, but amazingly white by comparison. And I know people who work there.
I was not surprised. Sadly.

[Pete G]

It´s not surprising that a supreme court isn´t bound by previous decisions. That´s nothing extraordinary. However, I´d be very surprised if different legal frameworks were to be applied to different member states. I´m not a lawyer but I´d hazard a guess that the same EU laws apply to the UK and Germany when it comes to immigration of EU nationals (obviously, national law may well differ though). It´s also not surprising that you cannot appeal against decisions of supreme courts, is it? Who would you appeal to, after all?

Quite right, but it doesn't [or rather didn't pre 1972] work like that for Governments. When the House of Lords declared that they were not formally bound by their own decisions for reasons of policy, they did so only because the requisite checks and balances existed to maintain Parliamentary Sovereignty. Specifically that a) the members of the HoL were still subject to the discipline if the Lord Chief Justice for perverse or unconstitutional decisions and more importantly b) if the Government didn't like the way the HoL had applied a certain statute they simple changed statue to clarify their desires and so, although HMG would have to let that specific case go in future instances the court would be obliged to follow the [now hopefully more clear] government logic.

However the 1972 Act [and the even more suicidal 1998 HR act] changed all that. Effectively they put two courts above national supreme courts directly and allow [what is effectively the new] supreme courts to override government decisions without any of the checks and balances previously apllicable. Effectively now the CJEU can just declare national law invalid on a whim basically, the government cannot just simply rewrite the law to do what they want to do, and also there are no checks and balances to ensure the CJEU makes consistent decisions meaning that exactly similar laws can be considered treaty compliant in one country, but not in another and, as I said, a government cannot rely on a decision made by the CJEU on another countries laws as a guide to whether there own laws would be permitted by the CJEU.

Again, I don´t want to engage in discussing individual cases I have no knowledge about. However, according to the second link I posted above the decision whether a crime is sufficiently serious to strip the convict of the right to free movement is to be made by a national court. It doesn´t "rest entirely with Europe" as you claim. The European Court of Justice merely ruled that the national court will have to assess any cases only on the basis of individual merits and must not use the removal of the right of freedom of movement as a deterrent (Germany is currently being sued for having done just that - court case pending). There is currently a court case pending in Germany in which a Bulgarian national might be facing deportation for kicking a bypasser unknown to him (who suffered serious injuries as a result) down the stairs of a subway station (by his own admission because he was frustrated with his life situation). I can´t imagine that the UK should not have the right to deportation in such cases if a UK court deems the crime serious enough to justify that on the individual merits of the respective case.

No, not quite. The CJEU have said on many occasions it is a matter for the national court to decide on this [and various other matters] but they are not saying the national court is supreme. They are merely saying that they do not bind themselves to making hypothetical decisions. Thus the German court is not allowed to ask 'is a specific offence, in general, sufficient grounds to deport, or to not allow access to an EU national in future cases?' but must rather make a decision on an individual case, which will then be subject [if the defendant appeals] to CJEU review, at which point they will tell the German court if that specific murder was sufficient grounds or not [in their opinion, which overrules the German courts opinion]. Thus I can easily see how the CJEU could effectively grant the right to a German court to expel a murderer [or an EU national who had kicked an innocent victim down the stairs], and then deny a UK court that right under exactly similar circumstances [in fact it happens quite frequently]. And the CJEU are accountable to no elected governments for these decisions, no matter how perverse they may be

[Pete G]

Actually you are wrong, there is a change. We will no longer have a say in making the rules.

My error, I stand corrected. At the moment we have the option to reject or amend rules and regs prior to being enshrined in EU law; in future, 'conform to' would be the only option.

Not wishing to sound picky, but this is also no longer true. The rules for execution of EU treaty provisions and directives by member states was fundamentally changed by LIsbon [in the EU's favour, strangely] and in most cases 'conform to' is now the only available option for any party, member or not.

[kingfisher]

From an article on BBC UK News website:

Matthew Horne from the National Crime Agency discusses Albanian gangs
Violent Albanian criminal groups are exerting "considerable control" over the drug trafficking market in the UK, a law enforcement report has said.
The National Crime Agency (NCA) said it was increasingly concerned by what it called the Albanians' "high-profile influence within UK organised crime".
The remarks are in the agency's annual assessment of the nature and scale of serious and organised crime in the UK.
The NCA said profit margins in the drugs trade remained "substantial" despite international efforts.
Among those to emerge as a "significant threat" were Albanian gangs - which the agency said had particular influence on the cocaine market.
Officials said the gangs were characterised by their readiness to resort to serious violence.
London is their "primary hub", the report says, but they are established across the UK.
NCA deputy director general Matthew Horne said: "It's very much a group that's small in number but big in impact.
"We have seen an emergence of violence, particularly around enforcing the drug trade, in this group."
The report also said that Serbian and Turkish crime groups "dominate high volume maritime cocaine logistics", while Turkish and Pakistani groups "continue to dominate heroin trafficking to the UK".
The report said corruption among staff working at ports and airports was a "key vulnerability", because it made it easier for gangs to smuggle in drugs and bring in illegal immigrants.
***********************************************************************
(The BBC is usually so left leaning that when it publishes an article like this I do wonder!)

[William Morris]

As I stated earlier, I an not very good with these forum chats but, if I may refer to Mr Hislop for a moment.

He says that in times of financial difficulties any nation or population will look for a scapegoat. Invariably Johnny Foreigner.

Worry, stress, fear turns to anger and hatred.

It happens all the time all around the world.

The root cause of the current hatred would be the bank crash in 2008.

"Somebody has to take the blame, so why not thoses benifit scrounging, breeding like rabbits, taking my job, taking my house, darkies that have just got off the ship"

Something like that.

Apparently Foreigners are the second most popular topic of conversation amongst British people. The first being the weather, of course.

Seems about right to me.

[Varky]

So I disagree with your broadsweep statement (as usual from you) that it will not happen. More false news from HiC!!!

Oh ye of little intellect, where did I proclaim my view as 'news'? I simply said that I did not think the judicial processes of the UK will ever have the time, or resources, to trawl through tens of thousands of laws in order to re-validate them. Do you have evidence (with links) to the contrary then?
Your 'fake' news claims are about as valid as Donald Trumps

Oh dear, Oh dear, Oh dear! HiC reverting to type. When losing an argument after putting forward his unsubstantiated opinions based on incomplete information or an unstable perception he reverts to insulting comments. I wonder, by doing so,if he realises this says more to others about his arrogant demeanor than my intellect of which he knows nothing (as in the case of most things). He should know, but obviously does not, that if one puts forward an opinion which he expects to be taken seriously, it should be fully substantiated and it is not up to his critics to prove their point, in the absence of any original substantiation being provided.

[jeba]

However the 1972 Act [and the even more suicidal 1998 HR act] changed all that. Effectively they put two courts above national supreme courts directly and allow [what is effectively the new] supreme courts to override government decisions without any of the checks and balances previously apllicable. Effectively now the CJEU can just declare national law invalid on a whim basically, the government cannot just simply rewrite the law to do what they want to do, and also there are no checks and balances to ensure the CJEU makes consistent decisions meaning that exactly similar laws can be considered treaty compliant in one country, but not in another and, as I said, a government cannot rely on a decision made by the CJEU on another countries laws as a guide to whether there own laws would be permitted by the CJEU.

Well, that a government can´t simply rewrite the law to do what they want to do without being subject to judicial oversight is actually a good thing, isn´t it? Since Hitler that should be obvious. However, if indeed the CJEU should apply different yardsticks to different countries this would be a severe issue. You´d have to substantiate that though. Apart from that national courts can still preserve jurisdiction - at least the German constitutional court reserved that right (e. g. when it came to the bailout of Greece - even though they waived that right in that specific case) so I assume it will be the same for other countries.

No, not quite. The CJEU have said on many occasions it is a matter for the national court to decide on this [and various other matters] but they are not saying the national court is supreme. They are merely saying that they do not bind themselves to making hypothetical decisions. Thus the German court is not allowed to ask 'is a specific offence, in general, sufficient grounds to deport, or to not allow access to an EU national in future cases?' but must rather make a decision on an individual case, which will then be subject [if the defendant appeals] to CJEU review, at which point they will tell the German court if that specific murder was sufficient grounds or not [in their opinion, which overrules the German courts opinion]. Thus I can easily see how the CJEU could effectively grant the right to a German court to expel a murderer [or an EU national who had kicked an innocent victim down the stairs], and then deny a UK court that right under exactly similar circumstances [in fact it happens quite frequently]. And the CJEU are accountable to no elected governments for these decisions, no matter how perverse they may be

You´re claiming that the CJEU quite frequently denies a UK court rights it granted to other nations´courts under exactly similiar circumstances? Apart from that "exactly similiar" seems a strange combination of words I wonder why we never read about those cases. My guess is that it´s simply not the case. And at the end of the day it´s a good thing that supreme courts aren´t accountable to governments - it´s a pillar of modern democracy indeed. Separation of powers and all that. Or would you prefer May, Merkel and Macron to tell the courts how to rule?

[Pete G]

Well, that a government can´t simply rewrite the law to do what they want to do without being subject to judicial oversight is actually a good thing, isn´t it? Since Hitler that should be obvious. However, if indeed the CJEU should apply different yardsticks to different countries this would be a severe issue. You´d have to substantiate that though. Apart from that national courts can still preserve jurisdiction - at least the German constitutional court reserved that right (e. g. when it came to the bailout of Greece - even though they waived that right in that specific case) so I assume it will be the same for other countries.

Well I think we can agree to disagree on this one, personally I like to have my laws made by people I can remove from office if I don't like what they are doing. If you'd rather have some guy making policy decisions on important issues based on the quality of the Chablis that arrived with lunch, that's fine. Incidentally even constitutional law [in those countries that have a written constitution] can be altered by Parliament, it's just slightly more difficult. The German assertion of jurisdiction over the bailout was handled in the same way the British did, they just said "well, we claim sovereignty, but fortunately we were going to do what the EU want, even though we don't have to' It's the political equivalent of saying 'yeah, I know he's a big guy, but I could take him if I have to. The EU position on the execution of the Dublin agreement is an excellent example of that. What is legal behaviour for Germany is illegal in Poland, and Hungary for example, and not only do the EU allow Germany [and Sweden] to break EU law with impunity because they happen to like the result, they also actively direct Greece and Italy not to obey the very rules [even though they want to, because the EU rules do actually work in their best interests] that the EU themselves set up. Same applies to differential application on EU banking and currency transfer laws. Poor little Cyprus is forced by the EU to stop taking foreign money under conditions which the Germans accept money on a daily basis and are forced [directly contrary to their own laws] to literally steal money from their own people to give to the ECB. The areas where this sort of thing happens name is Legion, for they are many. And its getting worse. Post Lisbon the EU have their own Human Rights legislation which overrules ECtHR decisions [even though they require everyone to sign up to it. Their intervention in the Ukraine was illegal even by their own rules. National plebiscites are routinely either ignored or people told to vote again until they get the right result, all with absolutely no consequence. The Greeks and the Italians have both been told that their Premiers are not allowed to actually be head of state, and the Italian Government has effectively been replaced by a Brussels committee [all of these measures illegal under both the Member states national law and EU treaty] You really don't have to look very hard for examples [unless you are deliberately trying not to find them]

You´re claiming that the CJEU quite frequently denies a UK court rights it granted to other nations´courts under exactly similiar circumstances? Apart from that "exactly similiar" seems a strange combination of words I wonder why we never read about those cases. My guess is that it´s simply not the case. And at the end of the day it´s a good thing that supreme courts aren´t accountable to governments - it´s a pillar of modern democracy indeed. Separation of powers and all that. Or would you prefer May, Merkel and Macron to tell the courts how to rule?

I believe I claimed that the CJEU frequently denies a MS state government rights it grants to other governments and gave you an example from Italy [at which point you said you didn't want to discuss specific cases, so I didn't] and there is also all the examples I gave above. Sorry if I confused you a bit by 'exactly similar' but it is a necessary construction when considering precedent [i.e. logical consistency across cases]. By that I mean that the details of the two cases are not the same in every respect, but in those issues that actually have direct relevance to the reasoning behind the judges decision they match, at least in part. So when they are the same in terms of all relevant details, but not in terms of the other details they are only similar [and not the same] but where those places where they are the same exactly match ALL of the details that the judge said had made him reach his decision in the previous case they are 'exactly similar' [to use an admittedly ugly construction].

And no, I don't want politicians to tell judges how to rule. What I want is for judges to rule cases based on statutes designed by democratic parliaments according to their own constitutions and not a set of unelected and wholly unaccountable set of political has-beens like Junker, currently riding the EU gravy train having failed to be re-elected by their national [and obviously quite perceptive] electorates