First move to oust May?

[Suff]

Poland, ah, Poland.

More spin and deflection.

This is the Poland that joined the EU and signed up to all its treaties, all its treaties not bits of them.

It then decides it does not like the bit where the judiciary should not be under political control

Spin and deflection eh?

Might I remind you of your prior post.

Sovereignty, eh? What sovereignty did we lose? Our parliament still rules over civil and criminal law

For me "parliament still rules over civil and criminal law" is exactly the same as "It then decides it does not like the bit where the judiciary should not be under political control".

You just made my point exactly and to the letter. The UK is not sovereign because the "political" government of the UK is NOT in control of its civil and criminal law. If it was, it would be able to change the judiciary in any way it liked. Including changing statutes which support the ECHR council decisions and court decisions to a different standard.

The US is Sovereign, it removed its ratification for the UNHR council.

Poland is not sovereign, it cannot. The UK is also not sovereign, it cannot either.

I don't think I am spinning anything or deflecting anything. However I am happy to be shown where I am. This case, however does not show that I am. It, on the other hand, tends to show that I am not.

[Workingman]

The US eh? Last time I looked it was not in the EU, but if we are to use it as a straw man we must accept that it has entered into treaties where it has not got things 100% its own way. It, err, lost some of its sovereignty to get a deal.

The UK, as a sovereign state, freely entered into treaties with the EU where part of one states that the judiciary should not be under political control. It seems like a good clause that any democracy would sign up to and one already embedded into our own laws. It in no way, shape or form takes away our right to make our own laws.

Poland is being held to account for breaking the rules of a treaty it freely signed up to. Mind you I suppose breaking the rules if such a treaty is with a much hated entity that can never do anything right is absolutely fine. Cake, spin - eat.

[Suff]

The US eh? Last time I looked it was not in the EU, but if we are to use it as a straw man we must accept that it has entered into treaties where it has not got things 100% its own way. It, err, lost some of its sovereignty to get a deal.

The UK, as a sovereign state, freely entered into treaties with the EU where part of one states that the judiciary should not be under political control. It seems like a good clause that any democracy would sign up to and one already embedded into our own laws. It in no way, shape or form takes away our right to make our own laws.

Poland is being held to account for breaking the rules of a treaty it freely signed up to. Mind you I suppose breaking the rules if such a treaty is with a much hated entity that can never do anything right is absolutely fine. Cake, spin - eat.

The US is a sovereign state and as such can just exit whatever agreements it makes.

Poland is not a sovereign state any more. As they are finding out. They have given up their sovereignty in order to get something else back. Now they want to be sovereign and are finding that they are not.

When, not if, the UK leaves the EU, it will be in the position the US is in and not in the position Poland is in.

This is not hard to understand. Unless you wilfully misunderstand it.