UK & EU Politics Thread

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Kilkrazy**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
That's Macron, one of 28, sorry soon to be 27 leaders in the EU.

Do you really think the British are so wet we can't stand up to the Frenchie plans?

If so, then leaving won't make any difference, because once the EU has become a rigid dictatorship, they will simply incorporate the UK using the same magic you proposed they would use when we were members.

All I saw from Macron was more red tape and more EU bureaucracy.

If we had Remained, that's what Britain would have been getting...

More Europe, not less...

You can peddle the vote Remain get status quo argument all you want, but that came straight from the horse's mouth.

Macron actually is a deregulating president.

**jouso**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

A country that voted twice to stay in the EU has ZERO political capital in order to resist any further EU integration.

A country that voted a thousand times to stay in the EU has the same voice as one that hasn't.

You, as a person that often cites the anti-union stance of the current Polish or Hungarian governments should know that they get a seat and a voice just like everyone else. Your union or antiunion credentials don't matter, that's why people like Nigel Farage got a EU seat (what he did with that seat is an entirely different matter).

I provided you a few posts above with examples of the UK pushing their anti-integration agenda in spite of the countries that supposedly were running the show being against.

**Herzlos**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

A country that voted twice to stay in the EU has ZERO political capital in order to resist any further EU integration.

David Cameron, and George Osborne, emboldned by a referendum victory that they saw as an endorsement for their premiership, and a Commons that is largely pro-EU, would not have lifted a finger to stop this.

Cameron, being one of the most pro-EU politicians around, would have welcomed it with open arms.

Who would stop him? The Tory-skeptics that had just been crushed in a referendum? They'd be laughed out of town. The Europe problem in the Tory party would have been solved for a generation...

Right, that's the Crux of it then - you have no evidence, because it's not a thing. Glad that's settled and we can move on.

Your entire argument is that because Cameron is pro-EU, a vote to Remain would allow him to continue to agree with things he agrees with, and this is somehow unaccaptable to you?
We'd still have all of our opt outs and still resist any integration.

The Brexit vote wasn't so that Cameron could push us further into the EU, it was to bring the UKIP defectors back in line.

**Kilkrazy**

Cameron was a soft Euro-sceptic.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
I see, so it was yet again an issue with our own politicians then, based on your own interpretation of what Cameron and the Tories would have done. You also ignore that the anti-EU portions of the Tories would not have remained idle if further EU integration had been proposed. They would have certainly used the "We didn't vote to remain in this x years ago" argument that they were using this time in reference to the previous EU referendum.

So what is to prevent the exact same issues coming up when we try to negotiate trade deals with the US and China? When the US healthcare industry wants to buy out parts of the NHS and squeeze profit out of it at the expense of people's lives, do you believe that our politicians are going to be able to stand up to them, or even just have the inclination to do so? After all, the referendum has emboldened the most hard-line aspects of the Tories, there is significant overlap in the portions of the party who are anti-NHS and anti-EU (not to mention anti-human rights etc.).

Also, what red tape has been foisted on us by the EU?

David Cameron would not have resigned if Remain had won that referendum. A Remain victory would have been a green light and a mandate for him to go to Brussels and ask for more Europe, not less.

Euro-Skeptics in the Tory party can't moan about more Europe in this scenario, because the country would turn around and tell them to feth off. You had your chance, stop moaning, would have been the mantra.

**A Town Called Malus**

Why would he have gone to ask for more Europe when he had only just managed to quell the revolt against the current level of europe? That makes absolutely zero sense and has no basis in any fact.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
That's Macron, one of 28, sorry soon to be 27 leaders in the EU.

Do you really think the British are so wet we can't stand up to the Frenchie plans?

If so, then leaving won't make any difference, because once the EU has become a rigid dictatorship, they will simply incorporate the UK using the same magic you proposed they would use when we were members.

All I saw from Macron was more red tape and more EU bureaucracy.

If we had Remained, that's what Britain would have been getting...

More Europe, not less...

You can peddle the vote Remain get status quo argument all you want, but that came straight from the horse's mouth.

Macron actually is a deregulating president.

An EU defence force, an EU immigration bureau, an EU public prosecutor, and an EU finance minister, might be your idea of deregulating, but it's not mine!

Each of those positions would entail more civil servants, more regulations, more red tape, not less.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jouso wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

A country that voted twice to stay in the EU has ZERO political capital in order to resist any further EU integration.

A country that voted a thousand times to stay in the EU has the same voice as one that hasn't.

You, as a person that often cites the anti-union stance of the current Polish or Hungarian governments should know that they get a seat and a voice just like everyone else. Your union or antiunion credentials don't matter, that's why people like Nigel Farage got a EU seat (what he did with that seat is an entirely different matter).

I provided you a few posts above with examples of the UK pushing their anti-integration agenda in spite of the countries that supposedly were running the show being against.

A nation that has just voted to stay in the EU can't complain about more Europe. Brussels would rightly turn around and say that's what we voted for.

And they would have a point.

A Remain friend of mine told me he voted Remain through gritted teeth.

Even EU supporters know that the status quo is not an option.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Cameron was a soft Euro-sceptic.

Cameron wanted the EU extended to the Ural mountains.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Why would he have gone to ask for more Europe when he had only just managed to quell the revolt against the current level of europe? That makes absolutely zero sense and has no basis in any fact.

It makes perfect sense for a pro-EU politician, who's just crushed his Euro-Sceptic enemies, to go to Brussels, armed with a mandate from the British people (Remain referendum victory) to either support more Europe, or call for more Europe.

Who would stop him? The pro-EU Commons? The Remain supporting British public? A defeated and discredited Euro-Sceptic wing of the Tory party, which is on the run?

As I said to Kilkrazy, Cameron wanted the EU to extend to the Ural Mountains.

That is not a man content with the status quo.

**Herzlos**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

A nation that has just voted to stay in the EU can't complain about more Europe. Brussels would rightly turn around and say that's what we voted for.

That's kind of the opposite of reality. What'd actually happen is Cameron would say "Look, we only just voted to stay in, so there's a lot of dissatisfaction with Europe, if you go any further we might end off leaving this time". Any attempt to do otherwise would be a huge uphill battle and re-trigger the euro-skeptic Tories - the absolute last thing he'd want.

There's absolutely no basis for a claim that a vote for Remain was a vote for more Europe. It's never been suggested by a politician, wasn't part of any campaign (and if it was a credible excuse then the Brexit campaign would have talked it to death).

So can we drop this garbage and move on?

Does anyone have any opinions on the EU's negotiating position?

**Kilkrazy**

I can't find it on the BBC or The Guardian or The Independent websites.

Howevr I did find an interesting piece by a Brexiteer.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-assessment-leak-government-analysis-brexiteer-opinion-david-davis-eu-uk-theresa-may-a8185121.html

His point which I agree with, is that the UK needs a radical overhaul to make it globally competitive.

Obviously I would argue that that can take place inside the EU better than outside (because we would have more money to spend on it) but I'm not the slightest bit confident it will happen whether we are in or out.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Another reason why I'm focusing on France and Macron's speeches is this:

When Britain leaves the EU, French influence is only going to grow, not decrease.

France will be the only EU member that has nuclear weapons, the only EU member that has a permanent seat at the UN security council, will have the strongest military in the EU, and will be paying more cash into the EU to make up the shortfall from Britain's exit.

To suggest that France will be only 1 nation amongst 27, on a par with Malta, Cyprus, Ireland, Estonia et al

is not a realistic appreciation of the new political situation.

That is why I pay close attention to Macron's speeches. We both know that France is even more of a major player in the EU, now.

**Herzlos**

Yup. We've increased Frances influence by giving ours up.

Doesn't mean that France dictates to the EU entirely though.

But without us the EU is very likely to move towards ever closer union, which is a nice self-fulfilling prophecy.

You never answered though; what's wrong with ever closer union?

**Mozzyfuzzy**

That'll be why staying in the EU is also a good idea, to annoy the French.

Something about Britains glorious history of intervening in Europe just to change whatever France was up to.

Probably more of a national past tme than football.

**Kilkrazy**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Another reason why I'm focusing on France and Macron's speeches is this:

When Britain leaves the EU, French influence is only going to grow, not decrease.

...

So don't leave.

**Whirlwind**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

An EU defence force, an EU immigration bureau, an EU public prosecutor, and an EU finance minister, might be your idea of deregulating, but it's not mine!

Each of those positions would entail more civil servants, more regulations, more red tape, not less.

That's not a definition of deregulating. You can have these things and still deregulate. It might be even easier to de-regulate with these things in place. In reality I think the argument you are putting forward here is that "it isn't someone from Britain in control" despite that given the current fiasco we would probably be much better off having a non-UK politician in charge. The idea of these is bring some centralisation to these areas which are at the moment disjointed and end up with member states falling over each other. That can reduce regulation because rather than having one country have a slightly different set of rules to another then everyone has the same set. A multinational company for example would be able to hire a migrant in all countries under the same rules rather than have different conditions depending on where that person is based.

The EU finance minister would be the person responsible for managing the EU budget (they already have one I'm not sure why it comes as such a shock). This makes things more accountable and an individual is responsible for ensuring such funds are spent correctly. From a global holistic scale it makes less red tape. The EU budget also allows for endeavours that would never been taken forward by any individual country (the Galileo project for example) but in the end should provide all countries a more technically advanced society. Yes some countries pay more into such scheme than others, but nevertheless without the smaller budget contributions it still wouldn't have been taken forward.

Leaving the EU is likely to generate vast swathes of more red tape due to all the extra paperwork exporters, travellers and so on will have to produce to move around every single time. A larger corporate/government body can provide a much more efficient streamlining of processes. The only thing you have to concede is that some of that control goes to another body which you may not have a 100% say in (even if you are better off overall).

Still at least we get our blue passports....at a higher price of course....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42860723

These prices are going up because "These reforms are part of plans by the Home Office to invest £100m on border security and infrastructure next year". So basically another cost to the British tax payer for Wrexit, even if you need it for other purposes other than going abroad.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Another reason why I'm focusing on France and Macron's speeches is this:

When Britain leaves the EU, French influence is only going to grow, not decrease.

That's a statement of bleeding obvious. Every countries influence will increase....

**Kilkrazy**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Another reason why I'm focusing on France and Macron's speeches is this:

When Britain leaves the EU, French influence is only going to grow, not decrease.

...

So don't leave.

Yous reasoning; the UK should leave the EU because if we do the French influence will increase which is counter to what we want.

I mean, really!

**Whirlwind**

In other news a Wrexit Minister is quoted (Steve Baker) is quoted as saying

forecasts produced by the government were “always wrong”

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-minister-steve-baker-says-government-economic-forecasts-are-always-wrong_uk_5a70764ae4b00d0de223ed6d?utm_hp_ref=uk-politics

I'm not sure quite what to say to this. At least he is being honest that the government does not have a clue. At least that explains why every year their budget shortfall calculations never materialise...

**Kilkrazy**

It's true that forecasts often end up being wrong.

However, there aren't any positive Brexit forecasts, only the assurance that things will be great because all the forecasts are negative and forecasts are often wrong so it will be great.

Magical thinking, again.

Forecasts often are right, as well.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Herzlos wrote:
Yup. We've increased Frances influence by giving ours up.

Doesn't mean that France dictates to the EU entirely though.

But without us the EU is very likely to move towards ever closer union, which is a nice self-fulfilling prophecy.

You never answered though; what's wrong with ever closer union?

I'm not suggesting that France should threaten to nuke Berlin if they don't get their way, but other options remain open for France to wield its power and influence.

France to Estonia: Worried abour Russia? Here's a few thousand French troops for garrison duty in Estonia. Just remember to back us at the next vote.

France to Poland: here's some extra cash for a new airport.

France to Greece: here's some extra cash for dealing with those migrants. Just remember your Uncle Macron at the next vote.

And so on and so on...

As for ever closer union...I have this dread vision of a 1914 style scenario. 3 mega global trading blocks: USA, EU, China...

and we all know how 1914 turned out with armed camps...

That's one reason amongst many.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Another reason why I'm focusing on France and Macron's speeches is this:

When Britain leaves the EU, French influence is only going to grow, not decrease.

...

So don't leave.

Yous reasoning; the UK should leave the EU because if we do the French influence will increase which is counter to what we want.

I mean, really!

No, I'm saying that we should take notice when Macron talks about ever closer Union.

The EU should be reflecting and taking stock of why a vital member left, not breaking out the champagne and callling for full steam ahead for more EU.

**Herzlos**

So are you worried about what'll happen if ever closer union goes ahead and we're on the outside? We'll risk being further marginalised.

**BaronIveagh**

Ok, let me take a moment to ask something: why in the name of little green apples does anyone think deregulation is a good thing?

I might point to your neighbors across the pond as a sterling example of what a staggering lie that entire idea is.

**A Town Called Malus**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Ok, let me take a moment to ask something: why in the name of little green apples does anyone think deregulation is a good thing?

I might point to your neighbors across the pond as a sterling example of what a staggering lie that entire idea is.

Exactly. For all of his railing against post-thatcher neo-con/neo-liberal or whatever it is called now ideas, dinlt sure parrots their "regulation is strangling innovation" mantra pretty solidly without ever actually providing any evidence of that being the case.

**jouso**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

A nation that has just voted to stay in the EU can't complain about more Europe. Brussels would rightly turn around and say that's what we voted for.

And they would have a point.

A Remain friend of mine told me he voted Remain through gritted teeth.

Even EU supporters know that the status quo is not an option.

Statu quo is never an option. But other than that the different outcomes are infinite. Even "more Europe" means a thousand different things depending on who you ask, and in the end it will be a compromise between the different (and at times competing) visions present in the EU.

**Baragash**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:
Ok, let me take a moment to ask something: why in the name of little green apples does anyone think deregulation is a good thing?

I might point to your neighbors across the pond as a sterling example of what a staggering lie that entire idea is.

Exactly. For all of his railing against post-thatcher neo-con/neo-liberal or whatever it is called now ideas, dinlt sure parrots their "regulation is strangling innovation" mantra pretty solidly without ever actually providing any evidence of that being the case.

Which is funny since much of that is anti-EU propaganda BS.

Plenty of EU regs remove the need to comply with 28 different standards, and are often drafted in conjunction with the relevant industry based on existing principles.

Complaining about EU red tape is corporations PR-friendly way of pleading to pollute the environment more and weaken protections for consumers and workers.

**Steve steveson**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Herzlos wrote:
Yup. We've increased Frances influence by giving ours up.

Doesn't mean that France dictates to the EU entirely though.

But without us the EU is very likely to move towards ever closer union, which is a nice self-fulfilling prophecy.

You never answered though; what's wrong with ever closer union?

I'm not suggesting that France should threaten to nuke Berlin if they don't get their way, but other options remain open for France to wield its power and influence.

France to Estonia: Worried abour Russia? Here's a few thousand French troops for garrison duty in Estonia. Just remember to back us at the next vote.

France to Poland: here's some extra cash for a new airport.

France to Greece: here's some extra cash for dealing with those migrants. Just remember your Uncle Macron at the next vote.

And so on and so on...

As for ever closer union...I have this dread vision of a 1914 style scenario. 3 mega global trading blocks: USA, EU, China...

and we all know how 1914 turned out with armed camps...

That's one reason amongst many.

So when pro EU supporters say leaving the EU makes the world more unstable it is "project fear" and stupid and claiming Brexit will cause WW3, but its fine to literally say that staying in the EU will cause a repeat of WW1?

The Brexit claims get more and more insane every day. I was listening to Radio 4 on Monday and they were asking people in a heavily pro-brexit area about May and how they thought Brexit was going. It was just depressing. The answers were "It's taking so long. Why haven't we left yet" "They are all being nasty and not supporting May" and "It's all the EU delaying things. Why can't we just leave and get on with it".

I still feel there is a depressingly large number of people who just don't understand what the EU is and what it does, all thanks to a particular segment of the media, who are only interested in selling papers through giving people something to complain about and supporting big business.

**reds8n**

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/reuters-america-chinas-li-says-ties-with-britain-will-remain-unchanged-through-brexit.html

China's relations with Britain will not change because of changes in British-EU relations, Premier Li Keqiang said on Wednesday.

Speaking after meeting visiting British Prime Minister Theresa May in Beijing's Great Hall of the People, Li said the two discussed upholding free trade and that China would become more open to agricultural products.

(Reporting by Ben Blanchard and William James; Editing by Nick Macfie)

awesome.

**Whirlwind**

Kilkrazy wrote:
It's true that forecasts often end up being wrong.

However, there aren't any positive Brexit forecasts, only the assurance that things will be great because all the forecasts are negative and forecasts are often wrong so it will be great.

Magical thinking, again.

Forecasts often are right, as well.

There's a difference though why some do turn out to be incorrect. The reason there are forecasts is that given current information and trends you can predict what will happen in the next few to tens of years (or for some scientific areas hundreds to thousands of years). If those predictions are not to X's liking then that provides an opportunity to do something about it. That makes the prediction wrong and requires then new predictions to model the changed behaviour. If politicians start just assuming that they *are* wrong then they miss the purposes of that prediction and it results in ill conceived random choices (or nothing at all). That can result in a scenario where the prediction does continue along same lines and does result in that outcome because of a delusion that they are incorrect. The MP is showing a complete lack of understanding of the process and what a prediction means.

**reds8n**

...to the amazement of ...... ...

https://www.ft.com/content/7f7669a4-067f-11e8-9650-9c0ad2d7c5b5

EU rejects Brexit trade deal for UK financial services sector
Brussels negotiators say Europe would benefit from a smaller City of London

EU Brexit negotiators have set out a tough line on financial services, ruling out an ambitious trade deal for the lucrative sector and arguing that Europe would benefit from a smaller City of London, according to confidential discussions among the other 27 EU member states.

In a rebuff to the UK, which is seeking to put financial services at the heart of a trade deal with the bloc, an internal EU27 meeting this week concluded that future arrangements should be based on “equivalence” — the limited and revocable access given to third-country institutions — rather than a wide-ranging new pact.

At present, such provisions give financial groups from countries such as the US conditional access to the single market for some services.

“There was a strong commission message that there would be no special deal,” said an EU diplomat briefed on the discussions — a first attempt to thrash out the bloc’s position on the issue before negotiations with Britain start in March. “The UK is being told from the beginning what the situation is.”

Another EU diplomat said: “They are out of the internal market, that’s it. There can only be a much less ambitious agreement.”

Ensuring that financial services are not badly hit by Brexit is a top priority for the UK, since the sector is Britain’s biggest source of exports and tax revenue.

Theresa May’s government has also argued that if the City were damaged it would adversely affect financial stability and EU groups’ cost of financing, while contributing to the fragmentation of the sector.

But participants said that in the EU27 meeting the European Commission played down the risks of cutting off the City to EU businesses, saying that the financial sector was mobile enough to adapt.

They added that the commission maintained that a smaller City could benefit financial stability and the development of capital markets in the EU27, an argument that Spain also vocally supported.

The discussion focused on future relations after a transition period that Brussels intends to end by December 31 2020.

The commission negotiator also told the meeting that giving the City extensive market access could leave the EU more vulnerable in a crisis.

Brussels’ fear is that, in a financial emergency, UK regulators would prioritise continuity in companies’ UK operations over their activities in the EU27. This could lead to outflows of capital and liquidity or the withdrawal of vital services at a critical moment.

One senior diplomat said that the commission had underlined the importance of making sure that the EU did not lose “influence” over the UK financial sector, which could “have such a huge impact on the EU”.

While no country contradicted the approach of the commission, which is conducting the negotiations with the UK, the discussion highlighted differences between member states.

Germany, Sweden and Luxembourg cited the benefits of continuing co-operation with the UK, while France argued that the costs of a hard break would be limited and easy to contain.

Like the commission, Paris said there was a need to prevent the UK undercutting the bloc’s financial rules, and urged Brussels to encourage London-based companies to trigger relocation plans.

According to one person briefed on its thinking, the commission will send out notices warning a wide range of different financial groups to be prepared for Brexit and the lapse of the UK’s rights as an EU member.

These include banks and payment service providers, insurers, asset managers and brokerages, as well as auditors and credit-rating agencies.

Brussels has already prepared itself for Brexit by toughening its criteria for granting equivalence to systemically important non-EU financial centres, and the commission negotiator told the meeting that intensive talks would be needed with the UK on financial stability arrangements.

The commission official also said that the ball was in the UK’s court to set out ideas for how trade in financial services might operate after Brexit.

A UK government official said: “We are confident of negotiating a deep and special economic partnership that includes a good deal for financial services, and protects the City of London’s position as the world’s leading financial centre.

“We start from the unique position of regulatory alignment and trust in one another’s institutions. The UK’s financial services sector plays an essential role in the European economy and so it is in the interests of all parties to secure a deal.”

meanwhile, the government's official position is that publishing the leaked Brexit papers will damage the "national interest" yet they don't plan to vote against its publication tonight.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/government-minister-lord-bates-resigns-house-of-lords-2018-1

Government minister resigns for being late for a question in the House of Lords.
Lord Bates says he is "thoroughly ashamed" of himself and walks out.
There are shouts of "no" across the chamber as he leaves.
LONDON — A minister in Theresa May's government has resigned for being late.

International Development Minister Lord Bates apologised to the House of Lords for his "discourtesy" at not being available to answer a question.

"I'm thoroughly ashamed for not being in my place and so I therefore shall be offering my resignation to the prime minister with immediate effect," he told peers.

There were shouts of "no" from across the chamber as Bates walked out, with several peers appearing to attempt to physically stop him from exiting.

Some peers were visibly in shock at the resignation.

Labour's leader in the House of Lords Baroness Smith immediately called for Lord Bates to retract his resignation.

"An apology from Lord Bates is perfectly sufficient," she said.

"It was a minor discourtesy that any of us could be guilty of."

... errmmm .. what ?!

I know we've oft lamented the lack of standards in politics and so forth but...well...

.. what ?

.. something else going on here ?

**Mr. Burning**

Something a bit lighter than Brexit....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42892530

Collapsed trial woman says she gave birth 'alone' in prison

A woman held in custody for more than 13 months before her trial collapsed has told the BBC she hopes someone will be punished for the failures which led to her giving birth in prison.

The trial of Petruta-Cristina Bosoanca - held on trafficking and prostitution charges - was stopped after evidence cast doubt on the complainant's story.

"Nobody is going to give me this 13 months back," said Ms Bosoanca.

Judge Gregory Perrins said there had been "wholesale failures".

'Waiting for the truth'
Ms Bosoanca, 25, was arrested in December 2016 and was released from HMP Bronzefield on Monday.

She said it was "very difficult" giving birth five months ago to her baby boy, Christian.

"There was no-one with me," she said. "In the moments when I was supposed to be happy, I was happy but unhappy at the same time."

The trial of Adrian Iordan, Anisoara Lautaru and Ms Bosoanca was stopped on its 17th day, after the complainant in the case had been cross-examined.

Some 65,000 lines of text messages were disclosed to the defence on day two.

Ms Bosoanca said she repeatedly insisted she was not guilty and that she "needed to show" it.

"I knew it, at the beginning I asked for my phone, I asked for the pictures, CCTV, I asked for everything but they (didn't) care," she said.

Ms Bosoanca's question now is: "Why they don't discover everything earlier? I was waiting for them to see the truth."

"They were incompetent all of them," she added. "They kept me far away from my family, from my son."

A senior prosecutor apologised to the court and said the CPS's handling of the case had "fallen below standard".

Hundreds of court cases axed over failings
The defendants were accused of conspiring to traffic a young woman to the UK from Romania for the purpose of prostitution.

The complainant claimed she had been trafficked and forced into prostitution by the three defendants and had become pregnant after being raped in the UK.

It later emerged the woman was already pregnant when she entered the country in 2016, when she was examined three days after the arrest of Ms Bosoanca.

At London's Wood Green Crown Court, Judge Perrins said the defence had requested medical evidence about the pregnancy as long ago as August 2017 and had been repeatedly told that no such medical evidence existed.

This repeated failure to properly disclose the police doctor's report was, said the judge, "one of the more serious failings identified in this case and requires further explanation".

Facebook messages also showed that the complainant had been discussing the pregnancy and the identity of the father of her child with friends.

The BBC understands that relevant social media material was known to the police from January 2017 but was not disclosed until December 2017.

Defence lawyers working through the disclosed evidence said it would have taken four days' solid work to find evidence that undermined the prosecution case in the disclosed material.

Ms Lautaru was arrested in March 2017. The 19-year-old was remanded in custody for most of the time since then.

Following the collapse of the case on Friday, a CPS spokesman said: "We are concerned by the outcome of the case and the comments of the judge today.

"It is clear there have been failings in this case, and it is being reviewed by senior CPS lawyers as a matter of urgency."

The CPS had previously said it would review the case and the judge said he would refer the case to the director of public prosecutions.

Hands up who thought evidence was important in determining when someone is charged?

One of the important parts amongst some shocking information.

Defence lawyers working through the disclosed evidence said it would have taken four days' solid work to find evidence that undermined the prosecution case in the disclosed material.

Further cuts to, and the way solicitors and Barristers engaged in legal aid cases mean that evidence is repeatedly being missed and will continue to be so. Political manoeuvring means its nigh on impossible to get a 'good' legal defence. Its only by luck that cases like the above and the recent revelations about rape cases have exposed failings.

There have also been recent cases of forensic science companies falsifying results.

And today Some Police forces have stepped in to prop up a Forensic Science firm to stop it going bust.

The whole situation is a nightmare and Police and CPS handling of evidence needs to be seriously looked at.

**Kilkrazy**

On Radio 4 this morning, a Met Police representative said the problem was the rape case had I think it was 35,000 items on the phone to look through and there aren't the resources to do this.

**GoatboyBeta**

Ye gods how many innocents have been convicted because of this? And how many guilty people have walked away scot free?

In lighter and stranger news Lord bates "quits" over being late.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-42894232/minister-lord-bates-quits-for-being-late-to-debate
Over reaction? straw that broke the camels back? Jumped before he was pushed? Excuse to get out of dodge?