You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Look what you've done!
March 28 2024 10.31pm

Look what you've done!

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 4 of 28 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

 

View Dweeb's Profile Dweeb Flag East London 09 May 15 10.46am Send a Private Message to Dweeb Add Dweeb as a friend

Well that's OK then, I mean the Tories didnt want:

the minimum wage - so let's turn the economy back into an even lower wage, one with hundreds of thousands of employed people scrounging of the state to subsidise their wages so they can actually live

extended shopping hours - so let's go back to a 9-6 six days a week with no Sunday trading except for your local newsagent/corner shop type economy

working hours directive - so junior doctors can then be forced to go back to working 70-100 hours per week, and commercial lorry drivers just keep driving without a break or speed restrictions so clearly no more acccidents on the road...

to name but three!

Edited by Dweeb (09 May 2015 10.47am)

 


Taking the bungy jump since 1964. Never to see John Jackson in a shirt again

Sorry to see Lee Hills go, did we ever see Alex Marrow? We did January 2013

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
legaleagle Flag 09 May 15 10.54am

Quote Dweeb at 09 May 2015 10.32am

Quote legaleagle at 09 May 2015 12.13am

Quote Jimenez at 09 May 2015 12.07am

Quote legaleagle at 09 May 2015 12.02am


The problem is that anything will always have some abuse.So,as a lawyer,I see clever people representing themselves "playing the system" to get out of something.But,the reason why they can is because of certain safeguards built into the system to protect many more others from abuse...


.....Ah now that's what I call a cop out. Surely its not beyond the powers to be to draft say 'A British Bill of rights' to counter and indeed replace the Human Rights Act?

Not a cop out.The press and politicians spotlight what suit them so you get the impression every day a bad evil person is allowed to stay.Thing is the same bits of the act provide really important protections to all sorts of people daily,but of course yo never read about that in the Mail etc.

Yes, it could be replaced by a new Human Rights Act.Question is,what would it contain and what wouldn't it?

Also,if they didn't also derogate from the European Convention,people could also take their case to the Court in Strasbourg anyway.


Edited by legaleagle (09 May 2015 12.13am)


Ahem. Can I ask one rhetorical question please, namely who drew up the ECHR in the first place. Might have been the Conservatives post-war. It is that the HR Act was supposed to formally implement wasn't it?


Answer to rhetorical question.Yes,Winston Churchill and another Tory politician,David Maxwell-Fyfe, were driving forces behind the drafting of the Convention.

The Act was to put directly into UK law the Convention so UK Courts could rule directly on Convention breaches without people needing to go to the Court in Strasbourg.But we were/and would be bound by the Convention regardless of the Act unless we derogated..

Link is a 2009 piece by Peter Oborne,right wing journalist, who places the Convention/Act firmly within the Conservative tradition.

[Link]

Edited by legaleagle (09 May 2015 11.16am)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
derben Flag 09 May 15 11.01am

We would have whatever laws our elected government make, rather than edicts imposed on us by unelected EU commissioners.

If the three things you list were legislated that way by a UK government, so be it. If the UK electorate did not like it, they could elect a different UK government - in practical terms they can do sod all about the unelected EU Commissioners.

Edited by derben (09 May 2015 11.02am)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
legaleagle Flag 09 May 15 11.05am

But none of that relates to the Human Rights Act/European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act/Convention are nothing to do with the EU...

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
derben Flag 09 May 15 11.07am

Quote legaleagle at 09 May 2015 11.05am

But none of that relates to the Human Rights Act/European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act/Convention are nothing to do with the EU...


In addition to being members of the EU, the UK is also a member of an organisation called the Council of Europe, which has a membership of about fifty countries. Membership of the Council of Europe is dependent upon being signed up to the ECHR and, if the UK withdrew its signature from the ECHR, we would be obliged to leave the Council of Europe. However no country can be a member of the EU unless it is already a member of the Council of Europe. Therefore, if we wish to withdraw our signature from the ECHR we MUST leave the EU.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
legaleagle Flag 09 May 15 11.12am

Interesting. Didn't know that.

My point was that The EU was not responsible for the Convention being signed up to by Britain in the first place, or its terms,or anything to do with the decisions of the Court in Strasbourg...Some people mix up EU things like the Lisbon Treaty and consequent EU directives with the Convention...

And if we left the EU,that would not affect (unless we separately derogated from it) our obligations under the Convention which run back to more than 20 years before we joined the EU.

Edited by legaleagle (09 May 2015 11.18am)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
derben Flag 09 May 15 11.16am

Quote legaleagle at 09 May 2015 11.12am

Interesting. Didn't know that.

My point was that The EU was not responsible for the Convention being signed up to by Britain in the first place, or its terms,or anything to do with the decisions of the Court in Strasbourg...Some people mix up EU things like the Lisbon Treaty with the Convention...

Edited by legaleagle (09 May 2015 11.13am)

Also, under Article 6 of The Treaty of the European Union (This is the Treaty that consolidates all the treaties), once the Lisbon Treaty was signed, we have given the EU the power to decide on our behalf whether or not we remain signatories to the ECHR.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
legaleagle Flag 09 May 15 11.32am

Agreed.Under Article 6, the EU shall accede to the European Convention on Human Rights (something we've been doing since 20 years before we joined the EU anyway) and that EU laws should be compatible with the Convention.

The Human Rights Act arguably allows for greater scope for interpretation of how to comply with the Convention by domestic UK judges than if we abolished the Act but didn't derogate from the Convention (the pre-Human Rights Act position).

So,if we suddenly now had human rights standards in the UK of a lower/different level to the European Convention on Human Rights,I take your point,that might be incompatible with EU membership.

So,if you want us to derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights,which of the below would you want us not to be bound by any more?


Article 2 | Right to life
Article 3 | Anti-torture and inhumane treatment
Article 4 | Anti-slavery
Article 5 | Right to liberty and security of the person
Article 6 | Right to a fair trial
Article 7 | Anti-retrospective conviction
Article 8 | Right to private and family life
Article 9 | Right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion
Article 10 | Right to freedom of expression
Article 11 | Right to freedom of assembly and association
Article 12 | Right to marriage
Article 13 | Right to an effective remedy
Article 14 | Anti-discrimination
Protocol 1 Article 1 | Right to peaceful enjoyment of property
Protocol 1 Article 3 | Duty to provide fair and free elections
Protocol 2 Article 1 | Right to education

If it's that you are anti-EU and want us out,given the Convention is separate,would you want us to derogate anyway post leaving the EU,thus changing something Churchill signed us up to more than 60 years ago?


Edited by legaleagle (09 May 2015 11.40am)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View palace777's Profile palace777 Flag belfast 09 May 15 11.36am Send a Private Message to palace777 Add palace777 as a friend

Quote nickgusset at 08 May 2015 9.53pm

[Link]


and labour would offer????


 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
derben Flag 09 May 15 11.40am

Quote legaleagle at 09 May 2015 11.32am

Agreed.Article 6 says the EU shall comply with the European Convention on Human Rights (something we've been doing since 20 years before we joined the EU anyway).

The Human Rights Act arguably allows for greater scope for interpretation of how to comply with the Convention by domestic UK judges than if we abolished the Act but didn't derogate from the Convention (the pre-Human Rights Act position).

So,if we suddenly now had human rights standards in the UK of a lower/different level to the European Convention on Human Rights,I take your point,that might be incompatible with EU membership.

So,if you want us to derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights,which of the below would you want us not to be bound by any more?


Article 2 | Right to life
Article 3 | Anti-torture and inhumane treatment
Article 4 | Anti-slavery
Article 5 | Right to liberty and security of the person
Article 6 | Right to a fair trial
Article 7 | Anti-retrospective conviction
Article 8 | Right to private and family life
Article 9 | Right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion
Article 10 | Right to freedom of expression
Article 11 | Right to freedom of assembly and association
Article 12 | Right to marriage
Article 13 | Right to an effective remedy
Article 14 | Anti-discrimination
Protocol 1 Article 1 | Right to peaceful enjoyment of property
Protocol 1 Article 3 | Duty to provide fair and free elections
Protocol 2 Article 1 | Right to education

If it's that you are anti-EU and want us out,given the Convention is separate,would you want us to derogate anyway post leaving the EU,thus changing something Churchill signed us up to more than 60 years ago?


Edited by legaleagle (09 May 2015 11.35am)

I wouldn't necessarily want to legislate differently on any of them - I merely want the UK to make its own laws. Do you really think that if we left the jurisdiction of the ECHR we would start to torture and enslave people and deny them the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion etc?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
legaleagle Flag 09 May 15 11.50am

Do you also want us to derogate from international law and any decisions and any legally binding UN conventions?Shall we derogate from the International Court of Justice? That's the logic of your position...

Do you not think it a good thing to set an example to states like Belarus that there is a European-wide Court to maintain certain human rights standards as opposed to saying domestic courts should always have the final word on human rights matters?

The strangest of countries have become quasi dictatorships/subject to human rights abuses with domestic courts hardly independent of dictatorial governments at times who don't give a fig about human rights.

Spain:1936-75
Germany:1933-45
Austria:1938-45
"Eastern Bloc":late 1940's-1990
Former Yugoslavia:1991-95
Belarus:today
Portugal:1930's -1973
eastern Ukraine:tomorrow?

Can potentially be anywhere down the line...

You have a short memory...we were (rightly) done for instances of torture in breach of the Convention in N Ireland in the 1970's...

Edited by legaleagle (09 May 2015 11.53am)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
derben Flag 09 May 15 12.01pm

Quote legaleagle at 09 May 2015 11.50am

Do you also want us to derogate from international law and any decisions and any legally binding UN conventions?Shall we derogate from the International Court of Justice? That's the logic of your position...

Do you not think it a good thing to set an example to states like Belarus that there is a European-wide Court to maintain certain human rights standards as opposed to saying domestic courts should always have the final word on human rights matters?

The strangest of countries have become quasi dictatorships/subject to human rights abuses with domestic courts hardly independent of dictatorial governments at times who don't give a fig about human rights.

Spain:1936-75
Germany:1933-45
Austria:1938-45
"Eastern Bloc":late 1940's-1990
Former Yugoslavia:1991-95
Belarus:today
Portugal:1930's -1973
eastern Ukraine:tomorrow?

Can potentially be anywhere down the line...

You have a short memory...we were (rightly) done for instances of torture in breach of the Convention in N Ireland in the 1970's...

Edited by legaleagle (09 May 2015 11.53am)

I must confess that I don't spend a great deal of time worrying about Belarus. Does anyone take any notice of 'legally binding UN conventions'? I agree, and could add to, your list of European past dictatorial governments that we are now supposed to embrace as models of democracy in an undemocratic EU. I want us to make our own laws; I want our own judges to decide issues. On the whole we have a far better history on human rights than most of our European neighbours.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 4 of 28 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Look what you've done!