You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Look what you've done!
October 31 2026 12.36am

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Look what you've done!


Page 3 of 17 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >
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.

 
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)

 
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.

 
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)

 
palace777 Flag belfast 09 May 15 11.36am

Quote nickgusset at 08 May 2015 9.53pm

[Link]


and labour would offer????


 
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?

 
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)

 
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.

 
ambrose7 Flag Croydon 09 May 15 12.02pm

I actually support the ECHR but can see the pitfalls to it. The fact that very few of the rights are non-derogable and therefore often have to be assessed against one another does create a lot of uncertainty and can impact upon other areas in an unpredictable manner.

My biggest concern about international law making are the powers that were accidentally given to Europe.

For instance, not wanting to agree internationally on tax laws left the ECJ to legislate on these issues through their power to uphold the fundamental freedoms e.g. of movement and establishment. Therefore, to uphold these freedoms the ECJ can establish case law which legislates on the issues no-one wanted to be legislated on in Europe without any say from politicians whatsoever. Elected politicians didn't want to discuss legislation together, so unelected judges impose laws.

The relationship between fundamental freedoms and other areas need to be seriously reconsidered because the ECJ have a lot of unelected power at present.

 

26th January 2010 - Enter Administration
2nd May 2010 - D-Day 1 - Survival at Hillsborough
1st June 2010 - D-Day 2 - Survival at Lloyds
7th June 2010 - CPFC2010 exchange contracts.
ambrose7 Flag Croydon 09 May 15 12.07pm

Quote nickgusset at 09 May 2015 12.29am

Day one: [Link]


The most misleading article ever.

The budget is the same, it's just being spread across more people in the hope that more people can benefit from it. It's just looking at whether some people get too much from it and whether that is of detriment to people who receive nothing, thereby trying to discover the best middle ground between receiving enough and benefiting as many as possible.

The policy was announced before the election and all that was published yesterday was an impact assessment.

 

26th January 2010 - Enter Administration
2nd May 2010 - D-Day 1 - Survival at Hillsborough
1st June 2010 - D-Day 2 - Survival at Lloyds
7th June 2010 - CPFC2010 exchange contracts.
chris123 Flag hove actually 09 May 15 12.58pm

Quote nickgusset at 08 May 2015 10.32pm

I don't think cuts are trivial.



First cuts are deep.

 
palace777 Flag belfast 09 May 15 1.04pm

Quote chris123 at 09 May 2015 12.58pm

Quote nickgusset at 08 May 2015 10.32pm

I don't think cuts are trivial.



First cuts are deep.


baby I know

 
legaleagle Flag 09 May 15 1.05pm

Quote ambrose7 at 09 May 2015 12.02pm

I actually support the ECHR but can see the pitfalls to it. The fact that very few of the rights are non-derogable and therefore often have to be assessed against one another does create a lot of uncertainty and can impact upon other areas in an unpredictable manner.

My biggest concern about international law making are the powers that were accidentally given to Europe.

For instance, not wanting to agree internationally on tax laws left the ECJ to legislate on these issues through their power to uphold the fundamental freedoms e.g. of movement and establishment. Therefore, to uphold these freedoms the ECJ can establish case law which legislates on the issues no-one wanted to be legislated on in Europe without any say from politicians whatsoever. Elected politicians didn't want to discuss legislation together, so unelected judges impose laws.

The relationship between fundamental freedoms and other areas need to be seriously reconsidered because the ECJ have a lot of unelected power at present.

There's always going to be an inherent tension between different rights,ie the right to freedom of expression by the press and the right to privacy of an individual.Its not easy and judges have to balance those things very regularly,depending on the particular circumstances of the matter at hand.

Even if we derogate from the ECHR and replace it with domestic legislation,a lot of things would still end up being interpreted and balanced by "unelected" Judges here.

 
derben Flag 09 May 15 1.21pm

Quote legaleagle at 09 May 2015 1.05pm

Quote ambrose7 at 09 May 2015 12.02pm

I actually support the ECHR but can see the pitfalls to it. The fact that very few of the rights are non-derogable and therefore often have to be assessed against one another does create a lot of uncertainty and can impact upon other areas in an unpredictable manner.

My biggest concern about international law making are the powers that were accidentally given to Europe.

For instance, not wanting to agree internationally on tax laws left the ECJ to legislate on these issues through their power to uphold the fundamental freedoms e.g. of movement and establishment. Therefore, to uphold these freedoms the ECJ can establish case law which legislates on the issues no-one wanted to be legislated on in Europe without any say from politicians whatsoever. Elected politicians didn't want to discuss legislation together, so unelected judges impose laws.

The relationship between fundamental freedoms and other areas need to be seriously reconsidered because the ECJ have a lot of unelected power at present.

There's always going to be an inherent tension between different rights,ie the right to freedom of expression by the press and the right to privacy of an individual.Its not easy and judges have to balance those things very regularly,depending on the particular circumstances of the matter at hand.

Even if we derogate from the ECHR and replace it with domestic legislation,a lot of things would still end up being interpreted and balanced by "unelected" Judges here.

Far better that the UK judiciary decides matters in the UK. Again, all that is being asked is that we pass our own laws and have our own judiciary decide on matters. Why is this too much to ask.

 
imbored Flag UK 09 May 15 4.25pm

Legislation being brought forward to legalise fox hunting again I see.

 
pefwin Flag Where you have to have an English ... 09 May 15 4.33pm

Quote imbored at 09 May 2015 4.25pm

Legislation being brought forward to legalise fox hunting again I see.

all the important stuff then.

 

"Everything is air-droppable at least once."

"When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."
Scucca Flag Ely 09 May 15 4.41pm

The Human Rights act was a brilliant idea. The problem is that; as they say; 'The road to Hell is paved with good intentions'.
It's now being used by criminals for purposes for which it wasn't intended. In my book paedophiles, rapists and murderers would lose some of their rights. Rights are earned and go hand in hand with responsibilities. Break those responsibilities and you lose your rights!

 
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 09 May 15 10.31pm

Quote palace777 at 09 May 2015 1.04pm

Quote chris123 at 09 May 2015 12.58pm

Quote nickgusset at 08 May 2015 10.32pm

I don't think cuts are trivial.



First cuts are deep.


baby I know


You've made a rod for your own back there.

 
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 09 May 15 10.33pm

[Link]

Is this only the beginning?

 
Jimenez Flag SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 09 May 15 10.46pm

Quote nickgusset at 09 May 2015 10.33pm

[Link]

Is this only the beginning?


The usual suspects, students, lefties and other Itinerant f*** wits along with a smattering of out of work actors & rent-a-mob hooligans........

 

Pro USA & Israel
Page 3 of 17 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

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