Oh come on Nick, don't be daft. You get a much fairer trial here than in most places.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Is the following bit from the link 'evidenced truth'? "Nowadays the UK is governed by one of the most right-wing authoritarian regimes in the world, one that is determined to erode the rights of citizens as much as possible and establish powerful state surveillance apparatus that would have made agents of the East German Stasi or the Russian KGB turn green with envy"
Do you seriously think we are 'one of the most right-wing authoritarian regimes in the world'?

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Maybe all the threads about Brexit could be merged and we can all play soggy biscuit.

Yes we are, but were not ratifying or independently adjudicating on them, which is why the courts of appeal and ultimately the European court was introduced in the first place, to ensure legal rights, due process and independency of the judiciary.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (05 Apr 2017 11.12am)

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Technically the provisions of the Human Rights Act from the EU, is suspended under three key issues, one of which is National Security / Terrorism.

But the concern here is whether or not secret courts are even necessary, as juries could in theory be held accountable to the Official Secrets act and vetted.

What is really unacceptable in these cases, is that the move was immediately to the system with the least amount of due process, oversight and fair trial.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

In order for a case to be passed to the European Courts it requires leave to appeal from the highest courts of Appeal in the UK. As such, the UK judicial system makes the decision that it cannot reliably and fairly adjudicate on the matter.

So a case goes to the European Court when the Appeal Courts cannot conclusively, and fairly, adjudicate on a conflict in points of law.

No hand holding at all. If we were independent, we'd have to carry the entire cost of the very specialist legal expertise provided by the European Court, rather than sharing it with 27 other nations (plus rather than providing a single judge, we'd need to provide at least three).

Its a) more cost effective b) more independent c) allows for a wider basis of legal precedent from across Europe where similar cases of conflict have already been resolved.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]