That's the big problem though, Frank. You can have as much choice as you like between different types of ****e, but you still end up with ****e.
Yup she wants powers to torture "terrorists" and ensure no Iraqis or whoever UK invades with trump can sue for war crimes. Really serious stuff given Russia and Ukraine and 40 others are in but UK wants out. The country is in the hands of the hawks now for sure.
Oddly enough, the Lords was one of the few balancing factors to the extreme policies of Thatcherism in the 80's. Opposition parties were impotent and in disarray, and the over-politicised unions were losing a lot of support, and getting hammered by the government and its media attack dogs. Things would have been even worse without them.
err May wants to ensure the European Court of justice which is the supreme justice making body in the EU has no control over UK following Brexit, The ECHR is a totally seperate institution and about 30 years older
And it's this type of extreme doomsday hysteria that helped lose the referendum..each time it's proven a gross exaggeration or complete falsehood it diminishes the real argument... Both sides did it but the losing side just looks silly trying to keep it up. Things will be tough enough without deliberate attempts to undermine investment and consumer confidence with ridiculous claims.. Continuing a losing strategy will not magically achieve a win.... Oh and Unilever were trying their hand...**** all to do with the pound...
It will be shocking if that 'law' comes to pass, that British soldiers can't be tried for war crimes, especially what some of the scumbags that went out to Iraq/Afghanistan got up to out there. After all those years of laughing at countries like USA, Russia, Saudi Arabia etc. for being backward when it comes to laws and human rights then our government comes up with something like this.
yup. in general its a serious erosion of general human rights and depends on some tory or other to enact new laws to replace... like.. the general public are sleep walking into this.
Dont think its about prosecutions as such, pretty sure that no or very few prosecutions have come from allegations to ihat (iraq war) , seems to me its more about the compensation culture , think more PPI and whiplash. You can almost imagine it, has your country been invaded by a foreign military force without your consent? Dont worry about things such as forensic evidence or even about the cost , we here at Sue, Grabbit and Run will make sure you get the compensation you deserve.
America's democracy has major holes as well... I'm not even going to start with that... The royalty's power may be mainly symbolic but it would be an interesting dilemma if they ever refused to officially ratify a Parliament or agree to an election.
That wasnt a vote for independence that was a vote for EU membership. Referendum to leave UK most voted against leaving.
It should still be an elected body. Lots of countries and democracies have a body elected for longer periods of time and another body elected for shorter spells. Personally, I think the 2nd house should be selected by Sorti but I know that won't happen.
I can see that being a problem but my answer to that would be not to invade countries if you aren't willing to go through the proper procedures and hold your soldiers responsible for their behaviour. Its almost like people have forgotten that the Iraq war was illegal and needless. It seems the government have now gotten to the stage where they actually think Iraqis are somehow to blame for holding a grudge against the UK "Yeah, we invaded your country illegally, destroyed your houses with bombs, we killed your neighbours and family but you are really costing us money by trying to sue us which is really inconvenient for us". They should be looking at putting procedures in place so that we won't go into an illegal war ever again, eliminating the problem at its source.
Holding soldiers responsible for their behavoiur is one thing allowing compensation claims that are then "settled" is very different. Illegal war is a very interesting concept.
No sorry but MITO is totally right. It was certainly reported on the Beeb that she wanted out of the ECHR.
I've always wondered about this one. If there are laws defining the legality of war who draws them up? Who then enforces them and by what means? Let's make all war illegal, then we'll have that thing that all Miss World contestants crave - world peace. Simple.
A bigger proportion of Scots who voted (67%) voted to stay in the EU then did to stay part of the UK (55%). That's unarguably a change in their material circumstances, especially as a maim plank of staying inn the Uk was that if Scotland were to leave the UK they would also have to leave the EU. Question is, do the EU, and Spain in particular, still want to veto Scotland's possible part of the EU?
not sure that is correct she did talk about withdrawing from aspects of its jurisdiction re conflict zones but it was pointless anyway because the MOD worries about the ICCI not ECHR as war crime cases are the real fear - not surprisingly after some of the cases that came to light but unfortunately money grabbing lawyers have used this to make thousands of spurious claims which has allowed a blanket to be pulled over the conduct of our forces. PS no one ever declares war anymore- in fact i cannot rthink of any conflict since the second world war when war has been declared
If May triggers Brexit before Scotland hypothetically votes for independence they would still technically be part of the UK until the act of union was undone which would take years(according to legal experts on Sky News). That would still make them legally part of a non EU member nation(the UK)which in turn they would then be faced with trying to gain re-entry as a nation within their own right with next to nothing to offer in return for being allowed to rejoin. The EU wouldn't touch them with a barge pole.
