Off Topic The Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Should the UK remain a part of the EU or leave?

  • Stay in

    Votes: 56 47.9%

  • Get out

    Votes: 61 52.1%
  • Total voters
    117
  • Poll closed .
Remove ourselves from the European Human rights court.. the one Churchill helped establish? The one the only two European countries not a part of it are Russia and Belarus?

****ing hell people are wanting the U.K. to be a rogue state.

Wonder what’s in it for the Torys? Being they’d really get to decide what and what won’t make it into law, it’s not as though they have a record of stripping back things in recent times.. say for instance, certain rights to protest and they’re trying to enforce other measures… I mean if that were the case that’d be something that was predicted, including by me, and rejected as project fear… jeez this media swing against the nhs, teachers, etc was way more devious than I thought.

Just remember when rights go they are way harder to get back. Does anyone really trust Johnson and his merry bunch of idiots with this? Seriously?
 
  • Like
Reactions: QPR Oslo
Goldhawk-Road said:
This is just the start of the process. We need to remove ourselves from the European Court of Human Rights Court and replace it with our own human rights legislation
Click to expand...
What would you add/change to the Human Rights Act (1998) other than removing the ECHR as an avenue to defend rights? What rights should ‘illegal’ immigrants have? Other than your hatred of the fact that they are ‘foreign’ (in fact the U.K. has a judge in the ECHR, every member country has one) what are your specific objections to the European Convention of Human Rights which the ECHR upholds?

Churchill and others, in driving the momentum to establish the Council of Europe, European Convention of Human Rights and ultimately the ECHR, had very clear motivations - they had seen that individual countries (or more accurately governments/politicians) can ignore very basic rights with horrible consequences and wanted a system of shared values and principles across Europe to make these attacks on individual rights more difficult. Obviously a government can withdraw from these agreements and then change (perhaps reduce) human rights protections, membership of the ECHR and convention is just a little brake on the power of politicians.

The only reason to withdraw would be to reduce the rights of individuals and/or specific groups of people, under the nationalist/populist cloak of ‘sovereignty’.
 
  • Like
Reactions: finglasqpr, YorkshireHoopster, bobmid and 2 others
sb_73 said:
What would you add/change to the Human Rights Act (1998) other than removing the ECHR as an avenue to defend rights? What rights should ‘illegal’ immigrants have? Other than your hatred of the fact that they are foreign (in fact the U.K. has a judge in the ECHR, every member country has one) what are your specific objections to the European Convention of Human Rights which the ECHR upholds?

Churchill and others, in driving the momentum to establish the Council of Europe, European Convention of Human Rights and ultimately the ECHR, had very clear motivations - they had seen that individual countries (or more accurately governments/politicians) can ignore very basic rights with horrible consequences and wanted a system of shared values and principles across Europe to make these attacks on individual rights more difficult. Obviously a government can withdraw from these agreements and then change (perhaps reduce) human rights protections, membership of the ECHR and convention is just a little brake on the power of politicians.

The only reason to withdraw would be to reduce the rights of individuals and/or specific groups of people, under the nationalist/populist cloak of ‘sovereignty’.
Click to expand...
How many illegal immigrants from france do you think the UK should take
 
At least another protector of human/workers rights aren’t being attacked/demonised right now, the unions… ohhh actually they are, and people are lapping it up. Absolutely selling out the younger generations.
 
kiwiqpr said:
Great
More people to buy coffee from
Pret are loving it
Click to expand...

Great a bunch of Tory donors and associates making shed loads of cash selling weapons to regimes who have questionable human rights records… oh that’s right the U.K. makes up human rights to suit.
 
Willhoops said:
Remove ourselves from the European Human rights court.. the one Churchill helped establish? The one the only two European countries not a part of it are Russia and Belarus?

****ing hell people are wanting the U.K. to be a rogue state.

Wonder what’s in it for the Torys? Being they’d really get to decide what and what won’t make it into law, it’s not as though they have a record of stripping back things in recent times.. say for instance, certain rights to protest and they’re trying to enforce other measures… I mean if that were the case that’d be something that was predicted, including by me, and rejected as project fear… jeez this media swing against the nhs, teachers, etc was way more devious than I thought.

Just remember when rights go they are way harder to get back. Does anyone really trust Johnson and his merry bunch of idiots with this? Seriously?
Click to expand...
Johnson truly doesn't give a flying ****, that's plain to see. He signs up to anything does the ****, tells everyone it's brilliant and then looks at what he's signed. Completely ruining this country.
 
sb_73 said:
What would you add/change to the Human Rights Act (1998) other than removing the ECHR as an avenue to defend rights? What rights should ‘illegal’ immigrants have? Other than your hatred of the fact that they are ‘foreign’ (in fact the U.K. has a judge in the ECHR, every member country has one) what are your specific objections to the European Convention of Human Rights which the ECHR upholds?

Churchill and others, in driving the momentum to establish the Council of Europe, European Convention of Human Rights and ultimately the ECHR, had very clear motivations - they had seen that individual countries (or more accurately governments/politicians) can ignore very basic rights with horrible consequences and wanted a system of shared values and principles across Europe to make these attacks on individual rights more difficult. Obviously a government can withdraw from these agreements and then change (perhaps reduce) human rights protections, membership of the ECHR and convention is just a little brake on the power of politicians.

The only reason to withdraw would be to reduce the rights of individuals and/or specific groups of people, under the nationalist/populist cloak of ‘sovereignty’.
Click to expand...

Setting up straw men again, so you can get really angry? I don't hate foreigners, but I resent foreign courts overturning decisions of the courts of this country. Taking the country as a whole, I suspect I'm in the majority in this respect. So this is my difficulty with the ECHR.

The problem is, it's out of touch with events since it was formed in 1950 and needs reforming. There is a growing diaspora into Western countries from the Third World. It cannot be a human right of every one of those economic migrants moving to live in the UK (which means England, mostly London and the SE, since none of them want to farm sheep in Wales or live in a croft in the Highlands). The Rwanda proposal seems perfectly reasonable so long as the UK maintains its duty of care to each illegal immigrant moved there for a period to enable them to settle. The UK is not the only country facing this problem and acting. Denmark, a small country in size, is also going in this direction. And England is a small country in square mileage compared to France and Germany.

President Obama deported more illegal immigrants than any other president of the US - 3 million. No doubt you were outraged by this too. I must have missed your post.
 
Stroller said:
Opinion polls are split.

The full court hearing is next month. That's when we should know if the policy is legal, it's not long to wait

You seem to think that a government with a big majority should be allowed to flout the law. This government has got previous, of course.
Click to expand...

Nope.
But you keep on misrepresenting me, it's fun.
 
Goldhawk-Road said:
Setting up straw men again, so you can get really angry? I don't hate foreigners, but I resent foreign courts overturning decisions of the courts of this country. Taking the country as a whole, I suspect I'm in the majority in this respect. So this is my difficulty with the ECHR.

The problem is, it's out of touch with events since it was formed in 1950 and needs reforming. There is a growing diaspora into Western countries from the Third World. It cannot be a human right of every one of those economic migrants moving to live in the UK (which means England, mostly London and the SE, since none of them want to farm sheep in Wales or live in a croft in the Highlands). The Rwanda proposal seems perfectly reasonable so long as the UK maintains its duty of care to each illegal immigrant moved there for a period to enable them to settle. The UK is not the only country facing this problem and acting. Denmark, a small country in size, is also going in this direction. And England is a small country in square mileage compared to France and Germany.

President Obama deported more illegal immigrants than any other president of the US - 3 million. No doubt you were outraged by this too. I must have missed your post.
Click to expand...
Isn't the ECHR independent, made up of judges from all across Europe including the UK? I may be totally wrong mind
 
sb_73 said:
What would you add/change to the Human Rights Act (1998) other than removing the ECHR as an avenue to defend rights? What rights should ‘illegal’ immigrants have? Other than your hatred of the fact that they are ‘foreign’ (in fact the U.K. has a judge in the ECHR, every member country has one) what are your specific objections to the European Convention of Human Rights which the ECHR upholds?

Churchill and others, in driving the momentum to establish the Council of Europe, European Convention of Human Rights and ultimately the ECHR, had very clear motivations - they had seen that individual countries (or more accurately governments/politicians) can ignore very basic rights with horrible consequences and wanted a system of shared values and principles across Europe to make these attacks on individual rights more difficult. Obviously a government can withdraw from these agreements and then change (perhaps reduce) human rights protections, membership of the ECHR and convention is just a little brake on the power of politicians.

The only reason to withdraw would be to reduce the rights of individuals and/or specific groups of people, under the nationalist/populist cloak of ‘sovereignty’.
Click to expand...

Put another way:

You must log in or register to see media
 
  • Like
Reactions: YorkshireHoopster, Stroller, bobmid and 2 others
kiwiqpr said:
You must log in or register to see images
Click to expand...
More to the point, isn't the way in to get a job with P& O. I heard there are a lot available to willing foreign workers provide they sign on the dotted line to the world beating Ts and Cs being offered by P&O after firing all who refused to accept levelling down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiwiqpr
Goldhawk-Road said:
It's not part of the EU. Here is the judge pool:

https://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=court/judges&c

It amuses me that those that criticise the Rwanda scheme have no remotely viable alternative to the problem of organised crime and illegal immigration
Click to expand...

As I've said many times, we should provide safe routes for refugees to get here to apply for asylum.

Safe Routes Save Futures - Refugee Council

As I've also said before, we could set up an asylum processing centre in France, so that it's not necessary to cross the Channel to apply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back