The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (24 Viewers)

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Would you like to explain to Mucca as he thinks you can change regulations as you wish.

Now you've resorted to deliberately misrepresenting my views and arguments because you simply don't understand my arguments.

 

---

[skybluetony176]

This rights being forced on us by the EU argument is such a red herring and here’s why.

Council of Europe (Now 47 members strong). The U.K. is a founding member joining 70 years ago in its very creation.

European Convention on Human Rights. Created by the Council of Europe 66 years ago and we’ve been signed up to it from that creation.

European Court of Human Rights set up 60 years ago by the Council of Europe and has jurisdiction in the U.K. since then.

I really can’t believe that people have allowed themselves to be played initially by the leave campaign using these institutions and regulations that we have adhered to and founded long before we joined the EU and in the case of the Council of Europe existed before the EU in any guise as some sort of giving up sovereignty to the EU. Now people are also lining our human rights up to a power grab by the Tories to leave these institutions and regulations under the guise of it being part of leave. 47 member states, not 27. This is bigger than the EU and Turkeys are voting for Christmas to lose these rights based on a lie. EU human rights and employment laws are set in the European Convention of Human Rights, created by the Council of Europe and policed by the European Court of Human Rights as a final point of appeal. People are willingly being conned out of their rights by allowing themselves to be blindsided by Blue Passports, immigrunts and bendy bananas. Madness.

 

[Grendel]

Capital punishment for murder was abolished in 1965, and the last people to be hanged for murder was in 1964. This remained unused until Britain signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights. Either way, the Human Rights Act 1998 was an Act of Parliament passed by the UK Parliament and not subscribed to us by the EU. The ECHR is technically 'binding', but again, Parliament can ultimately opt out of it and indeed, the EU as a whole.

It's not a hypothesis, this is how the UK constitution works. In the passage of laws in the UK, the EU plays no part in the process of our lawmaking, and there are no EU laws on our statute books -- every EU law and legislation or treaty that applies in the UK was ratified, or passed by an Act of Parliament. The Human Rights Act 1998 is an example of that -- which Parliament was planning to repeal even before Brexit. Parliament has subcontracted sovereignty.

Your claim the UK cannot physically pass laws that contradict EU law but at any point of analysis, the EU has no physical input in the passage of our laws. The EU laws and legislation we are 'bound' to was with Parliament's consent.

In a globalised economy, the sovereignty of national governments is being eroded. If a country has high levels of taxation, multinational corporations relocate, just as Dyson has done this week. Free trade deals also subcontract sovereignty, look at the impact of the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) on Canada, their Government has been taken to court over their environmental regulations and their healthcare systems, and something like 70% of claims has been bought against Canada. Governments just don't have sovereignty of pre-WW2 national states. Assuming we got free trade deals across the globe, there will be regulations the Government has to stick to, in essence, we're still subcontracting sovereignty, in or out of the EU.

It was abolished in 1998 to fit into section 2 (1) I got bored after that one innacurate - or misleading fact

 

[skybluetony176]

It was abolished in 1998 to fit into section 2 (1) I got bored after that one innacurate - or misleading fact

Section 2 (1) of what exactly?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

It was abolished in 1998 to fit into section 2 (1) I got bored after that one innacurate - or misleading fact

Another red herring to add to your collection.

The last instance of capital punishment for murder was in 1964 and outlawed by the Wilson Government in 1965, the only exception being for treason, the last execution for high-treason was in 1946. In practice, the law was defunct. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 formally outlawed capital punishment, another Act of Parliament.

Also, the 13th Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights became 'binding' in 2004, not 1998.

 

[Grendel]

Another red herring to add to your collection.

The last instance of capital punishment for murder was in 1964 and outlawed by the Wilson Government in 1965, the only exception being for treason, the last execution for high-treason was in 1946. In practice, the law was defunct. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 formally outlawed capital punishment, another Act of Parliament.

Also, the 13th Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights became 'binding' in 2004, not 1998.

So it was 1998 thanks

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

So it was 1998 thanks

The practice of capital pushiment was stopped before we even joined the European Communities in 1974. So, if that’s your cornerstone argument in the debate over Parliamentary sovereignty. You get a big fat F for fail and you take the loss on this one.

Next?

 

[shmmeee]

Maybe the EU should relax over their 'red lines'? Yes UK wants out...but if all parties wish to avoid assumed chaos of a 'no deal' - something has to give.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

You’re massively overestimating the EUs need to avoid No Deal. It’s not worth tearing up the indivisability of the four freedoms for. And that is what their red lines are.

We just need to decide if worst trade with our neighbours is worth potentially more trade on the other side of the planet.

And we can’t.

Because there’s only one sane answer and it’s the one that won’t fly with the public.

So we play the ancient game of kick the can down the road and hope something sorts itself out.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

The only thing she had to say to the other parties was that she had no intention of making any adjustments. People need to stop defending her (I'm not necessarily suggesting you are)

No I am not trying to defend her as such. I also think, to prevent the prospect of a no-deal means the EU can simply then say exactly as she is..."This is the only deal on offer"...accept it or stay (& ignore the referendum result). Her rigidity might well be as a result of that enountered from the EU's own rigidity

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[Grendel]

The practice of capital pushiment was stopped before we even joined the European Communities in 1974. So, if that’s your cornerstone argument in the debate over Parliamentary sovereignty. You get a big fat F for fail and you take the loss on this one.

Next?

It isn’t but we did remove it from the statute books in 1998 didn’t we

Anyway I’m amazed we can end freedom of movement tomorrow if we want

 

[SkyblueBazza]

You’re massively overestimating the EUs need to avoid No Deal. It’s not worth tearing up the indivisability of the four freedoms for. And that is what their red lines are.

We just need to decide if worst trade with our neighbours is worth potentially more trade on the other side of the planet.

And we can’t.

Because there’s only one sane answer and it’s the one that won’t fly with the public.

So we play the ancient game of kick the can down the road and hope something sorts itself out.

You're wrong about my estimations. I haven't made any really, other than the EU will also suffer. Maybe you are right about the worth of this 'indivisibility'...but when it comes to the absolute crunch - the ROI especially will be shitting itself. It doesn't stop there though... Where Brexit will hurt most in Europe

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

It isn’t but we did remove it from the statute books in 1998 didn’t we

Anyway I’m amazed we can end freedom of movement tomorrow if we want

With an Act of Parliament, yes. What’s your point?

New Labour passed many reforms in Blair’s first term. The HRA, CRA, and so on.

 

[Astute]

Highlight where I've used the word 'directive' once.

You are explaining about directives. You have not said the word directive.

 

[Astute]

Now you've resorted to deliberately misrepresenting my views and arguments because you simply don't understand my arguments.

Am I?

Mart would have backed you up by now if he thought you was right or I didn't have a clue what you are saying is wrong.

You are explaining about directives. Directives do not have to be made law as they stand. Regulations are made law as soon as the EU passes them on to the countries in the EU. Countries could ignore the regulations but they would have major problems staying in the EU.

You would do better checking out your lack of knowledge on the subject because all you are doing is digging a bigger hole for yourself.

 

[Astute]

Ha ha

You haven't told Mucca he is right yet. What's wrong?

 

[Astute]

You’re massively overestimating the EUs need to avoid No Deal.

Or many are underestimating the need.

If there wasn't much of a need to avoid a no deal why did the EU say hardly anything would change for at least 12 months. And that is was for the benefit of those remaining countries in the EU and not us.

Some people just don't want to consider why though.

 

[Sick Boy]

I see that Rees Mogg wants to close parliament to prevent MPs from stopped a no deal scenario

 

[Sick Boy]

Or many are underestimating the need.

If there wasn't much of a need to avoid a no deal why did the EU say hardly anything would change for at least 12 months. And that is was for the benefit of those remaining countries in the EU and not us.

Some people just don't want to consider why though.

You used to come out with ‘the truth’ and tell us I’d all be okay and they’d come begging to the UK thanks to British people liking wine and cheese and driving cars.

For someone who claims to be neutral, you’re probably the most active and anti-EU poster on this forum. Your posting history demonstrates you aren’t neutral, to claim otherwise is hilarious.

 

[Grendel]

With an Act of Parliament, yes. What’s your point?

New Labour passed many reforms in Blair’s first term. The HRA, CRA, and so on.

My point is it without the abolition the EU Convention of Human Rights Act could not be ratified

 

[skybluetony176]

My point is it without the abolition the EU Convention of Human Rights Act could not be ratified

It’s not an EU convention. It’s a Council of Europe convention and we’ve been a member of that council since 1949. Just because the EU adopts something we’re already signed up to it doesn’t make it an EU convention. We actually signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights 66 years ago. Long before we joined the EU.

 

[Grendel]

It’s not an EU convention. It’s a Council of Europe convention and we’ve been a member of that council since 1949. Just because the EU adopts something we’re already signed up to it doesn’t make it an EU convention. We actually signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights 66 years ago. Long before we joined the EU.

Oh Tony I’m referring to the 13th or is it 14th protocol on the convention. In all this excitement of forgotten which one it is. I’m sure Wiki will help you find the way though.

Do you think an act of Parliament can stop freedom of movement Tony and we can stay in the EU - what’s your thoughts on this exciting new development in the debate?

 

[SkyblueBazza]

I see that Rees Mogg wants to close parliament to prevent MPs from stopped a no deal scenario

Or alternatively, to prevent MPs from thwarting Brexit.
If Brexit is to be thwarted with a second referendum, or an MPs vote - someone (maybe Rees-Mogg himself) should insist that the motion includes to dissolve Parliament altogether & forever & transfer the whole shebang to Brussels as our Parliament would be untrustworthy, & pointless. If we stay in the EU fck-it let us go wholesale & derail said MPs to show them they are mere mortals after-all!

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[Grendel]

I have put you back on ignore Tony I can only take your idiocy and desire for inclusion in very small doses these days

 

[skybluetony176]

Oh Tony I’m referring to the 13th or is it 14th protocol on the convention. In all this excitement of forgotten which one it is. I’m sure Wiki will help you find the way though.

Do you think an act of Parliament can stop freedom of movement Tony and we can stay in the EU - what’s your thoughts on this exciting new development in the debate?

It’s 13 and it’s still a convention of the Council of Europe not the EU. It was also added in 2003 so nothing to do with the final elements of capital punishment in the U.K. being scrapped in 1998 so well done for dismissing your own point by bringing up protocol 13. We’re well into Roman Empire vs Holy Roman Empire territory again here aren’t we and as that time all you have to do is let you keep talking and you’ll dismiss your own points.

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Library_Collection_P13_ETS187E_ENG.pdf

Full list

Full list

 

[Grendel]

Utter nonsense on channel 4 tonight. It’s suggested we cannot delay Article 50 without a certain 27 other countries agree

What Tosh - we just need to create legislation to abandon the previous agreement and decide to do what we want as we have sovereignty in parliament

 

[skybluetony176]

I have put you back on ignore Tony I can only take your idiocy and desire for inclusion in very small doses these days

Off course you have. You’ve clearly checked on wiki (after the event) and there’s enough info in there to lead you in the right direction and that direction shows you’re talking nonsense. As usual.

In case you’re interested in some actual facts I’ve linked a pdf copy of protocol 13 and as you can see it dismisses your notion that protocol 13 put an end to capital punishment in any circumstances in 1998 for the simple reason it didn’t exist then. The document was opened for signatures in 2002 (4 years later) and ratified in July the following year, at which point it came into existence.

 

[Grendel]

Why is Tony still trying to get my attention - is he that desperate for my attention? Tony if you give £50 to my favourite charity I will never ignore you again - pass the message on to your sweetheart Mart and he will spread the news. Or is Mucca your new love interest Tony?

 

[skybluetony176]

Why is Tony still trying to get my attention - is he that desperate for my attention? Tony if you give £50 to my favourite charity I will never ignore you again - pass the message on to your sweetheart Mart and he will spread the news. Or is Mucca your new love interest Tony?

Why would I spend £50 on your favourite charity (by the way is it the horses don’t love horse racing because they keep running when the jockey falls off charity? If it is Astute needs their help) when you clearly aren’t ignoring me.


I’ve just sent you a link via pm by the for protocol 13 documents. As you can see it didn’t exist in 1998 so you’re wrong.

 

[Grendel]

Couldn’t help myself

It’s Tony Gold time

Imposter on GMK

 

[skybluetony176]

Couldn’t help myself

It’s Tony Gold time

Imposter on GMK

I take it you’ve read the pdf I sent you. First line on page 1 is enough ie the date.

Too small to admit you’re wrong and concede the point so attack the man instead. What an embarrassing excuse for a grown up you are.

 

[Grendel]

Hello what’s this. Tony will vote leave in the next referendum

The EU: In, out, shake it all about....

 

[skybluetony176]

Hello what’s this. Tony will vote leave in the next referendum

The EU: In, out, shake it all about....

Not sure what you’re trying to prove other than you’re a juvenile prat, which we all knew anyway.

Reading that document really must be a bitter pill for you.

 

[Sick Boy]

I have put you back on ignore Tony I can only take your idiocy and desire for inclusion in very small doses these days

Both you and astute seem to come out that line every week

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

My point is it without the abolition the EU Convention of Human Rights Act could not be ratified

Britain was the very first country to ratify the European Convention of Human Rights, back in 1951. Before we outlawed capital punishment.

The Human Rights Act of 1998 brought the ECHR into British Law and the our law pretty much copied the EU laws word for word

As I outlined earlier, EU laws and regulations will still influence us post-Brexit as the UK Government is literally copying most EU regulations word for word.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Or many are underestimating the need.

If there wasn't much of a need to avoid a no deal why did the EU say hardly anything would change for at least 12 months. And that is was for the benefit of those remaining countries in the EU and not us.

Some people just don't want to consider why though.

Might just be simply the most sensible thing to do to get things sorted