Do you want to discuss boring politics? (47 Viewers)

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
I don’t think you’re wrong sick boy. It certainly helps provide the government with anti EU ammunition at a critical time for them and in a way, rightly so. whether people agree with the policy or not* the ECHR shouldn’t be overruling our courts on such matters.


* If it was going to act as a genuine deterrent to traffickers you could maybe argue a case for it, I’m personally not convinced though. It looks and feels like a distraction and a waste of time and money.
The ECHR is nothing to do with the EU, it’s part of the Council of Europe which Boris’ hero Churchill set up with the other founding 10 members. It was set up in the wake of WW2 to guarantee amongst other things Human Rights so the atrocities of WW2 wouldn’t be repeated in Europe. We’ve been a member since 1949 and it hasn’t been an issue in 72 years for any government, except this bunch of grifters.
 

CCFCSteve

Well-Known Member
The ECHR is nothing to do with the EU, it’s part of the Council of Europe which Boris’ hero Churchill set up with the other founding 10 members. It was set up in the wake of WW2 to guarantee amongst other things Human Rights so the atrocities of WW2 wouldn’t be repeated in Europe. We’ve been a member since 1949 and it hasn’t been an issue in 72 years for any government, except this bunch of grifters.

But from memory (and I might be wrong) by leaving the EU it would leave the door open to leave the ECHR* ? Remaining in the EU would mean no chance. That’s how the government may well play it

*when I say leaving I should’ve said allowing them to overrule our courts. Again from memory there was talk about a Bill of Rights that would stop this from happening
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
I don’t think you’re wrong sick boy. It certainly helps provide the government with anti EU ammunition at a critical time for them and in a way, rightly so. whether people agree with the policy or not* the ECHR shouldn’t be overruling our courts on such matters.


* If it was going to act as a genuine deterrent to traffickers you could maybe argue a case for it, I’m personally not convinced though. It looks and feels like a distraction and a waste of time and money.
The echr has nothing to do with the EU
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
It's not really when you've got all the dickhead red wall Tory intake talking about leaving the EHRC.

Look at the state of these clowns


Mr brexit himself



Like I said, brexit was supposed to turn the clock back to 1973, it actually turned it back to 1960, they now want to turn it back to 1949.

Someone has also pointed out that only two countries have ever left the ECHR, Greece temporarily after a military coup and Russia after invading Ukraine. That’s the direction of travel.
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
But from memory (and I might be wrong) by leaving the EU it would leave the door open to leave the ECHR* ? Remaining in the EU would mean no chance. That’s how the government may well play it

*when I say leaving I should’ve said allowing them to overrule our courts. Again from memory there was talk about a Bill of Rights that would stop this from happening
I was listening to an expert on the radio and they said the opposite, leaving the EU has made it almost impossible to leave the ECHR.

Coincidently only 2 countries have left it, Greece temporarily when they were in Civil War after a military coup, and then Russia recently when they invaded Ukraine.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
 

Alan Dugdales Moustache

Well-Known Member
You’re partially right. I do live in a fucked up world, as do you. It’s paranoia that got us here promoted and continuing to be promoted by people like Boris with phoney culture wars. Illegal immigrants and asylum seekers being part of that and I it’s staring everyone in the face.

For starters the boat crossings is not how the vast majority of illegal immigrants get here, the vast vast vast majority arrive legally with a visa then overstay, the government are neither talking or dealing with that. Pritti Patel has not met the top man in immigration since he started his job 18months ago, cancelling 6 meetings with him, put it’s apparently a priority. There is no safe route to the UK for asylum seekers, the war in Ukraine has proven this, there’s still thousands of Ukrainians stuck on the continent try to get to the UK to meet family and sponsors and the government despite promising to change the process months ago to speed this up haven’t. They have useful idiot Ferage pointing at boats of the south coast driving paranoia to the point where they can “deal” with the narrow end of the wedge while ignoring the bigger issues regarding illegal immigration.

If they really want to stop people crossing the channel at the hands of criminal gangs then the answer is simple and cheaper than Rwanda flights designed purely to create a headline for a culture war. Offer asylum seekers safe passage, deal with their application before they attempt the journey. We have a consulate in Calais, put it to use. If nothing else if people are still crossing by boat you can say without doubt that they’re illegals because at the moment the vast majority of them are successful in claiming asylum. But it suits this government to keep the British paranoid because holding onto lies is the only thing that will keep them in power and they know it.
Disagree with some of this Tony but fair play to you mate.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
But from memory (and I might be wrong) by leaving the EU it would leave the door open to leave the ECHR* ? Remaining in the EU would mean no chance. That’s how the government may well play it

*when I say leaving I should’ve said allowing them to overrule our courts. Again from memory there was talk about a Bill of Rights that would stop this from happening
Sounds like you’re selling joining the EU. Clearly our government can’t be trusted to do the right things without the checks of EU membership.

Think I’m right in saying that only UN members can join the EU. So you could argue that leaving the EU has left the door open to leaving the UN. But I’m being paranoid according to some (not you Steve).
 

CCFCSteve

Well-Known Member
I was listening to an expert on the radio and they said the opposite, leaving the EU has made it almost impossible to leave the ECHR.

Coincidently only 2 countries have left it, Greece temporarily when they were in Civil War after a military coup, and then Russia recently when they invaded Ukraine.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

I’ve not heard that but they’re likely to have a better knowledge than me on the subject so I can’t counter ! I’d make the point about pushing a bill through parliament that stops ECHR overruling our courts decision. Not sure if that was covered or if I got the wrong end of the stick but from memory (all this is pre 2016) I think that was the suggested aim/argument
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
I’ve not heard that but they’re likely to have a better knowledge than me on the subject so I can’t counter ! I’d make the point about pushing something through parliament that stops ECHR overruling our courts decision. Not sure if that was covered or if I got the wrong end of the stick but from memory (all this is pre 2016) I think that was the suggested aim/argument
I cant see that ever getting through the Lords, or being voted through full-stop. Its a red herring. Its very likely the policy is going to be deemed illegal when it has the judicial review next month.

The UK courts only agreed there would be no irreparable damage of a person being sent to Rwanda for a month and brought back if the judicial review rules that the policy is illegal. It was not a judgement on the policy itself.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
 

Sick Boy

Super Moderator
I don’t think you’re wrong sick boy. It certainly helps provide the government with anti EU ammunition at a critical time for them and in a way, rightly so. whether people agree with the policy or not* the ECHR shouldn’t be overruling our courts on such matters.


* If it was going to act as a genuine deterrent to traffickers you could maybe argue a case for it, I’m personally not convinced though. It looks and feels like a distraction and a waste of time and money.
The ECHR has nothing to do with the EU but granted a lot of people will assume it does and it fires up Johnson's vacuous followers and returns to the ever-ongoing EU bashing to distract away from his domestic problems.
It's a definite waste of time and money but it's all part of their ever-depressing culture war - 'lefty-lawyers' has been repeated numerous times to the press over the last week.
 

David O'Day

Well-Known Member
Mr brexit himself



Like I said, brexit was supposed to turn the clock back to 1973, it actually turned it back to 1960, they now want to turn it back to 1949.

Someone has also pointed out that only two countries have ever left the ECHR, Greece temporarily after a military coup and Russia after invading Ukraine. That’s the direction of travel.

Lewis Goodall is usually pretty good, says this about Brexit and leaving ECHR:



You don't have to be "pretty good", it's not an opinion piece.

The brexit agreement means we can't leave the ECHR without negating that.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
I didn't think treating people with respect and consideration was the sole preserve of lefties, tbf. Odd that some Tories seem to want to make it so.
 

Philosoraptor

Well-Known Member
Best not to leave the ECHR, it is the only thing that protects you from the Government.

It is like the American's Bill of Rights, but with many more individual Rights, including the right to life.
 

Philosoraptor

Well-Known Member
The Tory's aren't the only one who have tried to rubbish it in the past. Labour under Blair has a fine record of running up against it.

Because any European Government don't have control over the ECHR then they can't change your own personal Rights on a whim or whenever it suits them.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Best not to leave the ECHR, it is the only thing that protects you from the Government.

It is like the American's Bill of Rights, but with many more individual Rights, including the right to life.
People don’t seem to realise that the ECHR protects their rights above anything else. It’s primary purpose is not to protect the rights of people arriving from outside the jurisdiction of the ECHR.
 

David O'Day

Well-Known Member
People don’t seem to realise that the ECHR protects their rights above anything else. It’s primary purpose is not to protect the rights of people arriving from outside the jurisdiction of the ECHR.

The maddest thing is the judgement was moderate and reasonable, all it said was wait until the UK courts have decided if the policy is legal
 

Philosoraptor

Well-Known Member
People don’t seem to realise that the ECHR protects their rights above anything else. It’s primary purpose is not to protect the rights of people arriving from outside the jurisdiction of the ECHR.

It is to protect everyone's rights in countries from Governments who are signatories to the various stuff which is in it.
 

Philosoraptor

Well-Known Member
To put it another way, it is what binds countries together. These Rights should be the last thing standing above everything else, until a civilization descends into anarchy.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Anyone who hasn’t read Britannia Unchained, I’d advise you to do so.

I haven’t read it but I know the gist, problem is I don’t think the newer Tory voters would go for a libertarian wet dream.

What those people want is the ability to set our own laws so they can be even nicer to our vulnerable, stop the immigrants having council houses so my cousin can get one. Crack down hard on crime. Increase NHS capacity by removing the brown people. That sort of thing. None of them are desperate for a flat tax or a race to the bottom on workers rights.

That’s always been the fault line in the Brexit coalition. “Kick the foreigners out so my nan gets more pension” vs “Scrap all EU regulation so I can hire 8 year olds from India”

And on the wider right: “I want my girlfriend to not have to sit in a child seat while I drive and smoke weed” vs “Steady as she goes old boy, I’ve got investments to worry about and I’d quite like to be nice to animals”.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top