The EU can and do impose fines against the UK, not sure on judiciary as it isn't my area but certainly with regards to economics and trade.
Yes, yes they do. And we pay them.
ECHR interfere in British Soverignty...
- Thread starter Castiel
- Start date
The EU can and do impose fines against the UK, not sure on judiciary as it isn't my area but certainly with regards to economics and trade.
Yes, yes they do. And we pay them.
Because we have said so far that we will not change anything at all...
I don't think it is at all.
Merely contrasting and conflicting moral convictions, for want of better words.
It doesn't need to be dragged down to populum. If it was, the EU would be in tatters and you know it.
So they are imposing their judgement then?
Make your mind up, either they are seeking to impose a policy or they are not?
We have already committed to abiding by their judgements as part of our membership. They aren't imposing anything, we imposed the onus on ourselves to comply with the ruling they make, just as the supreme court (and the Law Lords before it) works.
'We' didn't, the UK state did.
The UK state acts on our behalf, for better or for worse. If the people of the UK didn't want to be in the EU et al, and felt strongly enough about it, then I imagine that UKIP would get considerably more votes than they currently do.
Nothing is being imposed; we signed up to this. And, personally, I'm very glad we did.
The unelected gubbins is a classic red herring. Justice should never be administered by elected individuals; everyone who has ever constructed a system of governance that functioned for any length of time has understood this.
The unelected gubbins is a classic red herring. Justice should never be administered by elected individuals; everyone who has ever constructed a system of governance that functioned for any length of time has understood this.
True, although it is worth remembering the UK state in the post WW2 period were instrumental in setting up the ECHR, as it it distinctly different from the EU.
It was, however, the creation of the Human Rights act that really stuffed us in this regard...
Indeed, I'm not convinced that the ECHR has got it right, but there needs to be something above elected officials. I would prefer it to be a strong constitution that far more limited the powers of the state than the ECHR currently does, but in the absence of such a document, the ECHR and the Supreme Court in the UK do a good job within their remits to protect us from the worst stupidities of democracy.
You are right that they could theoretically do it, but I fear it is too simple a solution in light of more concerning issues like the economy etc. Unfortunately the reason I think they have failed is general perception of the state of UKIP. They are not a grown up respectful serious political party. Yet?
Most polls conducted for years have shown there is a majority support for withdrawal from the EU. Politically this is known, that is why we were offered referendums that then vanished into the ether.
The narrow mainstream political centre is filled with a 'consensus' on the issue, and there is little serious option when other considerations tend to come first.
Lastly, the UK Government has no right to make these descisions on our behalf.
Not ceding our power of the people to another state.
No.
They are imposing something, regardless of whether we are members or not, it is an imposition as we do not want to abide by it.
I agree with the Judge in the article, the ECtHR should not be interfering in domestic law, and we should simply outlaw any such compensation they seek to impose.
It is high time we removed this Human Rights garbage and replaced it with a specific British Constitution outlining our basic human rights and rights as British Citizens.
Indeed. UKIP can't be taken seriously because while they have one strong policy which a lot of people agree on, they lack credibility or experience on others. Much like the BNP. Or the Lib Dems.
Biohazard said:
Arguably the missing link is that no one besides a handful of green inkers actually bothers to write to their MP about this sort of thing. Perhaps if they were lobbied more, they might raise it in parliament?
It could also be that parliament don't see our exit from the EU et al as beneficial in the wider sense. I'm uncertain of the benefits of our membership of the CoE, which is the relevant body in this case, but presumably there are some.
Biohazard said:
The people have already ceded power... to their own state
It is something we should be proud of in that respect.
I know this is a funky area with us, but clarification in law was correct.
Finding the happy medium is quite another.
Why lobby someone who is a proponent?
Unlikely to have an effect. 10 years later+, have I turned Dolph around?
No. (Not entirely
)Everyone acts as if it is lawful, so 'it is'.
It costs us very dearly. We should trade, not hand away our powers to the German block.
The people have already ceded power... to their own state
No we haven't.
That's fairly close to my view, I don't much care whether (a subset of) prisoners get the vote; but I care a lot about whether our government obeys the rule of law.
I'm a law student and I can see there's no point for me to even write an arguement for Europe in these forums, if you go to Speaker's Corner they are 99% bigoted middle class men so GD is even worse.
All I'm going to say thou is if you can't see the benefits and the improvements the ECHR and the EU has done for the people of this country over the last 30 years then I feel sorry for you.
Also, read signature.
All I'm going to say thou is if you can't see the benefits and the improvements the ECHR and the EU has done for the people of this country over the last 30 years then I feel sorry for you.
Also, read signature.
Why post then?
What has the EU directly done for us that could not be achieved by other means?
An out of context quote. Great.