ECHR interfere in British Soverignty...

meghatronic · 14 Apr 2011 at 12:23

britboy4321 said:
Every study that has ever been done - using just about any remotely scientific method - puts the US as whipping the UK at living standards from a great height.

I find it slightly whimiscal people try to scientifically define something as subjective as 'living standards'. Especially crossing the cultural and economic divide.

britboy4321 · 14 Apr 2011 at 12:24

meghatronic said:
I find it slightly whimiscal people try to scientifically define something as subjective as 'living standards'. Especially crossing the cultural and economic divide.

I agree entirely - the only thing you can scientifically really define is spending power. For which the US wholly whips us. Which was my point from the start!!

If Europe acted as a super power, we'd have that same spending power ( in fact they reckon we'd overtake the US within about 8 years). You would be a LOT richer. I'd be a LOT richer. We'd all be a LOT richer.

but, nope, better to be skinter, and act all alone on this small island off the coast of Europe, and bicker constantly with all our neighbours over everything, so that our law makers are kind of British :/

Honestly, it grinds my gears!

franco_22 · 14 Apr 2011 at 12:58

lol stop talking about the US like it's gods gift to earth. I lived in North America before, don't base your opinions on your holidays to Florida please. Americans have almost no rights compared to Europeans and things there are not cheaper/expensive, it's very similar, the only thing really noticeable is the cost of petrol and land/houses (but they are thousand times bigger then England so what do you expect?).

Biohazard · 14 Apr 2011 at 16:30

semi-pro waster said:
The ability of Parliament not to bind its successors is great in theory

It isn't just 'theory' however.

semi-pro waster said:
but we a) can't/won't renegotiate our membership every time a change of government occurs and

Irrelevent, we can't have membership. Not without consent. They have true consent to trade with Europe. That is it.

semi-pro waster said:
b) none of the parties likely to get in appear to have any real interest in withdrawing so while de jure Parliament may not be bound, de facto it is. And in essence that means the same thing in law as it does in practice when you look to the substance of the matter.

That isn't a valid legal argument.

meghatronic · 14 Apr 2011 at 16:33

britboy4321 said:
I agree entirely - the only thing you can scientifically really define is spending power. For which the US wholly whips us. Which was my point from the start!!

As I've said all from the past : ze war, dominance on the word stage, 'world currency'. It will all change...

platypus · 14 Apr 2011 at 16:49

Strife212 said:
England doesn't have a constitution.

I still don't get why people say this or try to use it as an argument. Of course the United Kingdom has a constitution. It simply doesn't have a single document, but an uncodified or de facto constitution.

The British constitution is embodied in written form, statutes, court judgments, treaties and more, and has other unwritten sources, eg royal prerogatives.

Biohazard · 14 Apr 2011 at 16:57

It is a bit messy to be fair.

platypus · 14 Apr 2011 at 16:59

To be sure, and actually codifying it would help things, but we still have one

.

britboy4321 · 14 Apr 2011 at 17:21

Biohazard said:
It is a bit messy to be fair.

Agreed .. it's describing a load of hand written letters scattered over the floor of a room as a book.

Robbo · 14 Apr 2011 at 17:23

The European Court of Human Rights can shove it.

Nitefly · 14 Apr 2011 at 17:31

Biohazard said:
That isn't a valid legal argument.

Things don't have to have a legal basis to be used in a legal argument. Political pressure for example is often as effective, if not more so than legal pressure. You might be surprised to see how little of how our government is run is defined in law. For example, there is nothing in law that defines the role of the Prime Minister, it's simply a convention. However, a convention can have the same practical effect as a legal rule.

Biohazard · 14 Apr 2011 at 17:34

Nitefly said:
Things don't have to have a legal basis to be used in a legal argument. Political pressure for example is often as effective, if not more so than legal pressure. You might be surprised to see how little of how our government is run is defined in law. For example, there is nothing in law that defines the role of the Prime Minister, it's simply a convention. However, a convention can have the same practical effect as a legal rule.

Indeed, but it doesn't matter in this example.

Prime Minister's position isn't a good example, it is unwritten. Where as with our sovereignty it isn't. This "convention" with Europe topples the principle unto which every else undertaken by parliament is hinged upon.

It is very stupid.

Nitefly · 14 Apr 2011 at 17:39

Biohazard said:
Indeed, but it doesn't matter in this example.

Ah, I slightly misread the example that was being used.

In reality, we are bound to the EU and pulling out just isn't going to happen. In any country is going to decide to revolt the EU, my money is bet on Germany because they really don't like the ECJ messing with their grundgesetz.

Nitefly · 14 Apr 2011 at 17:41

Biohazard said:
Prime Minister's position isn't a good example, it is unwritten. Where as with our sovereignty it isn't.

Haha, I think you just unintentionally opened a massive can of worms - huge academic arguments and debates discuss whether parliamentary sovereignty came from the common law (in which case it only exists if the courts say it exists and can therefore be taken away) or is merely a convention... but I'd rather not go down that tedious garden path

Biohazard · 14 Apr 2011 at 17:41

Nitefly said:
Ah, I slightly misread the example that was being used.

In reality, we are bound to the EU and pulling out just isn't going to happen. In any country is going to decide to revolt the EU, my money is bet on Germany because they really don't like the ECJ messing with their grundgesetz.

In reality we aren't.

It is a pretence.

Pulling out isn't just going to happen no, but I don't think the European Ideal is exactly working out either.

meghatronic · 14 Apr 2011 at 17:41

britboy4321 said:
Agreed .. it's describing a load of hand written letters scattered over the floor of a room as a book.

Er no.

As a book is literally defined as being those pages glued or sewn together.

Whereas a constitution is "a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed" or, "a written record of this". We have both (cf. my previous post)!

Nitefly · 14 Apr 2011 at 17:46

Biohazard said:
In reality we aren't.

It is a pretence.

Well, we are. Unless you think it's fine to just ignore established principles in the same way in which we can just ignore any principle and pretend they never happened.

Biohazard · 14 Apr 2011 at 17:53

Nitefly said:
Well, we are. Unless you think it's fine to just ignore established principles in the same way in which we can just ignore any principle and pretend they never happened.

That is exactly how we are a member, by not gaining consent and ignoring the established principles that are Government operates and undertakes law and its own actions.

The day to day reality is we are a member of the EU, if we were applying our own laws and constitution fairly across the board to all Acts passed we legally cannot be a member.

It is if you selectively apply parts of our constitution that you have what we see today, membership. All we, and arguments like yours, have achieved is to undermine one of the pillars of our own establishment.

It shouldn't be happening in a de jure sense. Neither is there a true democratic mandate for it either.

A European ideal should not be an authoritarian one.

An EU that said it wouldn't accept a 'No' from Ireland either and promised to throw referendums at them 'till they agreed.

Where is the moral justification for this Europe love affair nonsense?

Nitefly · 14 Apr 2011 at 17:57

Biohazard said:
That is exactly how we are a member, by not gaining consent and ignoring the established principles that are Government operates and undertakes law and its own actions.

The day to day reality is we are a member of the EU, if we were applying our own laws and constitution fairly across the board to all Acts passed we legally cannot be a member.

What you say in the first paragraph is largely true in the sense that it was thought that a Parliament could not bind a successive Parliament. However that has shown to be simply not true. It is not that we legally cannot be a member, it is more that the legal dynamic has changed to make EU membership consitutionally legitimate.

Biohazard · 14 Apr 2011 at 17:59

Nitefly said:
What you say in the first paragraph is largely true in the sense that it was thought that a Parliament could not bind a successive Parliament. However that has shown to be simply not true.

Argumentum ad repetition.

Show me where it is not true.

Nitefly said:
It is not that we legally cannot be a member, it is more that the legal dynamic has changed to make EU membership consitutionally legitimate.

We cannot legitimately in the UK sense be a member without consent by way of referendum.

The legal dynamic hasn't changed, if it had Westminster wouldn't be there.