This thread has nothing whatever to do with the EU. In case you haven't noticed, this thread is about the European Convention on Human Rights.
Again, amazed I would have to explain the point to a person with anything other than minimal intelligence, so I'll assume you're taking the pee
The timing is all to do with the run up to the next general election and the crux of the argument is who is the higher authority, the UK Parliament or the ECHR. Who is more likely to do us harm, the EU or our own Government. We have laws that probably cover all of the 15 points that Pete mentioned. Why do we need the ECHR who tells us that we can't expel undesirables who have been through due process in the UK courts ?
Well you introduced Scandinavia. OK, so instead of explaining what you mean in a clear, straightforward way, you prefer to confine yourself to saying that you are amazed you would have to explain the point. And you still don't explain what the point is, if any. More and more mystifying.
Whats the answer to the earlier question then pete or is it only others who must answer to you? Does Skandanavia answer to the European courts the same way as UK? Does Europe have a monopoly on Human Rights? Ergo, as you are suggesting, neigh commanding, not in Europe means not able to have Human Rights. Thats what you suggested, no one else. So a UK without European courts means no human rights, right Pete? Or do you accept. As common sense suggests, human rights are just that: human
The problem is quite simply these 2% are problems nobody in their right mind would advocate walking away from the ECHR but then again nobody in their right mind would blindly follow the ECHR in these 2% cases if there was another option what is needed when these 2% cases arise is that the uk has an option to review and if necessary not follow the ECHR in an open manner where full facts are made public
Pete, would that Law include the right to vote against GM food? I certainly do not remember being asked if I agree with Monsanto. Do you agree with Monsanto? As a Human Being, I want safe food, as a Human Being, I need natural seed, not a pot noodle hanging from a tree.
"Middle-class families could be freed from 40% tax rate within 1 year of a Tory victory" Another piece of electioneering, another empty promise.
Oooh, I know the answer to this one! Is it, Our own Government? I only say this because up until now, our own Government has done us much more harm and I expect that will continue indefinitely.
Pete you are a great wordsmith however it is a basic premise of justice and society is that with rights come responsibilities Nowhere in any of these discussions is there a court for human responsibilities
Human Rights are supposed to be basic and without condition, they are not reliant on a corresponding list of responsibilities,
If they are basic and without condition would it not be reasonable to assume that they are covered by our infinitely more complex legal system. So why do we need a supranational body such as the ECHR ? Ultimately this is a question about sovereignty and who has the final say about matters relating to how we are governed. I believe the British are best positioned to safeguard the interests of the British. Have trade agreements and treaties by all means but the ultimate power over what happens within the UK should be the UK Parliament.
