PDA

View Full Version : Theresa May to fight 2020 election on plans to take Britain out of EC Human Rights



AtW
28th December 2016, 23:31
"Theresa May will put plans to pull out of the European Court of Human Rights at the heart of her campaign for the 2020 general election campaign, after ministers conceded that reform plans have been delayed by Brexit.

The Prime Minister is understood to be backing plans to “lift and shift” human rights enshrined in the European Convention and write them into UK law.

Mrs May’s plans go further than those drawn up by her predecessor David Cameron because they will give the Supreme Court the final say over how the rights are applied."

Theresa May to fight 2020 election on plans to take Britain out of European Convention on Human Rights after Brexit is completed (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/28/theresa-may-fight-2020-election-plans-take-britain-european/)

So that means Brexit won't happen until after 2020 and only if she gets elected...

NickFitz
28th December 2016, 23:46
The "Theresa May to fight 2020 election" bit begs a rather obvious question :rolleyes:

NickFitz
28th December 2016, 23:56
On a more serious note, the Good Friday Agreement requires the European Convention on Human Rights to be directly enforceable in Northern Ireland. So unless she wants to add renegotiation of the Irish Question to the already extremely long list of things she has to renegotiate, she might have to rethink this one. Well, think this one - I doubt much actual thought went into it in the first place.

AtW
29th December 2016, 00:01
I doubt much actual thought went into it in the first place.

The only thing they know for sure now is that Brexit means Brexit.

They are still trying to figure out what it actually is ...

Paddy
29th December 2016, 00:04
"Theresa May will put plans to pull out of the European Court of Human Rights at the heart of her campaign for the 2020 general election campaign, after ministers conceded that reform plans have been delayed by Brexit.

The Prime Minister is understood to be backing plans to “lift and shift” human rights enshrined in the European Convention and write them into UK law.

Mrs May’s plans go further than those drawn up by her predecessor David Cameron because they will give the Supreme Court the final say over how the rights are applied."

Theresa May to fight 2020 election on plans to take Britain out of European Convention on Human Rights after Brexit is completed (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/28/theresa-may-fight-2020-election-plans-take-britain-european/)

So that means Brexit won't happen until after 2020 and only if she gets elected...


Why not. Her husband is making a fortune selling illegal cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia and used to kill and maim thousands of people

NickFitz
29th December 2016, 00:08
The only thing they know for sure now is that Brexit means Brexit.

They are still trying to figure out what it actually is ...

It's red white and blue. Obvious really :rolleyes:

greenlake
29th December 2016, 00:09
"If you will not be turned, you will be destroyed!"

"Now, you will pay the price for your lack of vision!"

http://i.imgur.com/9keFM8c.jpg

NotAllThere
29th December 2016, 07:05
...

Theresa May to fight 2020 election on plans to take Britain out of European Convention on Human Rights after Brexit is completed (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/28/theresa-may-fight-2020-election-plans-take-britain-european/)

So that means Brexit won't happen until after 2020 and only if she gets elected...Full Brexit. The ECHR is not an EU thing. It is a Council of Europe thing. Even Russia is a member of that.

VectraMan
29th December 2016, 09:19
I liked this bit:



[Jeremy Wright, the Attorney General] told MPs: “Although we have no quarrel with the content of the European Convention on Human Rights, it is the way in which that document is applied that gives us difficulty.

Having the law applied to you can be difficult. :suicide:

BlueSharp
29th December 2016, 09:44
Full Brexit. The ECHR is not an EU thing. It is a Council of Europe thing. Even Russia is a member of that.

Dont confuse the Brexiters with facts. Brexit means Brexit. It has Europe in the name therfore we voted out.:wink

original PM
29th December 2016, 09:52
Dont confuse the Brexiters with facts. Brexit means Brexit. It has Europe in the name therfore we voted out.:wink

Well it was a bit more about not having to comply with regulations which quite clearly flew in the face of sanity.

So we cannot deport Abu Hamza the hook man - because it will be against his human rights - while all the time he is preaching hate and encouraging people to abuse other peoples human rights.

So you know maybe think about what it actually means before you blunder headlong into another 'Brexiters are stupid, remainers are great' rant.

Just saying loike!

BlasterBates
29th December 2016, 10:25
Dont confuse the Brexiters with facts. Brexit means Brexit. It has Europe in the name therfore we voted out.:wink

Absolutely....

European Court of Human Rights rules in favour of extradition Abu Hamza (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17657814)

:D

NickFitz
29th December 2016, 10:27
Well it was a bit more about not having to comply with regulations which quite clearly flew in the face of sanity.

So we cannot deport Abu Hamza the hook man - because it will be against his human rights - while all the time he is preaching hate and encouraging people to abuse other peoples human rights.

So you know maybe think about what it actually means before you blunder headlong into another 'Brexiters are stupid, remainers are great' rant.

Just saying loike!

"On 8 July 2010, the ECtHR temporarily blocked Hamza's extradition to the United States to face terrorism charges until the court was satisfied that he would not be treated inhumanely. The court based its judgement on ECHR, which applies to British law. It is an absolute prohibition for a signatory to the ECHR to remove anyone to a place where they would be subject to inhumane or degrading treatment… On 24 September 2012, the court said he could be extradited to the US to face terrorism charges." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hamza_al-Masri#Extradition_to_the_United_States

So it all turned out right once the correct procedures had been followed. I really don't see what the problem is with ensuring that even thoroughly objectionable people are dealt with according to the due process of the law.

That's the one case you cited dealt with. Perhaps you'd now like to cite some cases where the ECHR has protected people from injustice? Or is considering both sides of a complex question too much to ask for?

original PM
29th December 2016, 10:45
"On 8 July 2010, the ECtHR temporarily blocked Hamza's extradition to the United States to face terrorism charges until the court was satisfied that he would not be treated inhumanely. The court based its judgement on ECHR, which applies to British law. It is an absolute prohibition for a signatory to the ECHR to remove anyone to a place where they would be subject to inhumane or degrading treatment… On 24 September 2012, the court said he could be extradited to the US to face terrorism charges." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hamza_al-Masri#Extradition_to_the_United_States

So it all turned out right once the correct procedures had been followed. I really don't see what the problem is with ensuring that even thoroughly objectionable people are dealt with according to the due process of the law.

That's the one case you cited dealt with. Perhaps you'd now like to cite some cases where the ECHR has protected people from injustice? Or is considering both sides of a complex question too much to ask for?

The point is why do we have to have a European Court tell us what is right and or wrong?

It is a complex question but are we not mature enough as a nation to be able to manage that ourselves?

I think it is the assumption that if someone does not like what the UK legal system says then they can take that ruling to another body who seem to be able to overrule the UK legal decision......

Or are you concerned that this is just the first step towards a totalitarian state?

NotAllThere
29th December 2016, 10:59
---
So we cannot deport Abu Hamza the hook man - because it will be against his human rights - while all the time he is preaching hate and encouraging people to abuse other peoples human rights...Wrong. We couldn't initially allow the extradition of Abu Hamza because the European Court of Human Rights ruled that certain guarantees were required first.

Plenty of people here will quite happily preach hate and encourage people to abuse other people's human rights. In the UK there's this thing call freedom of speech. When he over-stepped the mark, he was arrested and charged. Eventually...

VectraMan
29th December 2016, 11:04
The point is why do we have to have a European Court tell us what is right and or wrong?

It is a complex question but are we not mature enough as a nation to be able to manage that ourselves?

Obviously not, as otherwise why would anybody be talking about leaving?

GB9
29th December 2016, 11:06
The point is why do we have to have a European Court tell us what is right and or wrong?

It is a complex question but are we not mature enough as a nation to be able to manage that ourselves?

I think it is the assumption that if someone does not like what the UK legal system says then they can take that ruling to another body who seem to be able to overrule the UK legal decision......

Or are you concerned that this is just the first step towards a totalitarian state?

We aren't socialist enough to make the correct decisions.

Yes, the EU is becoming totalitarian, hence the need for an EU army.

Good to see the pro-EU lobby are still posting drivel during the break though. Makes you wonder if they are bots of some sort.

NickFitz
29th December 2016, 11:11
The point is why do we have to have a European Court tell us what is right and or wrong?

It is a complex question but are we not mature enough as a nation to be able to manage that ourselves?

I think it is the assumption that if someone does not like what the UK legal system says then they can take that ruling to another body who seem to be able to overrule the UK legal decision......

Or are you concerned that this is just the first step towards a totalitarian state?

Because we won the war. The ECHR was drafted under the supervision of a British MP and lawyer, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, who had been a prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials - the prime example up to that point of an international court successfully holding the representatives of a nation state to account for criminal injustices they had perpetrated.

So maybe the question should be, why do the nations of Europe (not members of the EC, which is a completely separate thing) submit to a court created primarily under the supervision of the British to tell them what is right or wrong? And the answer would be that it is because a trans-national authority is seen as the most effective way of preventing the rise, in any of the nations subject to its authority, of a totalitarian regime that abuses the rights of its citizens and commits crimes against humanity. Quite reasonable goals, I reckon.

As the UK legal system incorporates a commitment to be bound by the rulings of the ECtHR, there is no question of not "managing that ourselves". The ECtHR is ourselves (in the sense of the British state), along with others, and the British legal system incorporates it on the grounds that the greater good is best served by accepting overarching legal obligations that are beyond the self-interested control of the government of the day.

And "the assumption that if someone does not like what the UK legal system says then they can take that ruling to another body who seem to be able to overrule the UK legal decision" is a false assumption. A UK legal decision can be overruled by the ECtHR if it is against the ECHR, and for no other reason. If it's against the ECHR, it is not a legally valid decision under UK law. It's no different to the Appeals Court overruling a lower court on the grounds that it failed to take some aspect of the law into account.

BlasterBates
29th December 2016, 11:18
https://www.bihr.org.uk/theconvention

Yes interesting.

The UK played a significant role in creating and writing the ECHR:

Winston Churchill called for ‘Human Rights Charter’ in the aftermath of World War II. He spoke about the strength derived from our sense of common values, and the Charter being “guarded by freedom and sustained by law” which ensured that “people owned the government, and not the government the people” (speech at The Hague, 1948).
One of the key writers of the ECHR was the British lawyer and Conservative politician David Maxwell Fyfe, who went on to become the UK’s Home Secretary.
The UK was one of the first states to sign the ECHR on 4 November 1950.

Leaving the ECHR is nothing more than showing two fingers at Winston Churchill, a populist policy designed to appease the "hard of thinking" who avidly read the Daily Mail and the Sun and hate the ECHR for no other reason than the word "European" is part of the name.

:D

BlueSharp
29th December 2016, 11:43
Well it was a bit more about not having to comply with regulations which quite clearly flew in the face of sanity.

So we cannot deport Abu Hamza the hook man - because it will be against his human rights - while all the time he is preaching hate and encouraging people to abuse other peoples human rights.

So you know maybe think about what it actually means before you blunder headlong into another 'Brexiters are stupid, remainers are great' rant.

Just saying loike!

Imagine a court demanding that someone gets a fair trial before being deported, unless of course you think it's acceptable to use torture to gain evidence? Once assurances were given that was the case the ECHR agreed he could be deported.

Unfortunately some who voted Brexit believed we could 'send them back' but we would have to leave the ECHR to do that not the e.u.

SueEllen
29th December 2016, 12:02
https://www.bihr.org.uk/theconvention

Yes interesting.


Leaving the ECHR is nothing more than showing two fingers at Winston Churchill, a populist policy designed to appease the "hard of thinking" who avidly read the Daily Mail and the Sun and hate the ECHR for no other reason than the word "European" is part of the name.

:D

Wonder what Murdoch,Darce et al are afraid of...

WTFH
29th December 2016, 12:32
Wonder what Murdoch,Darce et al are afraid of...

...not being able to control the masses through their newspeak.

darmstadt
29th December 2016, 13:43
If there was all this outcry about Imam Hook, then why did the UK let this guy in: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/17/banned-pakistani-cleric-syed-qadri-preaching-in-britain

AtW
29th December 2016, 14:21
So we cannot deport Abu Hamza the hook man - because it will be against his human rights - while all the time he is preaching hate and encouraging people to abuse other peoples human rights.

If he committed crimes in UK then he should have been jailed here, simples.

AtW
29th December 2016, 14:23
The point is why do we have to have a European Court tell us what is right and or wrong?

Because you don't want to be surprised by the Spanish Inquisition whilst partying in Ibiza.

HTH

NotAllThere
29th December 2016, 16:55
If there was all this outcry about Imam Hook, then why did the UK let this guy in: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/17/banned-pakistani-cleric-syed-qadri-preaching-in-britain

Because he only incites Muslims to hate each other?

SueEllen
29th December 2016, 17:53
If there was all this outcry about Imam Hook, then why did the UK let this guy in: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/17/banned-pakistani-cleric-syed-qadri-preaching-in-britain

Because the Home Office is thick.

darmstadt
29th December 2016, 18:52
Because the Home Office is thick.

We know that: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/28/dutch-woman-with-two-british-children-told-to-leave-uk-after-24-years

SueEllen
29th December 2016, 21:01
We know that: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/28/dutch-woman-with-two-british-children-told-to-leave-uk-after-24-years

You do, I do but not everyone else does including lots of Brexiters.

GB9
29th December 2016, 21:15
You do, I do but not everyone else does including lots of Brexiters.

You think you're intelligent but not everyone else does, including lots of Brexiters.

AtW
29th December 2016, 21:52
You think you're intelligent but not everyone else does, including lots of Brexiters.

Lovely SueEllen is delightfully intelligent - but I can see how that can upset weaker minds likes yours, Brexiter.

GB9
29th December 2016, 22:11
Lovely SueEllen is delightfully intelligent - but I can see how that can upset weaker minds likes yours, Brexiter.

Bless you young clone. Although I'm quite happy being a Brexiter and i'm clearly more intelligent than any Remnant.

Out of the USSR and into the arms of the Stalinist state of the EU. You keep doing exactly as you're told and your dodgy BTL will increase in value, we promise. You will be treated fairly in the new world and the great EU army will defend you from the likes of Putin. Honest.

We understand you were born stupid and clearly had a poor education, which is why you are what you are and why we will go easy on you. For your own sake I hope you have some sort of useful skill that you haven't yet revealed or it will be you picking fruit as your main source of income.

AtW
29th December 2016, 22:59
i'm clearly more intelligent than any Remnant.

Yes, you are, clearly

http://www.xrolley.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/HOMER-SCIMMIA-300x267.png

SueEllen
30th December 2016, 00:15
You think you're intelligent but not everyone else does, including lots of Brexiters.

How strange - I simply pointed out the Home Office was a thick government department due to personally knowing some of the foreign people they have made "odd" decisions about over the years, and he starts talking about something completely random.

I can only conclude certain Brexiters are paranoid about being put in the category of those who make immigration decisions in the Home Office e.g. thick racist bast****.

AtW
30th December 2016, 00:23
How strange - I simply pointed out the Home Office was a thick government department

This thicko worked in Home Office for 20 years.

HTH

NotAllThere
30th December 2016, 05:29
You think you're intelligent but not everyone else does, including lots of Brexiters.It's good that many Brexiters don't think they're intelligent. It's nice they're getting something right.