Brexit

MrsGrey

TheMadcapLaughs said:

Moojor, in theory all UK laws are controlled by the EU, in as much as the UK cannot pass laws that would conflict the EU.

But it can pass laws that don't contradict the EU ones.

I posted earlier in this thread an assessment of how much UK 'law' originates with the EU.

I started looking back to find t but then realised that nobody wants to know the facts, so I'll just go and have my breakfast instead :porkpie: :cappuccino:

MrsGrey

Barney said:

Bubbles / Moojor. The European court takes precedent over ours - the speaker made the point quite clear in the commons a few days ago. As an example the European Court of Human Rights is superior to our courts

Barney, the European Court of Human Rights has NOTHING to do with the EU!!!!!

Leaving the EU will not change the role of the European Court of Human Rights.

:weep:

MrsGrey

The ECHR has jurisdiction ONLY in respect of the Convention on Human Rights, that the UK signed up to (long before we joined the EU). It has no jurisdiction in ANY OTHER area of our law.

OldCastleSwift

MrsGrey said:

I started looking back to find t but then realised that nobody wants to know the facts, so I'll just go and have my breakfast instead :porkpie: :cappuccino:

In my experience, not necessarily on here, when you use fact in a Brexit debate, more often than not they're just dismissed as lies or Project Fear.

TheMadcapLaughs

Mrs G, for me your first line is the important thing. As a hypothetical, what if, in ten years time the EU is dominated by right wing populists, what if the course the EU wants to take becomes diametrically opposed to what the UK wants to achieve, what happens then. At the minute the EU is dominated by middle of the road chaps who cause little offence (to most), that may not always be the case. And Mrs G, for breakfast? Think of your cholesterol.

I just thought, I`m sure someone will say "we have the power of veto, just oppose things we don`t like". If we disagree with the whole agenda we will be stuck in a non functioning system costing us billions a year.

Barney

'The ECHR has jurisdiction ONLY in respect of the Convention on Human Rights, that the UK signed up to (long before we joined the EU). It has no jurisdiction in ANY OTHER area of our law'. Apologies - this was not a good example and I have learned something. The speaker did make it clear in the house that European courts are superior to ours.

ASLEFshrugged

The UK was one of the first countries to sign and ratify the European Convention on Human Rights because Winston Churchill was making plans for it and the Council of Europe during the war.

One of the main contributors to the ECHR was Tory MP and judge Sir David Maxwell Fyfe.

ValiantIron

Even better if I remember my history correctly, the ECHR was written mainly by British lawyers post-war. I am entirely in favour of the ECHR.

It's interesting where this debate has come round to. The best debate on Brexit I've seen anywhere incidentally! An important question seems to be does the scale of the EU work when it comes to balancing the needs of everybody? We already see this in the UK; are the interest rates right for the north of England or just set for the benefit of the south? Does the UK parliament care enough about Scotland, or is it too English-centric? So, will the UK lose out to the differing interests of France and Germany? This does mean that the argument for UK to leave the EU is I believe very similar to Scotland's argument to leave the UK!

What does happen if the EU swings to a direction we don't like or doesn't suit us? I consider this a long term structural question and ultimately decided that while nominally democratic, the EU institutions are not accountable enough for my taste and voted to leave. The distance between me and my representative is simply too great to be effective.

This doesn't solve the Irish border issue though...

TheMadcapLaughs

Aslef, are you OK? Are you well? I have posted a number of times in the past two days and you haven`t pulled them apart with logic and facts. :hmm:

And just for clarification: :biggrin:

ASLEFshrugged

TheMadcapLaughs said:

Aslef, are you OK? Are you well? I have posted a number of times in the past two days and you haven`t pulled them apart with logic and facts. :hmm:

And just for clarification: :biggrin:

I do have a life outside of WHU606.com.

I leave this thread for a few hours to drive a train, visit Old Mother shrugged or go down the pub and the next time I look there are 20 or more posts. I just can't be bothered reading them all - especially the very long ones without paragraph breaks :whistle:

MrsGrey

Barney said:

' The speaker did make it clear in the house that European courts are superior to ours.

Only in respect of legislation that originates from the EU and has been tranlsated into domestic law.

Our own UK-derived laws are not subject to the EU courts.

(And contrary to what people might tell you, it's nowhere near 'all' our law that comes from the EU.)

MrsGrey

TheMadcapLaughs said:

As a hypothetical, what if, in ten years time the EU is dominated by right wing populists, what if the course the EU wants to take becomes diametrically opposed to what the UK wants to achieve, what happens then. At the minute the EU is dominated by middle of the road chaps who cause little offence (to most), that may not always be the case.

I just thought, I`m sure someone will say "we have the power of veto, just oppose things we don`t like". If we disagree with the whole agenda we will be stuck in a non functioning system costing us billions a year.

Project Fear 2.0 :whistle:

Expat_Hammer

How many of you know life before the E U?
When Freddy Frog didn't want us as part of the club....

We managed OK then, so why not now?

grey_til_I_dye

Expat

Maybe because things have changed?

Vorselaarhammer

Before we joined the country was in pretty poor shape I thought. The reason we joined was to improve the economy.

My parents view is, they voted to join as it was an Economic decision they voted to leave because they felt it had become a political union without having been consulted.

TheMadcapLaughs

Vorse, if I could I would give you an excellent as well.

BubblesNeverDies

How many others voted leave because they mistakenly believed that the ECHR was part of the EU?
The Remain side should have probably done more to make that distinction clear.

chicagohammer

Picking up on Valiants comment that this is the best Brexit debate - I believe it is, and is so because despite the very strong beliefs held on both sides of the argument, it has not fallen to the level of childish name calling or personal attacks.

I wish I could forward it to our current Presidential administration :clap:

BubblesNeverDies

Chicago, yes I agree especially when you hear that Brexit has split families.
The one thing that helps is that we're all in the West Ham family and nothing can divide us - except maybe the debate on whether Noble is still any good. :biggrin: :scarf:

IronHerb

That's fighting talk Bubbles.

Cuz1

Yes bubbles leave still means, 1) to remove from. 2) to allow or cause to remain lol

Barney

Bubbles - I did not vote to leave because of ECHR. In fact my vote was to stay.
I have changed my mind because I see more and more control being taken by the EU and I dont like where it may end up. As I said previously the concept of a free trade area was good but the EU has expanded beyond that and it is not for me. The ECHR was a misunderstanding on my part and I have now been educated but not a major factor in my reasons for changing my view. I do however have an opinion on Noble...............

IronHerb

Barney, in or out?

Barney

I will take it to the ECHR for a ruling!

whupathman

not sure what all the fuss is about, on our form Europe is irrelevant anyway, never make the top 7 :sofa:

TheMadcapLaughs

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47838925

The power of the veto. Good to know that if a country believed that it would be in its own best interests, and the best interests of the EU, it could use its own judgement without fear or favour.

grey_til_I_dye

Not sure what your point is, Madcap.

It's the Irish Prime Minister giving his opinion, not a diktat from the EU.

As to 'without fear or favour' - that just sounds like 'without any consequences', which is not realistic.

Any country can still use their veto, if they don't mind the problems it causes for other members of the EU, and don't mind if that comes back on them later.

TheMadcapLaughs

It sounds like a veiled threat from Mr Varadkar to me. I assume these votes are done by show of hands or similar, perhaps votes should be done by secret ballot. It doesn`t seem very democratic to me: "Vote for this proposal, or else". If this is how it normally goes, what was the point of this latest jolly. A waste of time and money for a foregone conclusion.

grey_til_I_dye

Doesn't sound veiled to me at all. Seems quite up front about it.

He isn't saying 'do this or else' He's saying: 'you can do what you like, but there might be consequences if you choose to veto', as that will, in his opinion, cause problems for others. If a country can live with that, then they are free to veto.

To paraphrase:

If you make things difficult for us now, we won't forget it when you are the one who needs us to do something for you.

It's politics - you want something, you give something.

Seems a perfectly reasonable political, and indeed human response.

MrsGrey

.