The General Election in the United Kingdom

[The Voice of Reason]

2 hours ago, manxman1980 said:

I hate this idea whether it is from Reform or the Tories.  Leaving the ECHR would mean that the UK joins Belarus & Russia as the only European countries not a member.  I would like to think those two countries are not ones that the UK would seek to align itself with. 

Not sure of the relevance of Belarus and Russias non ECHR status is. The purpose of leaving the ECHR would not be to “align” with anyone. It would be to be able to set our own rules. 

 Sound familiar?  It’s that ‘S’ word again which strikes terror into the hearts of those who think we must always follow and be led like sheep, rather than organizing things in a way which suits us best.

No doubt a UKCHR would look, in most respects, like the ECHR but would have the ability to adapt to any particular different cultural, economic or societal differences. Sometimes one size does not fit all

 

 

[P.K.]

12 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

No doubt a UKCHR would look, in most respects, like the ECHR but would have the ability to adapt to any particular different cultural, economic or societal differences. Sometimes one size does not fit all

A UKCHR could also be hollowed out by an unscrupulous bunch of arseholes like the current lot who have been eroding our civil rights for some time now.

So disengaging from the protections provided by the ECHR would be a bloody stupid thing to do.

But then we are the country who left the EU...

[RoundTheCourse]

1 hour ago, P.K. said:

A UKCHR could also be hollowed out by an unscrupulous bunch of arseholes like the current lot who have been eroding our civil rights for some time now.

So disengaging from the protections provided by the ECHR would be a bloody stupid thing to do.

But then we are the country who left the EU...

That was the UK, not the Isle of Man

[The Voice of Reason]

10 minutes ago, RoundTheCourse said:

That was the UK, not the Isle of Man

It’s widely acknowledged on here that for the purposes of Brexit discussions, that for all intents and purposes the IOM can be lumped in with the UK as the effects are the same. 

As in the same way that the IOM wasn’t in the EU unlike the UK but for all practical purposes may as well have been

Edited June 18 by The Voice of Reason

[Mr. Sausages]

3 hours ago, Albert Tatlock said:

At my age - having worked through 3 major recessions, experienced several Black Friday's, Mucky Mondays, Twatty Tuesdays and 'Where's my money Wednesdays', and having to pay 15% interest on my mortgage - I think it is not I that is not facing up to reality.

I've seen all this hope and all these promises many times before.

Politicians rely on people's memories to fade. 

Was that 15% mortgage when that lefty thatcher was in charge?

[La Colombe]

Or 1992 and John Major? 

[La Colombe]

Bloody lefties. 

[manxman1980]

1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Not sure of the relevance of Belarus and Russias non ECHR status is. The purpose of leaving the ECHR would not be to “align” with anyone. It would be to be able to set our own rules. 

 Sound familiar?  It’s that ‘S’ word again which strikes terror into the hearts of those who think we must always follow and be led like sheep, rather than organizing things in a way which suits us best.

No doubt a UKCHR would look, in most respects, like the ECHR but would have the ability to adapt to any particular different cultural, economic or societal differences. Sometimes one size does not fit all

My concern would be that a UKCHR would be open to political interference and appointments.  Look at the state of the US courts which have political appointments as an example.  

 

[RecklessAbandon]

Farage threatens Reform vetting firm with legal action (msn.com)

This is pure sweet sweet entertainment value.

Farage is shocked to find out that Reform has undesirables in its ranks - /shockedface

[John Wright]

3 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Not sure of the relevance of Belarus and Russias non ECHR status i

Because that’s the company it would put the UK ( including the Crown Dependencies ) in. Pariah states who claim to have their own human rights.

 

3 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

The purpose of leaving the ECHR  … would be to be able to set our own rules. 

That’s exactly why a supra national body is required. I’m sure Hitler’s Germany, or Putin’s Russia or Lukashenko's Belarus all claI’m/claimed excellent human rights records. But only for those who had faces which fitted.

You mean like the UK passing legislation that says, whatever the dangers and abuses in Rwanda our courts must accept that it’s safe, whatever the actual facts say.

 

3 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

No doubt a UKCHR would look, in most respects, like the ECHR but would have the ability to adapt to any particular different cultural, economic or societal differences. Sometimes one size does not fit all

It might. But it might not, and its form and function could be subverted by Parliament. This is actually a case where one size does fit all. 

3 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

 

3 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

It’s that ‘S’ word again which strikes terror into the hearts of those who think we must always follow and be led like sheep, rather than organizing things in a way which suits us best.

If you mean sovereignty, we know you are completely transfixed by the S word. But it’s not sovereignty. It’s about recognising that any country, accidentally, or deliberately, abuse groups of its citizens or persons to which it owes a duty of protection, to their serious detriment, and that there should be an international standard by which they are judged, rather than the country setting its own standards and marking its own homework. “Suiting us best” is the  indicator par excellence of the absolute necessity of the Convention and Court.

[The Voice of Reason]

47 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Because that’s the company it would put the UK ( including the Crown Dependencies ) in. Pariah states who claim to have their own human rights.

 

That’s exactly why a supra national body is required. I’m sure Hitler’s Germany, or Putin’s Russia or Lukashenko's Belarus all claI’m/claimed excellent human rights records. But only for those who had faces which fitted.

You mean like the UK passing legislation that says, whatever the dangers and abuses in Rwanda our courts must accept that it’s safe, whatever the actual facts say.

 

It might. But it might not, and its form and function could be subverted by Parliament. This is actually a case where one size does fit all. 

If you mean sovereignty, we know you are completely transfixed by the S word. But it’s not sovereignty. It’s about recognising that any country, accidentally, or deliberately, abuse groups of its citizens or persons to which it owes a duty of protection, to their serious detriment, and that there should be an international standard by which they are judged, rather than the country setting its own standards and marking its own homework. “Suiting us best” is the  indicator par excellence of the absolute necessity of the Convention and Court.

It would not put the UK “ in the company of”  Russia and Belarus. The UK wouldn’t leave the ECHR just because they admired the human rights record of those two countries and wanted to be seen as part of a triumvirate. That’s a very disingenuous argument. 

I understand that Turkey is a member of the Council of Europe. Well who wants to be taking lessons in human rights from them?

And I also believe the ECHR has concerned itself with the issue of prisoners being able to vote in elections. Whatever your position surely this is something that an individual state should be able to decide for itself and not be nannied by a collective of however many states.
Like I have said previously each state will have cultural and societal differences and you can’t accommodate them all in one supra national body. One size definitely does not fit all.

There is perhaps room for a looser association of states who can provide a “sounding board “ for individual states when they are considering human rights issues. The members of such an association can share their experiences and highlight any pitfalls etc and might be quite a valuable asset. But as for imposing their will on individual states, forgive me but I prefer sovereignty.
Without sovereignty the UK might as well give itself up to say France or  Germany and say “ well, apparently we are incapable of governing ourselves, so we will become part of your country and you can do it for us. Thanks”

 

[Mr. Sausages]

6 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

 

, forgive me but I prefer sovereignty.
Without sovereignty the UK might as well give itself up to say France or  Germany and say “ well, apparently we are incapable of governing ourselves, so we will become part of your country and you can do it for us. Thanks”

 

Which rules would the Isle of Man follow in your deluded utopia?

[John Wright]

14 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

It would not put the UK “ in the company of”  Russia and Belarus. The UK wouldn’t leave the ECHR just because they admired the human rights record of those two countries and wanted to be seen as part of a triumvirate. That’s a very disingenuous argument. 

I understand that Turkey is a member of the Council of Europe. Well who wants to be taking lessons in human rights from them?

And I also believe the ECHR has concerned itself with the issue of prisoners being able to vote in elections. Whatever your position surely this is something that an individual state should be able to decide for itself and not be nannied by a collective of however many states.
Like I have said previously each state will have cultural and societal differences and you can’t accommodate them all in one supra national body. One size definitely does not fit all.

There is perhaps room for a looser association of states who can provide a “sounding board “ for individual states when they are considering human rights issues. The members of such an association can share their experiences and highlight any pitfalls etc and might be quite a valuable asset. But as for imposing their will on individual states, forgive me but I prefer sovereignty.
Without sovereignty the UK might as well give itself up to say France or  Germany and say “ well, apparently we are incapable of governing ourselves, so we will become part of your country and you can do it for us. Thanks”

 

You really don’t understand sovereignty at all. The way you use it it’s as a last refuge for a charlatan. But then you support Brexit, apparently on sovereignty grounds, so no one should be surprised.

[TheTeapot]

It's like performance art

[La Colombe]

Amazing that this clown got so many convinced by his Brexit project.