Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 5

Status
Not open for further replies.
Degeneve said:
Here a few of the biggest ones:
Click to expand...

Mostly agree with those, but the original letter didn't go into that level of detail.

I assume that they've survived a few VAT visits with their processes, otherwise they may heading for a large bill.
 
Seismosaurus said:
Sovereign states often have extradition treaties and other such arrangements, do they not? I don't see why we couldn't agree something along those lines with the EU.
Click to expand...
Yes, extradition treaties will probably be negotiated. But HMG would prefer to keep the european arrest warrant. No opinion on that?
 
Mr Fied said:
IIRC the European Court of Human Rights is part of the Council of Europe and not the EU. Russia is a member of the council of Europe.

So unless we had a referendum to leave the Council of Europe we would still be bound by the ECHR.
Click to expand...

Now you are just confusing them.
Who would have thought that there can be separate things with the word Europe in their name?
 
ceptimus said:
It was one of May's fudge attempts. Put the people who favour a hard Brexit in charge of assessing the soft option, and the soft Brexit advocates in charge of assessing a slightly harder (though still soft really) option. She hoped they would somehow come to a fudgy compromise position. All pointless anyhow as the EU will likely say no to either option, or to some mixture of the two options.
Click to expand...

Yeah curse the EU for having all those rules and sticking to them. Maybe you might want to blame the Leave supporters who promised the earth to get people to vote leave? But I suppose taking responsibility is like honesty, not really a Leave thing.
 
Mr Fied said:
Many voters after an election oppose the result of that election.

Is it democratic to deny the people the right to have a differing view to the outcome of a vote?

The main reason I object to the referendum is not the result of the vote, but the fact that no one knew what the outcome of a leave vote entailed. As can be seen by the state the government is in now.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that promises were made to influence voters that's it now clear the Brexiteers can't/won't keep.
 
ceptimus said:
We don't want to leave the European Arrest Warrant. It's the EU in the shape of Michael Barnier that is threatening to kick us out and make everyone less safe. Understandable that he thinks threats to the UK are more important right now than the safety of EU citizens.
Click to expand...
Yet more rubbish.
 
ceptimus said:
Let me guess why. Because that's what the EU says, and you accept all EU pronouncements as if they were some kind of natural law?
Click to expand...
If the UK wants to be within the EAW 'zone' then it stays within the jurisdiction of the European courts! It's really very simple.
 
ceptimus said:
We don't want to leave the European Arrest Warrant. It's the EU in the shape of Michael Barnier that is threatening to kick us out and make everyone less safe. Understandable that he thinks threats to the UK are more important right now than the safety of EU citizens.
Click to expand...

But Brexit means Brexit.

Another point that wasn't made clear before the referendum.
 
Seismosaurus said:
For example, being subject to EU Regulations and Directives, the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights.
Click to expand...
Are there any EU regulations or directives that you have a particular problem with? Or any ECJ ruling that you object to? Or is it just the principle of the thing that bothers you?
 
Seismosaurus said:
For example, being subject to EU Regulations and Directives, the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights.


I hope so. Time will tell.
Click to expand...
The ECHR is nothing to do with our EU membership, it's something that Churchill set up and was drafted mainly by the UK.
 
Darat said:
The ECHR is nothing to do with our EU membership, it's something that Churchill set up and was drafted mainly by the UK.
Click to expand...

...and it's something that Theresa May has said in the past that she wants to be free from:

Theresa May is planning on making the case to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) a central aspect of her 2020 election campaign, according to reports.
Click to expand...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ts-2020-general-election-brexit-a7499951.html

Post Brexit UK seems to want to be a pastiche of President Trump's US, unfettered from international trade obligations, free from international human rights legislation, increasing defence spending and blaming immigrants for society's ills :(
 
I am aware some people dislike the ECHR and I know May wanted rid of it. I struggle to find objectionable rights in there and wonder which right May wants rid of. I suspect in reality it is none. Happy for people to identify the obnoxious rights in the list below. I recall MAy constantly blamed the ECHR for being unable to deport Abu Hamza. In reality the court didn't object, the delay was all from the UK end.

Main articles.

Article 1 – Obligation to respect human rights
Article 2 – Right to life
Article 3 – Prohibition of torture
Article 4 – Prohibition of slavery and forced labour
Article 5 – Right to liberty and security
Article 6 – Right to a fair trial
Article 7 – No punishment without law
Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life
Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
Article 10 – Freedom of expression
Article 11 – Freedom of assembly and association
Article 12 – Right to marry
Article 13 – Right to an effective remedy
Article 14 – Prohibition of discrimination
 
Lothian said:
I am aware some people dislike the ECHR and I know May wanted rid of it. I struggle to find objectionable rights in there and wonder which right May wants rid of. I suspect in reality it is none. Happy for people to identify the obnoxious rights in the list below. I recall MAy constantly blamed the ECHR for being unable to deport Abu Hamza. In reality the court didn't object, the delay was all from the UK end.

Main articles.

Article 1 – Obligation to respect human rights
Article 2 – Right to life
Article 3 – Prohibition of torture
Article 4 – Prohibition of slavery and forced labour
Article 5 – Right to liberty and security
Article 6 – Right to a fair trial
Article 7 – No punishment without law
Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life
Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
Article 10 – Freedom of expression
Article 11 – Freedom of assembly and association
Article 12 – Right to marry
Article 13 – Right to an effective remedy
Article 14 – Prohibition of discrimination
Click to expand...


They want to replace the ECHR with a Bill of British Rights whatever they are.
I think it is 9, 10 and14 that most of those that support leaving want rid of.
 
As for Directives and Regulations, anyone trading with them (and it is a very large chunk of our trade) will still be stuck with aligning with them...we just won't have any say.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
They want to replace the ECHR with a Bill of British Rights whatever they are.
I think it is 9, 10 and14 that most of those that support leaving want rid of.
Click to expand...

Which one does prisoners having the vote come under ? I think there is a lot of opposition to that one.

IMO it's not so much specific rulings or rights that they object to so much as there being a higher court that people can appeal to and then can overrule the UK courts. If our courts allow us to break our own laws then there shouldn't be a right of appeal to a higher court who will remind us of our legal obligations.


edited to add...

and Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life

Isn't that the one that Theresa May lied about when she claimed was used by someone to avoid deportation because they had a cat ?
 
Last edited:
Lothian said:
Sovereignty is the one argument I don't understand. By that I mean I don't understand what specifically you are objecting to.
Click to expand...

I suppose it means that the UK isn't completely free to implement whatever legislation we want because our ability is constrained by EU laws. Of course by extension that means that the UK shouldn't engage in any international treaties whatsoever because to a greater or lesser extent, they constrain our ability to do exactly what we want.

For example, the Paris Accord limits our ability to pollute as we see fit and other international busybodies prevent us torturing people, laying landmines indiscriminately and seizing the whole of Antarctica.

An argument can be made that other international treaties are limited in their scope whereas the relationship with the EU is much broader and has many more touch points. That said, as I understand it, the UK has voted in favour of the vast majority of EU legislation and will usually have an opt-out where the terms are too onerous.

IMO there is a risk that other counties may actually have greater leverage on the UK post-Brexit than the EU currently have and as a consequence, our sovereignty will be even more constrained and curtailed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom