UK General Election

[The Don]

QFT! And for showing that shameful Soba!

Now stop setting the bar for reasonable debate so damn high

The Don skulks off for a long hard think

 

[baron]

But the last years, all we hear from its leaders - first from Cameron, now from May - is that they want to leave the ECHR. Let May, if she has the guts, go on that same balcony in Strasbourg and explain why she wants to turn her back on Sir Winston's ideas and hope of shared European values of democracy and the rule of law.

Churchill would spin in his grave to see how his ideas of a united Europe and closer economic links have mutated into the intrusive, megalomaniacal surge towards a monolithic European state we see today. If he was in power we would have left the EU long ago.

 

[3point14]

My only comment is that different countries embed the ECHR into their own laws in different ways. We may or may not want to have a look at how (Blair, I think?) did this. We also may want to reassess some of the balances between, say, terrorist's rights to a family life and our desire to be rid of said terrorists. But this is a classic baby/ bathwater situation.

Well, I certainly wouldn't trust May with this assessment (even accepting, only for the sake of argument, that reassessment might be necessary). She flat out lies about these things.


That's, of course, assuming that it actually warrants anyone's time

 

[MikeG]

Well, I certainly wouldn't trust May with this assessment

Luckily, in a democracy such as ours, you don't have to. Plus, in her parlous and weakened state, there is absolutely nothing whatever that she can do without the will of parliament being behind her.

She flat out lies about these things.

Yeah, yeah, of course she does. Naturally. She's a Tory, of course, so she "hates wogs, poofs and Johnny Foreigner" and lies all the time.

 

[3point14]

Yeah, yeah, of course she does. Naturally. She's a Tory, of course, so she "hates wogs, poofs and Johnny Foreigner" and lies all the time.

No, I mean she's on record telling a deliberate mistruth about what the ECHR does and does not do.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/oct/04/theresa-may-wrong-cat-deportation

 

[ddt]

Churchill would spin in his grave to see how his ideas of a united Europe and closer economic links have mutated into the intrusive, megalomaniacal surge towards a monolithic European state we see today. If he was in power we would have left the EU long ago.

You get an F- for reading comprehension. I was talking about the Council of Europe, not the EU. They're two quite distinct organizations.

 

[ddt]

No, no, no. This is overblown. Hyperbolic.

Tell me, is New Zealand a member of the ECHR? Is it a dictatorship or a theocracy? You have set up a really very silly false dichotomy.

No, but New Zealand is not a European country. They wouldn't be eligible to join the CoE.

My only comment is that different countries embed the ECHR into their own laws in different ways. We may or may not want to have a look at how (Blair, I think?) did this. We also may want to reassess some of the balances between, say, terrorist's rights to a family life and our desire to be rid of said terrorists. But this is a classic baby/ bathwater situation.

That's bollocks. The ECHR, the Convention, is a treaty the UK signed up to. The ECHR's verdicts thus are binding in whatever way treaty obligations are binding, but in the first place, judges simply respect their authority.

The second is also Daily Mail talk. There's been one (suspected) terrorist about whom the ECHR said the UK could not send him back to Jordan because there was evidence he had been tortured there before. If you have a problem with the ECHR, please cite concrete cases so we can discuss the actual merits of the case, and not the DM distortion of it.

 

[MikeG]

.....That's bollocks................The second is also Daily Mail talk.......If you have a problem with the ECHR, please cite concrete cases so we can discuss the actual merits of the case, and not the DM distortion of it.

The tone in here is getting ridiculous. It is impossible to make a reasonable point without this sort of response.

OK, if that's the way it's going to be......your reading comprehension problems are preventing you understanding exactly which of the following words?:

.........this is a classic baby/ bathwater situation.

Sorry, a couple of those have more than one syllable. I'll help you with shorter ones if needs be.

Oh, and I have never even opened a Daily Mail in my entire life. I wouldn't sully myself.

 

[ddt]

The tone in here is getting ridiculous. It is impossible to make a reasonable point without this sort of response.

OK, if that's the way it's going to be......your reading comprehension problems are preventing you understanding exactly which of the following words?:

The intent of your inclusion of "a terrorist's right to family life" seems perfectly clear to me; it's to cast aspersion on the ECHR that they're terrorist huggers and needlessly protect them. If that was not the intent, my apologies, and I hope you recognize that in a climate where there are frequent attacks on the ECHR, that statement of yours is very likely to be construed in that manner.

Oh, and I have never even opened a Daily Mail in my entire life. I wouldn't sully myself.

My bad. Then maybe you trust Theresa May to be telling the truth about ECHR verdicts? We've seen above that she lies about them in the same vein as the tabloids do.

.........this is a classic baby/ bathwater situation.

Sorry, a couple of those have more than one syllable. I'll help you with shorter ones if needs be.

How cheap.

And now really on the substance. You've tried to evade the substance of my post by reacting on just one snippet, and then by casting a very vague aspersion on the ECHR.

First of all: what is the "bathwater" in this? What are those dreadful ECHR decisions that are so odious that they cannot be tolerated? Is it those verdicts about fair trial? Or about torture? Or about life without parole (which seems to have been settled in between Vinter vs UK and Hutchinson vs UK)? Or about LGBT rights? Or their injunction against the death penalty?

I name those latter two because those items are in the manifesto of the DUP. About the others have been verdicts against the UK by the ECHR.

Second, the fact of the matter is that the ECHR (the court) is the ultimate arbiter of the human rights laid down in the ECHR (the convention). Either you accept its verdicts, or you don't and you leave the ECHR and thus the CoE. I don't really see a compromise there. You can't just say "we accept the verdicts of the ECHR when we like them".

Third, as I argued before, the ECHR is the only guarantor of your human rights that is not subject to political whim. Without it, say, May could decide in the interest of political expedience, to re-introduce the death penalty (but to keep it civil, only in Norn and only for gays). Hyperbole? Maybe, but she'd need only 326 votes in the Commons for it, while in other European countries, that would require a lengthy change of constitution with supermajorities and whatnot.

 

[MikeG]

.......How cheap.

You started it, and you're in no position to criticise:

You get an F- for reading comprehension..........

-

And now really on the substance. You've tried to evade the substance of my post........

Because I have no real interest in it, nor in the ECHR, nor the HRA, nor in arguing about any of it. I only commented because of your hyperbolic statement about being either in the CofE or being with dictators and theocracies. Whilst I can see a number of ways in which HR protections could be improved, it's no big deal to me if it stays the same as it is now.

However, I don't worship at the altar of the ECHR as you so evidently do. It's just another flawed human construct, with some good bits and some bad bits. That you get hot under the collar about it doesn't bother me, but you shouldn't assume that everyone else feels the same way, or that those, like me, who are not particularly bothered about it one way or the other are somehow the equivalent of blasphemers trying to pull your whole CofE belief system crashing down.

 

[ddt]

Because I have no real interest in it, nor in the ECHR, nor the HRA, nor in arguing about any of it. I only commented because of your hyperbolic statement about being either in the CofE or being with dictators and theocracies. Whilst I can see a number of ways in which HR protections could be improved, it's no big deal to me if it stays the same as it is now.

However, I don't worship at the altar of the ECHR as you so evidently do. It's just another flawed human construct, with some good bits and some bad bits. That you get hot under the collar about it doesn't bother me, but you shouldn't assume that everyone else feels the same way, or that those, like me, who are not particularly bothered about it one way or the other are somehow the equivalent of blasphemers trying to pull your whole CofE belief system crashing down.

So you don't have anything to back up your aspersion against the ECHR. Nor any arguments against the, IMHO, rational arguments that I've brought in favour of it, other than to try to paint it as a "religion".

 

[Belgian thought]

Churchill would spin in his grave to see how his ideas of a united Europe and closer economic links have mutated into the intrusive, megalomaniacal surge towards a monolithic European state we see today. If he was in power we would have left the EU long ago.

He is dead you know, and I do not think you can take up his baton and espouse what you think this dead person might be doing in his death, since in his death there would be no thinking or spinning, apart from those spinning their interpretation of who he was.

Bit like Mohamed see ?

 

[MikeG]

So you don't have anything to back up your aspersion against the ECHR. Nor any arguments against the, IMHO, rational arguments that I've brought in favour of it, other than to try to paint it as a "religion".

You're not doing much to reduce the impression that you take this subject just a little too seriously. Your adherence to it is somewhat zealous, and that is the parallel I would draw with religion. I'm really thrilled for you that you find the ECHR so perfect.

 

[angrysoba]

You're not doing much to reduce the impression that you take this subject just a little too seriously. Your adherence to it is somewhat zealous, and that is the parallel I would draw with religion. I'm really thrilled for you that you find the ECHR so perfect.

The tone in here is getting ridiculous.

You know that it is not an argument to say that someone else is making their case with too much passion, right?

The argument is, or should be, whether the case itself stands up to scrutiny.

 

[MikeG]

The tone in here is getting ridiculous.

Indeed, as I said yesterday:

The tone in here is getting ridiculous. It is impossible to make a reasonable point without this sort of response...........

-

The argument is, or should be, whether the case itself stands up to scrutiny.

Indeed. But you might want to review my posts on this matter. I have no interest in the topic, yet by commenting on one single hyperbolic sentence in DDT's original missive I have been subject to a series of posts in increasingly strident and angry tones demanding I justify my position, and this despite me saying repeatedly that I don't have a position, don't have a problem with the ECHR or CofE, and don't have any interest in arguing about it.

Ridiculous indeed.

 

[ddt]

Indeed. But you might want to review my posts on this matter. I have no interest in the topic, yet by commenting on one single hyperbolic sentence in DDT's original missive I have been subject to a series of posts in increasingly strident and angry tones demanding I justify my position, and this despite me saying repeatedly that I don't have a position, don't have a problem with the ECHR or CofE, and don't have any interest in arguing about it.

Ridiculous indeed.

That's a misrepresentation of what happened. Darat simply asked you what you thought of the rest. Your reply to that certainly took a stance. The "baby/bathwater" clearly says you think there's something wrong with the ECHR that needs to be changed. You haven't clarified what the vague aspersion about terrorists' rights is, but it seems to be that cat's tale - and in that case, you indeed repeat Daily Mail talk, even if it's via the intermediary of Theresa May. If you really have no interest in the topic, say that outright instead of making vague aspersions. If you really have no interest in the topic, you have an awkward way of saying so.

I'll take the opportunity to advance two more arguments in favour of the ECHR. If you're not interested in the topic, then just say so or refrain from posting.

For the first argument, I give the floor to Richard Goldstone, the South-African judge who's (in)famous for his Gaza report:

Richard Goldstone, the South African judge who was a United Nations prosecutor at the international criminal tribunal, said it would be a “great pity for the United Kingdom to set this precedent”.

“It would enable some autocratic set of leaders around the world to say, ‘why should we be bound by international law if this great font of democracy, the United Kingdom, is pulling out?’”

In particular, Putin can chalk one up for dividing his enemies, and might be emboldened to also want to pull his country out of the ECHR. And a bit closer to home, the recent developments in Hungary and Poland also give reason for pause; neither Orban nor the Polish Law and Justice party have proven themselves to be committed to uphold human rights.

But unfortunately, there seem to be a strong movement both in the British political class and the population to detest and to want to withdraw from everything that has to do with Europe. Soon, the Royal Geological Society will get a grant to study whether the British Isles are really part of Europe.

I'll phrase the second argument in the form of a hypothetical letter with which May withdraws the UK from the ECHR; not as she might write it, but as it might be read by its recipients. It's steeped with sarcasm, but I'm sure you can distill the argument.

Dear Euro-wanking judges of the ECtHR:

As of today, the UK withdraws from the ECHR. Britain can take care of her own human rights, peacefully and without meddling from frogs, krauts, or cheeseheads with their annoying lecturing, like we did in 1215 with the Magna Carta and in 1688 with our Bill of Rights.

The Good Friday Agreement sets out that you have jurisdiction over certain matters in Northern Ireland, because the republican bomb throwers didn't trust British courts. That's your fault because you said our brave lads doing their duty over there were torturing them. It's now politically expedient for me to hop into bed with the unionist bomb throwers. I realize that's stirring the pot, so could you help me out there by keeping the lid on it by keeping up your end of the bargain? Free of charge, of course. You don't want them to start again throwing bombs in London, or worse, at another Tory party conference? But you're still wankers.

Ta ta for now,
Theresa May, PM of the Empire where once the sun never set

ETA: some notes for the less historically inclined:

The barons who rebelled against King John were aided by Louis VIII of France who even invaded England and held London for a while. The Glorious Revolution was made possible by William III of Orange's invasion. No krauts involved in those two events but it seemed wrong to leave them out.

The part about the Dutch lecturing other states on things like human rights is not just self-humor but an actual reputation that Dutch diplomats have gotten in the latter half of the 20th Century.

 

[3point14]

Because I have no real interest in it, nor in the ECHR, nor the HRA, nor in arguing about any of it. I only commented because of your hyperbolic statement about being either in the CofE or being with dictators and theocracies. Whilst I can see a number of ways in which HR protections could be improved, it's no big deal to me if it stays the same as it is now.

However, I don't worship at the altar of the ECHR as you so evidently do. It's just another flawed human construct, with some good bits and some bad bits. That you get hot under the collar about it doesn't bother me, but you shouldn't assume that everyone else feels the same way, or that those, like me, who are not particularly bothered about it one way or the other are somehow the equivalent of blasphemers trying to pull your whole CofE belief system crashing down.

Can you show us one erroneous or contentious decision by the ECHR?

There's the vastly publicised one where the current PM lied about the cat.

What is it that we cannot do that you want us to be able to do that the ECHR prohibits us from doing?

 

[ddt]

Here's a Guardian article which highlights some landmark cases.

 

[3point14]

Here's a Guardian article which highlights some landmark cases.

Thank you for that.

I still can't see the pressing need to be out from under the yoke of the ECHR.

 

[MikeG]

Can you show us one erroneous or contentious decision by the ECHR?

There's the vastly publicised one where the current PM lied about the cat.

What is it that we cannot do that you want us to be able to do that the ECHR prohibits us from doing?

You really don't get it, do you. I haven't got a problem with the ECHR. I have no interest in discussing it. It isn't perfect, I'm sure, but I don't give a damn if it is never touched. Really, why do I have to keep saying this?

Please don't ask me again. I am not going to get into a position where I can be construed to be criticising it by people who think it perfect.