UK General Election

[3point14]

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.

I'm sorry. I was under the impression you'd expressed an opinion in 'the whole 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater comment'.

I think you imply your position with the 'people who think it's perfect' comment. I would infer from that you think it's not.


Don't worry, I shan't trouble you further.

 

[baron]

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

If, as you implicitly assert, the ECHR does not hand down contentious verdicts, then surely it is redundant. It's like having someone shadowing you all day and making your decisions, and when asked to justify their presence say, "Well he tells me what to do and that's great because I agree with everything he says."

 

[MikeG]

I'm sorry. I was under the impression you'd expressed an opinion in 'the whole 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater comment'.

I think you imply your position with the 'people who think it's perfect' comment. I would infer from that you think it's not.


Don't worry, I shan't trouble you further.

Thank you. And of course it isn't perfect: it is a human construct.

 

[3point14]

Thank you. And of course it isn't perfect: it is a human construct.

I'm made by humans and I'm perfect from heat to toe, thank you.

 

[MikeG]

I'm made by humans and I'm perfect from heat to toe, thank you.

As perfect as your typing?

 

[3point14]

As perfect as your typing?

In Persia, they weave a deliberate imperfection into their magnificent rugs because, as I understand it, only Allah is perfect.

It's the same with my typing.

 

[wobs]

In Persia, they weave a deliberate imperfection into their magnificent rugs because, as I understand it, only Allah is perfect.

It's the same with my typing.

That's how I justify my DIY standards.

 

[ddt]

If, as you implicitly assert, the ECHR does not hand down contentious verdicts, then surely it is redundant. It's like having someone shadowing you all day and making your decisions, and when asked to justify their presence say, "Well he tells me what to do and that's great because I agree with everything he says."

No, it's like a guy shadowing you and once in a while correcting your decisions. Withdrawing from the ECHR is like firing that guy.

And 3point14 does not claim that the ECHR does not make contentious decisions. He's asked MikeG to name a decision that MikeG thought contentious, because MikeG made that "baby with bathwater" comment which gave 3point14 as well as me the impression that MikeG thought there were contentious decisions that were worthy of discussion, but apparently MikeG is not interested in such discussion.

BTW, since the introduction of the HRA, which is a direct copy of the ECHR (the Convention) in British law, the caseload that ends up in Strasbourg from the UK has considerably decreased. But I remark that the Tory propaganda is equally directed at both the HRA and the ECHR.

 

[MikeG]

.......BTW, since the introduction of the HRA, which is a direct copy of the ECHR (the Convention) in British law......

Sort of. As I said before, different countries enshrine the convention into their domestic law in different ways. Ways which directly affect how domestic judges rule on ECHR requirements in Britain. We have enshrined it in quite a different way from Germany, for example. Which is why I said that we might, or might not, want to have a look at that Act again if there are any issues parliament feels it wants to deal with. That can be done without altering our membership of the CofE or the fact of our adherence to the ECHR.

I hope that isn't seen as a criticism of the ECHR, the CofE, or human rights in general, and it doesn't refer to any issues with any cases. I really don't care what we do in this field.

 

[baron]

No, it's like a guy shadowing you and once in a while correcting your decisions. Withdrawing from the ECHR is like firing that guy.

Correcting as defined by whom? That's making the assumption that the ECHR is a superior judgement body not just to our current legislation, but to any legislation we could possibly come up with.

And 3point14 does not claim that the ECHR does not make contentious decisions. He's asked MikeG to name a decision that MikeG thought contentious, because MikeG made that "baby with bathwater" comment which gave 3point14 as well as me the impression that MikeG thought there were contentious decisions that were worthy of discussion, but apparently MikeG is not interested in such discussion.

I imagine the overturning of any decision made by English court is contentious to some extent. To my mind this isn't the important aspect. The important part is the unfounded notion that we need another level of court beyond our Supreme Court because otherwise we are incapable of administering justice without trampling on our citizens' human rights.

BTW, since the introduction of the HRA, which is a direct copy of the ECHR (the Convention) in British law, the caseload that ends up in Strasbourg from the UK has considerably decreased. But I remark that the Tory propaganda is equally directed at both the HRA and the ECHR.

What specifically is concerning you?

 

[ddt]

Sort of.

Yes. The HRA include the provisions of the ECHR and a provision that a judge can give a "declaration of incompatibility" with domestic law and remand the incompatibility to Parliament for a fast-track procedure to fix it.

As I said before, different countries enshrine the convention into their domestic law in different ways. Ways which directly affect how domestic judges rule on ECHR requirements in Britain. We have enshrined it in quite a different way from Germany, for example.

Germany has simply taken (the translation of) the ECHR and rubberstamped it into federal law back in 1952. Later pronouncements of the German Constitutional Court give it power over other federal laws.

The Netherlands, Belgium and France have it even simpler: their constitutions say that international treaties automatically have the force of law and, at least in the Dutch case, supersede domestic law. That makes that a Dutch lawyer can simply invoke, say, art. 3 of the ECHR and relevant case law, in a domestic court.

[ and as an aside, I'm a bit puzzled why you would not go that route; after all, you sign and ratify a treaty because you want to abide by it. But different countries, different habits, and that's a discussion for another day. ]

Which is why I said that we might, or might not, want to have a look at that Act again if there are any issues parliament feels it wants to deal with. That can be done without altering our membership of the CofE or the fact of our adherence to the ECHR.

I hope that isn't seen as a criticism of the ECHR, the CofE, or human rights in general, and it doesn't refer to any issues with any cases. I really don't care what we do in this field.

Fair enough. No, that's no criticism of the ECHR, just saying that the HRA might be improved so it saves more people an extra trip to Strasbourg to get their rights.

 

[Degeneve]

Jean Quatremer is French, lives in Brussels where he comments on EU policy for the French newspaper Liberation. But he sometimes write for the Guardian too, as he did here: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/15/britain-brexit-europe-populism-eu?CMP=twt_gu

 

[baron]

Jean Quatremer is French, lives in Brussels where he comments on EU policy for the French newspaper Liberation. But he sometimes write for the Guardian too, as he did here: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/15/britain-brexit-europe-populism-eu?CMP=twt_gu

The idea that the citizens of Europe not only understand the details and implications of the political climate in the UK, but are moved by it to change their voting habits, is the rantings of a nutter (or someone asked to provide an article for the Guardian at short notice). You also have to wonder if, when BREXIT proves a success, Mr Quatremer will write another article about how the subsequently collapse of the EU occurred because the electorate of all remaining member states realised it was rubbish.

 

[kmortis]

Please refrain from making personal comments about other posters. That's considered rude.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[ddt]

Jean Quatremer is French, lives in Brussels where he comments on EU policy for the French newspaper Liberation. But he sometimes write for the Guardian too, as he did here: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/15/britain-brexit-europe-populism-eu?CMP=twt_gu

It's an amusing read, but I take issue with "populist parties have been dealt heavy blows in [...] the Netherlands". Wilders' PVV still got 20 seats (out of 150), an increase of 5 compared with the last election. There's also Thierry Baudet's Forum for Democracy, also anti-EU, which scored 2 seats, and Denk who appealed to (mainly Turkish) migrants and ran a sort of anti-Wilders populist campaign and got 3 seats.

The idea that the citizens of Europe not only understand the details and implications of the political climate in the UK, but are moved by it to change their voting habits, is the rantings of a nutter (or someone asked to provide an article for the Guardian at short notice).

I don't think they have to understand the details, but it's clear on this side of the Channel that British politics just doesn't know how to handle the issue. The referendum is now a year old and negotiations haven't even started.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... it's clear on this side of the Channel that British politics just doesn't know how to handle the issue. The referendum is now a year old and negotiations haven't even started.

They didn't expect to lose the referendum. There was no plan.

 

[Degeneve]

It's an amusing read, but I take issue with "populist parties have been dealt heavy blows in [...] the Netherlands". Wilders' PVV still got 20 seats (out of 150), an increase of 5 compared with the last election. There's also Thierry Baudet's Forum for Democracy, also anti-EU, which scored 2 seats, and Denk who appealed to (mainly Turkish) migrants and ran a sort of anti-Wilders populist campaign and got 3 seats.

Wilder's PVV got indeed 20 seats, that's right. But if I am not mistaken the first forecasts gave him much more...

But this of course not mean that populists are definitily out of the game, being in the Netherlands or in any other country.

I don't think they have to understand the details, but it's clear on this side of the Channel that British politics just doesn't know how to handle the issue. The referendum is now a year old and negotiations haven't even started.

Furthermore nobody - including the British governement - knows what the UK position will be. And the clok is ticking... The UK withdrawal notice has been filed on 29 March, i.e. almost 3 months ago, and nothing happened so far, but an election that makes things even murkier than before...

 

[Degeneve]

You also have to wonder if, when BREXIT proves a success,

So far there is no sign in view that the Brexit has any hane to prove a success...

On the contrary the more it goes the more it looks that nobody in the UK really knows how to handle this.

Mr Quatremer will write another article about how the subsequently collapse of the EU occurred because the electorate of all remaining member states realised it was rubbish.

Right now it does not look that way...

 

[Craig B]

as an aside, I'm a bit puzzled why you would not go that route; after all, you sign and ratify a treaty because you want to abide by it. But different countries, different habits, and that's a discussion for another day.

Explained here.

Acts of Parliament, as we were taught by the venerable Dicey, are the highest form of law, within the hierarchy of sources of the law of England. However, none of them, according to his thinking, enjoyed a higher legal status than any other. Influenced by the legal philosopher John Austin’s views on the nature of sovereignty, Dicey regarded it as impossible for the legislative authority of Parliament to be limited by preceding Acts: “That Parliaments have more than once intended and endeavoured to pass Acts which should tie the hands of their successors is certain, but the endeavour has always ended in failure,” he wrote (Law of the Constitution, p.65). Dismissing what may have been thought of as one contender for higher status with a degree of mockery, he argued that “neither the Act of Union with Scotland nor the Dentists Act 1878 has more claim than the other to be considered a supreme law".​

Dicey lived long enough, by the way, to see the establishment of the Irish Free State, and the enfranchisement of women, both of which he deprecated very strongly. The Act of Union - Scots tend to call it the Treaty of Union - is still there.

I am unaware of the current status of the Dentists Act 1878.
ETA. I looked it up. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Dental_Association. Fascinating.

 

[baron]

I don't think they have to understand the details, but it's clear on this side of the Channel that British politics just doesn't know how to handle the issue. The referendum is now a year old and negotiations haven't even started.

That's another question. I'm objecting to the idea this confusion is known about, least of all cared about, by the electorates of other countries, to such an extent that it changes the entire political landscape of Europe. It's a bizarre fantasy on the part of this author.