Brexit has created chaos in Britain – nobody voted for this

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

Dunces corner with a traffic cone on your head ?

If engaging in discussion is so difficult that you need resort to petty personal attacks, take a rest and comeback when you have something to contribute.

[transam]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

If engaging in discussion is so difficult that you need resort to petty personal attacks, take a rest and comeback when you have something to contribute.

I think he has done a good job so far regarding your "stuff"....

[The Renegade]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

If engaging in discussion is so difficult that you need resort to petty personal attacks, take a rest and comeback when you have something to contribute.

One day, when your English is of a decent standard, you will understand that the following:

 

Quote

Dunces corner with a traffic cone on your head 

Is a statement, it is not an attempt at engaging in conversation.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

This started as a discussion about the justice provided by the final arbiter - the eu court - that the eu insists that the uk must adhere to.

 

Some of us have lost all faith in the eu  court and then started talking about the eu's threat to sever security ties with the uk.

 

You then did your best to twist the importance of the uk when it came to security intelligence, to 'personal data' issues!

 

Full marks for twisting and changing the issues involved!

I did no such thing.

 

I nowhere deny the importance of the U.K. in terms of security and data.

 

I have repeatedly pointed out the EU concern that data shared by police and security forces must remain under European Human Rights law and the European Court of Human Rights.

 

Which is why the EU are pressing the U.K. on the matter.

 

[The Renegade]

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

data shared by police and security forces must remain under European Human Rights law and the European Court of Human Rights.

Can you tell us what specific Article of the EHCR that you are referring to ?

[billd766]

26 minutes ago, transam said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/gordon-brown/5463587/Glenys-Kinnock-the-lucrative-transition-from-MEP-to-Europe-Minister.html

 

Grubby little money grabbers, the whole lot of them.

 

Almost as bad as Tony and Cherie Blair.

[transam]

Just now, billd766 said:

 

Grubby little money grabbers, the whole lot of them.

 

Almost as bad as Tony and Cherie Blair.

They are all the same, the Labour party was meant to represent the working man, but look how Red Ken turned out....☹️

[The Renegade]

8 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Grubby little money grabbers, the whole lot of them.

 

Almost as bad as Tony and Cherie Blair.

 

5 minutes ago, transam said:

They are all the same, the Labour party was meant to represent the working man, but look how Red Ken turned out....☹️

Champagne Socialists personified.

Edited June 19, 2018 by The Renegade

[sandyf]

2 hours ago, The Renegade said:

The latest ploy by the EU to try and keep the UK shackled to the EU

 

Straight from the remainers Bible, so it must be true.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jun/18/brussels-seeks-to-tie-uk-to-european-human-rights-court-after-brexit

 

Can someone tell me what the European Court of Human Rights has got to do with the EU or it's institutions ?

 

It is to do with the "Safeguards" built into the Belfast Agreement. Been there since day one, just ignored.

 

(b) the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and any Bill of
Rights for Northern Ireland supplementing it, which neither the Assembly
nor public bodies can infringe, together with a Human Rights
Commission;
(c) arrangements to provide that key decisions and legislation are proofed
to ensure that they do not infringe the ECHR and any Bill of Rights for
Northern Ireland;

[transam]

19 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

 

Champagne Socialists personified.

 

[tebee]

https://vip.politicsmeanspolitics.com/2018/06/17/brexit-lost-in-space/

 

[The Renegade]

8 minutes ago, sandyf said:

It is to do with the "Safeguards" built into the Belfast Agreement. Been there since day one, just ignored.

 

(b) the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and any Bill of
Rights for Northern Ireland supplementing it, which neither the Assembly
nor public bodies can infringe, together with a Human Rights
Commission;
(c) arrangements to provide that key decisions and legislation are proofed
to ensure that they do not infringe the ECHR and any Bill of Rights for
Northern Ireland;

Funny, the article does not mention anything about the Belfast agreement.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jun/18/brussels-seeks-to-tie-uk-to-european-human-rights-court-after-brexit

 

The article explicitly states

 

Quote

A document outlining the European commission’s position on future judicial and police cooperation stipulates there will be a “guillotine clause” on any security deal should the UK leave the remit of the court.

Police cooperation

 

Quote

The paper, presented to member states last Friday, says that in terms of a judicial and police cooperation, including information exchanges, there will need to be a ‘guillotine clause’, if the UK leaves the convention or is condemned by the European court of human rights (ECHR) for non-execution of an ECHR judgment in the area concerned”.

Leave or is condemned by the EHCR

 

Quote

The Danish arrangement is not a precedent for the relations with the UK, as Denmark is an EU MS, Schengen member, accepts full ECJ jurisdiction and the EU data protection legislation).”

Must accept full ECJ jurisdiction.

 

I will repeat what I said previously.

 

It is nothing more that an attempt to shoehorn the UK into remaining part of the EU and under the thumb of the ECJ.

[The Renegade]

10 minutes ago, tebee said:

https://vip.politicsmeanspolitics.com/2018/06/17/brexit-lost-in-space/

 

A bit like the rest of your comment ??

[sandyf]

9 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

Funny, the article does not mention anything about the Belfast agreement.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jun/18/brussels-seeks-to-tie-uk-to-european-human-rights-court-after-brexit

 

The article explicitly states

 

Police cooperation

 

Leave or is condemned by the EHCR

 

Must accept full ECJ jurisdiction.

 

I will repeat what I said previously.

 

It is nothing more that an attempt to shoehorn the UK into remaining part of the EU and under the thumb of the ECJ.

You are perfectly free to base your views on a newspaper article, rewrite the Belfast Agreement if it suits you.

It is all a bit academic at the moment as TM abandoned plans to withdraw from the ECHR until 2022 at the earliest.

This warning came from Amnesty International prior to the referendum.

"Mr Corrigan said: "The European Convention on Human Rights is a cornerstone of the Good Friday Agreement, and has given confidence to people in Northern Ireland that their rights will be protected equally, whatever their religious or political views."

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/european-convention-on-human-rights-snub-would-tear-up-good-friday-agreement-34657809.html

 

I have say you are consistent in your distorted interpretation. The reference to the ECJ was a separate topic , security, and nothing to do with the ECHR. The article did not "explicitly states" "Must accept full ECJ jurisdiction", it stated "Denmark is an EU MS, Schengen member, accepts full ECJ jurisdiction".

[tebee]

You do realize that European Court of Human Rights has nothing at all to do with the EU - it's part of the  Council of Europe. Presumably we'd have to leave the latter too if we want to abolish it as it's a condition of membership. It's those nasty Tories again, not liking us plebs having rights, that want to get rid of it.

 

The EU court is  European Court of Justice  which enforces adherence to the EU's treaties.

 

There is a theory that Theresa May confused the two and insisted we leave the former when she meant the latter 

[sandyf]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

If engaging in discussion is so difficult that you need resort to petty personal attacks, take a rest and comeback when you have something to contribute.

Should have put "meaningful" after the word "something".

[sandyf]

3 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

Voted on by a completely unelected group of people with no responsibilty to anyone other than to themselves.

 

Many of them are ex-politicians given a courtesy title as a "reward" for serving their political parties faithfully and then kicked out by the electorate as useless and not wanted here anymore.

 

They also have the opportunity to travel first class and pick up £300 per DAY just for turning up and it is not even compulsory to do so. They enjoy fine wining and dining well subsidised at the taxpayers expense and most probably stay in good but not cheap hotels also at the taxpayers expense.

 

A good job if you can get it with no compulsory retirement and 2 days attendance in one month pays more than my (frozen) state pension a month.

That is a separate issue altogether Bill, doesn't matter where the reminder comes from as long as it is noticed.

A previous reminder came from another group of unelected people - the supreme court.

[The Renegade]

9 minutes ago, sandyf said:

You are perfectly free to base your views on a newspaper article,

I am stating what the article says, not what my views are on the article.

 

Another poster also has a problem distinguishing between direct quotes from a news source and someone's opinion.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jun/18/brussels-seeks-to-tie-uk-to-european-human-rights-court-after-brexit

 

If you think the article is wrong, take it up direct with the Guardian.

 

I will even help you out with the contact details.

 

020 3353 2000 or dialling from overseas +44 20 3353 2000.

 

[email protected]

 

 

 

[The Renegade]

20 minutes ago, tebee said:

You do realize that European Court of Human Rights has nothing at all to do with the EU

Does who realise tebee ?

 

Champer -- Nah, he is clueless.

 

If you are referring to me, as the person who brought it up, let me repost this from my original comment on the subject

 

Quote

Can someone tell me what the European Court of Human Rights has got to do with the EU or it's institutions ?

I await your clarification of who you meant by your opening sentence.

 

Did we get it wrong again, tebee ? That is what happens when you jump in feet first without reading ?

 

 

Edited June 19, 2018 by The Renegade

[sandyf]

11 minutes ago, tebee said:

There is a theory that Theresa May confused the two and insisted we leave the former when she meant the latter 

Not a valid theory. The plan to leave the ECHR goes back to around 2014 when she was Home Secretary and before the referendum act. In the run up to the referendum several concerns were raised and suddenly the plan was abandoned, the excuse being that it would be a bit complicated to tackle during brexit. The current position is it will be in the manifesto for the next parliament which would now be 2022.

Probably hoping that the GF agreement will no longer be an issue.

[aright]

Leave voters would rather lose Northern Ireland than give up the benefits of Brexit

• Michael Ashcroft
• 
•  
• 
• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/06/19/leave-voters-would-rather-lose-northern-ireland-give-benefits/
   

[nontabury]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It probably had more to do with the terms of the case brought against the government.

 

No court considers matters not presented by the litigating parties.

The judgement in favour of the U.K government, was upheld by a majority of the E.U judges. These included judges from countries that do upgrade all their state pensioners, wherever in the world they reside. More likely their decision was based on a trade off. 

[aright]

 

[tebee]

4 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Not a valid theory. The plan to leave the ECHR goes back to around 2014 when she was Home Secretary and before the referendum act. In the run up to the referendum several concerns were raised and suddenly the plan was abandoned, the excuse being that it would be a bit complicated to tackle during brexit. The current position is it will be in the manifesto for the next parliament which would now be 2022.

Probably hoping that the GF agreement will no longer be an issue.

So it's just natural Conservative hate for those pesky human rights then?

[aright]

[aright]

Sorry for disjointed post I couldn't seem to get everything on one page

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/06/19/leave-voters-would-rather-lose-northern-ireland-give-benefits/

 

[sandyf]

5 minutes ago, tebee said:

So it's just natural Conservative hate for those pesky human rights then?

Quite, they want to write their own version.

[The Renegade]

4 minutes ago, tebee said:

So it's just natural Conservative hate for those pesky human rights then?

I find it somewhat amusing that anyone who claims to live in Thailand, even for only 6 months a year, would get ants in their pants about human rights.

[sandyf]

7 minutes ago, aright said:

 

The words in the top left say it all, the nationalists would not have participated.

[aright]

4 minutes ago, sandyf said:

The words in the top left say it all, the nationalists would not have participated.

"My latest research finds that for Nationalists in Northern Ireland, the practicality of customs checks is almost beside the point: any kind of border in an island that they see as one country is unthinkable. For them, avoiding a hard border eclipses any other potential goal of the Brexit negotiations.

Most people on both sides think the Brexit process is taking too long

But most Unionists in Northern Ireland, especially those who voted to leave the EU, believe the border issue is being deliberately exaggerated."

Edited June 19, 2018 by aright