EU ?

[DaveO]

My question is in relation to the statement that the EU is reliant on uk imports, which implies to me that the EU would fall apart if we left.

That is how I took it and I think it is ludicrous to suggest the EU is reliant on imports from the UK.

What imports would these be specifically? What do they get from us they can't get from somewhere else?

[DaveO]

Its the political and Judicial side that is the problem

How is it a problem? Be specific please.

And are you confusing the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) with the EU? (The court upholds the European Convention on Human rights set up in 1959 and drafted largely by the UK).

Many people do and it has nothing to do with it.

In the past everyone in this county could appeal a human rights case to the ECHR long before we were in the EU and of course this continued after we joined.

It rarely happened though because it was a long and expensive process.

Things changed under the last Labour government where our laws were aligned with the ECHR which was a very sensible thing to do.

Prior to this if decisions made in UK courts went against the law as viewed by ECHR then in theory you could still appeal to it but as I said it was along costly and long drawn out process.

With UK judges having to take the ECHR into account from the outset then all of a sudden YOU are protected by those laws far more directly and right up front.

Every now and again you get headlines where a criminal uses some obscure ruling to attempt to avoid justice but if you actually look at cases when they do, it's usually the UK government who were slip shod in preparing their case in the first place and for most of the time it works as intended.

The best example was Abu Hamza (spelling?) who the government tried to deport to Jordan but due to one cock up after another took about a dozen attempts to do so.

It was the government's own fault for poor work. However that didn't stop them using their own incompetence to attempt to undermine the ECHR saying it was looking after terrorists interests.

The current government would love it if we left the European Convention on Human Rights and they will sell it to you as an English Bill of Rights but you can bet your bottom dollar it will NOT afford the same protection as the Convention.

My view is many people confuse the ECHR with the EU, have been conned into thinking the ECHR is bad and will vote to leave the EU because they think the ECHR is part of it!

Turkey's voting for Christmas.

[i'm spartacus]

Its the political and Judicial side that is the problem

How is it a problem? Be specific please.

And are you confusing the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) with the EU? (The court upholds the European Convention on Human rights set up in 1959 and drafted largely by the UK).

Many people do and it has nothing to do with it.

In the past everyone in this county could appeal a human rights case to the ECHR long before we were in the EU and of course this continued after we joined.

It rarely happened though because it was a long and expensive process.

Things changed under the last Labour government where our laws were aligned with the ECHR which was a very sensible thing to do.

Prior to this if decisions made in UK courts went against the law as viewed by ECHR then in theory you could still appeal to it but as I said it was along costly and long drawn out process.

With UK judges having to take the ECHR into account from the outset then all of a sudden YOU are protected by those laws far more directly and right up front.

Every now and again you get headlines where a criminal uses some obscure ruling to attempt to avoid justice but if you actually look at cases when they do, it's usually the UK government who were slip shod in preparing their case in the first place and for most of the time it works as intended.

The best example was Abu Hamza (spelling?) who the government tried to deport to Jordan but due to one cock up after another took about a dozen attempts to do so.

It was the government's own fault for poor work. However that didn't stop them using their own incompetence to attempt to undermine the ECHR saying it was looking after terrorists interests.

The current government would love it if we left the European Convention on Human Rights and they will sell it to you as an English Bill of Rights but you can bet your bottom dollar it will NOT afford the same protection as the Convention.

My view is many people confuse the ECHR with the EU, have been conned into thinking the ECHR is bad and will vote to leave the EU because they think the ECHR is part of it!

Turkey's voting for Christmas.

Nobody has mentioned the ECHR - the issue is with the European Court of Justice in which unelected European judges strike down laws enacted by democratically elected governments.

[Owd Codger]

Its the political and Judicial side that is the problem

How is it a problem? Be specific please.

And are you confusing the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) with the EU? (The court upholds the European Convention on Human rights set up in 1959 and drafted largely by the UK).

Many people do and it has nothing to do with it.

In the past everyone in this county could appeal a human rights case to the ECHR long before we were in the EU and of course this continued after we joined.

It rarely happened though because it was a long and expensive process.

Things changed under the last Labour government where our laws were aligned with the ECHR which was a very sensible thing to do.

Prior to this if decisions made in UK courts went against the law as viewed by ECHR then in theory you could still appeal to it but as I said it was along costly and long drawn out process.

With UK judges having to take the ECHR into account from the outset then all of a sudden YOU are protected by those laws far more directly and right up front.

Every now and again you get headlines where a criminal uses some obscure ruling to attempt to avoid justice but if you actually look at cases when they do, it's usually the UK government who were slip shod in preparing their case in the first place and for most of the time it works as intended.

The best example was Abu Hamza (spelling?) who the government tried to deport to Jordan but due to one cock up after another took about a dozen attempts to do so.

It was the government's own fault for poor work. However that didn't stop them using their own incompetence to attempt to undermine the ECHR saying it was looking after terrorists interests.

The current government would love it if we left the European Convention on Human Rights and they will sell it to you as an English Bill of Rights but you can bet your bottom dollar it will NOT afford the same protection as the Convention.

My view is many people confuse the ECHR with the EU, have been conned into thinking the ECHR is bad and will vote to leave the EU because they think the ECHR is part of it!

Turkey's voting for Christmas.

Nobody has mentioned the ECHR - the issue is with the European Court of Justice in which unelected European judges strike down laws enacted by democratically elected governments.

Exactly, a body never elected!

[jobo]

Its the political and Judicial side that is the problem

How is it a problem? Be specific please.

And are you confusing the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) with the EU? (The court upholds the European Convention on Human rights set up in 1959 and drafted largely by the UK).

Many people do and it has nothing to do with it.

In the past everyone in this county could appeal a human rights case to the ECHR long before we were in the EU and of course this continued after we joined.

It rarely happened though because it was a long and expensive process.

Things changed under the last Labour government where our laws were aligned with the ECHR which was a very sensible thing to do.

Prior to this if decisions made in UK courts went against the law as viewed by ECHR then in theory you could still appeal to it but as I said it was along costly and long drawn out process.

With UK judges having to take the ECHR into account from the outset then all of a sudden YOU are protected by those laws far more directly and right up front.

Every now and again you get headlines where a criminal uses some obscure ruling to attempt to avoid justice but if you actually look at cases when they do, it's usually the UK government who were slip shod in preparing their case in the first place and for most of the time it works as intended.

The best example was Abu Hamza (spelling?) who the government tried to deport to Jordan but due to one cock up after another took about a dozen attempts to do so.

It was the government's own fault for poor work. However that didn't stop them using their own incompetence to attempt to undermine the ECHR saying it was looking after terrorists interests.

The current government would love it if we left the European Convention on Human Rights and they will sell it to you as an English Bill of Rights but you can bet your bottom dollar it will NOT afford the same protection as the Convention.

My view is many people confuse the ECHR with the EU, have been conned into thinking the ECHR is bad and will vote to leave the EU because they think the ECHR is part of it!

Turkey's voting for Christmas.

Nobody has mentioned the ECHR - the issue is with the European Court of Justice in which unelected European judges strike down laws enacted by democratically elected governments.

Such as?

[Wiganer Ted]

The EU might well have non elected bodies such as the ECHR.

We have the utterly dreadful "House of Lords" which strikes down laws to come into place by a democratically elected "Commons"
Only last week the "Lords" threw out the government's Trade Union Reform bill. An odious bill if ever there was one but no way should a body not democratically elected dismiss it.
The UK parliament should have two elected chambers.

It has been mentioned on here about the EU gravy train.
If ever there was a gravy train it's the "Lords". It consists of mainly retired or those no longer elected MPs. It also has those who've donated £ms to either the Tory or Labour Parties and they get seats in the Lords. The Lords is a disgrace and a national embarrassment.

Those MP's who want sovereignty returned to Westminster just want more authority to make themselves more powerful.

If we vote leave then Theresa Maysays they will withdraw from the ECHR and create a UK Bill of Rights. And who would trust the Tories with that? It will be full of rights and privledges for the Rich and Powerful but a Bill of No Rights for the rest of us.
They have also promised to cancel our Employment Rights.
So then an Ordinary Person will not be able to hold either the Government or their Employer to task as they will have no rights under which they can do that.

Both these aspects are enshrined in EU Law.
We should stick with it.

[cpwigan]

Belgium today cannot have helped the pro EU campaign.

[i'm spartacus]

How is it a problem? Be specific please.

And are you confusing the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) with the EU? (The court upholds the European Convention on Human rights set up in 1959 and drafted largely by the UK).

Many people do and it has nothing to do with it.

In the past everyone in this county could appeal a human rights case to the ECHR long before we were in the EU and of course this continued after we joined.

It rarely happened though because it was a long and expensive process.

Things changed under the last Labour government where our laws were aligned with the ECHR which was a very sensible thing to do.

Prior to this if decisions made in UK courts went against the law as viewed by ECHR then in theory you could still appeal to it but as I said it was along costly and long drawn out process.

With UK judges having to take the ECHR into account from the outset then all of a sudden YOU are protected by those laws far more directly and right up front.

Every now and again you get headlines where a criminal uses some obscure ruling to attempt to avoid justice but if you actually look at cases when they do, it's usually the UK government who were slip shod in preparing their case in the first place and for most of the time it works as intended.

The best example was Abu Hamza (spelling?) who the government tried to deport to Jordan but due to one cock up after another took about a dozen attempts to do so.

It was the government's own fault for poor work. However that didn't stop them using their own incompetence to attempt to undermine the ECHR saying it was looking after terrorists interests.

The current government would love it if we left the European Convention on Human Rights and they will sell it to you as an English Bill of Rights but you can bet your bottom dollar it will NOT afford the same protection as the Convention.

My view is many people confuse the ECHR with the EU, have been conned into thinking the ECHR is bad and will vote to leave the EU because they think the ECHR is part of it!

Turkey's voting for Christmas.

Nobody has mentioned the ECHR - the issue is with the European Court of Justice in which unelected European judges strike down laws enacted by democratically elected governments.

Such as?

Pardon me if this seems rude, but look it up. There are literally hundreds of ECJ cases going back over decades against every member state. The role of the ECJ is very very well documented.

To start you off, the ECJ struck down the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 which was an attempt to protect British jobs; it also led to the government paying Spanish fishermen £55 million in compensation.

Just recently, the ECJ ruled that the UK cannot automatically deport foreigners who are sentenced to more than one year in prison under the Borders Act

[i'm spartacus]

The EU might well have non elected bodies such as the ECHR.

We have the utterly dreadful "House of Lords" which strikes down laws to come into place by a democratically elected "Commons"
Only last week the "Lords" threw out the government's Trade Union Reform bill. An odious bill if ever there was one but no way should a body not democratically elected dismiss it.
The UK parliament should have two elected chambers.

It has been mentioned on here about the EU gravy train.
If ever there was a gravy train it's the "Lords". It consists of mainly retired or those no longer elected MPs. It also has those who've donated £ms to either the Tory or Labour Parties and they get seats in the Lords. The Lords is a disgrace and a national embarrassment.

Those MP's who want sovereignty returned to Westminster just want more authority to make themselves more powerful.

If we vote leave then Theresa Maysays they will withdraw from the ECHR and create a UK Bill of Rights. And who would trust the Tories with that? It will be full of rights and privledges for the Rich and Powerful but a Bill of No Rights for the rest of us.
They have also promised to cancel our Employment Rights.
So then an Ordinary Person will not be able to hold either the Government or their Employer to task as they will have no rights under which they can do that.

Both these aspects are enshrined in EU Law.
We should stick with it.

The Lords is part of our constitutional process, but fundamentally, the Lords are an amending chamber; they simply do not have the authority to strike down laws. They review and amend prospective legislation and they send it back to the commons. if the commons choose to they can override them altogether by using the Parliament Act. In truth, and over recent times, the Lords have actually been much closer to public sensitivities than the government have.

You may not trust the tories and their bill of rights, but we will have a general election four years from now, and we get to choose whether we throw them out. The difference with the EU is you don't get to choose who makes the decisions - ever.

Your final paragraph is an exercise in absolute paranoia. It may come as a very big surprise, but the UK was a principle architect of the Convention on Human Rights, even worse, the it was the idea of the Tory politician Winston Churchill. The problem with the Convention, isn't the convention itself, but the misuse of its articles compounded by the emasculation of our own judicial system, powerless to act against the primacy of the EU. To suggest that we are incapable of replacing the current system with something that restructures our priorities is incredible

Similarly your statement that 'they' will cancel our employment rights. We did have employment rights before the EU; anyone who has a job, has an employment contract. Contracts have been enforceable and remedies for breaching a contract have been available through the courts since God was a lad. What your are suggesting is that we wouldn't have progressed at all without Europe. What you will actually find if you care to look, is that many of the employment rights we have go much further than the EU ever intended that we should go

[Mike]

Exactly, a body never elected!

What - unelected, how anti-british.

Wait, is that like the house of lords? Perhaps it *is* the british way after all. I doth my cap to em.