Tories to bring England out of EU Human Rights

Tories not happy about EU Human rights - using one or two anomalies to justify their actions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29466113

Scotland however will not follow England and will continue going by EU Human rights.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/scotland-ignore-tory-threat-scrap-eu-human-rights-143144586.html#XsCEAy5

 

sounds like commonsense to me, after all, why should Brussels get to decide on what our laws should be?

for instance, junkies claiming money for going without drugs in prison etc.. all beyond a joke

saying that, I'm no fan of the Tories either

 

I did a search on what you have above and it was a small sum of money won as a result of making people come off drugs cold turkey, basically sounds like medical negligence which could in some instances result in the death of the inmate. These are the sort of issues which are used by the media to gain emotional indignation among the populance and support to give up human rights.

The EUHR was drafted by British Lawyers after WW2 to ensure Europe did not slip into such a pit again. It is about the rule of law, individual liberty and justice for everybody.

The first time I heard arguments for it's removal was on a Question Time shortly after the last election when the Tories were new into power. It was Douglas Murray who was complaining about not being able to extradite people just because they were going to be tortured or killed when to his point of view those people themselves were such people. May was very despondent about not having this ability too. They were talking in particular about Abu Qatada and the amount of money he cost Britain and yes he did but if we throw out justice because of the cost of one case then we are clearly on a very slippery slope. In reality this concept of avoiding the cost of justice has been followed by May whereby she can now remove the citizenship of anyone with dual citizenship even those born here even to the third generation simply because she thinks they may be a risk to the common good. She simply removes their citizenship when they are out of the country. Generally speaking there is not the information to take them to a court of law. They avoid the costs completely by making the people appeal from abroad using their own money. The lawyers of those who have tried to appeal have found it impossible to fight their case as even the reason for them being deported is usually classified as top secret, so they cannot know what they are supposed to have done. This in itself is extremely concerning to human rights, the rule of law and the state being above that rule of law. She has got away with this so far which I find concerning.

The Conservative Party itself is motivated to bring England out of EUHR for two reasons as far as I can see. One it has always had a far right section. This stopped the National Front from getting wider support in the 80's - the Tory Right did their work for them. Secondly as UKIP is growing in appeal, thanks largely to the Tabloids as far as I can see, the Tories want to move more to the right so as not to lose votes to them.

The Tabloids are blamed enormously both for the rise in anti EU feeling and for the interest in getting out of the EUHR. The former Attorney General Dominic Grieve accused them of printing hysterical lies. The BBC yesterday first spoke to someone who supported EUHR and pointed out that it was quite correct that people should want out due to there being such ridiculous new things such as you mentioned and the problem of getting rid of people like Qatada. The response quite correctly was that situations like Qatada happen very rarely and that most of the so called ridiculous human rights were spin - you know if it sounds too good to be true it probably is. Likewise if it sounds too ridiculous to be true it usually is, though of course you can always get the odd bizarre thing which can be exaggerated by the Tabloids to get people round to their way of thinking. After speaking to this person they spoke to a Tory involved in working to get us out of EUHR. I found this interesting. She asked him whether it was true that they caused big problems to Britain and was it not rather that one or two issues had been magnified beyond belief. Now, please note. He did not deny this. Instead he said that we had to get out of EUHR because English people wanted to and they had to listen to the people. Seems to me that first of all you have the opinion makers, that is the Tabloids, going on and on until their readers believe that they must get out of EUHR which is misusing them and then you get the Government saying they must get out of EUHR because the people want it, not because there is a genuine arguable reason for so doing.

It is not of course all Tories who want to do this. Kenneth Clarke has always firmly stood by them. To stop me talking too much here is the basis of an article in the Guardian which explains the consequences of so doing.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...es-plan-quit-european-human-rights-convention

So basically the problems are that withdrawing from EUHR leaves English people without proper protection and at the mercy of any loon Government which could easily come into being. The idea that the EU would allow England to pick and choose is a non starter and hence would result in England leaving the EU - something most of you apparently want anyway. Scotland however will be continuing to abide by them. Will she stay in the EU while England comes out? Will people be fleeing England for Scotland and of course Northern Ireland. She too will be still going by EUHR. However with her there is a bigger problem. It is the responsibility of the rUK to treat her according to such.

 

Good.
Anyway Scotland doesn't have the authority to decide whether it uses the EU's so called human rights.

 

small amount? I seem to remember it was around 5,000 quid or something,plus it wasn't cold turkey, it was for 6wks going without gear in prison, I mean come on - drugs are illegal and if you get slung in the joint for them the taxpayer shouldn't be funding a jolly inside -like, would I get given booze and smokes in jail ??

 

I had you down as a pro-centralization guy.

Funny how people surprise you.

 

Politics with the UK and EU relationship are a bit different than say with Victoria and the rest of federal Australia for example.

A lot of people really don't see the EU as something that is a natural part of Britain.

I think munter sees the EU as a threat towards British laws and governance unless I'm mistaken.

 

At least he's not a fan of regional government. I'm no fan of the UK either, but hey - at least they're not the EU.

 

Well we are in the EU although there is a growing number of people that want to leave or at least renegotiate the terms.
And what do you mean when you say that you're not a fan of the UK?

 

I prefer sovereignty be held as close to the individual as possible. The EU is catastrophically unrepresentative, but the UK isn't much better. Splitting England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland into separate nations would be a good start, then splitting those into smaller federal bodies in a Confederate form of government.

And so on to whatever degree is possible.

 

There's always going to be limit to that.

Well we do have the vote for the EU parliament but that doesn't mean all that much really.

Well they do have their own parliaments/assemblies except for England.
I think that we should scrap both the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly because in real terms all it has done is add another layer of bureaucracy and a form of government in which all it does is waste money.
And of course people don't use their MP's any more than they did under the previous state of things.

I don't think that there is an advantage for Wales or Scotland in having these parliaments.

There will be a limit to that and if you really want complete freedom then you'd really be looking at a stateless country.

 

around £3,000.

The one I saw yesterday was about going cold turkey. Here is possibly what you are referring to

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ation-for-being-forced-to-go-cold-turkey.html

That seems to be it.

Seems you are so annoyed about prisoners expecting the same health care as they could expect or were getting outside to be sufficient to give up EUHR's for. I think you may come to regret this. Seems to me this is something which has more perverse undertones. Meanwhile the everyday person who reads the tabloids has been made to emotionally feel enraged at prisoners receiving the same healthcare as those outside so much that they want EUHR's stopped without thought of the consequences to themselves.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/04/tory-wreckers-out-destroy-human-rights

You may be interested to know that 98% times the Government has contested a ruling it has won. Makes you wonder what is the reason to get all these tabloid readers desperate to get rid of their rights doesn't it.

In reality because of the situation with NI and Scotland it has clearly not been worked out and unlikely to come into being. As long as Scotland keeps her rights it is of little interest to me if you want to give yours up.

 

Centralisation within a state is good imo, ie; one govt having strong overall control, but not outside powers (ie: the EU beauracrats) telling other states what to do etc..

 

can't see how the virtual balkanization of an already small country is going to benefit anyone, other than the liberal/parcon idealists........

 

Ok, I'll print that article, read and get back to you


but for the meantime, 3000quid of taxpayers money for breaking the law, hell, working, it's mug's game right?

 

I don't expect it to benefit anyone, just meet with my preference.

 

ok, so what's the point then - why not just leave things as they are?

and this whole idea of small means better is false - small means weaker and hence LESS democracy as it will then always be outside powers running the show, even if only indirectly

 

since when did junkie trash get the right to free drugs in the joint? basically a very good reason to pull out of the liberal PC bull(*)(*)(*)(*) EU

if they get free health care outside that is one thing, but prisoners should not get that right as well, and a bit of enforced cold turkey would help getting some of these druggies cleaned up

get the drugs out of the system then they have a chance of going straight on release, if it's uncomfortable for them then tough titties -

 

It's election spin to placate the Conservatives anti-Europe wing. Even if they got a full majority at the next election, a Conservative government won't follow through with withdrawing from the ECHR - it'd be more hassle that it's worth.

They're already making the policy conditional so after the election they can arrange some "negotiations" with the EU and spin the outcome to say how strong and firm they were with Europe. The next news cycle will kick off, everyone will forget about this and nothing, in practical terms, will change.

 

Naturally.

Exactly.

Better to have lots of little governments than one big one.

Neither do I.

Pretty much. We should move in that direction to whatever degree is possible. If all we can achieve are sovereign state governments, then that's at least preferable to sovereign national governments (and even retaining that is seeming more and more difficult each day).

 

It won't.
People just want the system to work; splitting up that system is only going to spread out and exacerbate the problems, not fix them

People should really take to voting and expressing more interest in politics if they want politicians to do what they want which is the whole point of having MP's

 

Well that's why we have town/city and county councils.
But could you explain a bit more about why you believe that it's better to have lots of little governments?

What I meant by stateless country is that we'd have anarchy which isn't really that good for people.
Using your example I can sort of understand (state vs national) but in your country it's different as you kind of started out that way whereas here we've had close to a thousand years to figure out what kind of government we actually want and require.

 

I would prefer no government at all, but if governments are closer to the people they and be more representative to their needs. Texans can have no minimum wage or income taxation, New Yorkers can have 60% tax rates and a $27.95 minimum wage. And normal people are more able to change what actually happens in their lives.

NH is a decent example of a government that's fairly representative - one representative to each 3000 citizens. THat's not ideal, of course - especially considering the Federal government's constant interference, but it's a lot better than... say... California.

You can have more and more centralized government, or less and less - I choose the latter. Choose what you like: one world government, anarchy, or something in-between.

I don't much care for Australian politics or society, I'm not so much talking about Australia. Nor am talking exclusively about the UK.

 

Government isn't necessary in order to live but it's a lot better than not having it.
But greater representation doesn't always mean better governance. I suppose that it might work if we lived in some sort of hive mind if you wanted perfect representation but obviously humans aren't built that way.

Well if it works for them.
In your view what is the best possible example of a government that fits with your ideals?

It's different for different countries because the needs and attitudes are different

As I implied above it's not really possible to apply it to all parts of the world.

 

If the Scots want to continue being EU lapdogs and ordered by criminals friends in the ECHR that prisoners must be allowed to vote and that they mustn't be locked up for the rest of their natural lives, or that foreign Islamist terrorists who want to kill Scots should still be allowed to live in Scotland because they have a "right to family life", then that's a problem for the Scots. It's no wonder Scotland is becoming a cesspit.

England will, however, leave the insidious ECHR and adopt a Bill of Rights which will put the rights of the law-abiding English people ahead of those of criminals.

I'll be voting UKIP in May.