The 2024 General Election - July 4th

[hypochondriac]

24 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

When did Canada withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights ? The only country to leave is Russia, in 2022; the Czech Republic and Serbia and Montenegro ceased membership when they split into Czechia, Slovakia, Serbia, and Montenegro, all of which joined as independent entities.

So any European nation has to be part of a club that has Europe in the title in order to uphold human rights? 

[badgerx16]

26 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

So any European nation has to be part of a club that has Europe in the title in order to uphold human rights? 

The ECHR is just the next 'European' bogey man that the headbangers on the right of the Conservative party want us to think is restricting our sovereign freedoms, when in fact what they want is to take us away from the common ideals we share with our neighbour and back to Jacob Rees-Mogg's heyday, with children up chimneys and picking lint from working mill looms, and when the common man doffed his cap to the Squire when he passed and was grateful for the generous gift of a free turnip at Christmas - unfortunately Britannia no longer rules the waves, the World has moved on, the Empire has faded into history, and we no longer have the international influence the ERG think we deserve.

Edited June 27 by badgerx16

[Challenger]

Have been gathering up all the propaganda leaflets shoved through my letterbox from both major parties and from ones I'd never heard of.

Decided this morning to read them all as if I was not from this country and had no idea of what's gone before, just to see what policies appeal.

Apart from and Idea to introduce a 99p coin, the Loons came out on top.

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

The ECHR is just the next 'European' bogey man that the headbangers on the right of the Conservative party want us to think is restricting our sovereign freedoms, when in fact what they want is to take us away from the common ideals we share with our neighbour and back to Jacob Rees-Mogg's heyday, with children up chimneys and picking lint from working mill looms, and when the common man doffed his cap to the Squire when he passed and was grateful for the generous gift of a free turnip at Christmas - unfortunately Britannia no longer rules the waves, the World has moved on, the Empire has faded into history, and we no longer have the international influence the ERG think we deserve.

I didn't say any of that. I simply asked if it was possible to successfully uphold human rights without being part of a European club? 

[sadoldgit]

2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

So any European nation has to be part of a club that has Europe in the title in order to uphold human rights? 

If only everybody in the European “club” acted to uphold human rights at all times, perhaps the club would not need to exist? Perhaps go an educate yourself about why it came about in the first place? I know you probably feel that any court that seeks to uphold human rights is full of lefty lawyers and dangerous socialists, but it is there for a reason, just like NATO and the EU are there for a reason. Would you have us leave the NATO club because we have a means to protect ourselves? 
Is there nothing in the Reform “contract” that you have a problem with?

https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/issue/what-is-the-echr-and-why-does-it-matter/#:~:text=It was drafted in the,repeated%2C and safeguard fundamental rights.

Edited June 27 by sadoldgit

[AlexLaw76]

6 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

If only everybody in the European “club” acted to uphold human rights at all times, perhaps the club would not need to exist? Perhaps go an educate yourself about why it came about in the first place? I know you probably feel that any court that seeks to uphold human rights is full of lefty lawyers and dangerous socialists, but it is there for a reason, just like NATO and the EU are there for a reason. Would you have us leave the NATO club because we have a means to protect ourselves? 
Is there nothing in the Reform “contract” that you have a problem with?

https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/issue/what-is-the-echr-and-why-does-it-matter/#:~:text=It was drafted in the,repeated%2C and safeguard fundamental rights.

Didn’t you endlessly champion and (probably) voted for Corbyn, who wanted to end NATO?

 

[sadoldgit]

2 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Didn’t you endlessly champion and (probably) voted for Corbyn, who wanted to end NATO?

 

No I didn’t endlessly campaign for Corbyn. I campaigned against the Tories. I don’t agree with leaving NATO.

We are talking about the ECHR. It is there to protect you and I against the state. Do you have a problem with that?

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, sadoldgit said:

No I didn’t endlessly campaign for Corbyn. I campaigned against the Tories. I don’t agree with leaving NATO.

We are talking about the ECHR. It is there to protect you and I against the state. Do you have a problem with that?

So, you would rather leave NATO than have a slightly different government to Stamers Labour

righto.

[sadoldgit]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

So, you would rather leave NATO than have a slightly different government to Stamers Labour

righto.

Where did I say I wanted to leave NATO? There is no way we would have left NATO if Corbyn had become PM.

Back to the ECHR. Are you happy that there is an organisation there to protect you/us against the state?

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, sadoldgit said:

Where did I say I wanted to leave NATO? There is no way we would have left NATO if Corbyn had become PM.

Back to the ECHR. Are you happy that there is an organisation there to protect you/us against the state?

He campaigned for it and you wanted him. 
 

as for the ECHR. The uk being more tolerant than most, I am certain we would uphold human right in/out of such organisation. Like many of our partners do.

[Fan The Flames]

2 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

So, you would rather leave NATO than have a slightly different government to Stamers Labour

righto.

Confused again.

You do know that if someone supports a party or politician they don't always support everything they believe in. Also you do know that not everything that a party or politician advocates becomes policy or laws.

I know that limits your hypocrisy gotchas that you are obsessed with.

[Fan The Flames]

To uphold human rights you need something to uphold them and something to test policy against and something that can't be changed easily.

[sadoldgit]

Surely the more protection that we have against the state the better? It seems that some would prefer to live in a dictatorship. You would think that any organisation that helps prevent the atrocities that were carried out in WW2 and the state infringement on human rights would be seen as a good thing and something to upheld.

Unfortunately we currently have a government who believe that you can make a country “safe” just by passing a law saying that it is. I wonder how Batman would feel if he was packed off to Rwanda with no option of coming back if he was seeking asylum here?

Edited June 27 by sadoldgit

[AlexLaw76]

19 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Surely the more protection that we have against the state the better? It seems that some would prefer to live in a dictatorship. You would think that any organisation that helps prevent the atrocities that were carried out in WW2 and the state infringement on human rights would be seen as a good thing and something to upheld.

Unfortunately we currently have a government who believe that you can make a country “safe” just by passing a law saying that it is. I wonder how Batman would feel if he was packed off to Rwanda with no option of coming back if he was seeking asylum here?

Again, remember when you championed a Rwanda style / foreign processing unit for migrants….. until the Tory’s proposed it of course

[Gloucester Saint]

Good summary on last night’s poor head to head - another 0-0 and when the incumbent shouts and interrupts every 30 seconds, that’s all it can ever be https://inews.co.uk/opinion/bbc-tv-debate-sunak-last-shot-fluffed-election-3134101

This article sums up why the Tories are where they are, it’s the equivalent over-60s Saints fans sitting at SMS and critiquing whatever Russell Martin and the last few managers have done because it’s not what Lawrie would have done. Lawrie was successful in his context 1970s and 1980s, Thatcher was successful in her 1980s context.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/27/rishi-sunak-tories-election-conservatives-david-cameron

But contexts and the needs of different eras change and evolve, in the same way that Keynes wasn’t a permanent solution by the 1970s, so the free market and Monetarism isn't either. Reform UK is akin to creating another SFC in political terms to recreate that era, including a lot of the myths as well as the genuine history.

Until the party settles the battles from the late 1980s, especially Europe, because Brexit clearly isn’t sufficient to do that, and finds the exit door for all the B String Australian and US Republican strategists killing their finances for ineffective ‘culture war wedge’ issues, then it has no chance of competing for power again with a fresh vision any time for the foreseeable. Which is not a good thing for democracy.

Edited June 27 by Gloucester Saint

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

I didn't say any of that. I simply asked if it was possible to successfully uphold human rights without being part of a European club? 

Of course, but I suspect there is an ulterior motive with all the Tory talk of leaving the ECHR, and not just relating to deportations to Rwanda.

[sadoldgit]

15 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Again, remember when you championed a Rwanda style / foreign processing unit for migrants….. until the Tory’s proposed it of course

Clearly you do not understand the difference between processing asylum applications abroad and deporting asylum seekers to Africa and leaving them there even if their applications are successful.

I shall spell it out for you again if that helps. The reason why so many people are crossing the channel is because the only way they can apply for asylum here is to pitch up on our shores. If there were legal routes available they wouldn’t risk their lives in the channel. These routes could be through our embassies abroad, at the Calais camp, there are plenty of alternatives if there was a will to deal with the issue humanly. 
The Rwanda plan has absolutely nothing to do with processing claims. It is meant as a deterrent and more so, red meat for the gammons who lap this sort of thing up. If it was meant as a processing centre why are those whose claims would be successful not be allowed back?

Can you see the difference yet? You really aren’t on top of this are you?

[Turkish]

3 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Clearly you do not understand the difference between processing asylum applications abroad and deporting asylum seekers to Africa and leaving them there even if their applications are successful.

I shall spell it out for you again if that helps. The reason why so many people are crossing the channel is because the only way they can apply for asylum here is to pitch up on our shores. If there were legal routes available they wouldn’t risk their lives in the channel. These routes could be through our embassies abroad, at the Calais camp, there are plenty of alternatives if there was a will to deal with the issue humanly. 
The Rwanda plan has absolutely nothing to do with processing claims. It is meant as a deterrent and more so, red meat for the gammons who lap this sort of thing up. If it was meant as a processing centre why are those whose claims would be successful not be allowed back?

Can you see the difference yet? You really aren’t on top of this are you?

you're getting worse. What was it you did that's turned you like this? 

[revolution saint]

31 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Good summary on last night’s poor head to head - another 0-0 and when the incumbent shouts and interrupts every 30 seconds, that’s all it can ever be https://inews.co.uk/opinion/bbc-tv-debate-sunak-last-shot-fluffed-election-3134101

This article sums up why the Tories are where they are, it’s the equivalent over-60s Saints fans sitting at SMS and critiquing whatever Russell Martin and the last few managers have done because it’s not what Lawrie would have done. Lawrie was successful in his context 1970s and 1980s, Thatcher was successful in her 1980s context.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/27/rishi-sunak-tories-election-conservatives-david-cameron

But contexts and the needs of different eras change and evolve, in the same way that Keynes wasn’t a permanent solution by the 1970s, so the free market and Monetarism isn't either. Reform UK is akin to creating another SFC in political terms to recreate that era, including a lot of the myths as well as the genuine history.

Until the party settles the battles from the late 1980s, especially Europe, because Brexit clearly isn’t sufficient to do that, and finds the exit door for all the B String Australian and US Republican strategists killing their finances for ineffective ‘culture war wedge’ issues, then it has no chance of competing for power again with a fresh vision any time for the foreseeable. Which is not a good thing for democracy.

Thanks for those links, interesting reads.  I only watched a bit of the debate last night but from what I saw Sunak was doing OK but his constant interruptions spoilt it completely.  Starmer frustrated me again.  I guess he isn't the kind of person who does well in those situations but a decent orator could have the tories on toast.  It's all too late anyway, I doubt that many watched and the ones that did have probably already made up their minds.

[hypochondriac]

51 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Of course, but I suspect there is an ulterior motive with all the Tory talk of leaving the ECHR, and not just relating to deportations to Rwanda.

That's fair and I can see why it would be opposed for that reason. My objection was to the hysterical response that we would turn into a fascist state if we weren't subject to the rulings of the ECHR. We would be perfectly capable of dealing with our own affairs in a fair and just manner without their oversight if we chose to do so. 

Like I said though I doubt we will ever leave anyway. 

[egg]

4 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

When did Canada withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights ? The only country to leave is Russia, in 2022; the Czech Republic and Serbia and Montenegro ceased membership when they split into Czechia, Slovakia, Serbia, and Montenegro, all of which joined as independent entities.

You've made Hypo's point for him. Canada plainly aren't a member, but live by decent principles. We can and will if we ever ditched the ECHR. The suggestion that we'll cease to live by decent and fair rules if we come out is sensationalist nonsense. 

[hypochondriac]

41 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Clearly you do not understand the difference between processing asylum applications abroad and deporting asylum seekers to Africa and leaving them there even if their applications are successful.

I shall spell it out for you again if that helps. The reason why so many people are crossing the channel is because the only way they can apply for asylum here is to pitch up on our shores. If there were legal routes available they wouldn’t risk their lives in the channel. These routes could be through our embassies abroad, at the Calais camp, there are plenty of alternatives if there was a will to deal with the issue humanly. 
The Rwanda plan has absolutely nothing to do with processing claims. It is meant as a deterrent and more so, red meat for the gammons who lap this sort of thing up. If it was meant as a processing centre why are those whose claims would be successful not be allowed back?

Can you see the difference yet? You really aren’t on top of this are you?

Most of the young men arriving on boats are economic migrants who wouldn't be given asylum here even if they were processed abroad. How would processing these people abroad prevent them from coming? 

Edited June 27 by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

You've made Hypo's point for him. Canada plainly aren't a member, but live by decent principles. We can and will if we ever ditched the ECHR. The suggestion that we'll cease to live by decent and fair rules if we come out is sensationalist nonsense. 

Thanks that's entirely my point. The idea that we need some unelected overseer that has precedent over our own laws to prevent us from sliding into some imagined fascism is for the birds. We won't be leaving but if we decided to do so, it would be a perfectly legitimate step to take and not a sign of fascism like some on social media would have you believe. 

[sadoldgit]

11 minutes ago, egg said:

You've made Hypo's point for him. Canada plainly aren't a member, but live by decent principles. We can and will if we ever ditched the ECHR. The suggestion that we'll cease to live by decent and fair rules if we come out is sensationalist nonsense. 

The court is there as a fail safe. It doesn’t matter what is happening today, things could change in the future. We have already seen the Tories breaking laws and lying in Parliament has now become almost commonplace/acceptable. The ECHR don’t sit there twiddling their thumbs, they have plenty of work to do. Ask yourself, why would you want to remove yourself from an institution that our country were instrumental from setting up in the first place? Do we actually need less protection of our human rights? 
I am immediately suspicious of the motives of any party who want less protection of human rights.

Edited June 27 by sadoldgit

[Lord Duckhunter]

22 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

shall spell it out for you again if that helps. The reason why so many people are crossing the channel is because the only way they can apply for asylum here is to pitch up on our shores.

What’s wrong with France? Theyre in your beloved ECHR, & the EU, makes you wonder why 800 people risk their lives daily to get away from it. There’s no war, they’re in no danger. They should get a choice Rwanda or France.

Starmer has said that people are acting illegally by crossing, so he obviously disagrees with your pony. His policy is to send people back from where they came from, I imagine Rwanda is probably nicer than the god forsaken places most come from.  For some bizarre reason he’s singled out Bangladeshi people as needing to be dealt with. Personally, I’d prefer Rwanda to Bangladesh. 
 

I’ll spell something out got you. However much soft arsed lefties like you wish it, this ain’t going away. Starmer, with his new crack Border Command won’t “smash the gangs”, & Nigel will be all over it like a rash throughout the parliament. Within 2 years, labour will be as “far right” on immigration as the Tories  are. They’ll be “crackdowns” , fiddling of figures, money chucked at the French, try and pretend it away & the boats will keep on coming. 

[egg]

2 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

The court is there as a fail safe. It doesn’t matter what is happening today, things could change in the future. We have already seen the Tories breaking laws and lying in Parliament has now become almost commonplace/acceptable. The ECHR don’t sit there twiddling their thumbs, they have plenty of work to do. Ask yourself, why would you want to remove yourself from an institution that our country were instrumental from setting up in the first place? Do we actually need less protection of our human rights? 

On the 2 highlighted parts:

1. Politics. It's the little Britain mantra of independence, but also see below. 

2. No. And I don't think we will if we come out. The principles of it are enshrined in our values, and much is enshrined in uk law and would be regardless of whether we remain part of the ECHR.

I'm not sure where this belief comes from that we need to be subject to an EU legal jurisdiction having exited the EU to continue to have decent human rights. We don't. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

14 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Like I said though I doubt we will ever leave anyway. 

Eventually it will be amended or interpreted differently to deal with migration. It’s not sustainable to continue the way it’s heading & politicians will eventually wake up and smell the coffee. 

[hypochondriac]

20 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

The court is there as a fail safe. It doesn’t matter what is happening today, things could change in the future. We have already seen the Tories breaking laws and lying in Parliament has now become almost commonplace/acceptable. The ECHR don’t sit there twiddling their thumbs, they have plenty of work to do. Ask yourself, why would you want to remove yourself from an institution that our country were instrumental from setting up in the first place? Do we actually need less protection of our human rights? 
I am immediately suspicious of the motives of any party who want less protection of human rights.

Alternatively a party may want to leave because times and circumstances change and parties may want more democratic accountability for decisions including subjective issues around human rights. 

[hypochondriac]

18 minutes ago, egg said:

On the 2 highlighted parts:

1. Politics. It's the little Britain mantra of independence, but also see below. 

2. No. And I don't think we will if we come out. The principles of it are enshrined in our values, and much is enshrined in uk law and would be regardless of whether we remain part of the ECHR.

I'm not sure where this belief comes from that we need to be subject to an EU legal jurisdiction having exited the EU to continue to have decent human rights. We don't. 

Exactly. It's as nonsensical as saying we need to be part of the EU in order to have animal welfare laws. You can disagree with brexit but we are perfectly capable of upholding animal welfare without some European body telling us what to do. Many other countries manage it and we used to as well. 

[sadoldgit]

It wasn’t and isn’t a part of the EU though. As I said before, a higher court provides protection from the state. Just because we have decent human rights now doesn’t mean that we will in the future. We already have a government that has changed the law here to say that a country is ‘safe’ when others say it isn’t. That in itself should set alarm bells ringing. If, God forbid, Farage and Reform ever came into power, the ECHR would be even more necessary, which is why they want to leave it!

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

It wasn’t and isn’t a part of the EU though. As I said before, a higher court provides protection from the state. Just because we have decent human rights now doesn’t mean that we will in the future. We already have a government that has changed the law here to say that a country is ‘safe’ when others say it isn’t. That in itself should set alarm bells ringing. If, God forbid, Farage and Reform ever came into power, the ECHR would be even more necessary, which is why they want to leave it!

Why can other countries manage perfectly well without this protection? Why restrict it just to human rights? Why not go the whole hog and have all our laws subject to being overruled by European courts? Can't be too careful and seemingly the European courts know what's better for us than we do. 

[trousers]

Who presides over the European Courts to protect citizens from any poor decisions they might make...?

[Weston Super Saint]

6 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

The BBC can track down people smugglers, so why can’t the French police despite the money being thrown at them? Perhaps if Sunak was more focussed on the gangs rather than his gimmicky Rwanda “deterrent” the problem wouldn’t have become so out of control?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx77l5ej2yyo.amp

Why would the French police be tracking down people smugglers in Luxembourg?

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, trousers said:

Who presides over the European Courts to protect citizens from any poor decisions they might make...?

George Soros

[Weston Super Saint]

23 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

It wasn’t and isn’t a part of the EU though. As I said before, a higher court provides protection from the state. Just because we have decent human rights now doesn’t mean that we will in the future. We already have a government that has changed the law here to say that a country is ‘safe’ when others say it isn’t. That in itself should set alarm bells ringing. If, God forbid, Farage and Reform ever came into power, the ECHR would be even more necessary, which is why they want to leave it!

Don't we have our own high court to provide protection from the state?

[hypochondriac]

11 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Don't we have our own high court to provide protection from the state?

That shouldn't exist either but it's a fair point. Like trousers said, let's make another court above the ECHR to safeguard us from their decisions. It's neverending. 

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, egg said:

On the 2 highlighted parts:

1. Politics. It's the little Britain mantra of independence, but also see below. 

2. No. And I don't think we will if we come out. The principles of it are enshrined in our values, and much is enshrined in uk law and would be regardless of whether we remain part of the ECHR.

I'm not sure where this belief comes from that we need to be subject to an EU legal jurisdiction having exited the EU to continue to have decent human rights. We don't. 

The ECHR is nothing to do with the EU.

[sadoldgit]

53 minutes ago, trousers said:

Who presides over the European Courts to protect citizens from any poor decisions they might make...?

I suppose you could have a World Court of Human Rights but you might struggle to go further until we find aliens.

Rewind a few years and I wonder how many of these people used to fret over the ECHR and spent time on forums saying we should leave it?

[hypochondriac]

Just now, sadoldgit said:

I suppose you could have a World Court of Human Rights but you might struggle to go further until we find aliens.

Rewind a few years and I wonder how many of these people used to fret over the ECHR and spent time on forums saying we should leave it?

There wasn't a need to challenge its rulings when there weren't multiple thousands of illegal economic migrants entering the country in dinghys. 

[egg]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

It wasn’t and isn’t a part of the EU though. As I said before, a higher court provides protection from the state. Just because we have decent human rights now doesn’t mean that we will in the future. We already have a government that has changed the law here to say that a country is ‘safe’ when others say it isn’t. That in itself should set alarm bells ringing. If, God forbid, Farage and Reform ever came into power, the ECHR would be even more necessary, which is why they want to leave it!

Why do we need a court above the Supreme Court? Our judges are independently and non politically appointed. They have shown countless times how they're willing to act against the government and it's various departments. We have decent human rights values and laws, a decent judicial system, and won't lose any of that if we exit the convention  and court.

Moreover, the notion that a court belonging to a club that we have left should exercise jurisdiction over us makes no sense in my opinion. 

[The Left Back]

10 minutes ago, egg said:

Why do we need a court above the Supreme Court? Our judges are independently and non politically appointed. They have shown countless times how they're willing to act against the government and it's various departments. We have decent human rights values and laws, a decent judicial system, and won't lose any of that if we exit the convention  and court.

Moreover, the notion that a court belonging to a club that we have left should exercise jurisdiction over us makes no sense in my opinion. 

It's been said by several on here before but I'll have a go.  We have not left this club.  ECHR membership is 46 countries (EU only 27 I think).  When the country voted for Brexit it didn't vote to leave the continent of Europe.  I think I read the only European countries not in this club are Belarus and Russia, the latter having been expelled for invading a fellow member.  Are we really wanting to be joining those two?

I believe this is merely another populist sabre to be rattled to shore up support among the (thankfully) aging isolationists we have in our midst.

 

 

[hypochondriac]

46 minutes ago, The Left Back said:

It's been said by several on here before but I'll have a go.  We have not left this club.  ECHR membership is 46 countries (EU only 27 I think).  When the country voted for Brexit it didn't vote to leave the continent of Europe.  I think I read the only European countries not in this club are Belarus and Russia, the latter having been expelled for invading a fellow member.  Are we really wanting to be joining those two?

I believe this is merely another populist sabre to be rattled to shore up support among the (thankfully) aging isolationists we have in our midst.

 

 

The ECHR isn't the continent of Europe. 

[egg]

1 hour ago, The Left Back said:

It's been said by several on here before but I'll have a go.  We have not left this club.  ECHR membership is 46 countries (EU only 27 I think).  When the country voted for Brexit it didn't vote to leave the continent of Europe.  I think I read the only European countries not in this club are Belarus and Russia, the latter having been expelled for invading a fellow member.  Are we really wanting to be joining those two?

I believe this is merely another populist sabre to be rattled to shore up support among the (thankfully) aging isolationists we have in our midst.

 

 

Fair point re the wider reach of the ECHR (court and convention) but it doesn't alter that we don't need to be part of that to have a) fair and just human rights and b) a fit for purpose judicial system to hold the state to account. I'm not calling to leave by the way, but I don't understand the flapping about the impact of doing so. 

[badgerx16]

23 minutes ago, egg said:

Fair point re the wider reach of the ECHR (court and convention) but it doesn't alter that we don't need to be part of that to have a) fair and just human rights and b) a fit for purpose judicial system to hold the state to account. I'm not calling to leave by the way, but I don't understand the flapping about the impact of doing so. 

How are we worse off by staying in ?

[whelk]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

How are we worse off by staying in ?

Exactly. Fuckers getting worked up about nothing and won't have a clue as to any implications. Distraction bollocks for the sheep.

[egg]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

How are we worse off by staying in ?

The issue is whether we leave. I've yet to hear how, in reality, British people will suffer any prejudice if we leave. Our laws are regulated by our judicial system. I'm not persuaded that we need what is essentially an international appeal court against decisions of our supreme court. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

4 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

If, God forbid, Farage and Reform ever came into power, the ECHR would be even more necessary, which is why they want to leave it!

God forbid, Parliament being sovereign, we can’t have that. The British nation might vote for people to represent them you don’t agree with…Why do we need representative’s elected by the people to protect our human rights, when unelected judges from Serbia, Azerbaijan, Turkey & Andora will do it for us…….🤡

[hypochondriac]

14 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

God forbid, Parliament being sovereign, we can’t have that. The British nation might vote for people to represent them you don’t agree with…Why do we need representative’s elected by the people to protect our human rights, when unelected judges from Serbia, Azerbaijan, Turkey & Andora will do it for us…….🤡

Imagine the shitfit he'd be having if courts like the ECHR started thwarting Labour initiatives he supported. Just for the record, I'd be supporting Labour in that scenario. Those democratically elected into office should be able to enact policies they were voted in for without being stopped from doing so by foreign courts even if I disagree with the policies. That's democracy. 

[sadoldgit]

3 hours ago, egg said:

Why do we need a court above the Supreme Court? Our judges are independently and non politically appointed. They have shown countless times how they're willing to act against the government and it's various departments. We have decent human rights values and laws, a decent judicial system, and won't lose any of that if we exit the convention  and court.

Moreover, the notion that a court belonging to a club that we have left should exercise jurisdiction over us makes no sense in my opinion. 

As has been said, it has nothing to do with the EU. A Supreme Court based here could find itself compromised by a government. The European Court by its very nature  is completely  independent of possible internal state interference. If you are going to have an overseeing legislative body where total independence of any particular  state is crucial, then it makes perfect sense and is why it was formed in the first place. If the state is complying with basic human rights anyway, what does it have to fear from the ECHR? 
The only people who need to be concerned are those who are allegedly in breech of human rights. What is wrong with that?

Edited June 27 by sadoldgit

[skintsaint]

7 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

A Supreme Court based here could find itself compromised by a government.

Has that ever happened? I don't know either way, just intrigued as thought the SC was independent of government.