True Colours shining through

Prufrock · **Posted:** Fri Nov 11, 2011 1:43 am

mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:

Prufrock wrote:

I do live there. As do you.

The Human Rights you, and the Daily Mail, love to bang on about, is the European Court of Human Rights, which has absolutely nothing to do with the EU. The EU is all for human rights, great, so am I, and plenty other individuals and organisations. Still has nowt to do with 'Human Rights'.

Pru, I like you and I like human rights, but this is a tad disingenuous.

It is a condition of membership of the EU that all new member states must ratify the ECHR. Now, whether it is a condition of the UK's continuing membership of the EU that it remains a signatory is a fertile area for debate, but I would suggest that the fact that the EU itself has acceded to the Convention, rather than just the individual member states (itself a constitutional nonsense, in my humble opinion) makes this even more likely the two things are inextricably bound together.

But when did it accede? After we did. The UK's obligations (and I use that word quite wrongly, but let's leave how bound, or not, the UK courts are for another time) came from before the EU did. To relate them to Brussels bureaucrats is plainly and simply wrong.

To be more specific, for Hoboh, the EU has nowt to do with our commitment to human rights.

mummywhycantieatcrayons · **Posted:** Fri Nov 11, 2011 1:49 am

Prufrock wrote:

mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:

Prufrock wrote:

I do live there. As do you.

The Human Rights you, and the Daily Mail, love to bang on about, is the European Court of Human Rights, which has absolutely nothing to do with the EU. The EU is all for human rights, great, so am I, and plenty other individuals and organisations. Still has nowt to do with 'Human Rights'.

Pru, I like you and I like human rights, but this is a tad disingenuous.

It is a condition of membership of the EU that all new member states must ratify the ECHR. Now, whether it is a condition of the UK's continuing membership of the EU that it remains a signatory is a fertile area for debate, but I would suggest that the fact that the EU itself has acceded to the Convention, rather than just the individual member states (itself a constitutional nonsense, in my humble opinion) makes this even more likely the two things are inextricably bound together.

But when did it accede? After we did. The UK's obligations (and I use that word quite wrongly, but let's leave how bound, or not, the UK courts are for another time) came from before the EU did. To relate them to Brussels bureaucrats is plainly and simply wrong.

To be more specific, for Hoboh, the EU has nowt to do with our commitment to human rights.

I disagree - as I say, it is at least arguable that being a signatory is a condition of our continuing membership.

Anyway, I wasn't even really dealing with that - your statement was "the European Court of Human Rights, which has absolutely nothing to do with the EU", which is quite obviously substantially incorrect.

Prufrock · **Posted:** Fri Nov 11, 2011 1:57 am

That isn't quite what I said. I referred to 'Human rights' in the context Hoboh means it, in the context the Daily Mail means it. The idea of subjugation before this 'foreign body' which is brought about by Brussels. That the EU has acceded to the EConHR is actually irrelevant as to our obligations, or rather, why we are 'obligated', because we signed up to it before the EU did, before it even became arguable that it would be a condition. It might be the case we couldn't leave it now, but we voluntary signed up, independent of a decree issued from a Belgian Whore-House.

In the context Hoboh implies, which is 'we were forced to' the ECHR had nothing to do with the EU, which, in context, is what I was getting at.

What I was getting at is a link between the EU and the ECHR which doesn't exist. If the EU didn't exist, we would still be bound by the ECHR, because the democratically elected government of the UK voluntarily signed up to it.

mummywhycantieatcrayons · **Posted:** Fri Nov 11, 2011 2:14 am

That's exactly what you said - I have quoted you verbatim.

If you want to clarify, that's fine!

Prufrock wrote:

What I was getting at is a link between the EU and the ECHR which doesn't exist. If the EU didn't exist, we would still be bound by the ECHR, because the democratically elected government of the UK voluntarily signed up to it.

But you're still being sloppy. There is a link today, no, links - several of them, some of which I have outlined above.

And as for your second sentence - it's true that the ECHR preceded the EU, but that doesn't change the fact that the reality today is that our EU membership makes it more difficult to change our mind and withdraw from the ECHR. There might also be a more nuanced argument about the extent to which our EU membership made the HRA more likely.

As I say, I'm in favour of our human rights commitments - I just think you're making this point clumsily and unrealistically.

Prufrock · **Posted:** Fri Nov 11, 2011 2:34 am

You quoted words but not context. I think I've made clear throughout that the 'human rights' I'm referring to are those casually thrown in by Hoboh and his/her brethren which imply the EU and the ECHR are homogeneous. They imply, in this thread Hoboh has implied, the same body which regulates the straightness of bananas is the same body which imposes our 'obligations' on Human Rights.

There is a link today, but the point I am driving at, and against, is one that pre-dates the EU's accession. When we signed up to it, we did not have to on account of Brussels, and that is the point Hoboh was originally making, and it is in that context, and to that point, which I replied. We took on the ECHR voluntarily, that the EU subsequently made it mandatory for new members and arguably (frankly, if we sacked off the ECHR, would they really kick us-by which I mean London- out of the EU?) existing members is irrelevant in the context of Belgian dictatorships. I personally don't believe our membership of the EU played a major part in us signing up to the ECHR. That Labour government, in that context was always going to sign up. They wanted to, not they felt they had to.

Il Pirate · **Posted:** Fri Nov 11, 2011 10:29 am

Wasn't it that whizz Boris Johnson who used to come out with the straight banana/cucumber (oo er missus) stuff when he was a newspaper editor? All part of the tory fight against johnny foreigner ? He saw it as a great wheeze to wind up a certain demographic of the population by printing stuff like 'Europe bans English Rose!!! From next tuesday it will have to be renamed non european tea flower'. And other such crap. Allegedly.

mummywhycantieatcrayons · **Posted:** Fri Nov 11, 2011 11:16 am

Prufrock wrote:

We took on the ECHR voluntarily, that the EU subsequently made it mandatory for new members and arguably (frankly, if we sacked off the ECHR, would they really kick us-by which I mean London- out of the EU?) existing members is irrelevant in the context of Belgian dictatorships. I personally don't believe our membership of the EU played a major part in us signing up to the ECHR. That Labour government, in that context was always going to sign up. They wanted to, not they felt they had to.

As to the first point - I have no idea. In prosperous, calm times... maybe. I'm not a good enough lawyer to work out whether it is a treaty obligation currently, or whether it is possible for the EU to be a signatory with some of its constituent parts not. Ask your EU lecturer what he/she thinks.

As to the second point... if you don't think that EU membership and the 'Factortame' evolution of our legal system was absolutely crucial in our conceiving of directly applying a foreign source of law and jurisprudence in UK courts then... well I don't know... just think about it.

Hoboh · **Posted:** Fri Nov 11, 2011 12:09 pm

This lot managed to misuse or lose £4 billion + in their 2010 accounts!!!

http://eca.europa.eu/portal/pls/portal/ ... 766724.PDF

Lord Kangana · **Posted:** Fri Nov 11, 2011 2:45 pm

So 1/212.5th of the cost of bailing our banks out.

Clearly its been Europe all along.

Hoboh · **Posted:** Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:18 pm

Lord Kangana wrote:

So 1/212.5th of the cost of bailing our banks out.

Clearly its been Europe all along.

Clearly you don't mind them wasting your tax!
I never said it was responsable for the present mess but if you cannot manage your own house how do you have the cheek to tell the Greeks, Itallians, Irish etc how to manage theirs?
EU is a joke, will fall apart and end in tears for a lot of plain simple folk who have been denied the chance to vote for it or against it.
Its Harriet Harperperson gone mega!

thebish · **Posted:** Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:21 pm

Hoboh wrote:

Lord Kangana wrote:

So 1/212.5th of the cost of bailing our banks out.

Clearly its been Europe all along.

Clearly you don't mind them wasting your tax!
I never said it was responsable for the present mess but if you cannot manage your own house how do you have the cheek to tell the Greeks, Itallians, Irish etc how to manage theirs?
EU is a joke, will fall apart and end in tears for a lot of plain simple folk who have been denied the chance to vote for it or against it.
Its Harriet Harperperson gone mega!

remind me who was in power when we signed the Maastricht treaty? I'm sure Harriet is flattered by your devotion - but she can hardly take much credit/blame for our position in europe.

Hoboh · **Posted:** Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:25 pm

thebish wrote:

Hoboh wrote:

Lord Kangana wrote:

So 1/212.5th of the cost of bailing our banks out.

Clearly its been Europe all along.

Clearly you don't mind them wasting your tax!
I never said it was responsable for the present mess but if you cannot manage your own house how do you have the cheek to tell the Greeks, Itallians, Irish etc how to manage theirs?
EU is a joke, will fall apart and end in tears for a lot of plain simple folk who have been denied the chance to vote for it or against it.
Its Harriet Harperperson gone mega!

remind me who was in power when we signed the Maastricht treaty? I'm sure Harriet is flattered by your devotion - but she can hardly take much credit/blame for our position in europe.

Even you know Maggie wouldn't have put up with the socialist nanny crap Europe has evolved into! Stop feeding the Troll!

thebish · **Posted:** Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:27 pm

maggie signed us up to WAYYYYY more euro integration that harriet ever did!!!

Hoboh · **Posted:** Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:32 pm

thebish wrote:

maggie signed us up to WAYYYYY more euro integration that harriet ever did!!!

Thank God Harriet never got the chance and anyway at that time Harriet was too busy taking over the labour movement by the back door! and convienently NOT IN POWER.

thebish · **Posted:** Fri Nov 11, 2011 11:45 pm

Hoboh wrote:

thebish wrote:

maggie signed us up to WAYYYYY more euro integration that harriet ever did!!!

Thank God Harriet never got the chance and anyway at that time Harriet was too busy taking over the labour movement by the back door! and convienently NOT IN POWER.

and maggie was busy embroiling the UK deeper into europe. (not sure why that is Harriet's fault!)

Hoboh · **Posted:** Sat Nov 12, 2011 1:08 am

Even the flippin' Euro jackpot went to Europe again! £58 mill its sick, i'm sure the German/French eurocrats are robbing us!!! Is it a mistake or what that Europe is run by socialists? Robbing us blind these forigners

Lord Kangana · **Posted:** Sat Nov 12, 2011 1:15 am

Sarkozy isn't a socialist.

Neither is Merkel.

Nor Berlusconi.

Nor that Greek bloke.

Forigners one and all.

Hoboh · **Posted:** Sat Nov 12, 2011 1:48 am

Sarkozy declared to the Constitutional Council a net worth of €2 million, most of the assets being in the form of life insurance policies. As the French President, one of his first actions was to give himself a raise: his yearly salary went from €101,000 to €240,000 (to match his European/French peers). He is also entitled to a mayoral pension as a former mayor of Neuilly-sur-Seine. He also receives a yearly council pension as a former member of the council of the Hauts-de-Seine department.

Sounds like Blair & Brown

Merkel Christian Democratic Union Oh come on..............

Christian - socialist
Domocratic x2
Union - welllllllllllllllllllll

Silvio Berlusconi Give you that one but he ain't important really, the manwell at get togethers

Forigners one and all - Give you that one too :mrgreen:

2-2

Hoboh · **Posted:** Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:56 am

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/cameron-holdi ... ith-merkel

Europe is falling apart again!! The Germans are at it again, mass unemployment across the Eurozone and austerity measures galore, I suggest we get people back to work by increasing our armed forces and up weapons production rapidly!!!

Lord Kangana · **Posted:** Fri Nov 18, 2011 11:19 am

I think I'll absatin on this one.

True Colours shining through

Who is online