Bring Back Boris?

[Nick]

Given Britain was the main instigator of the ECHR personally the more nasty Tories wish to take away all human rights from British Citizens. They already have attacked the right to strike and the right to protest, and made it difficult for millions of people to vote.

Your millions of voters is utter bollox as usual. 16,000 failed to have the correct paperwork and 6,500 returned to the station and did vote. Leaving 9,500 that couldn't be arsed to return with ID. 

[Nick]

No it's like saying not being a member of the Donkey Protection League will stop you from donating your house to the Donkey Protection League.

If you're really worried UK politicians in power might not have your best interests at heart, then supporting leaving an organisation that guarantees your right to challenge that same government in court was probably a stupid thing to do.

Didn't stop Major threatening his cabinet with disbanding parliament if they voted against him. 

[papasmurf]

The CJEU (aka ECJ) was the final court of appeal for matters of European law. These were primarily in the economic space. Citizens could challenge their (and other) government's decisions. We no don't habe that ability.

Matters of human rights (like the covid measures you allude to) would more likely fall under the jurisdiction of the ECHR, a separate institution that Brexiters often confused with the EU, and which we are still aember of but *crucially* the brexit wing of the conservative party along with many of their grass root supporters want to leave so they can strip away human rights protections.

As for your quote, I would argue the brexiters are the ones supporting to give up essential liberty (human rights protections) for the temporary "safety" of blaming their problems of foreigners.

Given Britain was the main instigator of the ECHR personally the more nasty Tories wish to take away all human rights from British Citizens. They already have attacked the right to strike and the right to protest, and made it difficult for millions of people to vote.

[BeElBeeBub]

Never mind, I see analogies are beyond you.

The EU doesn't guarantee anything of the sort.  They didn't protect protesters in lockdown from being attacked by police.  You don't get to take the police to court and win, unless you have plenty of money to spare.  And even if the EU could protect you (which is so naive), in the words of Benjamin Franklin  "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety,"

The CJEU (aka ECJ) was the final court of appeal for matters of European law. These were primarily in the economic space. Citizens could challenge their (and other) government's decisions. We no don't habe that ability.

Matters of human rights (like the covid measures you allude to) would more likely fall under the jurisdiction of the ECHR, a separate institution that Brexiters often confused with the EU, and which we are still aember of but *crucially* the brexit wing of the conservative party along with many of their grass root supporters want to leave so they can strip away human rights protections.

As for your quote, I would argue the brexiters are the ones supporting to give up essential liberty (human rights protections) for the temporary "safety" of blaming their problems of foreigners.

[Unlucky4Sum]

The irony of left whingers who think Tory politicians can be trusted.  It's funny, because I remember Remain protesters calling Boris and his chums Nazis and all that.  The hypocrisy is off the scale.

What's funny (well sad really) is how you apparently project the behaviour of a few idiots onto all who supported Remaining.  

[Unlucky4Sum]

Evidence, please.

European Union Act 2011

[Scott777]

As of June 2016 (actually after 2011) any UK minister not vetoing any increase in EU powers without first getting a specific referendum approval first would have been committing an imprisonable criminal offence.

Evidence, please.

[Scott777]

We had a veto on lots of things but was our government to be trusted to use it ? The answer was no it wasn't so we decided to take that decision out of their hands

The irony of left whingers who think Tory politicians can be trusted.  It's funny, because I remember Remain protesters calling Boris and his chums Nazis and all that.  The hypocrisy is off the scale.

[Scott777]

No it's like saying not being a member of the Donkey Protection League will stop you from donating your house to the Donkey Protection League.

If you're really worried UK politicians in power might not have your best interests at heart, then supporting leaving an organisation that guarantees your right to challenge that same government in court was probably a stupid thing to do.

Never mind, I see analogies are beyond you.

The EU doesn't guarantee anything of the sort.  They didn't protect protesters in lockdown from being attacked by police.  You don't get to take the police to court and win, unless you have plenty of money to spare.  And even if the EU could protect you (which is so naive), in the words of Benjamin Franklin  "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety,"

[Unlucky4Sum]

We had a veto on lots of things but was our government to be trusted to use it ? The answer was no it wasn't so we decided to take that decision out of their hands

As of June 2016 (actually after 2011) any UK minister not vetoing any increase in EU powers without first getting a specific referendum approval first would have been committing an imprisonable criminal offence.

This would have been a pretty good reason to trust that they would use it

[BeElBeeBub]

Yeah, it's a bit like saying, why close your front door when you go out, if it won't stop burglars.  The thing is, if you close it, lock it, close the windows, and ensure your house is secure in many different ways, you will probably be ok. 

No it's like saying not being a member of the Donkey Protection League will stop you from donating your house to the Donkey Protection League.

If you're really worried UK politicians in power might not have your best interests at heart, then supporting leaving an organisation that guarantees your right to challenge that same government in court was probably a stupid thing to do.

[Scott777]

If our own politicians want British formations to be part of an EU army, commanded by the EU commission in Brussels, then not being a member of the EU won't stop them.

Yeah, it's a bit like saying, why close your front door when you go out, if it won't stop burglars.  The thing is, if you close it, lock it, close the windows, and ensure your house is secure in many different ways, you will probably be ok.  

[Scott777]

And if we *were* in the EU, we wouldn't need to be part of any hypothetical EU army because we not only had a veto on it being formed, we also had the fact defence and foreign affairs were reserved forember states anyway.

And then there is the purely practical point of how do you force a country to join your military if it doesn't want to?

Who said anything about needing an EU army?  As I said before, a veto is irrelevant if your politicians want to take part.

[Scott777]

How do I know what the binding commitments are? I look them up. You can too.

https://www.pesco.europa.eu/binding-commitments/

These are from the annex to the council decision that created PESCO

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017D2315&from=EN

The commitments are more in the realm of committing to spend a certain amount on defence, committing to cooperate with the other members and committing to keep enough troops/equipment in such a state that they are able to form a battlegroup when required.

Yet another example of Leave misrepresenting something.

This is exactly what I mean by misrepresenting things

The binding commitments.are about defense spending levels and committing to coordinate defence reviews.

So here you are misrepresenting things.  The binding commitments are not just about spending and reviews, they include "Making available formations, that are strategically deployable, for the realisation of the EU LoA, in addition to a potential deployment of an EU [Battle Group]".  So your original statement was a misrepresentation.

[Streetwalker]

Actually he said this

"It is not remotely on the cards that Turkey is going to join the EU any time soon. They applied in 1987. At the current rate of progress, they will probably get round to joining in about the year 3000."

But as the PM he couldn't be seen to say to a military ally 'they can F@@@ right off' could he.


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/22/david-cameron-defence-minister-penny-mordaunt-lying-turkey-joining-eu

What he said in May 2016 was not what he had been saying for the previous 5 years ,which was that he supported them joining 

And there we go. You admit that one of the talking points Leave raised was bollocks. I cannot* think why leave would raise such a point they knew to be untrue. 

Nobody knew what the future would bring ,it was all best guess whatever way you looked at it be it only 20,000 economic migrants would come here after freedom of movement or 72 million turks after they joined . The point was we would no longer be subject to best guess but be in control of immigration . (that the tories have fecked it up is another matter)

And if we *were* in the EU, we wouldn't need to be part of any hypothetical EU army because we not only had a veto on it being formed, we also had the fact defence and foreign affairs were reserved forember states anyway.

And then there is the purely practical point of how do you force a country to join your military if it doesn't want to?

We had a veto on lots of things but was our government to be trusted to use it ? The answer was no it wasn't so we decided to take that decision out of their hands