No to Rwanda

[Unlucky4Sum]

No.  When did I say that?

Here

No, because I never suggested foreign countries should change their rights.  I only said the UK.  In the UK, we have common law, so any man, woman or child on the land is protected from injury or loss.  And since Brits provide plenty of money abroad, I suspect they will want their rights to apply to them.

[Scott777]

So you think the UK should and indeed would be afforded a one rule for them, no rules for us position.

No.  When did I say that?

[Streetwalker]

Seeing as you brought history into the chat, I'll give you 2 starters.
Jet Engine and WWW, 2 of the most important inventions in history. Followed by:

• Postage stamp
• Fire extinguisher
• Magazine
• Steam engine
• Refrigerator
• Gas turbine
• Alternating current
• Light bulb
• Vaccination
• Locomotive
• Railway
• Lawnmower
• Gas stove/cooker
• Negative & colour photography
• Synthetic dye
• Metro/Subway
• Antiseptic surgery
• Antibiotics (first broad-range)
• Radio
• Loudspeaker
• Video Game

Anything you see of importance? Our importance is based a lot on the above, and the fact that the most spoken L2 language is English, the world could not now operate as a global entity without English. So yeah, we're pretty important.

Soccer
Rugby
Cricket
Rounders 
Baseball
Golf
Darts
Curling 
Volley ball
Badmington
Tennis
Table tennis 
Netball
Squash
Bowls +loads of other minor sports , feck me if it wasn't for the UK the highlight of the sporting calender would be the world flip flop throwing championship 

[Nick]

Who's ranking is this and on what is it based?

If you're claiming that historically putting 25% of the world under the cosh is a firm basis for judging that the UK has current positive influence, I'd say you're misguided. Even the internationally used "English" language has now become a largely US adaptation.

And if you're basing the UK's world influence on its "Special Relationship" with the US, that's been diminishing since George W, and the UK is probably now regarded by the US as an aggravating makeweight...

Seeing as you brought history into the chat, I'll give you 2 starters.
Jet Engine and WWW, 2 of the most important inventions in history. Followed by:

• Postage stamp
• Fire extinguisher
• Magazine
• Steam engine
• Refrigerator
• Gas turbine
• Alternating current
• Light bulb
• Vaccination
• Locomotive
• Railway
• Lawnmower
• Gas stove/cooker
• Negative & colour photography
• Synthetic dye
• Metro/Subway
• Antiseptic surgery
• Antibiotics (first broad-range)
• Radio
• Loudspeaker
• Video Game

Anything you see of importance? Our importance is based a lot on the above, and the fact that the most spoken L2 language is English, the world could not now operate as a global entity without English. So yeah, we're pretty important.

[Unlucky4Sum]

No, because I never suggested foreign countries should change their rights.  I only said the UK.  In the UK, we have common law, so any man, woman or child on the land is protected from injury or loss.  And since Brits provide plenty of money abroad, I suspect they will want their rights to apply to them.

So you think the UK should and indeed would be afforded a one rule for them, no rules for us position.
 
Not exactly the moral high ground or credible is it

 

[Scott777]

So on a quid pro quo basis that would be a free rein for other nations to persecute Brits abroad then wouldn't it and of course to persecute foreigners here.  And on top of that becoming a pariah state that no one would have free trade deals with leading us on the fast track to third world economics.

Good plan not
 

No, because I never suggested foreign countries should change their rights.  I only said the UK.  In the UK, we have common law, so any man, woman or child on the land is protected from injury or loss.  And since Brits provide plenty of money abroad, I suspect they will want their rights to apply to them.

[HDQQ]

Well, if you look at the stats, the uk is ranked as the 3rd most influential country in the world. Beaten by only the USA and China, so I'll take that thanks.

Currently Russia is probably the most influential country in the world, and not for good reasons.

[patman post]

Well, if you look at the stats, the uk is ranked as the 3rd most influential country in the world. Beaten by only the USA and China, so I'll take that thanks.

Who's ranking is this and on what is it based?

If you're claiming that historically putting 25% of the world under the cosh is a firm basis for judging that the UK has current positive influence, I'd say you're misguided. Even the internationally used "English" language has now become a largely US adaptation.

And if you're basing the UK's world influence on its "Special Relationship" with the US, that's been diminishing since George W, and the UK is probably now regarded by the US as an aggravating makeweight...

[Unlucky4Sum]

The question of course would be who interprets whats fair . Personally I would rather keep it in house .

Well the default is in house now we have the HRA but some times we get it wrong (both ways) and having an effective international court provides validity.  I'm yet to see a case here the ECtHR got it wrong.
 
Their recent Rwanda injunction being a good case.  Without them we'd have illegally deported people (as the Appeal Court has just found)  

[Streetwalker]

So you don't disagree with any of the ECnHR, just don't want us to be fairly held to it.  Rather hypocritical.

The question of course would be who interprets whats fair . Personally I would rather keep it in house .

[Nick]

That's a throw-away comment.

My comment refers to the current standing of the UK. It now has less clout on the world stage than when Margaret Thatcher took the reins and gave the UK back some belief in what it could achieve once trades union sabotage was dealt with.

From my perception, there's less respect for the UK among the overseas personnel and organisations it has to deal with. Even Johnson's attempts to relive Thatcher's Falklands home acclaim and international recognition through Ukraine hasn't worked.

But perhaps the main opinion in the UK is that it is better off being a group of off-shore European islands...

Well, if you look at the stats, the uk is ranked as the 3rd most influential country in the world. Beaten by only the USA and China, so I'll take that thanks.

[patman post]

That's just a throw away comment that you can't back up.

That's a throw-away comment. 

My comment refers to the current standing of the UK. It now has less clout on the world stage than when Margaret Thatcher took the reins and gave the UK back some belief in what it could achieve once trades union sabotage was dealt with. 

From my perception, there's less respect for the UK among the overseas personnel and organisations it has to deal with. Even Johnson's attempts to relive Thatcher's Falklands home acclaim and international recognition through Ukraine hasn't worked. 

But perhaps the main opinion in the UK is that it is better off being a group of off-shore European islands...

[Unlucky4Sum]

Its not the text or the purpose of the European courts its the interpretation . We are and would remain signed up to the United Nations declaration on human rights which covers the grown up stuff

So you don't disagree with any of the ECnHR, just don't want us to be fairly held to it.  Rather hypocritical. 
 
if you actually look at the history of ECtHR cases involving the UK I suggest you'd find it to be nothing like the Maily Expressograph suggests it to be.
 

[Streetwalker]

So you can't name one line of the ECnHR that you'd change.  Almost seems like your perception of Churchill's legacy the ECnHR and the ECtHR comes from the Daily Ukip doesn't it

Its not the text or the purpose of the European courts its the interpretation . We are and would remain signed up to the United Nations declaration on human rights which covers the grown up stuff 

[Nick]

So on a quid pro quo basis that would be a free rein for other nations to persecute Brits abroad then wouldn't it and of course to persecute foreigners here.  And on top of that becoming a pariah state that no one would have free trade deals with leading us on the fast track to third world economics.

Good plan not
 

You just don't get it do you, it's not about what the ECHR says or does, it's about the UK having the right to debate a bill, agree it and then stick it in our our laws without having to jump through all kinds of hoops to placate other countries.