Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1839
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 3:14 pm

olle wrote:
noviorbis77 wrote:
Hey. I am all for people coming to the UK and making positive contributions. Commit crime, then back you go. Perfectly fair and reasonable.


I think all people agree with you.


Actually, no I don't!

It's my understanding that normal process of law in all countries is to prosecute in the jurisdiction where the crime took place - according to the law of that jurisdiction.

I find it highly xenophobic and small-minded to think that a crime committed in your locality is somehow someone else's problem to deal with. It's just arrogant to think you can export your issues to "their" country.

Only exceptional circumstances (e.g. someone wanted for crimes in their own country of origin, diplomacy) should result in extradition or prisoner swaps.

In the same way I have no sympathy for e.g. idiots smuggling drugs in Thailand and then UK media kicking up a fuss when they get handed severe punishment for it.
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
noviorbis77
Posts: 1003
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:23 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 3:23 pm

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
olle wrote:
noviorbis77 wrote:
Hey. I am all for people coming to the UK and making positive contributions. Commit crime, then back you go. Perfectly fair and reasonable.


I think all people agree with you.


Actually, no I don't!

It's my understanding that normal processes of law in all countries prosecute the criminal in the jurisdiction of the crime according to the law of that jurisdiction.

I find it highly xenophobic and small-minded to think that a crime committed in your locality is somehow someone else's problem to deal with. It's just arrogant to think you can exporting your issues to "their" country.

Only exceptional circumstances (e.g. someone wanted for crimes in their own country of origin, diplomacy) should result in extradition or prisoner swaps.


As a UK/Irish national

If I lived in France, committed a serious enough offence, I’d be deported at the end of my sentence.

If I lived in Germany, committed a serious enough offence, I’d be deported at the end of my sentence.

If I lived in Italy, committed a serious enough offence, I’d be deported at the end of my sentence.

If I lived in Denmark, committed a serious enough offence, I’d be deported at the end of my sentence.

If I lived in Spain, committed a serious enough offence, I’d be deported at the end of my sentence.

If I lived in Slovakia, committed a serious enough offence, I’d be deported at the end of my sentence.

Do you understand this?
It is not a British limited think. Under EEA Regulations, the above happens.

From next year, we’ll continue this, albeit under 1971 and 2007 Immigration Acts.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2004
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 3:33 pm

noviorbis77 wrote:

It is xenophobic to deport foreign national offenders?

It is xenophobic to deport asylum seekers who do not qualify for refugee status and have no lawful basis to remain?

Given that Jimmy Saville was British, not sure how we could deport him or where to.


- It is, indeed, xenophobic to want to discard an internationally agreed Human Rights Convention just because it gets the way of throwing or keeping foreigners out.

- It is xenophobic to discard an international human rights convention etc etc that applies to all individuals just so that you can throw a small number of “chancers” out. To be clear, the convention will no longer apply to anyone, not just the “chancers”. Your opposition to it is based solely on the fact that it gives human rights, which you presumably support for UK citizens, to foreigners. Ergo, xenophobia.

- Exile existed long before modern citizenship law. Send him to whoever takes him. Or strip him of his citizenship like you did with that British terrorist wife. Sure that would render him stateless, but the UK could always withdraw from the UN Convention on Statelessness, just like it has from the ECHR. As someone who detests criminals, you should be a great proponent of that. You could get rid of a lot of “undesirables“ that way. Including pure-bred English ones, like Tommy and Jayda. Why should an international convention force a sovereign nation to keep undesirables, eh?

Or maybe there’s a reason you oppose ECHR but not the UN convention on Statelessness? Maybe it’s because ECHR gives rights to “foreigners”, whereas the Convention on Statelessness protects pure-breds (not to be confused with UK-born and raised, which does not immunize one from ethnic origin, as that terrorist wife recently found out).
Last edited by ElPistolero on Sun Mar 08, 2020 3:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
olle
Posts: 2026
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 3:36 pm

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
olle wrote:
noviorbis77 wrote:
Hey. I am all for people coming to the UK and making positive contributions. Commit crime, then back you go. Perfectly fair and reasonable.


I think all people agree with you.


Actually, no I don't!

It's my understanding that normal process of law in all countries is to prosecute in the jurisdiction where the crime took place - according to the law of that jurisdiction.

I find it highly xenophobic and small-minded to think that a crime committed in your locality is somehow someone else's problem to deal with. It's just arrogant to think you can export your issues to "their" country.

Only exceptional circumstances (e.g. someone wanted for crimes in their own country of origin, diplomacy) should result in extradition or prisoner swaps.

In the same way I have no sympathy for e.g. idiots smuggling drugs in Thailand and then UK media kicking up a fuss when they get handed severe punishment for it.


Inside EU there is a common database and warrent shared between the member of EU and a few other countries. This means that If someone is commited for a crime serious enough to be added to this site your country will be able to use it. I also believe you can request to verify DNA, fingerprintetc etc meaning your country has easier to see if a criminal has commited crimes before or support an investigation. This big advantage for the police in UK and EU memberstates will be lost for UK police.

Also Dublin is about to expire for UK. Migrants from example syria will not be able to send back to France or Greece as the case is today.
 
Olddog
Topic Author
Posts: 1503
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:41 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 3:39 pm

The problem is for now other european countries have to get back theses citizen, but after brexit good luck with that.
Signature censored
 
olle
Posts: 2026
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 4:22 pm

Olddog wrote:
The problem is for now other european countries have to get back theses citizen, but after brexit good luck with that.


I am not shure if I understand your comment but students not arriving to uk means lower export incomes from a secor in UK that generates a lot of export incomes. Now they go to other universities like Spain.

For east european proffesionals loke poles I think it might be intersting for UK to know that they are very much looked after. Poland with its needs of workers using the lower pound and UK salaries to push polish young and families to come back to poland. In poland now it is big immigration from ukraine after ukraine do not anymore have visa requirement to schengen anymore.

The biggest movement of people right now is proffessionals from lithuania and ukraine to poland, germany and Scandinavia.
 
olle
Posts: 2026
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 4:30 pm

17000 immigrants from EU every year is students. Thru EU and the erasmus program they pay 420 million pounds plus private expenses per year to UK.

With a no deal UK will not be part of Erasmius or the Horizon programs that is critical for UK universities. The number of EU students has been going down because the diplomas from UK will probably not be valid in EU after 2021.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... uk-economy
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2004
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 4:39 pm

noviorbis77 wrote:

As a UK/Irish national

If I lived in France, committed a serious enough offence, I’d be deported at the end of my sentence.

If I lived in Germany, committed a serious enough offence, I’d be deported at the end of my sentence.

If I lived in Italy, committed a serious enough offence, I’d be deported at the end of my sentence.

If I lived in Denmark, committed a serious enough offence, I’d be deported at the end of my sentence.

If I lived in Spain, committed a serious enough offence, I’d be deported at the end of my sentence.

If I lived in Slovakia, committed a serious enough offence, I’d be deported at the end of my sentence.

Do you understand this?
It is not a British limited think. Under EEA Regulations, the above happens.

From next year, we’ll continue this, albeit under 1971 and 2007 Immigration Acts.


So...umm... noting that they’re all signatories to the ECHR, what exactly is the problem with the ECHR?
 
A101
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 4:57 pm

AeroVega wrote:
A101 wrote:
AeroVega wrote:

The UK can either diverge or not diverge.



I think you are mistaking what divergence means here from where the UK currently stands. That level of divergence is going to be sector by sector, the return of powers to peak industry bodies will be directly related to ECJ oversight

AeroVega wrote:

the UK diverges then companies that want to sell their products in both the EU and the UK need to prove conformance with two different sets of safety regulations. Proving conformance with a set of safety regulations is a extremely expensive. Companies may well decide that the cost is too high given the small size of the UK market compared to the EU, US and China. So if the UK diverges then the UK will be the last in line for new safety critical products (such as new cancer therapies), if they get them at all.



Well that happens now whenever the EU trade with non EU members, most trade agreements with the EU have equivalence reporting mechanisms between trade agreement nations which reduce this burden it’s not with every nation but those provisions will be in effect with majority if not all Free Trade a Agreements with the EU


Have you forgotten that we are talking about Brexit? The UK is heading for the WTO door without a trade agreement.



No haven't forgotten, there is still a very slim chance that an agreement of sorts will take place, and even if no agreement is reached until the UK actually changes its legislation with the trade imbalance between the EU/UK reducing the burden will be mutually desirable for the continuation of trade between the two.

If talks do breakdown by the middle of the year as I am expecting, that still leave 6 months to work on a limited partnership agreement. where there is a will there is a way forward.
 
olle
Posts: 2026
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 5:12 pm

A101 wrote:
AeroVega wrote:
A101 wrote:

I think you are mistaking what divergence means here from where the UK currently stands. That level of divergence is going to be sector by sector, the return of powers to peak industry bodies will be directly related to ECJ oversight



Well that happens now whenever the EU trade with non EU members, most trade agreements with the EU have equivalence reporting mechanisms between trade agreement nations which reduce this burden it’s not with every nation but those provisions will be in effect with majority if not all Free Trade a Agreements with the EU


Have you forgotten that we are talking about Brexit? The UK is heading for the WTO door without a trade agreement.



No haven't forgotten, there is still a very slim chance that an agreement of sorts will take place, and even if no agreement is reached until the UK actually changes its legislation with the trade imbalance between the EU/UK reducing the burden will be mutually desirable for the continuation of trade between the two.

If talks do breakdown by the middle of the year as I am expecting, that still leave 6 months to work on a limited partnership agreement. where there is a will there is a way forward.



We talked about Brexit. Brexit has happened. Now we talk about future relationship after current situation where some kind of Norway ++ is the reality until the end of the year, except some exeptions like trade in Euro that finish 1 of April.
Last edited by olle on Sun Mar 08, 2020 5:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Olddog
Topic Author
Posts: 1503
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:41 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 5:13 pm

olle wrote:
Olddog wrote:
The problem is for now other european countries have to get back theses citizen, but after brexit good luck with that.


I am not shure if I understand your comment but students not arriving to uk means lower export incomes from a secor in UK that generates a lot of export incomes. Now they go to other universities like Spain.


I was obviously not talking about the students but rather about theses "criminals".
Signature censored
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11614
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 5:17 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
noviorbis77 wrote:

As a UK/Irish national

If I lived in France, committed a serious enough offence, I’d be deported at the end of my sentence.

If I lived in Germany, committed a serious enough offence, I’d be deported at the end of my sentence.

If I lived in Italy, committed a serious enough offence, I’d be deported at the end of my sentence.

If I lived in Denmark, committed a serious enough offence, I’d be deported at the end of my sentence.

If I lived in Spain, committed a serious enough offence, I’d be deported at the end of my sentence.

If I lived in Slovakia, committed a serious enough offence, I’d be deported at the end of my sentence.

Do you understand this?
It is not a British limited think. Under EEA Regulations, the above happens.

From next year, we’ll continue this, albeit under 1971 and 2007 Immigration Acts.


So...umm... noting that they’re all signatories to the ECHR, what exactly is the problem with the ECHR?


:checkmark: exactly, it was possible when the UK was in the EU, it is possible when in the ECHR. So it is something else noviorbis77 wants, the question is what? Given his previous statement, I can take a guess.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
A101
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 5:29 pm

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
JJJ wrote:

Article 5 will force a nation to go to war whether they like it or not.

I'd say that's a big chunk of sovereignty given away.


And done so in full knowledge in defence of the nation state, it’s just like ANZUS and which has limited foreign military basing within Australia which is a sovereign decision


so is joining the EU, no difference there.


Actually a huge difference one was sold as being the cornerstone for collective defence on members of NATO, the other was sold as a trade agreement into a "common market" with no loss of sovereignty
 
JJJ
Posts: 3655
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 5:35 pm

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:

And done so in full knowledge in defence of the nation state, it’s just like ANZUS and which has limited foreign military basing within Australia which is a sovereign decision


so is joining the EU, no difference there.


Actually a huge difference one was sold as being the cornerstone for collective defence on members of NATO, the other was sold as a trade agreement into a "common market" with no loss of sovereignty


Only if you weren't listening.

There are pages and pages of quotes starting in the 50s which clearly state where the whole thing was heading.

The UK knew it from the start which is why they started EFTA, precisely because the EEC had much higher aims.

It's ok to say "we thought better about it" but don't pretend you didn't know. It paints you as either liars or complete ignorants and neither is a good thing.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11614
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 5:44 pm

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:

And done so in full knowledge in defence of the nation state, it’s just like ANZUS and which has limited foreign military basing within Australia which is a sovereign decision


so is joining the EU, no difference there.


Actually a huge difference one was sold as being the cornerstone for collective defence on members of NATO, the other was sold as a trade agreement into a "common market" with no loss of sovereignty


As explained many times to you: every bilateral, every international treaty, every international law the UK binds itself to, is a loss of sovereignty.

The cornerstone for collective defence, yes, and loss of sovereignty. It is ok, it has a lot of benefits, but regardless it is a loss of a bit of sovereignty. Especially with defense it should matter to you. Anyhow, still no difference there.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19033
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 5:44 pm

Arion640 wrote:
scbriml wrote:
ChrisKen wrote:
We're where we are because brexiteers are clueless, rabble rousing idiots. They never had a plan, they still don't.


But, but... blue passports!

Or are they actually black? Either way, they’re embarrassingly made by Johnny Foreigner.

Not forgetting our commemorative 50p coins.

#SoMuchWinning. :banghead:


I know it’s a remoaner favourite to throw in blue passports but they weren’t even offered until after the referendum...


That you still don’t get it is amusing and unsurprising in equal measure! :rotfl:
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
olle
Posts: 2026
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 5:47 pm

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:

And done so in full knowledge in defence of the nation state, it’s just like ANZUS and which has limited foreign military basing within Australia which is a sovereign decision


so is joining the EU, no difference there.


Actually a huge difference one was sold as being the cornerstone for collective defence on members of NATO, the other was sold as a trade agreement into a "common market" with no loss of sovereignty



Until the countries of ECC figured out they wanted something else. Remember that it was the UK government lead by Ms Tatcher that pushed for SM.

ECC development to what EU is today and what it will be in one generation is like one romantic relationship.

It starts with a kiss, then a nice dinner, marrige, house dog and kids.

Did you agree to house dogs and kids at the first kiss? Probably no. It is like divorce after 20 years and say, I did not sign up for having kids when we first met... :-) bad luck! You took some decisions and you accepted some other along the way.
Last edited by olle on Sun Mar 08, 2020 5:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
A101
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 5:47 pm

olle wrote:
A101 wrote:
AeroVega wrote:

Have you forgotten that we are talking about Brexit? The UK is heading for the WTO door without a trade agreement.



No haven't forgotten, there is still a very slim chance that an agreement of sorts will take place, and even if no agreement is reached until the UK actually changes its legislation with the trade imbalance between the EU/UK reducing the burden will be mutually desirable for the continuation of trade between the two.

If talks do breakdown by the middle of the year as I am expecting, that still leave 6 months to work on a limited partnership agreement. where there is a will there is a way forward.



We talked about Brexit. Brexit has happened. Now we talk about future relationship after current situation where some kind of Norway ++ is the reality until the end of the year, except some exeptions like trade in Euro that finish 1 of April.


Correct Brexit has happened and yes we are talking about the future relationship, we are in the transitional phase of the Brexit agreement or officially the Withdrawal Agreement no we are not trading like Norway.

The UK is not in a position to ask for a Norway ++ agreement as the UK has not agreed too or have asked too re-join EFTA
 
A101
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:16 pm

JJJ wrote:
A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

so is joining the EU, no difference there.


Actually a huge difference one was sold as being the cornerstone for collective defence on members of NATO, the other was sold as a trade agreement into a "common market" with no loss of sovereignty


Only if you weren't listening.

There are pages and pages of quotes starting in the 50s which clearly state where the whole thing was heading.

The UK knew it from the start which is why they started EFTA, precisely because the EEC had much higher aims.

It's ok to say "we thought better about it" but don't pretend you didn't know. It paints you as either liars or complete ignorants and neither is a good thing.


Yes and we have gone over this before if you like to go back over the forum for I have previously demonstrated his contempt to the UK electorate in the early 70's

Yes it paints the Heath government as pathological liars, due to the standards of information available to the general public at the time is not what is available today, Edward Heath sold it to the public EU was only a common market only and in a national broadcast and said:

“There are some in this country who fear that going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.
 
A101
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:23 pm

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

so is joining the EU, no difference there.


Actually a huge difference one was sold as being the cornerstone for collective defence on members of NATO, the other was sold as a trade agreement into a "common market" with no loss of sovereignty


As explained many times to you: every bilateral, every international treaty, every international law the UK binds itself to, is a loss of sovereignty.

The cornerstone for collective defence, yes, and loss of sovereignty. It is ok, it has a lot of benefits, but regardless it is a loss of a bit of sovereignty. Especially with defense it should matter to you. Anyhow, still no difference there.


And as explained to you no other agreement has supremacy over parliament and judicial control like the EU has. We have now taken that back yet the EU is trying with all its leverage to continue to hold on to that supremacy over the UK.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2004
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:23 pm

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:

And done so in full knowledge in defence of the nation state, it’s just like ANZUS and which has limited foreign military basing within Australia which is a sovereign decision


so is joining the EU, no difference there.


Actually a huge difference one was sold as being the cornerstone for collective defence on members of NATO, the other was sold as a trade agreement into a "common market" with no loss of sovereignty


There were several treaties in between that the UK signed on to, as a sovereign nation.

Treating sovereignty as an absolute doesn’t make much sense anyway. The UN Convention on Statelessness, to which the UK is a signatory, prohibits the sovereign Parliament and people of the UK from passing laws stripping citizenship from certain bonafide criminals and terrorists, despite the fact that they pose a direct threat to national security. That is to say, a UN Convention reigns supreme over the UK Parliament and the “will of the UK people”. Let me guess - it’s in the “national interest” to have a UN Convention curtail sovereignty and force you to live alongside terrorists.

This isn’t news; it’s been the case for decades. Makes this self-righteous absolutism about sovereignty and “making our own laws” seem not a little disingenuous.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2004
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:37 pm

A101 wrote:

And as explained to you no other agreement has supremacy over parliament and judicial control like the EU has. We have now taken that back yet the EU is trying with all its leverage to continue to hold on to that supremacy over the UK.


Oh okay. We’re moving away from absolute sovereignty, to a sliding scale of sovereignty, with various international agreements dictating what the UK has no sovereign right to do. Some of these are already in place (any number of UN Conventions); some like the US trade deal (with its poison pill on how much the UK can trade with other countries) may follow.

Brexiteers are fine with all of that, except in the context of the EU, where sovereignty becomes an absolute an indivisible object, and ceding any of it is too much.

Kinda like talking out of both sides of one’s mouth, innit?
 
JJJ
Posts: 3655
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:39 pm

A101 wrote:
JJJ wrote:
A101 wrote:

Actually a huge difference one was sold as being the cornerstone for collective defence on members of NATO, the other was sold as a trade agreement into a "common market" with no loss of sovereignty


Only if you weren't listening.

There are pages and pages of quotes starting in the 50s which clearly state where the whole thing was heading.

The UK knew it from the start which is why they started EFTA, precisely because the EEC had much higher aims.

It's ok to say "we thought better about it" but don't pretend you didn't know. It paints you as either liars or complete ignorants and neither is a good thing.


Yes and we have gone over this before if you like to go back over the forum for I have previously demonstrated his contempt to the UK electorate in the early 70's

Yes it paints the Heath government as pathological liars, due to the standards of information available to the general public at the time is not what is available today, Edward Heath sold it to the public EU was only a common market only and in a national broadcast and said:

“There are some in this country who fear that going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.


This was sent to every home in Britain ahead of the referendum.

http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm

The relevant part:

WILL PARLIAMENT
LOSE ITS POWER?

Another anxiety expressed about Britain's membership of the Common Market is that Parliament could lose its supremacy, and we would have to obey laws passed by unelected 'faceless bureaucrats' sitting in their headquarters in Brussels.

What are the facts?

Fact No. 1 is that in the modern world even the Super Powers like America and Russia do not have complete freedom of action. Medium-sized nations like Britain are more and more subject to economic and political forces we cannot control on our own.

A striking recent example of the impact of such forces is the way the Arab oil-producing nations brought about an energy and financial crisis not only in Britain but throughout a great part of the world.

Since we cannot go it alone in the modern world, Britain has for years been a member of international groupings like the United Nations, NATO and the International Monetary Fund.

Membership of such groupings imposes both rights and duties, but has not deprived us of our national identity, or changed our way of life.

Membership of the Common Market also imposes new rights and duties on Britain, but does not deprive us of our national identity. To say that membership could force Britain to eat Euro-bread or drink Euro-beer is nonsense.


Sound familiar? Rights come with duties, relevance in the world stage comes at the expense of sovereignty.

Everyone who voted in '75 should have read this. It's preposterous to pretend it all was a giant conspiracy of the British government back in the day to dupe the public into a bad deal.
 
olle
Posts: 2026
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:44 pm

A101 wrote:
olle wrote:
A101 wrote:


No haven't forgotten, there is still a very slim chance that an agreement of sorts will take place, and even if no agreement is reached until the UK actually changes its legislation with the trade imbalance between the EU/UK reducing the burden will be mutually desirable for the continuation of trade between the two.

If talks do breakdown by the middle of the year as I am expecting, that still leave 6 months to work on a limited partnership agreement. where there is a will there is a way forward.



We talked about Brexit. Brexit has happened. Now we talk about future relationship after current situation where some kind of Norway ++ is the reality until the end of the year, except some exeptions like trade in Euro that finish 1 of April.


Correct Brexit has happened and yes we are talking about the future relationship, we are in the transitional phase of the Brexit agreement or officially the Withdrawal Agreement no we are not trading like Norway.

The UK is not in a position to ask for a Norway ++ agreement as the UK has not agreed too or have asked too re-join EFTA


I fully understand that UK do not have norway ++ but the situation UK are in until end of the year is perhaps described best in that way. UK right now are
In a similar situation without schengen, but inside SM and all rules without a vote.

Therefore I call it norway ++ :-)
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2004
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:44 pm

JJJ wrote:
A101 wrote:
JJJ wrote:

Only if you weren't listening.

There are pages and pages of quotes starting in the 50s which clearly state where the whole thing was heading.

The UK knew it from the start which is why they started EFTA, precisely because the EEC had much higher aims.

It's ok to say "we thought better about it" but don't pretend you didn't know. It paints you as either liars or complete ignorants and neither is a good thing.


Yes and we have gone over this before if you like to go back over the forum for I have previously demonstrated his contempt to the UK electorate in the early 70's

Yes it paints the Heath government as pathological liars, due to the standards of information available to the general public at the time is not what is available today, Edward Heath sold it to the public EU was only a common market only and in a national broadcast and said:

“There are some in this country who fear that going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.


This was sent to every home in Britain ahead of the referendum.

http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm

The relevant part:

WILL PARLIAMENT
LOSE ITS POWER?

Another anxiety expressed about Britain's membership of the Common Market is that Parliament could lose its supremacy, and we would have to obey laws passed by unelected 'faceless bureaucrats' sitting in their headquarters in Brussels.

What are the facts?

Fact No. 1 is that in the modern world even the Super Powers like America and Russia do not have complete freedom of action. Medium-sized nations like Britain are more and more subject to economic and political forces we cannot control on our own.

A striking recent example of the impact of such forces is the way the Arab oil-producing nations brought about an energy and financial crisis not only in Britain but throughout a great part of the world.

Since we cannot go it alone in the modern world, Britain has for years been a member of international groupings like the United Nations, NATO and the International Monetary Fund.

Membership of such groupings imposes both rights and duties, but has not deprived us of our national identity, or changed our way of life.

Membership of the Common Market also imposes new rights and duties on Britain, but does not deprive us of our national identity. To say that membership could force Britain to eat Euro-bread or drink Euro-beer is nonsense.


Sound familiar? Rights come with duties, relevance in the world stage comes at the expense of sovereignty.

Everyone who voted in '75 should have read this. It's preposterous to pretend it all was a giant conspiracy of the British government back in the day to dupe the public into a bad deal.


It seems the issue isn’t that sovereignty is being ceded, but rather that it’s being ceded to something that has “European” in its title. Even the non-EU ECHR.

I’m beginning to suspect Brexiteers have moved from rationalism to dogmatism, where anything involving the word “European” must be unquestionably bad. Only demands, no concessions etc.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11614
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:53 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
Sound familiar? Rights come with duties, relevance in the world stage comes at the expense of sovereignty.

Everyone who voted in '75 should have read this. It's preposterous to pretend it all was a giant conspiracy of the British government back in the day to dupe the public into a bad deal.


It seems the issue isn’t that sovereignty is being ceded, but rather that it’s being ceded to something that has “European” in its title. Even the non-EU ECHR.

I’m beginning to suspect Brexiteers have moved from rationalism to dogmatism, where anything involving the word “European” must be unquestionably bad. Only demands, no concessions etc.[/quote]

moved? In my mind, they were there 5 years ago. Anything EU = bad....
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
noviorbis77
Posts: 1003
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:23 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 7:05 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
noviorbis77 wrote:

As a UK/Irish national

If I lived in France, committed a serious enough offence, I’d be deported at the end of my sentence.

If I lived in Germany, committed a serious enough offence, I’d be deported at the end of my sentence.

If I lived in Italy, committed a serious enough offence, I’d be deported at the end of my sentence.

If I lived in Denmark, committed a serious enough offence, I’d be deported at the end of my sentence.

If I lived in Spain, committed a serious enough offence, I’d be deported at the end of my sentence.

If I lived in Slovakia, committed a serious enough offence, I’d be deported at the end of my sentence.

Do you understand this?
It is not a British limited think. Under EEA Regulations, the above happens.

From next year, we’ll continue this, albeit under 1971 and 2007 Immigration Acts.


So...umm... noting that they’re all signatories to the ECHR, what exactly is the problem with the ECHR?


well is makes deportations harder.

Article 8 particularly. Too often the judges put the rights of the individual above, the rights of the everyone in the state.
 
Arion640
Posts: 3058
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 7:15 pm

scbriml wrote:
Arion640 wrote:
scbriml wrote:

But, but... blue passports!

Or are they actually black? Either way, they’re embarrassingly made by Johnny Foreigner.

Not forgetting our commemorative 50p coins.

#SoMuchWinning. :banghead:


I know it’s a remoaner favourite to throw in blue passports but they weren’t even offered until after the referendum...


That you still don’t get it is amusing and unsurprising in equal measure! :rotfl:


Yawn. I’m not interested in blue passports. A select few who voted to leave probably are, yet you paint it like we all get excited about it.
 
olle
Posts: 2026
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 7:25 pm

Olddog wrote:
olle wrote:
Olddog wrote:
The problem is for now other european countries have to get back theses citizen, but after brexit good luck with that.


I am not shure if I understand your comment but students not arriving to uk means lower export incomes from a secor in UK that generates a lot of export incomes. Now they go to other universities like Spain.


I was obviously not talking about the students but rather about theses "criminals".


What kept the "criminals" out is common registers and that for example a uk criminal in spain do not have a safe heaven because the spanish authorizies will not be able to access information without go thru very burochratic procedures. This was the situation until quit recent.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11614
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 7:38 pm

noviorbis77 wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:
noviorbis77 wrote:

As a UK/Irish national

If I lived in France, committed a serious enough offence, I’d be deported at the end of my sentence.

If I lived in Germany, committed a serious enough offence, I’d be deported at the end of my sentence.

If I lived in Italy, committed a serious enough offence, I’d be deported at the end of my sentence.

If I lived in Denmark, committed a serious enough offence, I’d be deported at the end of my sentence.

If I lived in Spain, committed a serious enough offence, I’d be deported at the end of my sentence.

If I lived in Slovakia, committed a serious enough offence, I’d be deported at the end of my sentence.

Do you understand this?
It is not a British limited think. Under EEA Regulations, the above happens.

From next year, we’ll continue this, albeit under 1971 and 2007 Immigration Acts.


So...umm... noting that they’re all signatories to the ECHR, what exactly is the problem with the ECHR?


well is makes deportations harder.

Article 8 particularly. Too often the judges put the rights of the individual above, the rights of the everyone in the state.


So you want less right for the individual?
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
A101
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 8:13 pm

JJJ wrote:

This was sent to every home in Britain ahead of the referendum.

http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm

The relevant part:

WILL PARLIAMENT
LOSE ITS POWER?

Another anxiety expressed about Britain's membership of the Common Market is that Parliament could lose its supremacy, and we would have to obey laws passed by unelected 'faceless bureaucrats' sitting in their headquarters in Brussels.

What are the facts?

Fact No. 1 is that in the modern world even the Super Powers like America and Russia do not have complete freedom of action. Medium-sized nations like Britain are more and more subject to economic and political forces we cannot control on our own.

A striking recent example of the impact of such forces is the way the Arab oil-producing nations brought about an energy and financial crisis not only in Britain but throughout a great part of the world.

Since we cannot go it alone in the modern world, Britain has for years been a member of international groupings like the United Nations, NATO and the International Monetary Fund.

Membership of such groupings imposes both rights and duties, but has not deprived us of our national identity, or changed our way of life.

Membership of the Common Market also imposes new rights and duties on Britain, but does not deprive us of our national identity. To say that membership could force Britain to eat Euro-bread or drink Euro-beer is nonsense.


Sound familiar? Rights come with duties, relevance in the world stage comes at the expense of sovereignty.

Everyone who voted in '75 should have read this. It's preposterous to pretend it all was a giant conspiracy of the British government back in the day to dupe the public into a bad deal.


The facts are you are referring to a referendum after the fact which had taken place in 75 after the Heath government passed the bill to enter the EEC. in the weeks leading up to the 1970 GE Heath declared that "it would be wrong if any Government contemplating membership of the European Community were to take this step without `the full hearted consent of Parliament and people" where was the Common Market Referendum before joining and the suppression of the Werner report. Opinion polls at the time prior to the UK joining the EEC the UK people were hugely opposed.

As to the pamphlet about the energy crises its a clear case of using once own sovereignty in its own interests, rights and duties are integral of being a member of the international community but that does not mean we should be forgoing our ability to have the right to not implement laws and regulations we do not agree with in which the EU has that power over the UK, as to the UN it serves as an intergovernmental organization where sovereign nations come together to work in cooperation for their national interests, it was not intend to create a world governing body but a place where independent sovereign like minded nations could gather to discuss issues in an increasingly globalized world
 
A101
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 8:33 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
A101 wrote:

And as explained to you no other agreement has supremacy over parliament and judicial control like the EU has. We have now taken that back yet the EU is trying with all its leverage to continue to hold on to that supremacy over the UK.


Oh okay. We’re moving away from absolute sovereignty, to a sliding scale of sovereignty, with various international agreements dictating what the UK has no sovereign right to do. Some of these are already in place (any number of UN Conventions); some like the US trade deal (with its poison pill on how much the UK can trade with other countries) may follow.

Brexiteers are fine with all of that, except in the context of the EU, where sovereignty becomes an absolute an indivisible object, and ceding any of it is too much.

Kinda like talking out of both sides of one’s mouth, innit?


The poison pill you make out does not give the US supremacy over the UK ability to make laws and judicial review, and yes we have ceded to much of it to the EU without so much as a whimper from the UK electorate, it is the electorate that give legitimacy to government at no time has the UK electorate been asked to vote on whether they want further integration with the EEC/EU since the 75 referenda in which more and more power was granted to the EU until the 2016 referenda finally the electorate has had a say on further political integration.
 
olle
Posts: 2026
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 8:37 pm

A101 wrote:
JJJ wrote:

This was sent to every home in Britain ahead of the referendum.

http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm

The relevant part:

WILL PARLIAMENT
LOSE ITS POWER?

Another anxiety expressed about Britain's membership of the Common Market is that Parliament could lose its supremacy, and we would have to obey laws passed by unelected 'faceless bureaucrats' sitting in their headquarters in Brussels.

What are the facts?

Fact No. 1 is that in the modern world even the Super Powers like America and Russia do not have complete freedom of action. Medium-sized nations like Britain are more and more subject to economic and political forces we cannot control on our own.

A striking recent example of the impact of such forces is the way the Arab oil-producing nations brought about an energy and financial crisis not only in Britain but throughout a great part of the world.

Since we cannot go it alone in the modern world, Britain has for years been a member of international groupings like the United Nations, NATO and the International Monetary Fund.

Membership of such groupings imposes both rights and duties, but has not deprived us of our national identity, or changed our way of life.

Membership of the Common Market also imposes new rights and duties on Britain, but does not deprive us of our national identity. To say that membership could force Britain to eat Euro-bread or drink Euro-beer is nonsense.


Sound familiar? Rights come with duties, relevance in the world stage comes at the expense of sovereignty.

Everyone who voted in '75 should have read this. It's preposterous to pretend it all was a giant conspiracy of the British government back in the day to dupe the public into a bad deal.


The facts are you are referring to a referendum after the fact which had taken place in 75 after the Heath government passed the bill to enter the EEC. in the weeks leading up to the 1970 GE Heath declared that "it would be wrong if any Government contemplating membership of the European Community were to take this step without `the full hearted consent of Parliament and people" where was the Common Market Referendum before joining and the suppression of the Werner report. Opinion polls at the time prior to the UK joining the EEC the UK people were hugely opposed.

As to the pamphlet about the energy crises its a clear case of using once own sovereignty in its own interests, rights and duties are integral of being a member of the international community but that does not mean we should be forgoing our ability to have the right to not implement laws and regulations we do not agree with in which the EU has that power over the UK, as to the UN it serves as an intergovernmental organization where sovereign nations come together to work in cooperation for their national interests, it was not intend to create a world governing body but a place where independent sovereign like minded nations could gather to discuss issues in an increasingly globalized world


What it shows is that the UK people was presented to the fact taht ECC might be changing over time. Thatcher used this to form what today is EU in a direction that she thought was infavor of UK like creating the SM.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2004
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 8:44 pm

noviorbis77 wrote:

well is makes deportations harder.

Article 8 particularly. Too often the judges put the rights of the individual above, the rights of the everyone in the state.


To be clear, you object to this:

“Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.“

This article, which provides a clear exception for “the prevention of disorder and crime”, makes it difficult to deport criminals, and therefore warrants being stripped away from everyone?

It begs a broader question too: if a foreigner serves time/ does penance/pays for the crime, should they not be allowed to rehabilitate into the society where they and their family live, just like any other rehabilitated criminal? Or does the fact that they’re “foreigners” override the basic principle of fairness built into the entire western criminal system, namely that prisoners can/should be rehabilitated once they’ve served their punishment. I guess serving the prison sentence isn’t enough; if he/she is a foreigner then his/her entire family should suffer, eh?

Only someone who really hates foreigners would think that is a good outcome. Which lines up nicely with xenophobia.

noviorbis77 wrote:
Too often the judges put the rights of the individual above, the rights of the everyone in the state.


Oh dear. Looks like yet another case of dabbling in concepts that are apparently well above one’s pay grade.

I can go on about this at some length, but I’ll try to keep it brief:

There is no such thing as ”the rights of everyone in the state”. Bills/Charters of Rights and Constitutions around the world focus on, and protect, individual rights. By definition, they put certain individual rights above the rights of the state, insofar as the “state” or “everyone in the state” cannot ride roughshod over except in dire circumstances (e.g. war measures act). If you want to know what these rights look like, consider reading the US Bill of Rights.

There’s a reason an independent judiciary (Or as Brexiteers call it, the “enemy of the people”) Is considered a critical component of a functioning democracy. It is to ensure that the state does not trample individual rights due to majoritarian impulses in the electorate (“the right of everyone”/tyranny of the majority) in elected legislatures.

Don’t they teach this stuff somewhere along the way? Like school/Uni/professional development courses?
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2004
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 8:57 pm

A101 wrote:

The poison pill you make out does not give the US supremacy over the UK ability to make laws and judicial review, and yes we have ceded to much of it to the EU without so much as a whimper from the UK electorate, it is the electorate that give legitimacy to government at no time has the UK electorate been asked to vote on whether they want further integration with the EEC/EU since the 75 referenda in which more and more power was granted to the EU until the 2016 referenda finally the electorate has had a say on further political integration.


LOL. You’ve fixated on the poison pill of all things. Ok, that’s fine. Doesn’t change the fact that the UN Convention on Statelessness strips away all of the UK sovereign’s (electorate and Parliament) legal power to address its own national security and crime issues by stripping “undesirables” of their citizenship. Quite literally a case of an international convention depriving the electorate of sovereign decision making power with respect to something as basic as its own security needs.

But you’re right about the poison pill. It simply takes any practical decision-making power away from Parliament and the electorate by making it an impossible choice. Hence poison pill.

Anyway, nothing you’ve said contradicts the rather obvious fact that you’re talking out of both sides of their mouth now. On the one hand, there’s a sliding scale of sovereignty when it comes to the UN and US. It’s okay to cede some sovereignty here and there, apparently.

But when it comes to the EU, ceding any sovereignty, no matter how limited, is unacceptable. So much so that anything with “European” in it, must be abandoned with no concessions. Europe is, evidently, the devil. Good attitude; should result in a great outcome.

I can’t be the only one amused by the hypocrisy. After criticizing the EU for having different standards for Canada and the UK, you lot are proving to be no different. One standard for the EU; one for everyone else. The only thing more remarkable than the rank hypocrisy is the lack of self-awareness. It’s hilarious.
Last edited by ElPistolero on Sun Mar 08, 2020 9:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
noviorbis77
Posts: 1003
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:23 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 9:03 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
noviorbis77 wrote:

well is makes deportations harder.

Article 8 particularly. Too often the judges put the rights of the individual above, the rights of the everyone in the state.


To be clear, you object to this:

“Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.“

This article, which provides a clear exception for “the prevention of disorder and crime”, makes it difficult to deport criminals, and therefore warrants being stripped away from everyone?

It begs a broader question too: if a foreigner serves time/ does penance/pays for the crime, should they not be allowed to rehabilitate into the society where they and their family live, just like any other rehabilitated criminal? Or does the fact that they’re “foreigners” override the basic principle of fairness built into the entire western criminal system, namely that prisoners can/should be rehabilitated once they’ve served their punishment. I guess serving the prison sentence isn’t enough; if he/she is a foreigner then his/her entire family should suffer, eh?

Only someone who really hates foreigners would think that is a good outcome. Which lines up nicely with xenophobia.

noviorbis77 wrote:
Too often the judges put the rights of the individual above, the rights of the everyone in the state.


Oh dear. Looks like yet another case of dabbling in concepts that are apparently well above one’s pay grade.

I can go on about this at some length, but I’ll try to keep it brief:

There is no such thing as ”the rights of everyone in the state”. Bills/Charters of Rights and Constitutions around the world focus on, and protect, individual rights. By definition, they put certain individual rights above the rights of the state, insofar as the “state” or “everyone in the state” cannot ride roughshod over except in dire circumstances (e.g. war measures act). If you want to know what these rights look like, consider reading the US Bill of Rights.

There’s a reason an independent judiciary (Or as Brexiteers call it, the “enemy of the people”) Is considered a critical component of a functioning democracy. It is to ensure that the state does not trample individual rights due to majoritarian impulses in the electorate (“the right of everyone”/tyranny of the majority) in elected legislatures.

Don’t they teach this stuff somewhere along the way? Like school/Uni/professional development courses?


Thank you for your patronising post.

I did not realise you were a human rights lawyer.
Last edited by noviorbis77 on Sun Mar 08, 2020 9:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
noviorbis77
Posts: 1003
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:23 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 9:04 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
noviorbis77 wrote:

well is makes deportations harder.

Article 8 particularly. Too often the judges put the rights of the individual above, the rights of the everyone in the state.


To be clear, you object to this:

“Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.“

This article, which provides a clear exception for “the prevention of disorder and crime”, makes it difficult to deport criminals, and therefore warrants being stripped away from everyone?

It begs a broader question too: if a foreigner serves time/ does penance/pays for the crime, should they not be allowed to rehabilitate into the society where they and their family live, just like any other rehabilitated criminal? Or does the fact that they’re “foreigners” override the basic principle of fairness built into the entire western criminal system, namely that prisoners can/should be rehabilitated once they’ve served their punishment. I guess serving the prison sentence isn’t enough; if he/she is a foreigner then his/her entire family should suffer, eh?

Only someone who really hates foreigners would think that is a good outcome. Which lines up nicely with xenophobia.

noviorbis77 wrote:
Too often the judges put the rights of the individual above, the rights of the everyone in the state.


Oh dear. Looks like yet another case of dabbling in concepts that are apparently well above one’s pay grade.

I can go on about this at some length, but I’ll try to keep it brief:

There is no such thing as ”the rights of everyone in the state”. Bills/Charters of Rights and Constitutions around the world focus on, and protect, individual rights. By definition, they put certain individual rights above the rights of the state, insofar as the “state” or “everyone in the state” cannot ride roughshod over except in dire circumstances (e.g. war measures act). If you want to know what these rights look like, consider reading the US Bill of Rights.

There’s a reason an independent judiciary (Or as Brexiteers call it, the “enemy of the people”) Is considered a critical component of a functioning democracy. It is to ensure that the state does not trample individual rights due to majoritarian impulses in the electorate (“the right of everyone”/tyranny of the majority) in elected legislatures.

Don’t they teach this stuff somewhere along the way? Like school/Uni/professional development courses?


And yes I do object to A8.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2004
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 9:33 pm

noviorbis77 wrote:
I did not realise you were a human rights lawyer. Rather than post things you find online, that you clearly do not understand, why not listen to someone who understands HR law, given that it forms part of my job.

Unless of course you want to enlighten us all with your brilliance.


I may, or may not, be a lawyer. We’ll never find out, mostly because I don’t feel the need to flaunt my academic or professional credentials, unlike a self-proclaimed border guard like yourself.

That said, it doesn’t take much to figure out that your time in the civil service does not, or did not, deal with formulating laws, although you may have dabbled in some stakeholder consultations on the development of regulations, and probably have a pretty good grasp of the regulations and whatever memo(s) your legal department sent you. But that stuff deals only with implementation.

The actual development of law/policy/regulations is, as you presumably know (so I’ll explain it for the benefit of anyone else who chances upon this), a different ball game. It deals with broader questions like outcomes and objectives. Like the question I posed about the law and criminal rehabilitation vice punitive punishment (which you ignored). Those are the things any civil service worth it’s salt would think about when it’s formulating laws, albeit admittedly not necessarily at the implementation level. It’s that whole CEO/software programmer disconnect thing.

As for article 8, I only posted it for the benefit of everyone else so that they could see what it’s about. And yes, the whole “rights of everyone in the state” suggests a lack of understanding of the system that you work in. That’s not an insult - just calling a spade a spade.

So, do you agree with the Daily Mail’s characterization of the independent judiciary, enemy of the people and all that?
 
noviorbis77
Posts: 1003
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:23 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 9:47 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
noviorbis77 wrote:
I did not realise you were a human rights lawyer. Rather than post things you find online, that you clearly do not understand, why not listen to someone who understands HR law, given that it forms part of my job.

Unless of course you want to enlighten us all with your brilliance.


I may, or may not, be a lawyer. We’ll never find out, mostly because I don’t feel the need to flaunt my academic or professional credentials, unlike a self-proclaimed border guard like yourself.

That said, it doesn’t take much to figure out that your time in the civil service does not, or did not, deal with formulating laws, although you may have dabbled in some stakeholder consultations on the development of regulations, and probably have a pretty good grasp of the regulations and whatever memo(s) your legal department sent you. But that stuff deals only with implementation.

The actual development of law/policy/regulations is, as you presumably know (so I’ll explain it for the benefit of anyone else who chances upon this), a different ball game. It deals with broader questions like outcomes and objectives. Like the question I posed about the law and criminal rehabilitation vice punitive punishment (which you ignored). Those are the things any civil service worth it’s salt would think about when it’s formulating laws, albeit admittedly not necessarily at the implementation level. It’s that whole CEO/software programmer disconnect thing.

As for article 8, I only posted it for the benefit of everyone else so that they could see what it’s about. And yes, the whole “rights of everyone in the state” suggests a lack of understanding of the system that you work in. That’s not an insult - just calling a spade a spade.

So, do you agree with the Daily Mail’s characterization of the independent judiciary, enemy of the people and all that?




Who said I was a Border Guard? I use to be some years ago. Not on the Borders now.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2004
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Mar 08, 2020 10:33 pm

noviorbis77 wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:
noviorbis77 wrote:
I did not realise you were a human rights lawyer. Rather than post things you find online, that you clearly do not understand, why not listen to someone who understands HR law, given that it forms part of my job.

Unless of course you want to enlighten us all with your brilliance.


I may, or may not, be a lawyer. We’ll never find out, mostly because I don’t feel the need to flaunt my academic or professional credentials, unlike a self-proclaimed border guard like yourself.

That said, it doesn’t take much to figure out that your time in the civil service does not, or did not, deal with formulating laws, although you may have dabbled in some stakeholder consultations on the development of regulations, and probably have a pretty good grasp of the regulations and whatever memo(s) your legal department sent you. But that stuff deals only with implementation.

The actual development of law/policy/regulations is, as you presumably know (so I’ll explain it for the benefit of anyone else who chances upon this), a different ball game. It deals with broader questions like outcomes and objectives. Like the question I posed about the law and criminal rehabilitation vice punitive punishment (which you ignored). Those are the things any civil service worth it’s salt would think about when it’s formulating laws, albeit admittedly not necessarily at the implementation level. It’s that whole CEO/software programmer disconnect thing.

As for article 8, I only posted it for the benefit of everyone else so that they could see what it’s about. And yes, the whole “rights of everyone in the state” suggests a lack of understanding of the system that you work in. That’s not an insult - just calling a spade a spade.

So, do you agree with the Daily Mail’s characterization of the independent judiciary, enemy of the people and all that?




Who said I was a Border Guard? I use to be some years ago. Not on the Borders now.


You did. I didn’t pull that out of my hat haha.

We all now have a pretty good sense of what you (and other Brexiteers) believe in or stand for. Now the questions being posed are pretty much about how you got there.

The responses - to the extent that they are actually responses - don’t say much. All we can discern - and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong - is that you are an ECHR expert, but unclear on the relationship between individual human rights and the state, even though, well, Magna Carta (which influenced ECHR). Still don’t know what you mean by “putting the rights of the individual above the rights of everyone in the state”. What does that mean, exactly?
 
noviorbis77
Posts: 1003
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:23 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Mar 09, 2020 9:11 am

ElPistolero wrote:
noviorbis77 wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:

I may, or may not, be a lawyer. We’ll never find out, mostly because I don’t feel the need to flaunt my academic or professional credentials, unlike a self-proclaimed border guard like yourself.

That said, it doesn’t take much to figure out that your time in the civil service does not, or did not, deal with formulating laws, although you may have dabbled in some stakeholder consultations on the development of regulations, and probably have a pretty good grasp of the regulations and whatever memo(s) your legal department sent you. But that stuff deals only with implementation.

The actual development of law/policy/regulations is, as you presumably know (so I’ll explain it for the benefit of anyone else who chances upon this), a different ball game. It deals with broader questions like outcomes and objectives. Like the question I posed about the law and criminal rehabilitation vice punitive punishment (which you ignored). Those are the things any civil service worth it’s salt would think about when it’s formulating laws, albeit admittedly not necessarily at the implementation level. It’s that whole CEO/software programmer disconnect thing.

As for article 8, I only posted it for the benefit of everyone else so that they could see what it’s about. And yes, the whole “rights of everyone in the state” suggests a lack of understanding of the system that you work in. That’s not an insult - just calling a spade a spade.

So, do you agree with the Daily Mail’s characterization of the independent judiciary, enemy of the people and all that?




Who said I was a Border Guard? I use to be some years ago. Not on the Borders now.


You did. I didn’t pull that out of my hat haha.

We all now have a pretty good sense of what you (and other Brexiteers) believe in or stand for. Now the questions being posed are pretty much about how you got there.

The responses - to the extent that they are actually responses - don’t say much. All we can discern - and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong - is that you are an ECHR expert, but unclear on the relationship between individual human rights and the state, even though, well, Magna Carta (which influenced ECHR). Still don’t know what you mean by “putting the rights of the individual above the rights of everyone in the state”. What does that mean, exactly?


What I was saying is what is right for the state, and its people, should take precedent over the individual, for A8 purposes
 
Olddog
Topic Author
Posts: 1503
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:41 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Mar 09, 2020 9:41 am

It is the basis for all dictatorship...
Signature censored
 
tommy1808
Posts: 12875
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Mar 09, 2020 10:09 am

JJJ wrote:
A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

So article 5 hasn't got anything to do with sovereignty, as have foreign military bases on your soil.



Being in NATO is all about national sovereignty, it’s not compulsory to join NATO nor is it to give host nation support, but in the context of when NATO was formalised it was in its own interests to grant host nation support to US Forces


Article 5 will force a nation to go to war whether they like it or not.

I'd say that's a big chunk of sovereignty given away.


Actually no... NATO article 5 has no mandatory level of reaction included.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
tommy1808
Posts: 12875
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Mar 09, 2020 11:10 am

ElPistolero wrote:
noviorbis77 wrote:
I do wonder when the anti Brexit whining and sulking will stop?

A few months, a few years, decades?

Anyone want to answer?


Ooh ooh - I can! I can!

Not for many, many decades..


nah, in many decades England will be the 30th member of the EU, Schengen and the EURO .... after Scotland and Wales... :D

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2004
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Mar 09, 2020 11:36 am

noviorbis77 wrote:
What I was saying is what is right for the state, and its people, should take precedent over the individual, for A8 purposes


I’m afraid that’s even less clear than before.

What do you mean by “the state”? The government of the day? The civil service?

And what is the difference between “the people” and the “the individual”? Would stripping individual’s rights not impact “the people’s” rights?

Worth noting that Article 8 only says that: “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.“

How do you take that away from “the individual” without taking it away from “the people”?

Article 8 basically amounts to the difference between liberal democracy, and more authoritarian systems, such as communism and fascism. Are those the types of system you support? (No, I don’t mean that pejoratively - takes all kinds to make the world go round)
 
bennett123
Posts: 9620
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Mar 09, 2020 11:57 am

I hear a lot of people, both here and elsewhere saying that things will remain the same.

If so, what was the point?.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10261
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Mar 09, 2020 1:27 pm

olle wrote:
The rest of Europe do this and it seems to work fine. Why not in UK?

How does this work with the camps at Calais, some say that the majority of those folks did not arrive in France, how did they get there if countries in the EU can prevent the flow of migrants?
I guess we can blame the UK for not having ID cards and welcoming migrants, but they have to get to the continent before they can cross the channel.
 
marcelh
Posts: 1010
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Mar 09, 2020 3:36 pm

bennett123 wrote:
I hear a lot of people, both here and elsewhere saying that things will remain the same.

If so, what was the point?.

It won't. Economies on both sides will be affected by whatever sort of Brexit will become. As an European, I hope there will be a hard Brexit. Why? Brexitieers not only want to leave te EU, they want to destroy it. I consider those people as an enemy and should be treated accordingly.
 
olle
Posts: 2026
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Mar 09, 2020 4:14 pm

marcelh wrote:
bennett123 wrote:
I hear a lot of people, both here and elsewhere saying that things will remain the same.

If so, what was the point?.

It won't. Economies on both sides will be affected by whatever sort of Brexit will become. As an European, I hope there will be a hard Brexit. Why? Brexitieers not only want to leave te EU, they want to destroy it. I consider those people as an enemy and should be treated accordingly.


Sadly I tend to agree.

It will cost many a lot but the goal of Bresiteers toi destroy EU, Schengen, SM, Euro etc will cost the people of EU even more.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11614
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Mar 09, 2020 5:15 pm

olle wrote:
marcelh wrote:
bennett123 wrote:
I hear a lot of people, both here and elsewhere saying that things will remain the same.

If so, what was the point?.

It won't. Economies on both sides will be affected by whatever sort of Brexit will become. As an European, I hope there will be a hard Brexit. Why? Brexitieers not only want to leave te EU, they want to destroy it. I consider those people as an enemy and should be treated accordingly.


Sadly I tend to agree.

It will cost many a lot but the goal of Bresiteers toi destroy EU, Schengen, SM, Euro etc will cost the people of EU even more.


Sad but true, although I think this is only a portion of the Brexiteers, part of them seem to believe that they could cherry-pick and thus benefit from the EU without the drawbacks (the promised unicorns), but for the Brexitremist it is certainly the case. They rather see the EU destroyed, perhaps then their minority complex will be done, because of the UK on its own is a big nation within Europe. But indeed, the EU sticks together, so this wet dream will not become a reality.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 910A, Revelation and 57 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos