Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Now you've resorted to deliberately misrepresenting my views and arguments because you simply don't understand my arguments.
Would you like to explain to Mucca as he thinks you can change regulations as you wish.
Capital punishment for murder was abolished in 1965, and the last people to be hanged for murder was in 1964. This remained unused until Britain signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights. Either way, the Human Rights Act 1998 was an Act of Parliament passed by the UK Parliament and not subscribed to us by the EU. The ECHR is technically 'binding', but again, Parliament can ultimately opt out of it and indeed, the EU as a whole.
It's not a hypothesis, this is how the UK constitution works. In the passage of laws in the UK, the EU plays no part in the process of our lawmaking, and there are no EU laws on our statute books -- every EU law and legislation or treaty that applies in the UK was ratified, or passed by an Act of Parliament. The Human Rights Act 1998 is an example of that -- which Parliament was planning to repeal even before Brexit. Parliament has subcontracted sovereignty.
Your claim the UK cannot physically pass laws that contradict EU law but at any point of analysis, the EU has no physical input in the passage of our laws. The EU laws and legislation we are 'bound' to was with Parliament's consent.
In a globalised economy, the sovereignty of national governments is being eroded. If a country has high levels of taxation, multinational corporations relocate, just as Dyson has done this week. Free trade deals also subcontract sovereignty, look at the impact of the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) on Canada, their Government has been taken to court over their environmental regulations and their healthcare systems, and something like 70% of claims has been bought against Canada. Governments just don't have sovereignty of pre-WW2 national states. Assuming we got free trade deals across the globe, there will be regulations the Government has to stick to, in essence, we're still subcontracting sovereignty, in or out of the EU.
It was abolished in 1998 to fit into section 2 (1) I got bored after that one innacurate - or misleading fact
It was abolished in 1998 to fit into section 2 (1) I got bored after that one innacurate - or misleading fact
Another red herring to add to your collection.
The last instance of capital punishment for murder was in 1964 and outlawed by the Wilson Government in 1965, the only exception being for treason, the last execution for high-treason was in 1946. In practice, the law was defunct. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 formally outlawed capital punishment, another Act of Parliament.
Also, the 13th Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights became 'binding' in 2004, not 1998.
So it was 1998 thanks
Maybe the EU should relax over their 'red lines'? Yes UK wants out...but if all parties wish to avoid assumed chaos of a 'no deal' - something has to give.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
No I am not trying to defend her as such. I also think, to prevent the prospect of a no-deal means the EU can simply then say exactly as she is..."This is the only deal on offer"...accept it or stay (& ignore the referendum result). Her rigidity might well be as a result of that enountered from the EU's own rigidityThe only thing she had to say to the other parties was that she had no intention of making any adjustments. People need to stop defending her (I'm not necessarily suggesting you are)
The practice of capital pushiment was stopped before we even joined the European Communities in 1974. So, if that’s your cornerstone argument in the debate over Parliamentary sovereignty. You get a big fat F for fail and you take the loss on this one.
Next?
You're wrong about my estimations. I haven't made any really, other than the EU will also suffer. Maybe you are right about the worth of this 'indivisibility'...but when it comes to the absolute crunch - the ROI especially will be shitting itself. It doesn't stop there though... Where Brexit will hurt most in EuropeYou’re massively overestimating the EUs need to avoid No Deal. It’s not worth tearing up the indivisability of the four freedoms for. And that is what their red lines are.
We just need to decide if worst trade with our neighbours is worth potentially more trade on the other side of the planet.
And we can’t.
Because there’s only one sane answer and it’s the one that won’t fly with the public.
So we play the ancient game of kick the can down the road and hope something sorts itself out.
It isn’t but we did remove it from the statute books in 1998 didn’t we
Anyway I’m amazed we can end freedom of movement tomorrow if we want
You are explaining about directives. You have not said the word directive.Highlight where I've used the word 'directive' once.
Am I?Now you've resorted to deliberately misrepresenting my views and arguments because you simply don't understand my arguments.
You haven't told Mucca he is right yet. What's wrong?Ha ha
Or many are underestimating the need.You’re massively overestimating the EUs need to avoid No Deal.
Or many are underestimating the need.
If there wasn't much of a need to avoid a no deal why did the EU say hardly anything would change for at least 12 months. And that is was for the benefit of those remaining countries in the EU and not us.
Some people just don't want to consider why though.
With an Act of Parliament, yes. What’s your point?
New Labour passed many reforms in Blair’s first term. The HRA, CRA, and so on.
My point is it without the abolition the EU Convention of Human Rights Act could not be ratified
It’s not an EU convention. It’s a Council of Europe convention and we’ve been a member of that council since 1949. Just because the EU adopts something we’re already signed up to it doesn’t make it an EU convention. We actually signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights 66 years ago. Long before we joined the EU.
Or alternatively, to prevent MPs from thwarting Brexit.I see that Rees Mogg wants to close parliament to prevent MPs from stopped a no deal scenario
Oh Tony I’m referring to the 13th or is it 14th protocol on the convention. In all this excitement of forgotten which one it is. I’m sure Wiki will help you find the way though.
Do you think an act of Parliament can stop freedom of movement Tony and we can stay in the EU - what’s your thoughts on this exciting new development in the debate?
I have put you back on ignore Tony I can only take your idiocy and desire for inclusion in very small doses these days
Why is Tony still trying to get my attention - is he that desperate for my attention? Tony if you give £50 to my favourite charity I will never ignore you again - pass the message on to your sweetheart Mart and he will spread the news. Or is Mucca your new love interest Tony?
Hello what’s this. Tony will vote leave in the next referendum
The EU: In, out, shake it all about....
I have put you back on ignore Tony I can only take your idiocy and desire for inclusion in very small doses these days
My point is it without the abolition the EU Convention of Human Rights Act could not be ratified
Might just be simply the most sensible thing to do to get things sortedOr many are underestimating the need.
If there wasn't much of a need to avoid a no deal why did the EU say hardly anything would change for at least 12 months. And that is was for the benefit of those remaining countries in the EU and not us.
Some people just don't want to consider why though.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?