Support NeoGAF

[Joni]

Did no one post the Patrick Stewart ECHR sketch yet:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptfmAY6M6aA

Bookmark it for 2020.

Of course they'll say that they're enshrining everything in UK law so it'll be fine, but then the UK will only have itself to answer to, and it'll only be a matter of time before the politicians will start chipping away at the margins without any recourse for those affected.

Yes. They did.

 

[TimmmV]

If there was ever an example of attacking the man, not the ball here it is. Go and dig out those posts and reply to them if you want.

The point is that it isn't devaluing the word when you have a history of saying racist stuff on this very forum

I see, so the GCR and everybody who hasn't signed the ECHR is on the same standard as North Korea and Saudi Arabia. Sorry but I'm not going to discuss further with this as you seem to lack basic knowledge of the matter and let emotions control you into continuing to openly insult people.

I see. Well there is still the ICCPR and ICESCR that are binding the UK and the UN Charta of Human Rights, while not binding, is seen as codified common law. So there's not totally nothing. I also read that there is supposed to be a new British Bill of Rights - would it really be that easy for parliament to just randomly replace stuff within? Would it be so easy to reach majorities for that?

While the NK/Saudi comparison is hyperbole, but I wouldn't accuse him of lacking basic knowledge of the situation given your second post. The UKs uncodified constitution is a fairly fundamental part of British law/politics. Additionally, at the moment not much is known about the "British Bill of Rights", we know very little about what rights would be gained and lost with it, or about how easy it would be for the government to change them.

The fact that there is so much political will to repeal existing human rights legislation, while giving very vague details about its replacement is extremely worrying. If the Conservatives actually cared about enshrining a persons human rights, they would be pointing out how great their replacement is, and how its better than what we have now. Instead we just get told the current one is European trash that protects cat owning terrorists, with vague promises that we will get some kind of replacement when its gone

I don't recall those that lost the referendum in the 1970's resorting to court action to try and stop staying in the EU by the back door.

Ugh.

The converse of this never happened either. People challenged the ability of the PM to be able to invoke article 50 without first consulting parliament. This wasn't a matter of "staying in the EU by the back door", it was a matter of respecting parliamentary sovereignty, which is another fairly fundamental part of UK law.

No one was stopping leaving the EU, just making sure it is done in a way that respects UK law.

They accepted the decision and it took 40yrs to get another vote.

Surely you can see how this is a contradiction in itself?

 

[Bold One]

^damn

 

[Jackpot]

Asylum seekers were not the issue, uncontrolled economic migration was, of which the UK currently has no power to stop from within the EU.

300,000+ (net) people a year is unsustainable, if you don't recognise or accept that, fine, nothing I can do to change your mind, but for the majority of people in the UK it is accepted that it can't go on.

Sorry if that goes against the utopian, 'we're all brothers' type thing you've got going on, but there it is.

Migrants are net contributors to the economy. We rely on them for growth. They actually help improve services.

No, In short, you lost the argument.

And shouting, screaming, insulting & throwing toys out of the pram because the vote went against you, combined with accusations of racism against anyone & everyone who dares to have a different view, is a very large part of the reason why you lost.

Holy shit, so out of all the info and figures in this post:

300,000 a year is the only reason the UK is expected to be the largest economy in Europe in the future. Every budget forecast the tories have done in the last few years relied on it. And the only reason its 300,000K a year is because the UKs economy was growing better than the rest of Europe. And note those people are coming here to *work* - they contribute more to the tax coffers than they take out. We are richer because they come here. Other countries would kill for large, skilled immigration like the UK gets.

The country is better off with those immigrants. The idea that we are "full up" is complete and utter gibberish unfounded in reality or fact. The fact that the areas of the country with highest levels of immigration voted to stay in the EU tells you everything you need to know.

In short, you are wrong. Stop reading the Daily Mail or the Telegraph. You should instead be asking the question - why isn't the government using the funding to provide better schools, hospitals and housing in areas of immigration?

you block out the entire thing and only respond to:

In short, you are wrong.

I don't recall those that lost the referendum in the 1970's resorting to court action to try and stop staying in the EU by the back door.

um, do you know how British democracy functions? Parliament is required to vote on it. The merits of leaving or staying in the EU doesn't even enter into it.

Bollocks.

We all know the agenda at play here with the court action, there is a desperate hope that some way, any way, will be found to block Brexit in Parliament from the elected representatives, trying to find a way, some technicality to ignore the result of a legally held referendum.

It may be unsaid, but that's what is playing out here.

It's a futile play, but I guess democracy demands you have to humour the attempt.

Welcome to a post-truth world

Damn UK courts ruling on UK law! That's not we wanted!

 

[Beefy]

This thread has gone well....