No UK Human rights

[Gob]

Britain is set to pull out of the discredited European Convention on Human Rights that has allowed dangerous criminals and hate preachers to remain in the UK.

It marks a triumph for The Mail on Sunday’s campaign against the ludicrous abuses of justice carried out in the name of human rights.

The historic move, to be announced soon by Home Secretary Theresa May, would mean foreign courts could no longer meddle in British justice.

The European Convention has led to such hugely controversial decisions as banning the deportation of radical cleric Abu Qatada and giving British prisoners the right to vote.

Mrs May’s bold proposals to include the move in the next Tory Election manifesto reflect the party’s growing hostility towards Europe. If enacted, her policy would leave British judges free to interpret the law without interference from the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

Mrs May wants to withdraw from the convention before the next Election in 2015, but Liberal Democrat Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, a keen pro-European, has made it clear he will veto the initiative.

As a result, it is set to be a manifesto promise to be put into action if David Cameron wins an overall majority.

Together with the Prime Minister’s vow to hold a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU, it will give the Tory manifesto a strong anti-European theme to combat the increasing appeal of UKIP.

The provisions of the European convention are already enshrined in British law in the Human Rights Act – but under Mrs May’s plan, the final right of appeal would be to the British Supreme Court, not Strasbourg.

Thank god for that, having "'uman rights" dictated by the lunatics of Europe was not good for the UK.

[Gob]

[rubato]

"...

Mrs May’s bold proposals to include the move in the next Tory Election manifesto reflect the party’s growing hostility towards Europe desperate need to distract attention from their failed economic policies. .... ".

fixed

[Scooter]

So Cameron gets a pasting from the UKIP and he suddenly feels the need to appeal to the xenophobe class.

Colour me so completely unsurprised

[Gob]

It's been a long time coming, but I believe the UK should no longer be in any of the Euro zone establishments, especially the Court Of Criminal Rights.

[Lord Jim]

The "xenophobe class" appears to be quite large:

56% of Britons would vote to quit EU in referendum, poll finds

Well over half of British voters now want to leave the European Union, according to an opinion poll that shows anti-EU sentiment is sweeping through all three main political parties.

The Opinium/Observer survey finds that 56% of people would probably or definitely vote for the UK to go it alone if they were offered the choice in a referendum. About 68% of Conservative voters want to leave the EU, against 24% who want to remain; 44% of Labour voters would probably choose to get out, against 39% who would back staying in, while some 39% of Liberal Democrats would probably or definitely vote to get out, compared with 47% who would prefer to remain in the EU.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012 ... endum-poll

[liberty]

It's been a long time coming, but I believe the UK should no longer be in any of the Euro zone establishments, especially the Court Of Criminal Rights.

It is a foolish people that will not act in their own best interest. A foreigner in your country is a guest of your nation. A guest in your home that that does not respect his host should expect to be kicked out. I would think that rape, murder and threats would constituted a lack respect for the nation.

[Scooter]

The "xenophobe class" appears to be quite large:

56% of Britons would vote to quit EU in referendum, poll finds

Well over half of British voters now want to leave the European Union, according to an opinion poll that shows anti-EU sentiment is sweeping through all three main political parties.

The Opinium/Observer survey finds that 56% of people would probably or definitely vote for the UK to go it alone if they were offered the choice in a referendum. About 68% of Conservative voters want to leave the EU, against 24% who want to remain; 44% of Labour voters would probably choose to get out, against 39% who would back staying in, while some 39% of Liberal Democrats would probably or definitely vote to get out, compared with 47% who would prefer to remain in the EU.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012 ... endum-poll

Thanks for that. Of course about two generations have passed since they joined; if they no longer have a collective memory of what it was like to be shut out (and how desperately they wanted in), then it looks like they are about to find out.

[Jarlaxle]

Near as I can tell, the EU seems to be turning into a suicide pact.

[Gob]

f they no longer have a collective memory of what it was like to be shut out (and how desperately they wanted in), then it looks like they are about to find out.

Just weeks before the 1970 general election which made him Prime Minister, Edward 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'.

However, when it came to it Heath didn't have a referendum because opinion polls at the time (1972) showed that the British people were hugely opposed (by a margin of two to one) against joining the Common Market. Instead, Heath merely signed the documents that took us into what became the European Union on the basis that Parliament alone had passed the European Communities Bill of 1972.

In 1972, when Heath decided to take Britain into the Common Market, he used Parliament's legal sovereignty to deny and permanently limit the political sovereignty of the electorate. Heath and Parliament changed the basic rules and they did not have the right (legal or moral) to do that. The 1972 European Communities Bill wasn't just another Act of Parliament. Heath's Bill used Parliament's legal sovereignty, and status as representative of the electorate, to deny the fundamental rights of the electorate.


In 1975, when the Government changed, Harold Wilson sought to put right the clear constitutional error by organising a retrospective referendum (something quite unprecedented in British history) designed to obtain the permission of the British people for Britain to join something it had already `joined'.

[Scooter]

Distorted and misleading pile of rubbish.

First, saying that "Heath didn't have a referendum" implies that the Conservative government intended to have a referendum; they never made any such commitment. The proposal for a referendum was made by the Labour Party, who attempted to attach an amendment authorizing one when the European Communities Act of 1972 was working its way through Parliament. The amendment was defeated, and the Labour Party made a referedum a part of its platform in the first election of 1974. Of course, the author fails to mention that the referendum held in 1975 resulted in a 67% yes vote.

So given that his claim of 2 to 1 opposition to joining the EU cannot be verified by any reliable source, and given that only three years later public opinion supposedly did a complete flip, he claim is suspect.

The author (Vernon Coleman, btw, reading some of his writings makes me wonder if Ron Paul was cloned and dropped into the UK) says that Parliament used its sovereignty to "deny and permanently limit" the political sovereignty of the electorate. How does failure to hold a referendum that one did not even promise constitute a denial of the sovereignty of the electorate? There is no right to rule by referendum, 1975 was the first national referendum ever, and was seen as "consultative" only; how could something that had absolutely no place in the whole of British history be a "fundamental right"?

Coleman claims that accession to the EU Treaty imposes a "permanent limit" on the sovereignty of the electorate. Again, rubbish. Parliament passed the European Communities Act of 1972 (and subsequent acts) to give effect to the EU Treaty in the UK. By doing so, Parliament has delegated its authority to the EU on those subjects covered by the treaty. Like all treaties, the EU treaty has arbitration provisions to ensure that rights and responsibilites created under the treaty can be enforced, and in this case that arbiter is the ECJ. And like all treaties, the EU treaty can be repudiated and all enabling legislation repealed. So Parliament has passed control of some things to the EU for as long as it chooses, and can take back control simply by repealing the European Communities Act of 1972 and all of its progeny. So where is the loss of sovereignty, if Parliament can undo what it has done at any time?