|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Aug 10, 2023 14:08:50 GMT
Might it be that the Council of Europe is another of those supranational institutions which were a good idea at the time, perhaps even a necessary one although Britain was reluctant to become a signatory, but which have now outlived their usefulness and have become an anachronism? Not according to Churchill. "In the early 1940s, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill raised the idea of a ‘Council of Europe’. In the wake of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust, the idea behind the Council of Europe was to set up an international organisation to promote democracy, the rule of law and human rights. The Council was established by ten states, including the United Kingdom, on 5 May 1949. On 12 August 1949, Churchill said: “The dangers threatening us are great but great too is our strength, and there is no reason why we should not succeed in… establishing the structure of this united Europe whose moral concepts will be able to win the respect and recognition of mankind…” FFS man, it's not 1940, it's 2023, this is the 21st century. Apart from antiquated legislation that is no longer fit for purpose absolutely everything else has changed. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Aug 10, 2023 14:15:59 GMT
So what is so unique about the UK that we are unable to live within the rules of the ECHR (that we have worked on so hard to establish) when every other country in Europe apart from Belarus, Vatican and Russia seem to be able to. Do you aspire to be like Belarus?
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Aug 10, 2023 14:18:06 GMT
Not according to Churchill. "In the early 1940s, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill raised the idea of a ‘Council of Europe’. In the wake of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust, the idea behind the Council of Europe was to set up an international organisation to promote democracy, the rule of law and human rights. The Council was established by ten states, including the United Kingdom, on 5 May 1949. On 12 August 1949, Churchill said: “The dangers threatening us are great but great too is our strength, and there is no reason why we should not succeed in… establishing the structure of this united Europe whose moral concepts will be able to win the respect and recognition of mankind…” FFS man, it's not 1940, it's 2023, this is the 21st century. Apart from antiquated legislation that is no longer fit for purpose absolutely everything else has changed. I agree 100% a lot of water has gone under the bridge since, and now a lot of people are arriving on the shores of EU nations . As for Churchill if I recall it correctly back in those days one of his many quotes " If Britain is forced to choose between Europe and the open sea must chose the open sea " |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Aug 10, 2023 14:19:00 GMT
Sometimes I wonder if our Red is some form of AI - mindlessly churning out the same lines that have been debunked so many times regardless of how silly it makes him look. Surely no sentient human would humiliate himself in this way Then I remember that the I stands for Intelligence No that cant be the explanation..... Is that all you’ve got snide remarks about another poster? |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Aug 10, 2023 14:28:25 GMT
Although the ECvHR was largely a British invention, it was never intended by its creators to have any practical application in Britain itself. It was felt that the common law and other constitutional safeguards provided sufficient time-tested safeguards against the sort of state terror that had periodically afflicted plagued continental Europe since the French Revolution. Indeed after ratification in 1953 successive governments paid little attention to judgments of the ECtHR even to the extent of disallowing British citizens from raising a case there.
All the more surprising then when in 1966 the Labour government unilaterally and without reference to Parliament, elected to exercise Britain’s option to formally adopt the Convention and, more crucially, to abide by the judgments of the EHR Court in Strasbourg. This decision was to have far-reaching consequences. British citizens would now be permitted to bring cases against their own Government for alleged breaches of their Convention rights. And more important still, not just British citizens but also aliens who happened to come under British jurisdiction (as in a war zone like Iraq).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2023 16:03:28 GMT
Might it be that the Council of Europe is another of those supranational institutions which were a good idea at the time, perhaps even a necessary one although Britain was reluctant to become a signatory, but which have now outlived their usefulness and have become an anachronism? Precisely, well put. These institutions may or may not have been a good idea at the time, but they are certainly not a good idea now. Is your reasoning just based on the small boats? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2023 16:04:27 GMT
Not according to Churchill. "In the early 1940s, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill raised the idea of a ‘Council of Europe’. In the wake of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust, the idea behind the Council of Europe was to set up an international organisation to promote democracy, the rule of law and human rights. The Council was established by ten states, including the United Kingdom, on 5 May 1949. On 12 August 1949, Churchill said: “The dangers threatening us are great but great too is our strength, and there is no reason why we should not succeed in… establishing the structure of this united Europe whose moral concepts will be able to win the respect and recognition of mankind…” FFS man, it's not 1940, it's 2023, this is the 21st century. Apart from antiquated legislation that is no longer fit for purpose absolutely everything else has changed. Anti slavery rules are antiquated and not fit for purpose? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2023 16:06:14 GMT
FFS man, it's not 1940, it's 2023, this is the 21st century. Apart from antiquated legislation that is no longer fit for purpose absolutely everything else has changed. I agree 100% a lot of water has gone under the bridge since, and now a lot of people are arriving on the shores of EU nations . As for Churchill if I recall it correctly back in those days one of his many quotes " If Britain is forced to choose between Europe and the open sea must chose the open sea " Is it just the small boats crossing the channel that you want to ditch the ECHR? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2023 16:07:19 GMT
Although the ECvHR was largely a British invention, it was never intended by its creators to have any practical application in Britain itself. It was felt that the common law and other constitutional safeguards provided sufficient time-tested safeguards against the sort of state terror that had periodically afflicted plagued continental Europe since the French Revolution. Indeed after ratification in 1953 successive governments paid little attention to judgments of the ECtHR even to the extent of disallowing British citizens from raising a case there. All the more surprising then when in 1966 the Labour government unilaterally and without reference to Parliament, elected to exercise Britain’s option to formally adopt the Convention and, more crucially, to abide by the judgments of the EHR Court in Strasbourg. This decision was to have far-reaching consequences. British citizens would now be permitted to bring cases against their own Government for alleged breaches of their Convention rights. And more important still, not just British citizens but also aliens who happened to come under British jurisdiction (as in a war zone like Iraq). That sounds a bit like "do as I say not as I do". |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Aug 10, 2023 16:20:51 GMT
Although the ECvHR was largely a British invention, it was never intended by its creators to have any practical application in Britain itself. It was felt that the common law and other constitutional safeguards provided sufficient time-tested safeguards against the sort of state terror that had periodically afflicted plagued continental Europe since the French Revolution. Indeed after ratification in 1953 successive governments paid little attention to judgments of the ECtHR even to the extent of disallowing British citizens from raising a case there. All the more surprising then when in 1966 the Labour government unilaterally and without reference to Parliament, elected to exercise Britain’s option to formally adopt the Convention and, more crucially, to abide by the judgments of the EHR Court in Strasbourg. This decision was to have far-reaching consequences. British citizens would now be permitted to bring cases against their own Government for alleged breaches of their Convention rights. And more important still, not just British citizens but also aliens who happened to come under British jurisdiction (as in a war zone like Iraq). That sounds a bit like "do as I say not as I do". you being a lefty should know all about that. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Aug 10, 2023 16:23:40 GMT
Precisely, well put. These institutions may or may not have been a good idea at the time, but they are certainly not a good idea now. Is your reasoning just based on the small boats? No, my reasoning is based on the fact that legislation made 70 years ago in the shadow of WW2, is 'obviously' not fit for purpose today. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Aug 10, 2023 16:24:24 GMT
FFS man, it's not 1940, it's 2023, this is the 21st century. Apart from antiquated legislation that is no longer fit for purpose absolutely everything else has changed. Anti slavery rules are antiquated and not fit for purpose? Pillock. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 10, 2023 16:25:27 GMT
Aw shit. Dan didn't agree with you. Wrong again then Zany....It seems that is the norm for you. Flip, I forgot you can't read. Zany wrote: Either way are you agreeing with Jonsky that refugees must by law seek asylum in the first safe country they arrive in. Dan Dare wrote: No, but since January 2021 asylum claims can be deemed inadmissible if the claimant has a demonstrable connection to a safe country. There, I've highlighted the important words for you to help. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Aug 10, 2023 16:25:55 GMT
Is your reasoning just based on the small boats? No, my reasoning is based on the fact that legislation made 70 years ago in the shadow of WW2, is 'obviously' not fit for purpose today. A bit like the second ammendment Red. It doesn't keep up with the present timeframe |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Aug 10, 2023 16:29:47 GMT
Wrong again then Zany....It seems that is the norm for you. Flip, I forgot you can't read. Zany wrote: Either way are you agreeing with Jonsky that refugees must by law seek asylum in the first safe country they arrive in. Dan Dare wrote: No, but since January 2021 asylum claims can be deemed inadmissible if the claimant has a demonstrable connection to a safe country. There, I've highlighted the important words for you to help. The impotant thing is that you know jackshit on the subject just the same as your lack of knowledge on the supposed global warning bullshit. |
|
