|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Dec 14, 2023 8:34:32 GMT
We all know that the ECHR is nothing to do with the EU but the EU is also not even a member of the ECHR. It requires all people who apply for membership of the EU to be a member of the ECHR - meaning that their own laws are subjugated to the ECHR's laws - but the EU itself is NOT subject to these laws.  The EU is only subject to the jurisprudence of the ECJ, which stands above all others. And the ECJ is very much in the EU's pocket. Like I said the EU is a dictatorship. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Dec 14, 2023 8:40:16 GMT
The EU is not a state. Therefore it canot be a collective member of the ECHR. The ECJ only ajudicates on matters relating to laws passed by the collective will of the members of the EU. In your desperation to diss the EU you are completely misunderstanding how the western world works. All EU members must comply with respect for and be subject to the decisions of the ECHR. What is the difference between the EU Charter and the ECHR? All of the ECHR rights are included in the Charter. The Charter however addresses some modern issues that are not included in the ECHR (for example, human cloning, data protection).Jan 31, 2023 www.citizensinformation.ie › ... Charter of Fundamental Rights - EU Law - Citizens Information |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Dec 14, 2023 12:46:33 GMT
We all know that the ECHR is nothing to do with the EU but the EU is also not even a member of the ECHR. It requires all people who apply for membership of the EU to be a member of the ECHR - meaning that their own laws are subjugated to the ECHR's laws - but the EU itself is NOT subject to these laws. The EU is only subject to the jurisprudence of the ECJ, which stands above all others. And the ECJ is very much in the EU's pocket. Like I said the EU is a dictatorship.
The EU is happy for its member states to be subjugated by the ECHR but not its own edicts.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Dec 15, 2023 8:04:23 GMT
The EU is not a state. Therefore it canot be a collective member of the ECHR. The ECJ only ajudicates on matters relating to laws passed by the collective will of the members of the EU. In your desperation to diss the EU you are completely misunderstanding how the western world works.
All EU members must comply with respect for and be subject to the decisions of the ECHR. What is the difference between the EU Charter and the ECHR? All of the ECHR rights are included in the Charter. The Charter however addresses some modern issues that are not included in the ECHR (for example, human cloning, data protection).Jan 31, 2023 www.citizensinformation.ie › ... Charter of Fundamental Rights - EU Law - Citizens Information The misunderstanding is yours. Firstly the difference between the ECHR and the EU Charter is that the ECHR is a fucking court you numpty. And this court interprets the meaning of the principles of their human rights charter. But the EU is not subject to these daft courts in Strasbourg, while the UK is. We're also subject to all its weird case law (made by people who are often not qualified judges and adjudicate anonymously) with absurd rulings of the rights of various criminals. But the EU is NOT. I'll also remind you that the EU Commission is responsible for proposing and drafting all EU laws - and these laws are not subject to the ECHR. These laws stand ABOVE the ECHR and cannot be challenged by the ECHR. You say the EU has its own "charter" but the UK has its OWN charter of human rights yet this is subjugated to the ECHR's interpretation and case law. The EU does its own interpretation. Is it any surprise that many EU countries ignore these ECHR rulings - but if we do this we get accused of ignoring international law. |
|
|
|
Post by jeg er on Dec 15, 2023 10:04:36 GMT
The EU is not a state. Therefore it canot be a collective member of the ECHR. Factually incorrect. EU has in fact been in talks about joining ECHR since the 70s. and the lisbon treaty made joining the ECHR a legal obligation, so accession arrangements are occurring now |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Dec 15, 2023 12:31:09 GMT
The EU is not a state. Therefore it canot be a collective member of the ECHR. Factually incorrect. EU has in fact been in talks about joining ECHR since the 70s. and the lisbon treaty made joining the ECHR a legal obligation, so accession arrangements are occurring now Individual members must be associated with it. Indeed many have written the fundamental principles in their own constitutions. Including the UK. The OP said the EU is not a member. Of course not. It too has written the principles into its own legal framework with the understanding that the ECHR has the final word. The OP said the EU is not a member. Of course not it isnt a nation. But every member must act under the ECHR and be a democracy. The ECJ mentioned in the OP has nothing to do with the ECHR. It deals only with law passed by the EU and could be anything outside human rights. A clear case of an ego who doesnt know what he is talking about and is desperate to be seen in print as some clever commentary. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Dec 15, 2023 12:34:48 GMT
The EU is not a state. Therefore it canot be a collective member of the ECHR. The ECJ only ajudicates on matters relating to laws passed by the collective will of the members of the EU. In your desperation to diss the EU you are completely misunderstanding how the western world works.
All EU members must comply with respect for and be subject to the decisions of the ECHR. What is the difference between the EU Charter and the ECHR? All of the ECHR rights are included in the Charter. The Charter however addresses some modern issues that are not included in the ECHR (for example, human cloning, data protection).Jan 31, 2023 www.citizensinformation.ie › ... Charter of Fundamental Rights - EU Law - Citizens Information The misunderstanding is yours. Firstly the difference between the ECHR and the EU Charter is that the ECHR is a fucking court you numpty. And this court interprets the meaning of the principles of their human rights charter. But the EU is not subject to these daft courts in Strasbourg, while the UK is. We're also subject to all its weird case law (made by people who are often not qualified judges and adjudicate anonymously) with absurd rulings of the rights of various criminals. But the EU is NOT. I'll also remind you that the EU Commission is responsible for proposing and drafting all EU laws - and these laws are not subject to the ECHR. These laws stand ABOVE the ECHR and cannot be challenged by the ECHR. You say the EU has its own "charter" but the UK has its OWN charter of human rights yet this is subjugated to the ECHR's interpretation and case law. The EU does its own interpretation. Is it any surprise that many EU countries ignore these ECHR rulings - but if we do this we get accused of ignoring international law. I dont know where to start untangling this bowl of spaghetti. It is full of so many misunderstandings. And frankly i dont care. Real life carries on regardless. |
|
|
|
Post by jeg er on Dec 15, 2023 21:39:30 GMT
Factually incorrect. EU has in fact been in talks about joining ECHR since the 70s. and the lisbon treaty made joining the ECHR a legal obligation, so accession arrangements are occurring now Individual members must be associated with it. Indeed many have written the fundamental principles in their own constitutions. Including the UK. The OP said the EU is not a member. Of course not. It too has written the principles into its own legal framework with the understanding that the ECHR has the final word. The OP said the EU is not a member. Of course not it isnt a nation. But every member must act under the ECHR and be a democracy. The ECJ mentioned in the OP has nothing to do with the ECHR. It deals only with law passed by the EU and could be anything outside human rights. A clear case of an ego who doesnt know what he is talking about and is desperate to be seen in print as some clever commentary. Most of this is not relevant to my point. Which is whether or not the EU can join the ECHR. And the factual answer is not only can they, but they are actually in the process of doing so. As per the specifics I gave in my post And the OP never even stated that the ECJ had anything to do with the ECHR, and nothing he wrote indicated he did not know what the ECJ was for, either. What his actual content was about was complaining that the EU is not a member of the ECHR. He will be happy to know they are working on it. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Dec 16, 2023 8:55:56 GMT
The misunderstanding is yours. Firstly the difference between the ECHR and the EU Charter is that the ECHR is a fucking court you numpty. And this court interprets the meaning of the principles of their human rights charter. But the EU is not subject to these daft courts in Strasbourg, while the UK is. We're also subject to all its weird case law (made by people who are often not qualified judges and adjudicate anonymously) with absurd rulings of the rights of various criminals. But the EU is NOT. I'll also remind you that the EU Commission is responsible for proposing and drafting all EU laws - and these laws are not subject to the ECHR. These laws stand ABOVE the ECHR and cannot be challenged by the ECHR. You say the EU has its own "charter" but the UK has its OWN charter of human rights yet this is subjugated to the ECHR's interpretation and case law. The EU does its own interpretation. Is it any surprise that many EU countries ignore these ECHR rulings - but if we do this we get accused of ignoring international law. I dont know where to start untangling this bowl of spaghetti. It is full of so many misunderstandings. And frankly i dont care. Real life carries on regardless. The spaghetti is in your own brain, "oracle". And the misunderstandings are caused by your limited understanding of English. Our laws (made by the UK government) are heavily influenced by what's stipulated in the ECHR's principles and case law, for the simple reason that the court in Strasbourg will judge the legality of what we do by their charter and case law. In fact, the "Judges" in Strasbourg literally make their own laws by their sometimes novel interpretation of their remit. So i would have thought that you'd be interested in the fact that the EU Commission (which proposes and drafts all EU law) is not subject to the rulings of the ECHR. But, of course, the EU is an obvious dictatorship and the only court that it acknowledges is the ECJ (which it largely controls anyway). It was news to me that the EU is in the process of joining the ECHR (since 1970!), but I guess this is just another con. The EU has pretended that Turkey is on the "accession path" to full membership for many years also - and it looks like they're now pulling the same trick on Ukraine. As I've said before the EU is a criminal organisation that makes its own rules and whose statements can't be trusted. You have to very stupid to believe anything they say. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Dec 16, 2023 9:52:43 GMT
We all know that the ECHR is nothing to do with the EU but the EU is also not even a member of the ECHR. It requires all people who apply for membership of the EU to be a member of the ECHR - meaning that their own laws are subjugated to the ECHR's laws - but the EU itself is NOT subject to these laws. The EU is only subject to the jurisprudence of the ECJ, which stands above all others. And the ECJ is very much in the EU's pocket. Like I said the EU is a dictatorship. This is a copy of the OP. ONCE AGAIN the ECJ ONLY ajudicates on law passed by the legislative process of the EU. It makes no sense to say the ECJ is " in the pocket of the EU" any more than to say the UK Supreme Court is in the pocket of the UK. The ECHR has nothing to do with the ECJ. They deal with completely different things. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Dec 17, 2023 0:38:52 GMT
We all know that the ECHR is nothing to do with the EU but the EU is also not even a member of the ECHR. It requires all people who apply for membership of the EU to be a member of the ECHR - meaning that their own laws are subjugated to the ECHR's laws - but the EU itself is NOT subject to these laws. The EU is only subject to the jurisprudence of the ECJ, which stands above all others. And the ECJ is very much in the EU's pocket. Like I said the EU is a dictatorship. This is a copy of the OP. ONCE AGAIN the ECJ ONLY ajudicates on law passed by the legislative process of the EU. It makes no sense to say the ECJ is " in the pocket of the EU" any more than to say the UK Supreme Court is in the pocket of the UK. The ECHR has nothing to do with the ECJ. They deal with completely different things. Your posts have shown that you are out of your depth here, and you have no idea about the discussion of the topic. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Dec 17, 2023 8:06:31 GMT
We all know that the ECHR is nothing to do with the EU but the EU is also not even a member of the ECHR. It requires all people who apply for membership of the EU to be a member of the ECHR - meaning that their own laws are subjugated to the ECHR's laws - but the EU itself is NOT subject to these laws. The EU is only subject to the jurisprudence of the ECJ, which stands above all others. And the ECJ is very much in the EU's pocket. Like I said the EU is a dictatorship. This is a copy of the OP. ONCE AGAIN the ECJ ONLY ajudicates on law passed by the legislative process of the EU. It makes no sense to say the ECJ is " in the pocket of the EU" any more than to say the UK Supreme Court is in the pocket of the UK. The ECHR has nothing to do with the ECJ. They deal with completely different things. This has nothing to do with anything I have said. The point is that the EU is NOT subject to the jurisprudence of the ECHR - which is interesting in IMO. It may or may not abide by the ECHR's principles but it's not subject to the ECHR's, sometimes novel, interpretations of these principles or the ECHR's case law. The ECJ is the body that interprets EU law, but whether it is the same as the High court or Supreme court in the UK is dubious. These courts in the UK form part of the checks and balances that take place on the Executive in the UK (the govt) and they often overrule (or reinterpret) the laws that the govt itself has made. The judges on these courts have very different political views to (particularly) Tory govts. The only occasion that the ECJ has over-ruled the EU, that I'm aware of, is in preventing the EU from joining the ECHR - which is quite interesting in itself, because I think the EU were very happy to be prevented from subjugating their laws to Strasbourg's. The ECJ doesn't really form a "check and balance" on the EU. They're hand in glove. The EU is basically a dictatorship. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Dec 18, 2023 10:59:13 GMT
Og for gods sake.
I already told you the EU is not a state
It cant "join" the ECHR.
Instead it has written ECHR principles into its own charter.
No, how does that translate into the EU being a dictatorship?
I sispect you seriously dont understand how all these bodies work and are desperzte to create more and more false facts to prod yet another judtification for your stupud mistake of leaving the EEU.
I am not prepared to argue with your overly inaccurate imagination just so you can continue an 8 year old discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeg er on Dec 18, 2023 12:17:23 GMT
Og for gods sake. I already told you the EU is not a state It cant "join" the ECHR. Instead it has written ECHR principles into its own charter. Doesnt matter how times you repeat that, you are still factually incorrect, EU can join ECHR, it has been law under Article 59, paragraph 2 of the Lisbon treaty for them to do so, and they are on that path now This is basic knowledge that any EU or ECHR related source can tell you, I am surprised you havent bothered to check Its not just a case of the EU writing ECHR principles into its own human rights charter, its a case of the EU joining the ECHR as a signatory member, whereby the EU and all its institutions comes under the legal jurisprudence of the ECHR, just like member states do. Its not so unlikely the EU could join something designed for States, bearing in mind, the EU contains executive, legislature, and judicial institutions which exist in States However, the accession negotiations between the EU and ECHR have been going on for about 15 years for some reason, so I am not sure what the delay is |
|
|
|
Post by Paulus de B on Dec 19, 2023 13:47:28 GMT
|
|
The EU is only subject to the jurisprudence of the ECJ, which stands above all others. And the ECJ is very much in the EU's pocket. Like I said the EU is a dictatorship. 
