|
|
Post by oracle75 on Dec 20, 2023 11:49:59 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 Since every member of the EU has to be subject to the ECHR, any issue is national. I suppose if the EU ever passed a law contrary to the ECHR, there might be a justification for being an independent member of the ECHR but the liklihood of that happening is infinitesimal, given that ECHR law is already written into EU law and the national law of every member. Any person living in the EU is already protected by the national and EU law and already has the right to appeal to the ECHR. This thread is just a provocative waste of time. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Dec 21, 2023 8:15:43 GMT
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 Since every member of the EU has to be subject to the ECHR, any issue is national. I suppose if the EU ever passed a law contrary to the ECHR, there might be a justification for being an independent member of the ECHR but the liklihood of that happening is infinitesimal, given that ECHR law is already written into EU law and the national law of every member. Any person living in the EU is already protected by the national and EU law and already has the right to appeal to the ECHR. This thread is just a provocative waste of time. The point is that the EU is not subject to the judgements of the ECHR - but we are. You don't seem to understand that "laws" are subject to interpretation by courts - and these interpretations can be very different from what the law maker intended. In the case of the ECHR it's not the basic charter that is in question - no doubt it's mostly very worthy stuff. The problem is that the ECHR can put perverse interpretations that, for example, make it impossible for us to expel even serial criminals. And these judgements become part of case law which gradually make the judgements of the ECHR nonsensical. The EU is not bound by the ECHR, but we are. We get the same problems with our "Supreme Court" (imposed on us by Mr Blair) which has, on several occasions recently, made judgements that - according to Lord Sumption - meant that the court had moved from interpreting law to making law, usurping the role of the Executive in other words. This is what the ECHR has done. |
|
|
|
Post by jeg er on Dec 21, 2023 17:42:28 GMT
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 Since every member of the EU has to be subject to the ECHR, any issue is national. I suppose if the EU ever passed a law contrary to the ECHR, there might be a justification for being an independent member of the ECHR but the liklihood of that happening is infinitesimal, given that ECHR law is already written into EU law and the national law of every member. Any person living in the EU is already protected by the national and EU law and already has the right to appeal to the ECHR. This thread is just a provocative waste of time. so, you agree now that you were factually incorrect, then. did you read the links from the ECHR and EU providing the evidence? |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Dec 22, 2023 8:30:20 GMT
Yes and this thread remains a provocative waste of time.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Dec 22, 2023 9:00:59 GMT
It must be hard for a dyed-in-the wool EU-phile to have to face up to the fact that the EU is a straightforward dictatorship that makes its own laws and that the only "checks and balances" come from the ECJ - which is hand in glove with the unelected EU.  |
|
|
|
Post by jeg er on Dec 22, 2023 17:16:07 GMT
Yes and this thread remains a provocative waste of time. not a complete waste of time. you learned something about the EU and ECHR you did not know before |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 22, 2023 18:33:22 GMT
It must be hard for a dyed-in-the wool EU-phile to have to face up to the fact that the EU is a straightforward dictatorship that makes its own laws and that the only "checks and balances" come from the ECJ - which is hand in glove with the unelected EU. The unelected judiciary in the UK make the common law. The common law doesn't just concern itself with matters that nobody really cares about, the sort of thing the EU is concerned with (common trademark laws to make trade between member states easier, for example). It concerns itself with things that are really relevant, such as criminal and contract matters, and, occasionally, family law matters. Most essentially, the unelected common law judges decide constitutional matters. I think the common law judges win hands down when it comes to unelected power. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Dec 23, 2023 8:36:44 GMT
Yes and this thread remains a provocative waste of time. not a complete waste of time. you learned something about the EU and ECHR you did not know before I'm not sure that you can educate the Coracle - it just goes around in circles. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 23, 2023 10:34:52 GMT
Since every member of the EU has to be subject to the ECHR, any issue is national. I suppose if the EU ever passed a law contrary to the ECHR, there might be a justification for being an independent member of the ECHR but the liklihood of that happening is infinitesimal, given that ECHR law is already written into EU law and the national law of every member. Any person living in the EU is already protected by the national and EU law and already has the right to appeal to the ECHR. This thread is just a provocative waste of time. The point is that the EU is not subject to the judgements of the ECHR - but we are. You don't seem to understand that "laws" are subject to interpretation by courts - and these interpretations can be very different from what the law maker intended. In the case of the ECHR it's not the basic charter that is in question - no doubt it's mostly very worthy stuff. The problem is that the ECHR can put perverse interpretations that, for example, make it impossible for us to expel even serial criminals. And these judgements become part of case law which gradually make the judgements of the ECHR nonsensical. The EU is not bound by the ECHR, but we are. We get the same problems with our "Supreme Court" (imposed on us by Mr Blair) which has, on several occasions recently, made judgements that - according to Lord Sumption - meant that the court had moved from interpreting law to making law, usurping the role of the Executive in other words. This is what the ECHR has done. There's something that isn't very clear here. Perhaps, you could explain. The EU requires that all its members subject themselves to the authority of the ECHR. If the ECHR finds that a law in a member state is contrary to the requirements of the Convention, the member state is required to repeal or amend that law. But the EU introduces laws into member states in the form of directives and regulations. This means that a citizen of a member state can challenge those laws for failure to comply with the ECHR. So, aren't EU regulations and directives already subject to the ECHR if a member state is required to disapply them if they are found by the ECHR to be inconsistent with the Convention on Human Rights? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 23, 2023 10:40:24 GMT
We get the same problems with our "Supreme Court" (imposed on us by Mr Blair) which has, on several occasions recently, made judgements that - according to Lord Sumption - meant that the court had moved from interpreting law to making law, usurping the role of the Executive in other words. This is what the ECHR has done. What is the difference between the Supreme Court and the court it replaced, the HoL? Isn't the Supreme Court just the HoL with a new name and a new building? Can you explain how the Supreme Court differs from the court it replaced in terms of its membership (its judges), the judges' titles, the court's procedures, and the court's jurisdiction? If there is no difference, don't you agree that the Supreme Court isn't a new court, that it's just the same court as it has always been with a new name and a new location? |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 23, 2023 15:01:45 GMT
We get the same problems with our "Supreme Court" (imposed on us by Mr Blair) which has, on several occasions recently, made judgements that - according to Lord Sumption - meant that the court had moved from interpreting law to making law, usurping the role of the Executive in other words. This is what the ECHR has done. What is the difference between the Supreme Court and the court it replaced, the HoL? Isn't the Supreme Court just the HoL with a new name and a new building? Can you explain how the Supreme Court differs from the court it replaced in terms of its membership (its judges), the judges' titles, the court's procedures, and the court's jurisdiction? If there is no difference, don't you agree that the Supreme Court isn't a new court, that it's just the same court as it has always been with a new name and a new location? If as you seem to be saying, there is no difference between Blairs supreme court and the House of Lords, what is the point of the supreme court? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 23, 2023 15:03:36 GMT
What is the difference between the Supreme Court and the court it replaced, the HoL? Isn't the Supreme Court just the HoL with a new name and a new building? Can you explain how the Supreme Court differs from the court it replaced in terms of its membership (its judges), the judges' titles, the court's procedures, and the court's jurisdiction? If there is no difference, don't you agree that the Supreme Court isn't a new court, that it's just the same court as it has always been with a new name and a new location? If as you seem to be saying, there is no difference between Blairs supreme court and the House of Lords, what is the point of the supreme court? Not much. It seems more egalitarian, I suppose. It's a bit outmoded to have laws made directly by Lords. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 23, 2023 15:08:57 GMT
If as you seem to be saying, there is no difference between Blairs supreme court and the House of Lords, what is the point of the supreme court? Not much. It seems more egalitarian, I suppose. It's a bit outmoded to have laws made directly by Lords. I thought we were discussing the difference if any, between the The House of Lords being the highest appeal court in the land, and Blairs Supreme Court. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 23, 2023 15:12:24 GMT
Not much. It seems more egalitarian, I suppose. It's a bit outmoded to have laws made directly by Lords. I thought we were discussing the difference if any, between the The House of Lords being the highest appeal court in the land, and Blairs Supreme Court. We are. There is no difference between 'Blair's' Supreme Court and the HoL Court other than the name and location. Both have the same judges, the same procedural rules, the same jurisdiction, and the same laws. 'Blair's' Supreme Court was just a renaming of the old court. Common law judges make laws. It's not a good look to have feudal lords making laws in this day and age. So, the Supreme Court has now taken over that task. But it's the same court; just a different name. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 23, 2023 15:36:26 GMT
I thought we were discussing the difference if any, between the The House of Lords being the highest appeal court in the land, and Blairs Supreme Court. We are. There is no difference between 'Blair's' Supreme Court and the HoL Court other than the name and location. Both have the same judges, the same procedural rules, the same jurisdiction, and the same laws. 'Blair's' Supreme Court was just a renaming of the old court. Common law judges make laws. It's not a good look to have feudal lords making laws in this day and age. So, the Supreme Court has now taken over that task. But it's the same court; just a different name. That's not quite right, but unfortunately I must dash. |
|
