|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 23, 2024 8:34:49 GMT
'International Law' is only the agreements that the UK Government agree to sign up to. If for example they decided to withdraw from the 1951 Refugee Convention there would be no International Law applicable in the UK on the rights of refugees, So would we be happy to leave the UN, Ideally yes - as should the US and Europe. However, that wouldn't be needed. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 23, 2024 8:39:47 GMT
So would we be happy to leave the UN, Ideally yes - as should the US and Europe. However, that wouldn't be needed. I assume you mean to form a new club? And would this new club only have rules you want? And if the new club still insists on human rights would we leave to form another club. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 23, 2024 8:41:19 GMT
'International Law' is only the agreements that the UK Government agree to sign up to. If for example they decided to withdraw from the 1951 Refugee Convention there would be no International Law applicable in the UK on the rights of refugees, Absolutely, that's what I said, but you don't get to make your own rules and still stay in the club. So would we be happy to leave the UN, so we can cherry pick which bits we want? Would we be happy for much of the Western world to consider us a pariah state, or an unsafe investment because we defy international laws at a whim. As I said, consequences. The club is in the control of those who have no interest in the wishes of the British people, in fact there is a palpable element of socking it to whitey (or the West) as the chips residing on the shoulders of many countries making communal law, whose own laws are both despotic and anti democratic, is self evident. The consequences of staying in are becoming increasingly more dangerous than the consequences of being out. |
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Nov 23, 2024 8:41:57 GMT
So if the Russian people wanted to annexe Ukraine they should do so because that's the will of the people? 🤔 Perhaps not but you are being disingenuous here. The democratic process applies to laws that act upon the electorate and restrict their government within their own borders. If law is made at some location other than parliament and restricts the actions of the British electorate then that is law without representation. Your suggestion indicates eventually the possibility that if International Law decides that the Ukraine should be annexed by Russia then that should go ahead. No use saying international law will never do that as currently we have all sorts of iniquities being considered in the name of International law. you keep banging on about what the electorate want i told you before that people have the power to vote in lates say a lesser immigration government they would for instance vote reform to head up the government |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 23, 2024 8:44:35 GMT
Perhaps not but you are being disingenuous here. The democratic process applies to laws that act upon the electorate and restrict their government within their own borders. If law is made at some location other than parliament and restricts the actions of the British electorate then that is law without representation. Your suggestion indicates eventually the possibility that if International Law decides that the Ukraine should be annexed by Russia then that should go ahead. No use saying international law will never do that as currently we have all sorts of iniquities being considered in the name of International law. I disagree with your whole argument, that if you can't change everything and anything you don't have democracy. The exaggerated examples underline this point. It is self-evident that if something cannot be changed then there is no democracy. It is the Boston tea party writ large if the tax on tea is unable to be changed through democracy by those upon whom it is imposed then there is no democracy. It is something else but it is not democracy. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 23, 2024 8:45:19 GMT
Ideally yes - as should the US and Europe. However, that wouldn't be needed. I assume you mean to form a new club? And would this new club only have rules you want? And if the new club still insists on human rights would we leave to form another club. Ideally yes. Actual human rights. I think Trump hinted in this direction recently, by saying that he expects The US's partners to uphold things like freedom of speech. Obviously, we are a long way from that dream currently and, as i said, leaving the UN wouldn't be needed (ie dealing with your original point about needing to leave the UN) |
|
|
|
Post by Rebirth on Nov 23, 2024 8:46:26 GMT
Ideally yes - as should the US and Europe. However, that wouldn't be needed. I assume you mean to form a new club? And would this new club only have rules you want? And if the new club still insists on human rights would we leave to form another club. The use of the words "human rights" has been distorted and hijacked. A restoration of legitimate human rights which doesn't include accepting violent criminals and placing the country into harms way would be a step in the right (no pun) direction. Allowing convicted hardline violent criminals to stay, because of feelies, and putting our own people at risk undermines everyone else's right to a safe and happy life. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 23, 2024 8:48:15 GMT
Well said, Rebirth
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 23, 2024 9:02:44 GMT
Absolutely, that's what I said, but you don't get to make your own rules and still stay in the club. So would we be happy to leave the UN, so we can cherry pick which bits we want? Would we be happy for much of the Western world to consider us a pariah state, or an unsafe investment because we defy international laws at a whim. As I said, consequences. The club is in the control of those who have no interest in the wishes of the British people, in fact there is a palpable element of socking it to whitey (or the West) as the chips residing on the shoulders of many countries making communal law, whose own laws are both despotic and anti democratic, is self evident. The consequences of staying in are becoming increasingly more dangerous than the consequences of being out. Well that's your opinion. I disagree entirely. However what's your solution? You tried to form a new club called Reform and got only 14% of the vote. So 86% don't want that club? |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Nov 23, 2024 9:04:50 GMT
I agree with Rebirth the Americans have for years barred people from entering the US even for a holiday that have Criminal Convictions especially Drugs and Violence classed as undesirables.
The UK has no idea what kind of people that enter the UK Unlawfully are, some may well have serious Criminal Convictions in their own country or on the run to avoid arrest in their own country, or members of Organised International Crime Syndicated or Terrorists, the EU countries have the same problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 23, 2024 9:06:18 GMT
If it were true. No known hardened criminal lives freely in this country. Q:Can criminals be denied refugee status? A: Yes, criminals can be denied refugee status |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 23, 2024 9:08:42 GMT
If it were true. No known hardened criminal lives freely in this country. Q:Can criminals be denied refugee status? A: Yes, criminals can be denied refugee status They are still in the country. Remember, you wont accept any limits at all to our liability to allow these people in. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 23, 2024 9:10:44 GMT
I agree with Rebirth the Americans have for years barred people from entering the US even for a holiday that have Criminal Convictions especially Drugs and Violence classed as undesirables. The UK has no idea what kind of people that enter the UK Unlawfully are, some may well have serious Criminal Convictions in their own country or on the run to avoid arrest in their own country, or members of Organised International Crime Syndicated or Terrorists, the EU countries have the same problem. Can you not see the error here? How do America bar people who enter the country Unlawfully? Is there a sign on the fence or a leaflet distributed to the smuggling gangs saying no criminals please? Yes the UK has no idea what kind of people that enter the UK Unlawfully are. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 23, 2024 9:11:46 GMT
If it were true. No known hardened criminal lives freely in this country. Q:Can criminals be denied refugee status? A: Yes, criminals can be denied refugee status They are still in the country. Remember, you wont accept any limits at all to our liability to allow these people in. So you solution is? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 23, 2024 9:13:26 GMT
I agree with Rebirth the Americans have for years barred people from entering the US even for a holiday that have Criminal Convictions especially Drugs and Violence classed as undesirables. The UK has no idea what kind of people that enter the UK Unlawfully are, some may well have serious Criminal Convictions in their own country or on the run to avoid arrest in their own country, or members of Organised International Crime Syndicated or Terrorists, the EU countries have the same problem. Can you not see the error here? How do America bar people who enter the country Unlawfully? Is there a sign on the fence or a leaflet distributed to the smuggling gangs saying no criminals please? Yes the UK has no idea what kind of people that enter the UK Unlawfully are. If people like myself had their way, nobody at all would dare cross the border unlawfully. However, this is not your stance. |
|
