[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by toronto353)
Someone's grouchy this morning.

I have a day off and the sun is shining. What's to be grouchy about?

[barnetlad]

In view of their first sporting contest fielding a team on Saturday, does the Foreign Secretary think we should consider recognition of the Principality of Sealand?

[stanlas]

(Original post by toronto353)
QFA

If the Carbon Tax Bill passes, will the foreign secretary be prepared to try and create an EU-wide carbon tax through the EU bloc?

[toronto353]

(Original post by stanlas)
If the Carbon Tax Bill passes, will the foreign secretary be prepared to try and create an EU-wide carbon tax through the EU bloc?

We do not need to give the EU any more powers and so no.

[stanlas]

(Original post by toronto353)
We do not need to give the EU any more powers and so no.

My question had the condition "if the Carbon Tax Bill passes." In other words, the EU would not gain any additional power over the UK, as we would already have this tax (and each individual state could collect revenue from carbon activity in its own country, so you cannot claim that it will be even more money being given over to EU bureaucrats). Europe as a whole is one of the largest polluters in the world, so surely it would make sense to work togther to help the environment?

[toronto353]

(Original post by stanlas)
My question had the condition "if the Carbon Tax Bill passes." In other words, the EU would not gain any additional power over the UK, as we would already have this tax (and each individual state could collect revenue from carbon activity in its own country, so you cannot claim that it will be even more money being given over to EU bureaucrats). Europe as a whole is one of the largest polluters in the world, so surely it would make sense to work togther to help the environment?

I would be willing to work with our partners, but this would not include giving the EU the power to set the Carbon Tax (I am aware that the Bill doesn't state that, but I would not support any such move should there be a move to centralise the setting of the tax).

[toronto353]

It is my pleasure to announce that VirtualRealist is now the Minister for Human Rights.

[Morgsie]

Congratulations VirtualRealist.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by toronto353)
It is my pleasure to announce that VirtualRealist is now the Minister for Human Rights.

I thought you wanted to abolish Human Rights?

[toronto353]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
I thought you wanted to abolish Human Rights?

Reform and abolish are two very different things Adorno.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by toronto353)
Reform and abolish are two very different things Adorno.

Save the attempt to come over as more intelligent. My question was clear enough in its allusion to your desire to get rid of the European Convention on Human Rights (which Britain largely wrote in the aftermath of the Second World War) and the institutions that have flowed from it.

[toronto353]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
Save the attempt to come over as more intelligent. My question was clear enough in its allusion to your desire to get rid of the European Convention on Human Rights (which Britain largely wrote in the aftermath of the Second World War) and the institutions that have flowed from it.

Well I will do if you hadn't got my view so utterly incorrect. I wish to reform the institutions and the Convention so save the attempts at becoming a mind reader.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by toronto353)
Well I will do if you hadn't got my view so utterly incorrect. I wish to reform the institutions and the Convention

No mind reading attempts - I don't wish to know what garden some dead Roman is flouncing about in, after all. Your idea of reform, then, amounts to what exactly? I should also point out that since this is a "Government" thread, the you above was a plural one.

[ukip72]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
Save the attempt to come over as more intelligent. My question was clear enough in its allusion to your desire to get rid of the European Convention on Human Rights (which Britain largely wrote in the aftermath of the Second World War) and the institutions that have flowed from it.

Getting rid of the ECHR is a perfectly legitimate position that does not amount to "abolishing human rights".

[toronto353]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
No mind reading attempts - I don't wish to know what garden some dead Roman is flouncing about in, after all. Your idea of reform, then, amounts to what exactly? I should also point out that since this is a "Government" thread, the you above was a plural one.

We feel that certain aspects of the Charter are sometimes applied to cases which shouldn't have reached the court at all. We want to look at ways of reducing the backlog and perhaps examine whether appeals based on human rights should even reach the court at all. The minister will be reporting in due course about this issue and I will inform the House at that point.

FYI, I don't specialise in ancient gardens, but I'm sure you'll find an some archaologist who is. That area of classics (if one could argue that classics stretches that far) doesn't interest me in the slightest

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by ukip72)
Getting rid of the ECHR is a perfectly legitimate position that does not amount to "abolishing human rights".

But why exactly do you want to remove a convention that is well respected around the world and was one of the pioneering models of enshrining human rights? Is it simply because it has the word "European" at the front of it? Would you prefer "imperialist pig-dog" convention? I would assume that you might notice the clear irony in such a thing.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by toronto353)
We feel that certain aspects of the Charter are sometimes applied to cases which shouldn't have reached the court at all. We want to look at ways of reducing the backlog and perhaps examine whether appeals based on human rights should even reach the court at all. The minister will be reporting in due course about this issue and I will inform the House at that point.

But such is the nature of a court which has a very British model of precedence set into it. Judges make decisions which affect future understandings and interpretations of the law. It evolves and we really should be grateful that it does. Appeals based on human rights shouldn't even reach the European Court of Human Rights? Yeah, good one.

[toronto353]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
But such is the nature of a court which has a very British model of precedence set into it. Judges make decisions which affect future understandings and interpretations of the law. It evolves and we really should be grateful that it does. Appeals based on human rights shouldn't even reach the European Court of Human Rights? Yeah, good one.

There are certain cases which have a very tenuous link with human rights. I'm not going to second guess what the minister will report back with because that isn't the way to do things.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by toronto353)
There are certain cases which have a very tenuous link with human rights.

But that is why judges are independent of idiots who get elected - it's for them to decide what is and isn't tenable in a court of law.

[Morgsie]

There is also the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.