Gove tells a string of fibs in his "why we should leave the EU" statement

The ECHR never overruled the Supreme Court. You just made up.

The ECHR will stay even if the UK left the EU.

Don't believe the fear mongering from the vote in, who don't have one single word good to say about Britain.

Vote out.

That is absolutely false. Pro-EU propaganda at its best here. The article mis-reads at least half of its critique and interprets others in such (well let's be honest) a left wing manner.

Perhaps the most hilarious thing is, is that article you posted does not prove Gove wrong, whoever wrote it is just making excuses to justify the EU rules lol. It is pretty funny you trying to pass that as legitimate. Good luck seeing the same analysis on any valid news outlet.

Is Gove right about EU regulation? Yes. The EU sets out boundaries at which laws are confined to. It creates the environment where EU-favoured laws only meet regulatory analysis. So that's one of them debunked. I suggest you read over the EU documentation and treaties. It has many conditions which need to be met.

Is Gove right about sovereignty? Absolutely. I don't even have to delve too much into this one. We have a common agricultural policy by the EU, a common fishery policy by the EU, an immigration policy (within the EU) by the EU, a humans right policy ( which actually causes immigration from outside the EU to increase due to the family ties abroad having the right to live here) by the EU, a common asylum policy they are trying to phase in, a green tax policy by the EU, TTIP which is also being phased in...it goes on.

The article says that Gove was wrong about us being able to deport criminals. Well Gove is practically right. 10s of millions it takes and decades to deport people like Abu Qatada. Do you know why? EU human rights law. And guess what, as a signatory of the EU we can't pull out of the ECHR so that will overrule all our supreme courts. This is hilarious lol.

Most of the critique starts off by saying "ofcourse this is this...and this is that...but what gove needs to realise is...we need these policies...they benefit the public"

Try again

VOTE OUT!

I love Britain. I just don't need to be rejectionist of foreigners to prove it.

The ECHR, or rather ECtHR to prevent confusion with the convention, specifically overruled the Supreme Court regarding the deportation of Abu Qatada.

The ECHR, or rather ECtHR to prevent confusion with the convention, specifically overruled the Supreme Court regarding the deportation of Abu Qatada.

I love Britain. I just don't need to be rejectionist of foreigners to prove it.

So you're a patriot now?

Nobody is rejecting foreigners. Don't be act like an idiot, you have the education to know that is a falsehood. It's a rejection of a political union, not xenophobia.

Incredible hypocrisy. Also entirely false. I love my country and want the best for it, and that is patently (at least to my mind) to remain.

So you're a patriot now?

Nobody is rejecting foreigners. Don't be act like an idiot, you have the education to know that is a falsehood. It's a rejection of a political union, not xenophobia.

I love Britain. I just don't need to be rejectionist of foreigners to prove it.

Where?

The Court of Appeals refused for the case to go to the Supreme Court after it ruled against the Home Office.

So then you have no issue with Freedom of Movement within the EU?

Although strangely a lot of the language (and lies) being used to support Brexit seem to play on xenophobia. Perhaps the two are related in some way?

Actually, it was the Law Lords they overruled. I know that seems a technicality, but it matters as the Supreme Court was deliberately set up to mirror similar bodies in other countries, whereas the precise status of the Law Lords in relation to other national supreme courts and the ECJ/ECHR was slightly different.

Also of course the ECHR is not part of the EU or it's machinery - it was founded by Britain and other countries under the European Convention on Human Rights. The UK was the main founder and driver of that convention.

I know that we will be better of economically .

Hyper technicality. I'd query the second part of your first paragraph. In what way was it different? It took over the exact same judicial functions of the Lords and was initially comprised of the exact same judges.

They didn't. The Law Lords heard the case in 2009, RB (Algeria) vs Secretary of State for the Home Department.

I understood that the Supreme Court had more powers than the LL, but perhaps I'm wrong about that - Nulli will know.

It isn't a technicality that the ECHR is not an EU institution, as Outists and Conservatives/UKIP often talk about it as if it is.

How did you reach that conclusion?