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

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.

Because I study the subject, postgrad, at University. From my own research and discussions with other people that are knowledgeable on the subject, not commentators on TSR or Facebook and random newspaper articles.

But not many people, even those with degrees in reputable subjects like history or biology, actually understand economics.

I'm pro-EU and even I see this as a good summary of the article. It's pretty cringe worthy.

This is always worth bringing out again...

I want to know the reasoning. Not how you attained the knowledge.

More chance of having a sh*t in the queen's handbag than me listening to anything that imbecile says anyway.

And I was explicitly talking about the Supreme Court.

Apparently we cannot leave whilst a member of the EU though. Still the fact that Russia bothers to remain a member of it suggests we'd be unlikely to leave under many circumstances. I don't like the idea that Russia has a greater commitment to human rights than the UK.

Or, the fact that Russia is a member proves it's a farce. There's not one single human right that would be lost if we pulled out of the convention. IIRC a senior judge said that everything is already covered by existing domestic laws. The only difference would be British judges would have the final say on cases, not European ones.
The left and their 'Tories want to scrap human rights' mantra is laughable scaremongering, ironically from people who often accuse the Tories of scaremongering.

The Supreme Court didn't exist then. The Law Lords were the highest court of appeal at the time. The distinction is semantical. The ECthR still overturned the highest court of appeal in the UK. The very same judges that comprised the Law Lords formed the first Supreme Court body, so it's not like as the Supreme Court they would have ruled differently.

Quote a positive line from the Britain better In campaign that doesn't play on peoples fears. One about Britain, not Britain's place in the EU.

Another way to look at it is single-issue reaction. Nobody was all that bothered about the ECHR or Britain's membership of it until the Qatada case and then the Tories throw their toys out of the pram to stop UKIP colonising the issue.

It's a really crap way to run a country to make laws, or make and break international agreements and treaties, because one single case pisses you off.

Or, the fact that Russia is a member proves it's a farce. There's not one single human right that would be lost if we pulled out of the convention. IIRC a senior judge said that everything is already covered by existing domestic laws. The only difference would be British judges would have the final say on cases, not European ones.
The left and their 'Tories want to scrap human rights' mantra is laughable scaremongering, ironically from people who often accuse the Tories of scaremongering.

And the funny thing is yesterday only 36/100 FTSE 100 businesses supported the 'in' camp. Most were bankers funnily enough, not trading companies

It's those devastating good looks that make me stop and listen.

You don't recall correctly. The Convention is given effect in British law by the Human Rights Act. To "pull out of" the Convention would basically render the HRA pointless. A new Bill of Rights would then be needed, and there is as yet no saying which rights would and would not be included.

In any case, this debate is moot and has nothing to do with EU membership. Let's leave it behind.