The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

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

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40
Avatar for Aj12
Aj12
18
Original post by Fullofsurprises
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.


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.
Original post by AlwaysWatching
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 want to know the reasoning. Not how you attained the knowledge.
Reply 42
Avatar for 1420787
1420787
3
image.jpg

This is always worth bringing out again...
Original post by KimKallstrom
I'm pro-EU and even I see this as a good summary of the article. It's pretty cringe worthy.


There will be stupid articles from the 'in' camp and 'out' camp. The best we can all do is never quote them.
Original post by offhegoes
image.jpg

This is always worth bringing out again...


:rofl:

Not seen that before, very funny!
Original post by DorianGrayism
I want to know the reasoning. Not how you attained the knowledge.


Bit complex to be writing on here.

Read (download the pdf) this: http://www.iea.org.uk/publications/research/the-iea-brexit-prize-a-blueprint-for-britain-openness-not-isolation
More chance of having a sh*t in the queen's handbag than me listening to anything that imbecile says anyway.
Original post by JBLondon
More chance of having a sh*t in the queen's handbag than me listening to anything that imbecile says anyway.


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

Original post by DorianGrayism
And I was explicitly talking about the Supreme Court.


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.
Original post by Aj12
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.
Original post by pol pot noodles
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.


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.
Original post by pol pot noodles
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.



Yeh, sorry, that is my mistake.
The article is merely trying to justify the rules it does not refute anything he says. The fact is that the EU controls and restricts our elected government
Original post by AlwaysWatching
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.


That's not really the point though is it. Whether and to what extent we love Britain is motivation to do what we think is best for the country. It's precisely because of a love of this country and a desire to get the best for it that leaving is seen as potentially foolish. In the "remain" camp, love for Britain is a given, not something we have to shout from the rooftops.

It's equally a form of scare mongering to say "if you vote to remain, you'll show everyone that you don't love Britain" I could similarly ask you to point to something from the out camp that gives a clear picture of what the plan is, if we leave. The inability to do one justifies the other. Noone has yet presented a clear plan or painted a clear picture.

This doesn't give you a right to call into question my love for my country, the very fact that this is part of the debate at all is worrying in itself.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
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.


It was more than one case, that one simple became the figurehead.

But why? A country should do what's in it's own interest at all times.
'We've got to take the bad with the good,' is a laughable philosophy, and equally ridiculous is the pro-EU camp often making claims that's it's Britain's duty to turn around, pull down it's pants, bend over and take it for the sake of it, and to refuse to do so is throwing a tantrum.
The case made it abundantly clear that the UK and ECtHR have differing opinions on human rights and national security. Taking measures to remedy that is the sensible thing to do.
Original post by pol pot noodles
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.


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.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Arsenal96
And the funny thing is yesterday only 36/100 FTSE 100 businesses supported the 'in' camp. Most were bankers funnily enough, not trading companies


So...?

36 members of the FTSE 100 is a huge chunk of British business, we are a world leading financial services hub and losing banks would be a disaster economically. The banks balance sheets were at 600% of GDP, they are important no matter what preconceptions you have of them.
(edited 8 years ago)
It really is horrifying that this government will so blatantly lie to us, not that I'd expect anything else from Gove. Even more horrifying how willingly people just lap it up.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
It's those devastating good looks that make me stop and listen.



I must remember to bring a treat for your guide dog :wink:
Original post by paddy25
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.


I'm aware of that. What does the HRA specifically guarantee to British citizens that was not already guaranteed in law? The concept of human rights were not invented by the ECHR and they do not end at the ECHR either.
(edited 8 years ago)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you