The Student Room Group

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

Scroll to see replies

Original post by pol pot noodles
I'm aware of that. What does the HRA specifically guarantee to British citizens that was not already guaranteed in law? .


Well, isn't the point of the HRA to make things easier for British Citizens? It doesn't change anything from a legal perspective.
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.


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.


Original post by pol pot noodles
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.


So now your argument is, why do we even need the human rights act?! How did we get here again?
Reply 62
Avatar for 1420787
1420787
3
Gove on why Scotland should vote No:

"Think globally. Think what would happen if Scotland and England broke up. Do we think that Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin would think 'oh that's a pity?' Or do you think he would think: 'Ah look, the second principal beacon of liberty in the world is a little more unstable. That plinth has been broken. I'm in a stronger position to do what I want'?"

As unimportant as his initial comments were, I'm confused as to why he isn't applying this logic to the EU debate?
Original post by offhegoes
Gove on why Scotland should vote No:

"Think globally. Think what would happen if Scotland and England broke up. Do we think that Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin would think 'oh that's a pity?' Or do you think he would think: 'Ah look, the second principal beacon of liberty in the world is a little more unstable. That plinth has been broken. I'm in a stronger position to do what I want'?"

As unimportant as his initial comments were, I'm confused as to why he isn't applying this logic to the EU debate?


There's no logic to it whatsoever.

Interesting that the top military people have come out in favour of staying in the EU this morning. If anyone knows about this, they do.
Original post by paddy25
So now your argument is, why do we even need the human rights act?! How did we get here again?


Yes, essentially.
Not sure!
Original post by Fullofsurprises
There's no logic to it whatsoever.

Interesting that the top military people have come out in favour of staying in the EU this morning. If anyone knows about this, they do.


The UK is directly responsible for combatting Russia as a leading NATO member. The EU as an organisation is not.
The military chiefs have given little reasoning behind their choice, beyond the generic 'we're stronger together' and 'we need to co-operate'. The EU did not invent military co-operation.
Original post by pol pot noodles
Yes, essentially.
Not sure!


Haha.

Well, a great many reasons which I won't go into here, given that this page is about EU membership and I don't want to encourage further diversion. But suffice it to say that I genuinely hope you never find out from personal experience.
Reply 67
Avatar for 1420787
1420787
3
Original post by pol pot noodles
The UK is directly responsible for combatting Russia as a leading NATO member. The EU as an organisation is not.
The military chiefs have given little reasoning behind their choice, beyond the generic 'we're stronger together' and 'we need to co-operate'. The EU did not invent military co-operation.


Leaving the EU is taking a backwards step in terms of cooperation.
Original post by offhegoes
Leaving the EU is taking a backwards step in terms of cooperation.


The EU is not required for nations to be able to co-operate with each other. People keep engaging in the false logic that because we are doing something through the EU currently then it's not possible to do it without the EU.
Reply 69
Avatar for 1420787
1420787
3
Original post by pol pot noodles
The EU is not required for nations to be able to co-operate with each other. People keep engaging in the false logic that because we are doing something through the EU currently then it's not possible to do it without the EU.


It's still a backwards step. And I didn't ever engage in that false logic, thanks for sharing it though :smile:
Original post by pol pot noodles
The EU is not required for nations to be able to co-operate with each other.People keep engaging in the false logic that because we are doing something through the EU currently then it's not possible to do it without the EU..


Well, it isn't false logic. If co-operation was so easy then there wouldn't be any need to create common institutions for energy, trade and etc. Once the UK leaves, at the very least, their concerns will be secondary.
Reply 71
Avatar for Aj12
Aj12
18
Original post by pol pot noodles
Yes, essentially.
Not sure!


How are you voting?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by DorianGrayism
Well, it isn't false logic. If co-operation was so easy then there wouldn't be any need to create common institutions for energy, trade and etc. Once the UK leaves, at the very least, their concerns will be secondary.


Common institutions are the end result of co-operation. It doesn't prove its easy or hard to co-operate either way, nor that the concept of co-operation is reliant on remaining in the EU.
Original post by Aj12
How are you voting?

Posted from TSR Mobile


To leave. You?
Original post by pol pot noodles
Common institutions are the end result of co-operation.


And they allow Cooperation to continue to occur.

Original post by pol pot noodles

It doesn't prove its easy or hard to co-operate either way, nor that the concept of co-operation is reliant on remaining in the EU.


If that was the case, then there wouldn't be any reason to create such institutions. Clearly, they make cooperation easier in important policies such as Energy so it is harder to hold individual countries hostage.

You have no evidence that Britain would have any mechanism to cooperate with all the other European members on such an issue.
It's an interesting piece in that as order usual it doesn't actually say much, let alone much that is correct

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by AlwaysWatching
Don't believe the fear mongering from the vote in, who don't have one single word good to say about Britain.

Vote out.


lol

Your team would have me believe a Jahadi will come over and kill my mum if we remain in the EU.

As an undecided you can shove your equally stupid sentiment up where the sun don't shine. Flag waving aint gonna make me vote to leave.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by DorianGrayism
And they allow Cooperation to continue to occur.

If that was the case, then there wouldn't be any reason to create such institutions. Clearly, they make cooperation easier in important policies such as Energy so it is harder to hold individual countries hostage.

You have no evidence that Britain would have any mechanism to cooperate with all the other European members on such an issue.


Your argument makes no sense. A common supranational institution is the result of co-operation. You're implying that co-operation proves that co-operation is hard.
On top of that, most organisations the UK is a member of involving European nations has nothing to do with the EU- NATO, CoE, ESA, CERN, OSCE etc.
The idea that if we left the EU we'd suddenly forget the concept of diplomacy is ludicrous. The only reason co-operation wouldn't work is if the EU gets petty and vindictive, and that would say a lot more about them than us.
Original post by pol pot noodles
Your argument makes no sense. A common supranational institution is the result of co-operation. You're implying that co-operation proves that co-operation is hard..


No. That is what you are making up in your head.

I stated that common institutions make continued cooperation easier. No more. No less.

Original post by pol pot noodles

On top of that, most organisations the UK is a member of involving European nations has nothing to do with the EU- NATO, CoE, ESA, CERN, OSCE etc.
The idea that if we left the EU we'd suddenly forget the concept of diplomacy is ludicrous. The only reason co-operation wouldn't work is if the EU gets petty and vindictive, and that would say a lot more about them than us.


I didn't say co-operation wouldn't work. I said it would be harder since we would not be part of any common decision making process.

The same way it is harder for Sweden to co-operate with NATO since it is not part of the organisation.

Being part of an Organisation like NATO or the EU enables the UK to have it's views heard and allows Co-operation to occur more easily, particularly in difficult situations.
Original post by Jamie S
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.


Only an idiot would think the banks would leave. Pathetic. They have big banks in small developing countries yet you people think the 5th (soon to be 4th) largest economy in the world will lose everyone

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you