Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    The ECHR never overruled the Supreme Court. You just made up.

    The ECHR will stay even if the UK left the EU.
    The ECHR, or rather ECtHR to prevent confusion with the convention, specifically overruled the Supreme Court regarding the deportation of Abu Qatada.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arsenal96)
    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'm pro-EU and even I see this as a good summary of the article. It's pretty cringe worthy.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I love Britain. I just don't need to be rejectionist of foreigners to prove it.
    Well put.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    The ECHR, or rather ECtHR to prevent confusion with the convention, specifically overruled the Supreme Court regarding the deportation of Abu Qatada.
    Where?

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

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    The ECHR, or rather ECtHR to prevent confusion with the convention, specifically overruled the Supreme Court regarding the deportation of Abu Qatada.
    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.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    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.
    So then you have no issue with Freedom of Movement within the EU?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddy25)
    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.
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    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.
    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?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I love Britain. I just don't need to be rejectionist of foreigners to prove it.
    Voting leave is not 'rejecting foreigners'. People want control over our borders, something we simply cannot do whilst in the EU. It has nothing to do with rejecting foreigners or being anti-immigration. In fact, I think wanting to control immigration is pretty much common sense.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Where?

    The Court of Appeals refused for the case to go to the Supreme Court after it ruled against the Home Office.
    They didn't. The Law Lords heard the case in 2009, RB (Algeria) vs Secretary of State for the Home Department.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    So then you have no issue with Freedom of Movement within the EU?
    No actually. Immigration doesn't and hasn't even come into my mind when decision making. It's a none-issue for me.

    I know that we will be better of economically and democratically by leaving. Which is why I will vote out. I've thought in terms of markets, social welfare and employment, not immigration and the migrant crisis.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    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?
    A lot of the rhetoric from the in campaign is that "we are all dooooomed" if we leave. It's almost apocalyptic.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)

    I know that we will be better of economically .
    How did you reach that conclusion?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    They didn't. The Law Lords heard the case in 2009, RB (Algeria) vs Secretary of State for the Home Department.
    And I was explicitly talking about the Supreme Court.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Oh yeah no debate on that second part. The Out campaign needs to be clear and concise in it's arguments, muddling things up isn't going to help anyone.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    How did you reach that conclusion?
    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. Which is why we haven't had the economic discussion - people don't understand. They only understand simple things, like migration, not advanced economic theory.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 2, 2016
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.