Turn on thread page Beta

David Cameron making an arse out of himself on the European Court of Human Rights... watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    My argument has not changed one bit.
    EU law is not binding. Treaties are yes, because we have signed them. The Lisbon Treaty does not give the EU Parliament the powers to over ride British parliament.
    This is a quote from Parliament's website: Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law
    I know we have to take political and diplomatic considerations into account, but I never argued we didn't.
    Voting is not a right, the Government all ready restricts it for those under the age of 18 and those with mental handicaps. Prisoners have broken their contract with society and have no right to make a say in how it is run.
    Oh dear Lord, we have another Bill Cash here...

    Parliamentary sovereignty isn't the leading constitutional principle anymore, and why should it be? It died a long time ago with accession to the EU and devolving power to Scotland and Wales. If you're going to argue constitutional principles, parliamentaru sovereignty wouldn't be the first one that springs to mind...

    What an awful assumption to make about prisoners breaking their contract with society? What contract? Having prisoners vote means they have made a contribution to society which they can hope to enjoy once they serve their sentence. Not to mention the debate in February only concerned prisoners with a sentence less that a year, I think it was. Your argument is immature and neanderthal.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harrifer)
    I often hear the BBC are biased. Nobody seems to agree on what the bias is though...
    I don't think it's bias and actually think it tries too hard sometimes not to be.. In this case i'm not saying that the BBC as a whole has an inherent underlying bias that it is trying to infect people with, just that this particular film isn't impartial which it blatantly isn't.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lesbionic)
    Parliamentary sovereignty isn't the leading constitutional principle anymore, and why should it be? It died a long time ago with accession to the EU and devolving power to Scotland and Wales. If you're going to argue constitutional principles, parliamentaru sovereignty wouldn't be the first one that springs to mind...
    It doesn't matter what you think about Parliamentay Sovereignty, it doesn't change the fact that it exists. Devolution is irrelevant, Parliament has specifically given them the powers to create certain laws in their devolved jurisiction. Parliament has done no such thing for the EU, ECHR or any other organisation.


    (Original post by lesbionic)
    What an awful assumption to make about prisoners breaking their contract with society? What contract? Having prisoners vote means they have made a contribution to society which they can hope to enjoy once they serve their sentence. Not to mention the debate in February only concerned prisoners with a sentence less that a year, I think it was. Your argument is immature and neanderthal.
    What contract? How about the one whereby you don't break laws? They haven't served society and should expect no service back from it. The debate in February concerned all prisoners. There was a vote, and MPs voted in favour of keeping a blanket ban. Therefore there is nothing legally the ECHR can do about the issue.
    You argument is simply stupid, there is no reason to be 'liberal' for the sake of being liberal.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Tbh, Strasbourg and Luxembourg do a pretty fantastic job.

    Tories need to chill on this one.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lesbionic)
    Parliamentary sovereignty isn't the leading constitutional principle anymore, and why should it be? It died a long time ago with accession to the EU and devolving power to Scotland and Wales. If you're going to argue constitutional principles, parliamentaru sovereignty wouldn't be the first one that springs to mind...
    Actually there is a EU related Bill at the moment in the making to do with future referenda that will include a Clause that legally puts the UK Parliament ahead of the EU.

    And not to mention a single Act of Parliament could dissolve any devolved governments. Or we could leave the EU through a Act of Parliament.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    If we wanted, we could tell the EU where to go. What are they going to do, invade? Parliament is sovereign and our joining the EU hasn't changed that, we can leave whenever we want.

    Why do British europhiles insist on following everything that comes from the damm thing. The French and Germans have no problem ignoring the things they disagree with.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by æææ)
    I don't think it's bias and actually think it tries too hard sometimes not to be.. In this case i'm not saying that the BBC as a whole has an inherent underlying bias that it is trying to infect people with, just that this particular film isn't impartial which it blatantly isn't.
    Well at least its bias was obvious. I'm not too sure what 'impartiality' actually means. It does rather imply some certainty of truth which I'm not aware is possible.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by lesbionic)
    That doesn't make Cameron's senseless comments on the European Court of Human Rights less stupid...
    To be honest there really is no need for the EU court of human rights. Do they actually do anything our own judges can't? Its like the EU bill of human rights what liberties does it guarantee that our own laws don't?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    To be honest there really is no need for the EU court of human rights. Do they actually do anything our own judges can't? Its like the EU bill of human rights what liberties does it guarantee that our own laws don't?
    Ok first it's not the EU court of human rights - it's not an EU institution - it's the the European Court of Human Rights. Second - our national courts can apply Strasbourg jurisprudence! You dont HAVE to go to Strasbourg anymore.

    The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights I think you're referring to - well it just draws on international treaties and gives them biding effects into EU law - the Charter is an EU development and as such is legally binding upon us. It goes a bit further than say, the Human Rights Act by applying various international covenants on human rights with a modern touch..

    e.g. the human rights act says that noone is to be subject to slavery
    the EU Charter on fundamental rights says noone is to be subject to slavery or sex trafficking.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.