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 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.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    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?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Yes, essentially.
    Not sure!
    How are you voting?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    How are you voting?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    To leave. You?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    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
    Offline

    20
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (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
 
 
 
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
The home of Results and Clearing

1,629

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Do you want your parents to be with you when you collect your A-level results?
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.