New Tory Leader

[littleyellowbirdie 2,597]

1 minute ago, Herman said:

Nobody is pretending these issues don't exist. Stop making stuff up just to suit your agenda. 

You just did by declaring this all 'a myth'. Stop making stuff up to suit your agenda, and falsely denying other stuff to suit your agenda.

Edited April 5 by littleyellowbirdie

[dylanisabaddog 4,992]

8 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Because the two things aren't related. There is no trade element to it, there's no customs element to it. It stands on its own. And we do have the legal right to withdraw.

There will never be a solution until a solution is forced by the collapse of the existing situation, which is not fit for purpose. These people need to be returned to where they came from to stop this problem. That has to happen. The only way to do that is to identify the laws preventing it and to remove them.

Well if we have the legal right to withdraw then we may as well. What could possibly go wrong? The main advantage would be that there would be no human rights at all. Books would be burned and people with funny noses gassed and nothing could be done about it. But perhaps we could create a court that was part of the UK legal system to deal with that sort of thing. Perhaps a court something like the one Winston Churchill helped create? 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,597]

4 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Well if we have the legal right to withdraw then we may as well. What could possibly go wrong? The main advantage would be that there would be no human rights at all. Books would be burned and people with funny noses gassed and nothing could be done about it. But perhaps we could create a court that was part of the UK legal system to deal with that sort of thing. Perhaps a court something like the one Winston Churchill helped create? 

There's no need for that.

The problem with international law is that it's always all or nothing. You can't fix one problem in a treaty without throwing the whole thing. So if there are concerns, introduce protections in domestic law to cover the bits that people want covering, just as we did with EU law when we withdrew from the EU. And state the intention to rejoin once key areas of the ECHR have been renegotiated.

There won't be any reform until someone takes it that far though.

Edited April 5 by littleyellowbirdie

[dylanisabaddog 4,992]

2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

There's no need for that.

The problem with international law is that it's always all or nothing. You can't fix one problem in a treaty without throwing the whole thing. So if there are concerns, introduce protections in domestic law to cover the bits that people want covering, just as we did with EU law when we withdrew from the EU. And state the intention to rejoin once key areas have been renegotiated.

Would we be able to gas some people and burn some books in the meantime? 

You are missing the point that the UK is now irrelevant on the European and international stage. We are a laughing stock. 

Edited April 5 by dylanisabaddog

[littleyellowbirdie 2,597]

2 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Would we be able to gas some people and burn some books in the meantime? 

Grow up. These things only existed since the 20th century. Was burning books and gassing people a common thing in the UK before that? In the meantime, our signatures on these treaties hasn't stopped people being gassed or books being burnt elsewhere.

Edited April 5 by littleyellowbirdie

[A Load of Squit 5,221]

10 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

So they do take council houses that otherwise would have gone to British citizens, at a time when we have a colossal shortage of them? And you genuinely can’t see why those that miss out are angry about this? 

Refugees are not responsible for the shortage of council/social housing. There was a problem long before idiots started blaming them.

If people have missed out it isn't due to refugees, they need to direct their 'anger" at those who have allowed the shortage to happen.

[dylanisabaddog 4,992]

6 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Grow up. These things only existed since the 20th century. Was burning books and gassing people a common thing in the UK before that? In the meantime, our signatures on these treaties hasn't stopped people being gassed or books being burnt elsewhere.

Me grow up! You want to isolate an entire country 😂 But with you, Nigel and 30p Lee in charge I'm sure it will be fine...... 

[dylanisabaddog 4,992]

2 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

Refugees are not responsible for the shortage of council/social housing. There was a problem long before idiots started blaming them.

If people have missed out it isn't due to refugees, they need to direct their 'anger" at those who have allowed the shortage to happen.

Perhaps we should stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia so that people didn't have to flee their countries? But on the other hand, we get an awful lot of tax from those sales..... 

[horsefly 4,318]

14 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

The joys of parliament is that we can change our laws if they’re not having the desired effect or if the populace opinion has changed on the matter (homosexuality for instance). Our participation in the ECHR is voluntary and can be withdrawn at any time if the electorate feels it’s doing more harm than good and the downside now outweigh the good. Trying to compare it to the Geneva Convention and Israel killing aid workers and pushing 2 million people to the brink of starvation is rather tenuous. 

WRONG, as usual. Withdrawal would require an act of parliament.

[TheGunnShow 6,017]

Lack of investment again. Not enough suitably qualified staff to handle asylum claims, not enough investment in humane enough facilities to house them, not enough investment in collaboration with other countries.

Been a problem for a long time, this is just where it's coming to a head.

Edited April 5 by TheGunnShow

[littleyellowbirdie 2,597]

25 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Me grow up! You want to isolate an entire country 😂 But with you, Nigel and 30p Lee in charge I'm sure it will be fine...... 

Don't be daft. Utterly hysterical. Anyone would think no country had withdrawn from a treaty before.

Here you go. Here's a story about France unilaterally withdrawing from a treaty. Quel catastrophe!

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/environment/article/2022/10/22/france-withdraws-from-the-energy-charter-treaty-to-meet-its-climate-ambitions_6001322_114.html

Edited April 5 by littleyellowbirdie

[dylanisabaddog 4,992]

14 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Don't be daft. Utterly hysterical. Anyone would think no country had withdrawn from a treaty before.

Here you go. Here's a story about France unilaterally withdrawing from a treaty. Quel catastrophe!

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/environment/article/2022/10/22/france-withdraws-from-the-energy-charter-treaty-to-meet-its-climate-ambitions_6001322_114.html

Not exactly the EU, the UN or ECHR is it?

The answer to world problems is world solutions. You want to isolate the UK by leaving as many of these institutions as possible then try and change them from the outside. What do you honestly think will happen if we do that? Do you think there's a possibility that somewhere in the world a secretary will snigger and say "Little England on line 2 for you". 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,597]

41 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Perhaps we should stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia so that people didn't have to flee their countries? But on the other hand, we get an awful lot of tax from those sales..... 

And how does that stop the ones from Syria and North Africa caused by Russia?

And how are you going to heat your single occupier house as the oil price climbs from the collapse of Saudi Arabia? Now there's a good idea!

You can take in some illegal immigrants! Make use of that spare space. Or better yet some of the British homeless people even further down the queue thanks to your sit tight and do nothing approach.

Edited April 5 by littleyellowbirdie

[dylanisabaddog 4,992]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

And how does that stop the ones from Syria and North Africa caused by Russia?

And how are you going to heat your single occupier house as the oil price climbs from the collapse of Saudi Arabia? 

Newsflash

Saudi Arabia collapses😂

You get funnier by the day😂😂

[littleyellowbirdie 2,597]

2 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Newsflash

Saudi Arabia collapses😂

You get funnier by the day😂😂

What do you think? They can maintain the state with sticks and the oil will keep flowing? Or they turn to Russia for arms in exchange for aligning with them and cutting off oil to us? You're an idiot.

Edited April 5 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,597]

3 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

What do you think? They can maintain the state with sticks and the oil will keep flowing? Or they turn to Russia for arms in exchange for aligning with them and cutting off oil to us? You're an idiot.

Oh the hysterical laughing faces come in because you've got no answer in the face of reality. Par for the course.

Edited April 5 by littleyellowbirdie

[dylanisabaddog 4,992]

Sorry, I don't have any more time for your hilarious whataboutery today but I'll try and tune in later to see how you, Nigel and Lee are getting on with starting WW3

[littleyellowbirdie 2,597]

1 minute ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Sorry, I don't have any more time for your hilarious whataboutery today but I'll try and tune in later to see how you, Nigel and Lee are getting on with starting WW3

What's the Labour plan for tackling the illegal migration problem? Banning fox hunting?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,597]

3 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Sorry, I've ran out of rational things to say and I'm getting bored trying to deflect with mockery of points that I know full well are valid, so I'm off.

 

Edited April 5 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,597]

33 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Newsflash

Saudi Arabia collapses😂

You get funnier by the day😂😂

Explain something: If you think us stopping selling arms to Saudi Arabia won't make any difference to Saudi fighting capability, what exactly do you want to cut off arms to Saudi for? You want to actually further cut British exports, UK jobs, and British tax revenue for no purpose?

No. So you can sit in your empty house feeling morally virtuous.

[dylanisabaddog 4,992]

46 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

What do you think? They can maintain the state with sticks and the oil will keep flowing? Or they turn to Russia for arms in exchange for aligning with them and cutting off oil to us? You're an idiot.

It's been brought to my attention that I've been called an idiot by a person who supports Brexit and now wants us to leave the UN and the ECHR. His suggestion for after we leave these institutions is to give them a ring and tell them in no uncertain terms that if they don't change we won't be coming back. 

[Herman 9,829]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

You just did by declaring this all 'a myth'. Stop making stuff up to suit your agenda, and falsely denying other stuff to suit your agenda.

Take a day off you dishonest clown. 

[horsefly 4,318]

59 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Don't be daft. Utterly hysterical. Anyone would think no country had withdrawn from a treaty before.

Here you go. Here's a story about France unilaterally withdrawing from a treaty. Quel catastrophe!

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/environment/article/2022/10/22/france-withdraws-from-the-energy-charter-treaty-to-meet-its-climate-ambitions_6001322_114.html

The ONLY European countries not in the ECHR are Russia and Belarus. Both are run by dictators.

Churchill was the main protagonist for setting up the ECHR precisely because he understood the enormous sacrifices made by the UK and its allies in protecting democracy from a dictatorial tyrant. He never again wanted it to be the case that a nation's population could be tyrannised by a national government in the way Na*zi Germany tyrannised its own people and the rest of the world. Churchill wanted the legacy of the fallen to be an unbreakable European democratic order based on the fundamental rule of law; anything less would have been an insult and shame to their sacrifice.

Those of you who complacently think the UK should withdraw from the ECHR please identify which of the principles and legal rights it contains from which you believe UK citizens should not receive protection. Party political convenience can NEVER be a reason for throwing away our nation's commitment to fundamental democratic principles. So I ask again, which of the ECHR principles are not fundamental to our democratic country's system of law?

The location of the ECHR court in Strasbourg is entirely IRRELEVANT to the laws on which it judges. It would make no difference to those laws if the court was based in Amsterdam, London, or in any other member nation. The ECHR court in Strasbourg is as much OUR court as is the Old Bailey; each enshrines laws that our OUR laws, each protects the rights we enjoy as citizens of a democratic country.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,597]

18 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

It's been brought to my attention that I've been called an idiot by a person who supports Brexit and now wants us to leave the UN and the ECHR. His suggestion for after we leave these institutions is to give them a ring and tell them in no uncertain terms that if they don't change we won't be coming back. 

As I've said many times, I voted to remain. But actually, leaving either of those has far fewer major ramifications for us than leaving the EU had.

And you really are a f*king idiot if you think we can do without Saudi oil more than we can do without a treaty that half the world ignores anyway.

Edited April 5 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,597]

3 minutes ago, horsefly said:

The ONLY European countries not in the ECHR are Russia and Belarus. Both are run by dictators.

Churchill was the main protagonist for setting up the ECHR precisely because he understood the enormous sacrifices made by the UK and its allies in protecting democracy from a dictatorial tyrant. He never again wanted it to be the case that a nation's population could be tyrannised by a national government in the way Na*zi Germany tyrannised its own people and the rest of the world. Churchill wanted the legacy of the fallen to be an unbreakable European democratic order based on the fundamental rule of law; anything less would have been an insult and shame to their sacrifice.

Those of you who complacently think the UK should withdraw from the ECHR please identify which of the principles and legal rights it contains from which you believe UK citizens should not receive protection. Party political convenience can NEVER be a reason for throwing away our nation's commitment to fundamental democratic principles. So I ask again, which of the ECHR principles are not fundamental to our democratic country's system of law?

The location of the ECHR court in Strasbourg is entirely IRRELEVANT to the laws on which it judges. It would make no difference to those laws if the court was based in Amsterdam, London, or in any other member nation. The ECHR court in Strasbourg is as much OUR court as is the Old Bailey; each enshrines laws that our OUR laws, each protects the rights we enjoy as citizens of a democratic country.

It's a treaty. Everyone has the right to leave treaties if they cause too many problems; this and the convention on refugees are creating too many problems for us. And by us, I mean  Europe in general. This is the main problem that drove people to want to get out of the EU in sheer desperation over nothing being done. In fact, it has encouraged Russia to actively create more problems in these places to drive more refugees to us and create more problems for us and for the rest of Europe.

Edited April 5 by littleyellowbirdie

[Fen Canary 869]

1 hour ago, A Load of Squit said:

Refugees are not responsible for the shortage of council/social housing. There was a problem long before idiots started blaming them.

If people have missed out it isn't due to refugees, they need to direct their 'anger" at those who have allowed the shortage to happen.

I never said I blamed the refugees themselves, however if we’re already short of houses for British citizens why should we be giving what limited stock we have to house those who shouldn’t be here in the first place? 

[horsefly 4,318]

Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's a treaty. Everyone has the right to leave treaties if they cause too many problems; this and the convention on refugees are creating too many problems for us.

So, as usual, you refuse to answer the question. WHICH OF THE PRINCIPLES AND RIGHTS ENSHRINED IN THE ECHR SHOULD UK CITIZENS BE DENIED PROTECTION?

What a bore you are.

[Fen Canary 869]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

WRONG, as usual. Withdrawal would require an act of parliament.

Which can be acquired at any time. There’s nothing preventing the country leaving the ECHR if parliament wishes to do so 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,597]

2 minutes ago, horsefly said:

So, as usual, you refuse to answer the question. WHICH OF THE PRINCIPLES AND RIGHTS ENSHRINED IN THE ECHR SHOULD UK CITIZENS BE DENIED PROTECTION?

What a bore you are.

I've already answered this. All rights we want to maintain (probably most of them) can be put into UK legislation, the same as we did with EU law when withdrawing for that. I'm happy to leave that to our elected representatives to debate. But anything that can and has been used by these waste of space human rights lawyers to force us to keep bogus, mostly adult male, asylum seekers should go.

Edited April 5 by littleyellowbirdie

[Fen Canary 869]

6 minutes ago, horsefly said:

The ONLY European countries not in the ECHR are Russia and Belarus. Both are run by dictators.

Churchill was the main protagonist for setting up the ECHR precisely because he understood the enormous sacrifices made by the UK and its allies in protecting democracy from a dictatorial tyrant. He never again wanted it to be the case that a nation's population could be tyrannised by a national government in the way Na*zi Germany tyrannised its own people and the rest of the world. Churchill wanted the legacy of the fallen to be an unbreakable European democratic order based on the fundamental rule of law; anything less would have been an insult and shame to their sacrifice.

Those of you who complacently think the UK should withdraw from the ECHR please identify which of the principles and legal rights it contains from which you believe UK citizens should not receive protection. Party political convenience can NEVER be a reason for throwing away our nation's commitment to fundamental democratic principles. So I ask again, which of the ECHR principles are not fundamental to our democratic country's system of law?

The location of the ECHR court in Strasbourg is entirely IRRELEVANT to the laws on which it judges. It would make no difference to those laws if the court was based in Amsterdam, London, or in any other member nation. The ECHR court in Strasbourg is as much OUR court as is the Old Bailey; each enshrines laws that our OUR laws, each protects the rights we enjoy as citizens of a democratic country.

All those rights long predate our signing up to the ECHR, and would still be there if we left it