|
Post by stuart1974 on Feb 14, 2019 11:01:32 GMT
Not quite. Membership if the ECHR is mandatory for EU membership. Whilst nobody has suggested it, we would in theory be able to withdrawal from the ECHR after Brexit. Nobody has suggested withdrawal so I will. We should allow our own courts to make decisions solely affecting the UK and its citizens. Our judges are already soft and take into account human rights in their decisions. Isn't it something like a third of all cases bought to ECHR are by terrorists and other criminals? Examples are family of IRA members deemed to have their rights to life infringed by being shot by the SAS, quite ironic when their purpose for being on Gibraltar was to set a bomb to kill and maim as many innocent people as possible. A convicted paedophile winning £3000 because delays in bring his trial caused him stress and infringed his human rights. A man who shot a police officer winning £7000 for a minor delay in his release from prison. The millions wasted in trying to deport Bin-Ladens European lieutenant Abu Qatada with efforts being frustrated by courts looking to protect his rights. We should start from scratch and re-design it under our own jurisdiction once we leave the EU. The principles would still apply but put the human rights of the law abiding public ahead of the rights of criminal and terrorist scum. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater there. Do you have any links for that, other than the Daily Hiel or Daily Depress?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2019 11:03:04 GMT
Nobody has suggested withdrawal so I will. We should allow our own courts to make decisions solely affecting the UK and its citizens. Our judges are already soft and take into account human rights in their decisions. Isn't it something like a third of all cases bought to ECHR are by terrorists and other criminals? Examples are family of IRA members deemed to have their rights to life infringed by being shot by the SAS, quite ironic when their purpose for being on Gibraltar was to set a bomb to kill and maim as many innocent people as possible. A convicted paedophile winning £3000 because delays in bring his trial caused him stress and infringed his human rights. A man who shot a police officer winning £7000 for a minor delay in his release from prison. The millions wasted in trying to deport Bin-Ladens European lieutenant Abu Qatada with efforts being frustrated by courts looking to protect his rights. We should start from scratch and re-design it under our own jurisdiction once we leave the EU. The principles would still apply but put the human rights of the law abiding public ahead of the rights of criminal and terrorist scum. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater there. Do you have any links for that, other than the Daily Hiel or Daily Depress? Laughable really. But as a Brit, it is, frankly, embarrassing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2019 11:05:30 GMT
Nobody has suggested withdrawal so I will. We should allow our own courts to make decisions solely affecting the UK and its citizens. Our judges are already soft and take into account human rights in their decisions. Isn't it something like a third of all cases bought to ECHR are by terrorists and other criminals? Examples are family of IRA members deemed to have their rights to life infringed by being shot by the SAS, quite ironic when their purpose for being on Gibraltar was to set a bomb to kill and maim as many innocent people as possible. A convicted paedophile winning £3000 because delays in bring his trial caused him stress and infringed his human rights. A man who shot a police officer winning £7000 for a minor delay in his release from prison. The millions wasted in trying to deport Bin-Ladens European lieutenant Abu Qatada with efforts being frustrated by courts looking to protect his rights. We should start from scratch and re-design it under our own jurisdiction once we leave the EU. The principles would still apply but put the human rights of the law abiding public ahead of the rights of criminal and terrorist scum. Oh god. The UK was an original signatory and our highly regarded legal professionals were fundamental to writing the treaty. Those were the days. The days before simplistic, Ill informed opinion was the norm. So you think it remains fit for purpose and shouldn't be subject to any future review? There is a lot of discontent that so many of the beneficiaries are criminals and terrorists whose rights seem to be put ahead of the rights of the general population. I reckon we should have a referendum on it - that would clear up whether it's wanted by the majority😀
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2019 11:10:45 GMT
Oh god. The UK was an original signatory and our highly regarded legal professionals were fundamental to writing the treaty. Those were the days. The days before simplistic, Ill informed opinion was the norm. So you think it remains fit for purpose and shouldn't be subject to any future review? There is a lot of discontent that so many of the beneficiaries are criminals and terrorists whose rights seem to be put ahead of the rights of the general population. I reckon we should have a referendum on it - that would clear up whether it's wanted by the majority😀 I have no problem with a democratic review or legal professionals recommending amendments. What makes me shiver is ill informed, regurgitated populist headlines passing as valid evidence. Interesting that pro leavers are so prone to doing this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2019 11:20:34 GMT
So you think it remains fit for purpose and shouldn't be subject to any future review? There is a lot of discontent that so many of the beneficiaries are criminals and terrorists whose rights seem to be put ahead of the rights of the general population. I reckon we should have a referendum on it - that would clear up whether it's wanted by the majority😀 I have no problem with a democratic review or legal professionals recommending amendments. What makes me shiver is ill informed, regurgitated populist headlines passing as valid evidence. Interesting that pro leavers are so prone to doing this. Regurgitated populist headlines passing as valid evidence? Just because you don't like them and would prefer to pretend they don't exist these are real life examples that infuriate the law abiding British taxpayer. Is it only you that is allowed to quote examples or paste your Guardian links to support your views?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2019 11:27:55 GMT
I have no problem with a democratic review or legal professionals recommending amendments. What makes me shiver is ill informed, regurgitated populist headlines passing as valid evidence. Interesting that pro leavers are so prone to doing this. Regurgitated populist headlines passing as valid evidence? Just because you don't like them and would prefer to pretend they don't exist these are real life examples that infuriate the law abiding British taxpayer. Is it only you that is allowed to quote examples or paste your Guardian links to support your views? Outraged of Tonbridge Wells springs to mind. By the way you provided no links to informed opinion to support your views. Go on
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Feb 14, 2019 11:46:55 GMT
Abu Qatada (and not saying he is a good bloke) where evidence was apparently gained under torture and this was one of the main reasons that it went to the court of human rights and was prevented from being deported Now he may be guilty of many things, but pretty sure and I have seen enough true crime programmes to know you can't just coerce people into saying things and trying to use it as evidence. Maybe the UK Government and the Jordanians needed a better case en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Othman_(Abu_Qatada)_v_United_Kingdom
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2019 12:00:14 GMT
Abu Qatada (and not saying he is a good bloke) where evidence was apparently gained under torture and this was one of the main reasons that it went to the court of human rights and was prevented from being deported Now he may be guilty of many things, but pretty sure and I have seen enough true crime programmes to know you can't just coerce people into saying things and trying to use it as evidence. Maybe the UK Government and the Jordanians needed a better case en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Othman_(Abu_Qatada)_v_United_KingdomSimon Thanks for that. This jumped out at me. "Qatada was eventually deported from the UK to face retrial in Jordan after an agreement between the two countries that evidence-obtained-by-torture would be discarded. In the event, it was discarded, and Qatada was freed of all charges in September 2014." I wonder what our Daily Mail readers made of that? Meanwhile, back on topic, Parliament convening on Brexit now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2019 12:06:09 GMT
If accurate, Dr. Liam Fox must be livid, given the progress made on a trade deal with China. 😱 China cancels trade talks with UK in protest over defense secretary's speech: The Sun flip.it/icMwSy
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Feb 14, 2019 12:11:10 GMT
If accurate, Dr. Liam Fox must be livid, given the progress made on a trade deal with China. 😱 China cancels trade talks with UK in protest over defense secretary's speech: The Sun flip.it/icMwSyAnother waste of space.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2019 15:11:23 GMT
Going back to EU nationals leaving the NHS, I came across something that may help explain it.
Apparently, while the UK is in the EU, if say a Spanish nurse works in the UK, the time spend working in the hospital is included in her 'experience levels' (or wording like that). After the UK leave the EU, then the EU will not recognise the time spent working in UK hospitals, meaning that if they did return home at some point, then the time spent working in the UK would not be recognised.
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Feb 15, 2019 10:25:02 GMT
Going back to EU nationals leaving the NHS, I came across something that may help explain it. Apparently, while the UK is in the EU, if say a Spanish nurse works in the UK, the time spend working in the hospital is included in her 'experience levels' (or wording like that). After the UK leave the EU, then the EU will not recognise the time spent working in UK hospitals, meaning that if they did return home at some point, then the time spent working in the UK would not be recognised. That is partially accurate. See the current system allows for recognition of skillset through national registry bodies (ours being the NMC for nurses, GMC for Drs and the HCPC for paramedics). The minimum standard for nurses is set by the EU. So although this may be accurate in the sense that because it is currently recognised as an equal standard, we will no longer be part of it and so new nurses here will technically be trained outside the EEA. Similar to your example about time nursing here not being recognised abroad. I'd suggest though its largely academic and would just take the same level of regulatory comparison we employ for nurses from any non EU area or indeed any EU area currently (they still have to apply and meet certain criteria). It's not the EU that decides whether or not to recognise a person's profession gained abroad. Rather it is each countries governing professional body that does so regardless of the minimum standard currently set for EU countries. If that makes sense?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2019 10:35:58 GMT
Going back to EU nationals leaving the NHS, I came across something that may help explain it. Apparently, while the UK is in the EU, if say a Spanish nurse works in the UK, the time spend working in the hospital is included in her 'experience levels' (or wording like that). After the UK leave the EU, then the EU will not recognise the time spent working in UK hospitals, meaning that if they did return home at some point, then the time spent working in the UK would not be recognised. That is partially accurate. See the current system allows for recognition of skillset through national registry bodies (ours being the NMC for nurses, GMC for Drs and the HCPC for paramedics). The minimum standard for nurses is set by the EU. So although this may be accurate in the sense that because it is currently recognised as an equal standard, we will no longer be part of it and so new nurses here will technically be trained outside the EEA. Similar to your example about time nursing here not being recognised abroad. I'd suggest though its largely academic and would just take the same level of regulatory comparison we employ for nurses from any non EU area or indeed any EU area currently (they still have to apply and meet certain criteria). It's not the EU that decides whether or not to recognise a person's profession gained abroad. Rather it is each countries governing professional body that does so regardless of the minimum standard currently set for EU countries. If that makes sense? Thanks for that as I really don't know the in's and out's of it. I used Spain in my example because the article I read was relevant to Spain, in that the Spanish authorities will no longer recognise work experience gained in the UK after Brexit, and it was suggested that this may be another reason as to why NHS staff are leaving and returning to EU countries.
|
|
|
Post by William Wilson on Feb 15, 2019 10:58:13 GMT
So you think it remains fit for purpose and shouldn't be subject to any future review? There is a lot of discontent that so many of the beneficiaries are criminals and terrorists whose rights seem to be put ahead of the rights of the general population. I reckon we should have a referendum on it - that would clear up whether it's wanted by the majority😀 I have no problem with a democratic review or legal professionals recommending amendments. What makes me shiver is ill informed, regurgitated populist headlines passing as valid evidence. Interesting that pro leavers are so prone to doing this. Interesting that pro remainers are so prone to believe the latest catastrophic economic warnings, despite the fact that the last lot were about as accurate as a 15th century arquebus. I guess, you can cry wolf time after time, and some people will take up the chant. You had absolutely no idea what would happen between the referendum and now, and you have absolutely no idea what will happen between now and three years hence, no matter what deal does or doesn`t get agreed. There was a panel of economists on Newsnight a few months back, and they all agreed that, come what may, things won`t be as bad as some just love to make out. Personally, I`d go along with that. This country will do what it`s always done during my lifetime; muddle along.
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Feb 15, 2019 11:02:14 GMT
That is partially accurate. See the current system allows for recognition of skillset through national registry bodies (ours being the NMC for nurses, GMC for Drs and the HCPC for paramedics). The minimum standard for nurses is set by the EU. So although this may be accurate in the sense that because it is currently recognised as an equal standard, we will no longer be part of it and so new nurses here will technically be trained outside the EEA. Similar to your example about time nursing here not being recognised abroad. I'd suggest though its largely academic and would just take the same level of regulatory comparison we employ for nurses from any non EU area or indeed any EU area currently (they still have to apply and meet certain criteria). It's not the EU that decides whether or not to recognise a person's profession gained abroad. Rather it is each countries governing professional body that does so regardless of the minimum standard currently set for EU countries. If that makes sense? Thanks for that as I really don't know the in's and out's of it. I used Spain in my example because the article I read was relevant to Spain, in that the Spanish authorities will no longer recognise work experience gained in the UK after Brexit, and it was suggested that this may be another reason as to why NHS staff are leaving and returning to EU countries. They could choose to do that certainly but I suspect they won't if it causes them staff shortages. It's about recognition of awards and practice according to skill comparison. Great example is paramedics. In some countries they are not trained to intubate or perform cricothyroidectomy (invasive breathing tube inserted in to the trachea / cutting a hole in the neck to bypass obstuction - no biro allowed). Here they must have that so our paramedic regulatory body wouldn't recognise a paramedic from a country that didn't have that comparable skillset. They would have to undertake extra training to be able to register and practice here. So Spain would absolutely have to introduce a piece of work on comparative skill recognition because it is no longer part of the EU minimum standard but it can be done by all accounts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2019 11:49:56 GMT
I have no problem with a democratic review or legal professionals recommending amendments. What makes me shiver is ill informed, regurgitated populist headlines passing as valid evidence. Interesting that pro leavers are so prone to doing this. Interesting that pro remainers are so prone to believe the latest catastrophic economic warnings, despite the fact that the last lot were about as accurate as a 15th century arquebus. I guess, you can cry wolf time after time, and some people will take up the chant. You had absolutely no idea what would happen between the referendum and now, and you have absolutely no idea what will happen between now and three years hence, no matter what deal does or doesn`t get agreed. There was a panel of economists on Newsnight a few months back, and they all agreed that, come what may, things won`t be as bad as some just love to make out. Personally, I`d go along with that. This country will do what it`s always done during my lifetime; muddle along.
I agree economic forecasts are guidelines only and for sure cannot be a guarantor of future performance. The problem with debating this in the context of Brexit is that, I believe, at the time of the referendum the debate was badly tainted by hysterical claims by both sides. If we can put that behind us I think the debate comes down to two core issues. 1. The economic well being of the country 2. What sort of society do we want, or want for our kids, to live in. The body of evidence that is accumulating is that the economy will take a hit. The degree to which we don't actually know for sure. But I think the BoE analysis which shows an underperformance in growth terms over the next decade is probably as accurate as one can get. If true then our living standards will be ok, but we may well fall down the pecking order of advanced countries. That headline is over played anyway in my opinion, but there will be consequences in terms of health care, social services etc. This will be a slow grind so people may not notice it, but we would be condemning our kids (grandkids) to a relatively lower standard of living. Leavers will counter this and say I am missing the "huge" opportunities afforded us by leaving. I think that argument is discredited already by the realities that the current government faces. So then the "what kind of society" do we want kicks in. For us liberals, social and economic, the sight of the Leave campaign being hijacked by petty nationalist charlatans (Rees Mogg, Johnson etc) is horrifying. I will ignore the shouty sweaty types as they are just loonies. Personally I wouldn't want these people anywhere near setting the social agenda For this country, it's bad enough watching them hijack the Tory Party and holding it to ransom in the HoC. So the question is, is all this worth it? The answer now appears to have been distilled down to "freeing ourselves from the EU superstate" and judiciary oversight. This is just hyperbole and has no basis in fact. In my opinion the EU as we see it will crumble under the pressure of the common currency which is not managed by an empowered central bank. When that happens, if we're part of the treaty but outside of the Eurozone, the role of leadership as an open, liberal free market economy, one that can influence the future and help correct the democratic deficit inherent in the EU should be ours. Sadly I think we will leave and end up isolated and appearing petty whilst festering nationalist tendencies in Scotland and Ireland will see the break up of the UK. This in my view, will be the future we bestow on our kids.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2019 12:19:06 GMT
Interesting that pro remainers are so prone to believe the latest catastrophic economic warnings, despite the fact that the last lot were about as accurate as a 15th century arquebus. I guess, you can cry wolf time after time, and some people will take up the chant. You had absolutely no idea what would happen between the referendum and now, and you have absolutely no idea what will happen between now and three years hence, no matter what deal does or doesn`t get agreed. There was a panel of economists on Newsnight a few months back, and they all agreed that, come what may, things won`t be as bad as some just love to make out. Personally, I`d go along with that. This country will do what it`s always done during my lifetime; muddle along.
I agree economic forecasts are guidelines only and for sure cannot be a guarantor of future performance. The problem with debating this in the context of Brexit is that, I believe, at the time of the referendum the debate was badly tainted by hysterical claims by both sides. If we can put that behind us I think the debate comes down to two core issues. 1. The economic well being of the country 2. What sort of society do we want, or want for our kids, to live in. The body of evidence that is accumulating is that the economy will take a hit. The degree to which we don't actually know for sure. But I think the BoE analysis which shows an underperformance in growth terms over the next decade is probably as accurate as one can get. If true then our living standards will be ok, but we may well fall down the pecking order of advanced countries. That headline is over played anyway in my opinion, but there will be consequences in terms of health care, social services etc. This will be a slow grind so people may not notice it, but we would be condemning our kids (grandkids) to a relatively lower standard of living. Leavers will counter this and say I am missing the "huge" opportunities afforded us by leaving. I think that argument is discredited already by the realities that the current government faces. So then the "what kind of society" do we want kicks in. For us liberals, social and economic, the sight of the Leave campaign being hijacked by petty nationalist charlatans (Rees Mogg, Johnson etc) is horrifying. I will ignore the shouty sweaty types as they are just loonies. Personally I wouldn't want these people anywhere near setting the social agenda For this country, it's bad enough watching them hijack the Tory Party and holding it to ransom in the HoC. So the question is, is all this worth it? The answer now appears to have been distilled down to "freeing ourselves from the EU superstate" and judiciary oversight. This is just hyperbole and has no basis in fact. In my opinion the EU as we see it will crumble under the pressure of the common currency which is not managed by an empowered central bank. When that happens, if we're part of the treaty but outside of the Eurozone, the role of leadership as an open, liberal free market economy, one that can influence the future and help correct the democratic deficit inherent in the EU should be ours. Sadly I think we will leave and end up isolated and appearing petty whilst festering nationalist tendencies in Scotland and Ireland will see the break up of the UK. This in my view, will be the future we bestow on our kids. At least we agree that in it's current form the EU will collapse. In my opinion, this is one of the major reasons for leaving. Already the Eurozone is on the edge, and history has shown us that when these 'political unions' eventually collapse it can often lead to disaster for the people. I don't think we should let the UK be dragged down with it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2019 12:36:19 GMT
I agree economic forecasts are guidelines only and for sure cannot be a guarantor of future performance. The problem with debating this in the context of Brexit is that, I believe, at the time of the referendum the debate was badly tainted by hysterical claims by both sides. If we can put that behind us I think the debate comes down to two core issues. 1. The economic well being of the country 2. What sort of society do we want, or want for our kids, to live in. The body of evidence that is accumulating is that the economy will take a hit. The degree to which we don't actually know for sure. But I think the BoE analysis which shows an underperformance in growth terms over the next decade is probably as accurate as one can get. If true then our living standards will be ok, but we may well fall down the pecking order of advanced countries. That headline is over played anyway in my opinion, but there will be consequences in terms of health care, social services etc. This will be a slow grind so people may not notice it, but we would be condemning our kids (grandkids) to a relatively lower standard of living. Leavers will counter this and say I am missing the "huge" opportunities afforded us by leaving. I think that argument is discredited already by the realities that the current government faces. So then the "what kind of society" do we want kicks in. For us liberals, social and economic, the sight of the Leave campaign being hijacked by petty nationalist charlatans (Rees Mogg, Johnson etc) is horrifying. I will ignore the shouty sweaty types as they are just loonies. Personally I wouldn't want these people anywhere near setting the social agenda For this country, it's bad enough watching them hijack the Tory Party and holding it to ransom in the HoC. So the question is, is all this worth it? The answer now appears to have been distilled down to "freeing ourselves from the EU superstate" and judiciary oversight. This is just hyperbole and has no basis in fact. In my opinion the EU as we see it will crumble under the pressure of the common currency which is not managed by an empowered central bank. When that happens, if we're part of the treaty but outside of the Eurozone, the role of leadership as an open, liberal free market economy, one that can influence the future and help correct the democratic deficit inherent in the EU should be ours. Sadly I think we will leave and end up isolated and appearing petty whilst festering nationalist tendencies in Scotland and Ireland will see the break up of the UK. This in my view, will be the future we bestow on our kids. At least we agree that in it's current form the EU will collapse. In my opinion, this is one of the major reasons for leaving. Already the Eurozone is on the edge, and history has shown us that when these 'political unions' eventually collapse it can often lead to disaster for the people. I don't think we should let the UK be dragged down with it. Nobby, the cause of the collapse will be the single currency. It is therefore not the "Political Union" that will be the causal factor it is very poorly considered and implemented single currency.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2019 12:46:08 GMT
At least we agree that in it's current form the EU will collapse. In my opinion, this is one of the major reasons for leaving. Already the Eurozone is on the edge, and history has shown us that when these 'political unions' eventually collapse it can often lead to disaster for the people. I don't think we should let the UK be dragged down with it. Nobby, the cause of the collapse will be the single currency. It is therefore not the "Political Union" that will be the causal factor it is very poorly considered and implemented single currency. But the currency was introduced for political reasons. The whole EU is a political project.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2019 15:00:28 GMT
Nobby, the cause of the collapse will be the single currency. It is therefore not the "Political Union" that will be the causal factor it is very poorly considered and implemented single currency. But the currency was introduced for political reasons. The whole EU is a political project. Lets agree to disagree on that point then. For me it was an idea which was very badly brought into being. Now if they had tried to impose central bank authority over national governments, that would have been political. That they didn't, when they knew the dangers of not doing that, was because they didn't want to face that political reality.
|
|