Jump to content
blandy

Should I stay or should I go now - U.K. in/out of the EU (contd.)

Recommended Posts

Not saying it's right or wrong. I don't know. But, people who accept ECHR  can't really complain if it goes against them. Can they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Yellowhammer, Government, August 2019.

EENIXnOW4AAzRfv?format=jpg&name=900x900

 

While I don't want to say that this was all rather predictable...

It'll be fine, we got through the Blitz. etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, colhint said:

Not saying it's right or wrong. I don't know. But, people who accept ECHR  can't really complain if it goes against them. Can they?

Just repeating an acronym isn't saying 'right' or 'wrong', it's literally saying nothing other than repeating an acronym.

What in the ECHR is the issue, here?

Edited by snowychap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, snowychap said:

Of course, the only response available in this case is for Parliament to sit and hold the Government in contempt (as earlier in this Parliament).

Unfortunately, they're unable to do this for 5 weeks or more, unless ... Supreme Court.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NurembergVillan said:

 

We've already been there, though, Rob.

The Government aren't (and I don't see how they're going to change this position other than being forced) going to do anything until the Supreme Court give their judgment. Even though the hearing is scheduled for next Tuesday, it's apparently unlikely to be laid down until the following week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

We've already been there, though, Rob.

The Government aren't (and I don't see how they're going to change this position other than being forced) going to do anything until the Supreme Court give their judgment. Even though the hearing is scheduled for next Tuesday, it's apparently unlikely to be laid down until the following week.

I can see a lot of MPs turning up tomorrow to make a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Just repeating an acronym isn't saying 'right' or 'wrong', it's literally saying nothing other than repeating an acronym.

What in the ECHR is the issue, here?

Article 8 private life home life and correspondence. Its about 150 pages long, so I don't know all the in's and outs.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NurembergVillan said:

I can see a lot of MPs turning up tomorrow to make a point.

I'd love it, tbh. It would be nothing more than a photo opportunity in the House of Commons, though, I think.

On the other hand, I gather, Cooper and her select committee ran an unnofficial version of it earlier taking evidence. The only problem is, as far as I can see, it won't be documented as official evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, colhint said:

Article 8 private life home life and correspondence. Its about 150 pages long, so I don't know all the in's and outs.

Again, you can't just quote a headline and leave it at that.

This is nonsense. You have to explain why something is relevant rather than just shouting 'Article 8' and then **** off (as Cummings and his cohorts seem to have done).

It's interesting that you appear to be parroting the Tory HQ/Guido line.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, snowychap said:

It's interesting that you appear to be parroting the Tory HQ/Guido line.

And zero criticism of the Govt's behaviour..

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, colhint said:

...so I don't know all the in's and outs.

Why would you assume any illegality then?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Again, you can't just quote a headline and leave it at that.

This is nonsense. You have to explain why something is relevant rather than just shouting 'Article 8' and then **** off (as Cummings and his cohorts seem to have done).

It's interesting that you appear to be parroting the Tory HQ/Guido line.

I haven't just quoted a headline. I questioned whether it was legal. 

I didn't just shout article 8 and then eff off. I remember reading about article 8 a while back and remembered a few bits that;s all. 

You're last line appears to be  covered in Article 9 an individuals right to freedom of thought conscience and religion, Article 10 freedom of expression and Article 14 prohibition of discrimination.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Why would you assume any illegality then?

I suppose the same way you guessed a response a short while ago.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, colhint said:

I haven't just quoted a headline. I questioned whether it was legal. 

I didn't just shout article 8 and then eff off. I remember reading about article 8 a while back and remembered a few bits that;s all. 

You're last line appears to be  covered in Article 9 an individuals right to freedom of thought conscience and religion, Article 10 freedom of expression and Article 14 prohibition of discrimination.

You what? You haven't done anything other than say 'x' appears to be covered by Article 8/9/10/14.

Tell us how, please.

Again, you appear to have just said 'ooh, article 8', 'ooh, article 9', &c.

It's comically bad.

Tell me one way in which, in your view, something to which you object contravenes an article in the ECHR and HOW it does.

Once you do then we can discuss whether or not we think it does (obviously legal arguments might well be of more weight than our messageboard discussions).

Edited by snowychap
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said it's about 150 pages of legal document's. it covers all those articles and then went on to say it's load of cock. If you are sure it's a load of cock check it out yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, colhint said:

Like I said it's about 150 pages of legal document's. it covers all those articles and then went on to say it's load of cock. If you are sure it's a load of cock check it out yourself.

Burden of proof is on you here. You said it's illegal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, colhint said:

Like I said it's about 150 pages of legal document's. it covers all those articles and then went on to say it's load of cock. If you are sure it's a load of cock check it out yourself.

Ha ha ha.

You're the one who brought it up. It's incumbent upon you to make the case.

Surely you get that? :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said:

Burden of proof is on you here. You said it's illegal

Burden of proof is a legal term,  so it's now on you. Show me where I said that it's illegal?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â