The issue of whether or not EU citizens are allowed to stay in the U.K. and on what basis is one the many decisions that, in the new post-Brexit "utopia", we are supposed to be able to make "independently" by "exercising our sovereignty". It is not one that is supposed to be dependent on any decision or decisions of the EU and/or its member states or on any discussions that we do or do not hold with them.

If we are incapable of making a straightener decision about this on our own, it goes to show just how dependent on the EU a post-Brexit UK will be as we will in reality be reduced to having them make the decision for us which we then "copy-paste" while engaging in a delusion of being "independent" of the EU.

The UK government's position is citizens of the UK and the EU should be able to remain where they are but this needs the EU to agree with that. Your position appears to be the UK should guarantee EU citizens can remain and ignore UK citizens which is not unexpected from a Europhile.

And the ECHR does?? Abu Hamza anyone?

I thought being a signatory to the convention already did that? There's probably something more detailed on that, I think possibly involving words like 'transposition' but probably also 'subsume' and 'assimilate'...

Though reslly the issue is that it needs a rewrite, or even a memo stuck to the front with e.g. 'being refused a gym membership is not an act of oppression'.

Comes under the category of better a hundred guilty go free than one innocent is jailed.

Of course it does - just ask thalidimide babies, rape victims fighting to keep their panic rooms and kids that can't be beaten with garden canes by their dads.

Why they were refused gym membership could be however.

The ECHR did not stop him from being jailed and eventually extradited to the US.

I can't see this really happening, it would be suicide for the party.

Indeed, though there's a fine line between 'appropriate outfit' and 'crime against humanity'.

I must say I would be a little worried if the Tories get a decent majority at the next election (which they surely would against the incompetent Corbyn), and this majority then chooses whats in the bill of rights - as the new Tory intake at the next election is likely to be pretty hard right, as many Tory associations will only put up Brexit supporting candidates, most of whom will be more Peter Bone than Ken Clark in their worldview.

The only problem with the centralising of law and economic policy is that it doesn't work.

Hence why EU member states are not doing so well.

I wouldn't trust the May government to tell me the time of day honestly, let alone look after my human rights. If you do, I pity you. You must be very gullible.

It's usually only autocratic regimes who are in favour of isolationism. Britain is not "becoming sovereign again" : it's attempting to turn its back on the world.

Oh really? That's whatcha reckon is it?

Where as, in reality...

Trump has pretty much the same policy, along the lines of isolationism and going it alone (he threatened to leave NATO at one point during his campaign and his latest thing is bashing the UN as a useless talking shop).

It would be a foolish thing because putting our rights into the hands of governments mean they are then in the gift of whichever government came to power (rather than right that is ours as citizens). There is nothing to stop any subsequent government removing those rights.

(The ECJ being part of the EU we would leave as part of the EU)

Nope, not pretty much the same.

There is no evidence to show that the UK (in your words) is "attempting to turn its back on the world.”

Our government does NOT need the EU to agree to anything prior to it making a decision on whether or not citizens from the EU can or cannot remain in the U.K. should we leave the EU.


No, my position is that if we are supposedly going to be "independent" of the EU then we can make such decisions on our own - that, after all, is the supposed "benefit" of Brexit. We are not supposed to be dependent on the rest of the EU to make any decision in the Brexit fantasy.

It speaks volumes that you, a Leave supporter, believe that we should be reduced to being dependent on a decision of the EU prior to being able to make a fundamental decision on sovereignty here.

According to the Guardian, less rights will be covered in the replacement for the ECHR

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016...l-after-brexit

The UK is withdrawing from a 28 strong trading bloc / political union for mainly political reasons (immigration, sovereignty) and is talking about how ending freedom of movement with its nearest neighbours is an absolute priority and yet this is not a form of isolationism?

...... Isn't that the same thing all the dictators Britain is supposed to despise do?

Don't waste you time old bean. Staunchy is one of the contingent on here who attempt to convince us black is white only to risk being run over on the next zebra crossing.

Fewer


e2a: Did I miss the bit in the article where they say less/reduced/fewer? Are they going by word-count? Does one have more sections than the other? Is the bit that says 'except pet cats' counted as a minus-one?

A peverse argument if ever I heard one. I believe the arrangements for EU citizens to remain here should be reciprocated by the EU for UK citizens there. If the EU doesn't agree to that then the UK can then decide for itself at that point what it wishes to do. My own view is if the EU wish to play politics over this and say UK citizens can't stay there then EU citizens can't stay here.