Yeah, damn me for for wanting evidence of something rather than taking what some anonymous person on the Internet reckons at face value. A person who seems to have reckoned it up over the weekend, started a thread about it and now keeps posting what they reckon as if it has some substance.

Cool story about zebras bro, but I'm not the one making unsubstantiated claims, the poster I asked for evidence is the one trying to convince others that black is white.

Less / fewer - that is why I will never pass the citizenship test

*self-deports*

Yeah, I mean, it's only our human rights they are messing with after all, what's to worry about?
unless of course they intend to replace our existing human rights with better and stronger one's? but then, if that was the reason why get rid of the current human rights legislation, when they could keep it and simply give us even stronger one's on top of the one's we have?
Clearly the only reasons that 'Big sister' wants to mess with our human rights is to give her even more control over our lives, she already wants to spy on every single one of us, (remember the TV in every home that could see you and could not be switched off in Orwell's 1984?)
I am certain that if there was a way to monitor what we are thinking that too would soon be another "nothing to hide nothing to fear" mantra from the compliant herd.

the caring compassionate Conservatives, as ever, knowing what's best for us and doing it ALL out of love.

"War is peace, freedom is slavery ignorance is strength"

http://www.theweek.co.uk/63635/human...nment-confirms


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7204256.html


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10491173.html


would you like some more?

NOW, why do they want to 'replace it' with something else?
Do you think they want to do it in order to give us more rights and more protection.... or less? simple question.

I know what I think.

May will argue that human rights give everyone who comes to the UK a permanent right to reside if they buy a cat. And elf and safety gone mad.

Comes from the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy - the Babel Fish Entry to be exact

Again, your argument is merely a repetition of the position that we would be dependent on the EU to make a decision, prior to us making one, rather than deciding such a matter independently. In other words, on one of the very first decisions we could independently make, you believe us incapable of making a decision without the EU.

That's a totally bizarre position since we currently can and do make decisions on the admission (& rights to remain) of non-EU citizens who are either already here (legally or illegally) or who wish to immigrate here. Our decisions to admit them or allow them to remain are not made on the basis of reciprocal arrangements. Nor indeed do we attempt to dictate to non-EU countries whether or not they will admit or allow to remain our own citizens since that is a fundamental matter of sovereignty for the countries concerned. They are perfectly entitled to never allow a UK citizen to immigrate if they so choose. That is their decision, not ours. Equally whether or not we allow their citizens to immigrate here is our decision, not theirs. There is no linkage between the decisions since the decisions are decisions of sovereign nations.

You voted that we leave the EU and become a "third party" country under EU law. EU countries already have a extensive set of rules on immigration for non-EU citizens. The only reasonable expectation you or I can have is that our citizens will be treated the same as the citizens of other third party countries by the EU countries once we exit. We cannot dictate to them on how they exercise their sovereignty. Nor can we hold their citizens "hostage" as you suggest as this will be quite correctly seen by the world as little more than a crude attempt to blackmail the EU countries to exercise their sovereignty in a particular manner and will be rightly rejected by the EU since any sovereign nation that succumbs to blackmail on one issue invites being blackmailed on every other issue by any and all nations that believe they can get away with it.

I find not imagining the worst case scenario saves pressure on my heart through not over-worring and wasting time by writing long posts citing Orwell to justify my imagined fears.

I like to wait and see what is actually proposed before having a fit that endangers my health and underwear.

But maybe that's just me

I see it this way to give the public more rights you dont need the leave the ECHR, you only need to leave if you want to take things away

Not forgetting "Arbeit Macht Frei".

Well I have always thought that the best policy is to always ensure that the stable door is firmly locked BEFORE the horses attempt to escape, rather than after they are three fields away.

Not quite seeing what a fictional quote from a novel has to do with a factual quote from the gates of a right wing death camp

My point exactly, if the intention is to improve and strengthen our human rights then that can be done while still being members, clearly the only reason for leaving is to weaken our human rights.

That's probably the difference between you and I.

I don't automatically assume the horses want to escape, they may well be happy where they are. Let's wait to hear it from the horses' mouth first eh?

I believe the ECHR was founded in 1959. Didn't we have any rights before then?

Since then, have our rights never been eroded in any way?

Obviously we had some rights. We gained some more because of the ECHR.


Don't think so. Do you think they have?

The rights of Trades Union members, in pursuance of a legitimate and lawful dispute, have been eroded spectacularly since May 1979.

But I'm guessing you'd exclude these 'lefties' from 'our' as if they aren't a constituent part of society.

What amazes me is just how often the UK government loses these cases! it's a disgrace

Do you know that of all the initial submissions to the ECHR, the UK government loses a whopping 1.8%? 301 times from 1959-2010

It only wins slightly more.

Mind you 95% of applications are never judged - withdrawn, inadmissable, ruled as frivolous and so on.

Au contraire, I am a leftie and a trades unionist to my bones. We'd have precious few rights if it wasn't for the Trades Union movement.

I was merely pointing out obliquely that the rights you speak of have not been safeguarded by the ECHR. We have lost them, in spite of being a member.

senior Conservatives are pressing Ms May to go one step and guarantee full ECHR withdrawal.

However, lawyers and campaign groups in Northern Ireland say that to do so could be a breach of the Good Friday Agreement. The Agreement is a peace treaty which ended the Northern Irish Troubles conflict and was voted on in referenda in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, before being lodged as a treaty to the UN. Critics say withdrawal from the ECHR would breach the treaty by removing avenues for justice and reconciliation for people affected by the conflict.

Churchill will be turning in his grave.

She basically wants us to leave the Council of Europe?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...n_Human_Rights

Perhaps we should have a referendum on it.

I've been wondering about that myself, I don't see how the UK can stay in if we leave the ECHR altogether.

The next election could well be the test of the government's performance on Brexit. It doesn't look sensible for May to fold in yet another controversial and divisive policy.

If anything it would be a vote winner, moreso if it is presented as a way to clamp down on immigration. And if Brexit is going badly, it would be a welcome distraction for the Govt.