Brexit Referendum Superthread

FrancieBrady

123shooter wrote: »

I mean rights not laws which can be overturned by EU which is higher. Citizens rights should never be overturned by anybody.

How many people over the years got their 'rights' from the British in the European courts?
Ridiculous point of view to be honest.

Calina

Are you familiar with the European Conventiin on Human Rights? Because that holds countries accountable for human rights for signatory countries?

BlitzKrieg

Calina wrote: »

Are you familiar with the European Conventiin on Human Rights? Because that holds countries accountable for human rights for signatory countries?

Council of Europe

Not European Union.

First Up

123shooter wrote:

I mean rights not laws which can be overturned by EU which is higher. Citizens rights should never be overturned by anybody.

Rulings by the European Court of Human Rights are binding. The EU cannot overturn them.

You really haven't got a clue.

Professor Moriarty

123shooter wrote: »

I mean rights not laws which can be overturned by EU which is higher. Citizens rights should never be overturned by anybody.

Perspective is everything. Increasingly, I consider myself to be an EU citizen as much as an Irish citizen.

Calina

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Calina wrote: »

Are you familiar with the European Conventiin on Human Rights? Because that holds countries accountable for human rights for signatory countries?

Council of Europe

Not European Union.

I know. Point is the poster for whose benefit I posted that implied EU law could over rule rights of citizens. It cannot because declared rights are defined outside EU via the Convention.

123shooter

First Up wrote: »

Rulings by the European Court of Human Rights are binding. The EU cannot overturn them.

You really haven't got a clue.

I never said the EU can overturn the European court...........you must be reading another thread.

123shooter

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How many people over the years got their 'rights' from the British in the European courts?
Ridiculous point of view to be honest.

If anyone had actually said that I would agree with you totally.

View

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

One detail to confirm, there is actually no power in the EU to block a nation's nominee. Only the power to reject the commission as a whole.

As I understand it, the results of the vote on each nominee are presented to the European Parliament so they can make a final decision.

If the Committe set up - by the Parliament - to establish the suitability of each nominee for office rejects a nominee, then the Parliament is not going to reject the recommendation of its own Committee and approve a Commission containing people it believes are unsuitable for office.

Hence both the Parliament and its Committee do in practice have the power to block any nominee.

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

It would be a pointless affair and indicate much worse issues but the EU could in theory get trapped in a loop of a country nominating the same Commissioner and the the parliament rejecting the commission as a whole over and over.

That's hardly a pointless affair!

If a member state continues to insist on re-nominating someone that isn't up to scratch, the member state is the one causing the problem, not the Parliament.

MEPs would be completely failing in their duties as public representatives if they were to roll over and appoint someone to office that they fundamentally believe is not up to the job. They are there to represent their electorates, not to facilitate the actions of any particular government, especially if that government is deliberately causing a crisis by refusing to accept the EP's decision on the person they nominated.

View

123shooter wrote: »

I mean rights not laws which can be overturned by EU which is higher. Citizens rights should never be overturned by anybody.

The EU can't overturn rights.

The CJEU rules on EU law. The EU has a Charter of Fundamental Rights which applies for EU law and also on the implementation of EU law into the law of a member state (The latter being most EU law). Any EU law or domestic implementation of EU law must be compatiable with the COFR, so the COFR exists to protect your rights, not to overturn them.

The Supreme Court rules on domestic law - ie. non-EU law. The EU's COFR does not apply to it at all. The rights that you have are in and from the Constitution.

Lastly, the Council of Europe's ECtHR rules on the ECHR (European Convention of Human Rights). It can rule that on whether either domestic law and/or EU law (if the EU has finished formally joining the Council of Europe) meet the standards of the ECHR. Again, this is to protect rights, not overturn them.

123shooter

View wrote: »

The EU can't overturn rights.

The CJEU rules on EU law. The EU has a Charter of Fundamental Rights which applies for EU law and also on the implementation of EU law into the law of a member state (The latter being most EU law). Any EU law or domestic implementation of EU law must be compatiable with the COFR, so the COFR exists to protect your rights, not to overturn them.

The Supreme Court rules on domestic law - ie. non-EU law. The EU's COFR does not apply to it at all. The rights that you have are in and from the Constitution.

Lastly, the Council of Europe's ECtHR rules on the ECHR (European Convention of Human Rights). It can rule that on whether either domestic law and/or EU law (if the EU has finished formally joining the Council of Europe) meet the standards of the ECHR. Again, this is to protect rights, not overturn them.

I give up. It's not your fault it just gets lost in the many posts.

Just for the record I have never said that the EU can overturn anybodies rights.

Capt'n Midnight

Fratton Fred wrote: »

it is more than non eu citizens get.

Are you saying that persons legally resident in the UK for 5 years can't apply for a residency ?

Sam Russell

123shooter wrote: »

I give up. It's not your fault it just gets lost in the many posts.

Just for the record I have never said that the EU can overturn anybodies rights.

But the whole Brexit negotiations will fail (or not) on the ECJ having jurisdiction over all EU citizens rights, even if they live in the UK, and are there prior to the UK leaving the EU. Those rights have to be maintained, including such rights that would apply to spouses and children. Equally, the ECHR has to continue to apply, which TM has said the UK will leave that and dream up the UKCHR.

123shooter

Sam Russell wrote: »

But the whole Brexit negotiations will fail (or not) on the ECJ having jurisdiction over all EU citizens rights, even if they live in the UK, and are there prior to the UK leaving the EU. Those rights have to be maintained, including such rights that would apply to spouses and children. Equally, the ECHR has to continue to apply, which TM has said the UK will leave that and dream up the UKCHR.

You may be correct but my post on a similar subject which you refer to was in relation to another topic and not the Brexit..........but like I say it gets lost in the posts and others trying to twist the words of those who they do not agree with.

Sam Russell

123shooter wrote: »

You may be correct but my post on a similar subject which you refer to was in relation to another topic and not the Brexit..........but like I say it gets lost in the posts and others trying to twist the words of those who they do not agree with.

Maybe, but the EU are very strong on the rights of citizens and that they be enforced by the ECJ. They will not dilute those rights.

123shooter

Sam Russell wrote: »

Maybe, but the EU are very strong on the rights of citizens and that they be enforced by the ECJ. They will not dilute those rights.

No problem but are those rights of citizens correct in all cases for all countries?

For example if someone commits a crime in a visited country, why cant that country say right get him out permanently?

Jim2007

123shooter wrote: »

For example if someone commits a crime in a visited country, why cant that country say right get him out permanently?

There are actually provisions available to cover such situations and those powers have in deed been used. Go learn to use Google and do some research on the topics before posting.

123shooter

Jim2007 wrote: »

There are actually provisions available to cover such situations and those powers have in deed been used. Go learn to use Google and do some research on the topics before posting.

Strange that in real life......http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10641053/Record-number-of-foreign-criminals-cannot-be-deported.html

and I got this from google ....thanks for the tip.:)

Peregrinus

You should read your cites before you post them, 123Shooter.

As your cite makes clear, the people concerned cannot be deported because of the “right to private and family life set out in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights". The United Kingdom signed and ratified the Convention in 1952, 21 years before it joined the EU (and indeed 6 years before the EEC was founded.) So the Convention has nothing to do with the EU and Brexit will not affect it. The Convention was drafted by British lawyers, drawign on British legal traditions, and the UK was the first country in the world to ratify it.

The rights set out in the ECHR are legally enforceable in the UK because the UK Parliament - a body more-or-less democratically elected by the people of the UK - enacted UK legislation saying that the rights recognised in the Convention would be enforceable in UK courts. Again, nothing to do with the EU, and in no way connected to Brexit. And not the work of unelected foreign bureaucrats; entirely the outcome of decisions taken by the elected representatives of the people of the UK.

123shooter

Peregrinus wrote: »

You should read your cites before you post them, 123Shooter.

As your cite makes clear, the people concerned cannot be deported because of the “right to private and family life set out in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights". T.

You are correct so I used google again ........ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/12140444/European-court-challenges-Britains-right-to-deport-foreign-criminals.html

Peregrinus

Again, 123shooter, for the love of God read your cites before you post them, and at least try to understand what they are saying.

Your the newspaper report that you link to dates from February 2016 and doesn't contain any report of a court judgment or ruling. It deals with an argument put to the court in the case of CS, a Moroccan citizen whom the UK wished to deport.

Judgment in the CS case was handed down in September 2016. The ruling is that it is for the UK courts to decide whether CS can be deported.

Somebody has been feeding you a Brexity died made up of the usual misrepresentations, half-truths and outright lies, and you have chosen to lap it all up uncritically. I'm not going to devote my time to deconstructing every piece of nonsense you trot out in this forum; I'm inclined to think that you take all this stuff as gospel because you want to, and not because you lack the ability to scrutinise it critically and need a grown-up to do it for you. You should ask yourself why you have made this choice.

123shooter

Peregrinus wrote: »

Again, 123shooter,

Somebody has been feeding you a Brexity died made up of the usual misrepresentations, half-truths and outright lies, and you have chosen to lap it all up uncritically. I'm not going to devote my time to deconstructing every piece of nonsense you trot out in this forum; I'm inclined to think that you take all this stuff as gospel because you want to, and not because you lack the ability to scrutinise it critically and need a grown-up to do it for you. You should ask yourself why you have made this choice.

Again you are making assumptions on myself and what I may believe. In fact you have already formed your opinion of me and my beliefs of which you know zero using your own example of what you accuse me of using.

I was told to use google.........I did as instructed.........I found immediately cases where your beloved ECJ can interfere in countries legal system regards dealing with foreign criminals (as reported in example).

I wasn't told to see who could have the finale say in who wins.

My point is and always has been that it is up to an individual country and it's people to determine their own destiny not be ruled, governed or interfered with by a bunch of outsiders in whatever form they take. I have stated this over and over again.

Attacking me isn't going to change Brexit.

murphaph

123shooter wrote: »

Attacking me isn't going to change Brexit.

He just set you straight on a few things. The UK press (famously admitted to by your current Foreign Secretary!) has gotten away with outright lies about the EU for decades, completely unchallenged and widely believed by the British public. That's what has caused Brexit.

Challenging the lies and myths is always good. The EU could be better, but it's a damned sight better than what went before it. It has never been predominantly about "trade". It has, since its very inception, been about making it impossible for European nations to go to war against each other ever again. Trade was the means to the end.

123shooter

murphaph wrote: »

He just set you straight on a few things.

The UK press (famously admitted to by your current Foreign Secretary!) has gotten away with outright lies about the EU for decades, completely unchallenged and widely believed by the British public. That's what has caused Brexit.

Challenging the lies and myths is always good. The EU could be better, but it's a damned sight better than what went before it. It has never been predominantly about "trade". It has, since its very inception, been about making it impossible for European nations to go to war against each other ever again. Trade was the means to the end.

So ok lets say you are correct, then we have a huge problem because a bunch of UK newspapers have fooled approx 18 million uk voters (cant remember exact) and millions of others across Europe that the EU is bad for their country. Also these same people are stupid, misguided, pathetic, uneducated etc etc.

Thats going to be a hard one to unravel.

But my point again for the god knows how many times.............My point is and always has been that it is up to an individual country and it's people to determine their own destiny not be ruled, governed or interfered with by a bunch of outsiders in whatever form they take.

Peregrinus

123shooter wrote: »

But my point again for the god knows how many times.............My point is and always has been that it is up to an individual country and it's people to determine their own destiny not be ruled, governed or interfered with by a bunch of outsiders in whatever form they take.

Yes, it is. That's why the EU treaties provide an exit mechanism in the form of Art 50.

It doesn't follow, though, that people who decide to invoke that mechanism are are right, are wise, or well-informed. The issue here has never been whether teh UK can leave the EU; it has always been whether they should.

Jim2007

123shooter wrote: »

Strange that in real life......http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10641053/Record-number-of-foreign-criminals-cannot-be-deported.html

and I got this from google ....thanks for the tip.:)

Sorry my instructions were obviously too complicated.... I left out the step about actually reading what Google delivers up before posting the links....

You should have been looking at DIRECTIVE 2004/58/EC - S16....

The fact that the UK government is incapable of applying directives relating to both FMOP and public security is entirely their problem.

At this stage I'm leaving you to your own devices.

Thomas__

The future perspective for many EU nationals living in the UK, as in this article described. It makes sense and Highlights the reasons and the difficulties which are triggering their decisions to leave in time, step by step, one after another (speaking in Terms of the many who already have left, are preparing to leave and are still considering to leave).
It is called "Brexodus".
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/29/brexodus-eu-nationals-citizenship-uk-brexit

A Deloitte study, published this week, reveals that nearly half of all highly skilled EU workers could leave the UK within five years. This may have been news to many Britons, but not to the 3 million EU nationals in this country. Some of us have already left and others are actively making plans. Many know at least one EU national or family who have left already. Everybody is considering their options – and for good reason.
...
All’s well that ends well, Britons like to say. That does not apply here. People, as well as businesses and corporations, need to plan ahead; and for this, they require certainty. Many EU nationals simply cannot afford to wait and see whether it behoves the British people to treat us well.

Well, no doubt they´re right to pack and go and seek for a better place either back home in their countries of origin or another place within the EU where it´ll be better for them than in post-Brexit Britain.

Jim2007

123shooter wrote: »

But my point again for the god knows how many times.............My point is and always has been that it is up to an individual country and it's people to determine their own destiny not be ruled, governed or interfered with by a bunch of outsiders in whatever form they take.

But that is exactly what has happened! The treaties provide for each country to decide in it's own manner how it should ratify treaty changes. That is exactly what has happened. On the other side the treaty also provides for a member to exit the union if it so decides and that is what has happened in the case of the UK, so in no way is the EU preventing a country from following a different path.

But by the same token, if you do sign up then it is only reasonable to expect that you will be held to those commitments, since other member states are relying on you.

Your problem seems to be two fold, first you show a complete lack of understanding of how the EU works and second you refuse to accept that people do actually want to be in the EU and that they are fully entitled to do so.

Jim2007

Thomas__ wrote: »

Well, no doubt they´re right to pack and go and seek for a better place either back home in their countries of origin or another place within the EU where it´ll be better for them than in post-Brexit Britain.

In the case of the NHS in particular, they forget that there is plenty of competition for healthcare workers...

I mean why stay in the UK, if you can land a job at a Swiss hospital and be welcomed with open arms... very low crime, good education system, good salary etc....

And many of the Eastern Europeans will have had German in school as well, so all they need is to have the Red Cross certify their qualifications, which is not very difficult and they are free to seek jobs in Germany/Austria/Switzerland/Luxembourg/Parts of Northern Italy.

Professor Moriarty

Jim2007 wrote: »

In the case of the NHS in particular, they forget that there is plenty of competition for healthcare workers...

I mean why stay in the UK, if you can land a job at a Swiss hospital and be welcomed with open arms... very low crime, good education system, good salary etc....

And many of the Eastern Europeans will have had German in school as well, so all they need is to have the Red Cross certify their qualifications, which is not very difficult and they are free to seek jobs in Germany/Austria/Switzerland/Luxembourg/Parts of Northern Italy.

More jobs for Indian health care workers so. Which kind of defeats the point of leaving.