Brexit discussion thread II

Leroy42

Harika wrote: »

That has to be taken in consideration when people dream of stopping Brexit. The EU also encountered some costs like listed above and they will ask Britain to pay.

Projects get stopped all the time, if the outcome no longer warrants the required investment.

Should the UK continue on with Brexit regardless of the costs and outcomes? May and the tories are taking the easy way out. They know the negative impacts of Brexit but are unwilling to stand up for the best interests of the UK as they are too scared of looking bad. This has been exacerbated by the likes of the Mail etc coming out very against any MP who even questions brexit.

Leroy42

demfad wrote: »

Apparently this is the first time in modern UK history that growth forecast has been under 2% every year over the forecast horizon.

Really, I wasn't aware of that. But I can bet you that no Brexiteer is even going to question why this is happening now.

Britain, we were told, was the best performing economy in the EU back in 2014/15 or so. Now it is lagging behind. And I would be fairly certain that those estimates are based on 'normal' business, not something big like the loss of a massive portion of Financial services or the like (I have no idea, they might well have taken that into account, but it seems unlikely based on the fact they won't release any of the reports)

Professor Moriarty

demfad wrote: »

Apparently this is the first time in modern UK history that growth forecast has been under 2% every year over the forecast horizon.

It's amusing to see a chancellor put forward a budget when he doesn't know whether he has to find £20 billion or £40 billion extra over the next three years.

An Ciarraioch

Remember when the BBC was an indicator of quality? Laura Kuenssberg's article is a piece of frothy nonsense, suggesting the Border spat is merely smoke and mirrors:

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-politics-42075126

An Ciarraioch

A Scottish perspective on the above:

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2017/11/22/the-subsidy-junkies/#comments

Peregrinus

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Remember when the BBC was an indicator of quality? Laura Kuenssberg's article is a piece of frothy nonsense, suggesting the Border spat is merely smoke and mirrors:

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-politics-42075126

It's not a great article, and not easy to follow. Written in haste, perhaps, to meet a deadline, or badly edited. Kuensssberg is normally good; this isn't up to her usual standard.

But, read carefully, she doesn't say that the border issue is "merely smoke and mirrors". She says that certain Brexiteers - e.g. the DUP - think that it's merely smoke and mirrors, chosen for its emotive effect, that can be used to leverage movement from the UK on other aspects of the talks. . They do this as a tactic to avoid addressing the border issue. But, while Kuenssberg she says, yes, it does have an emotive effect, she doesn't say that it is all smoke and mirrors, without substance. In fact she describes that view as a conspiracy theory.

It's perfectly possible that the border question has real substance, and yet that it is also being used for political advantage. In fact, if you think about it, that's pretty much what you'd expect in negotiations like this.

ancapailldorcha

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Remember when the BBC was an indicator of quality? Laura Kuenssberg's article is a piece of frothy nonsense, suggesting the Border spat is merely smoke and mirrors:

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-politics-42075126

This is not surprising. Kuenssberg is a Tory. In 2015, she broke BBC impartiality guidelines when interviewing Jeremy Corbyn. I like the BBC a lot but even the best run news corporation will err from time to time.

That said, her journalism is usually of a much higher standard than this.

solodeogloria

Leroy42 wrote: »

Hammond said today that they have already 'invested' £700m in brexit preparations and he is putting aside £3bn for the next two years.

THat is just the tip of the costs, the cost of the legal and extra civil servants etc. It takes no account of the economic costs.

Round to £4bn. Jebus, think of what they could be doing with that money instead of spending it redrafting laws that are already there.

Also, growth estimates have been revised down. They are now:

2017 - 1.5%

2018 - 1.4%

2019 - 1.3%

2020 - 1.3%

2021 - 1.5%

2022 - 1.6%

It was 2.2% in 2015 and 1.8% in 2016.

Good afternoon!

No projection of the elusive recession that was predicted by Osborne and Co. To be honest these figures show that the economy is going to fare pretty well despite Brexit uncertainty for the next 5 years.

It also has no bearing on what will happen when final trade terms are resolved or the benefit of seeking more progressive trading terms with other countries. I think slower growth for a few years will be worth it for the control that will be regained.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Leroy42

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

No projection of the elusive recession that was predicted by Osborne and Co. To be honest these figures show that the economy is going to fare pretty well despite Brexit uncertainty for the next 5 years.

It also has no bearing on what will happen when final trade terms are resolved or the benefit of seeking more progressive trading terms with other countries. I think slower growth for a few years will be worth it for the control that will be regained.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

So you are happy that growth rates have just been cut by a further 0.4%? You don't see any link between the uncertainty around brexit and these drops?

Also you completely ignored the part where I mentioned that I was not aware if these projections were based on the possible negative effects or if they are based on the wishful thinking people are still clinging too? EU is growing, UK was growing faster and now that is reversed. If not Brexit then what is to blame? Surely May and her government must be to blame then but you don't seem to think they are the issue either.

And I assume you think it is a price worth paying. Would you go as far as to accept that maybe you and your family might lose their jobs as a price worth paying?

LeinsterDub

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Remember when the BBC was an indicator of quality? Laura Kuenssberg's article is a piece of frothy nonsense, suggesting the Border spat is merely smoke and mirrors:

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-politics-42075126

The article she links to is a good read.

https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2017/1117/920981-long-read-brexit/

The NI border issue is an unsolvable mess.

solodeogloria

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you are happy that growth rates have just been cut by a further 0.4%? You don't see any link between the uncertainty around brexit and these drops?

Also you completely ignored the part where I mentioned that I was not aware if these projections were based on the possible negative effects or if they are based on the wishful thinking people are still clinging too? EU is growing, UK was growing faster and now that is reversed. If not Brexit then what is to blame? Surely May and her government must be to blame then but you don't seem to think they are the issue either.

And I assume you think it is a price worth paying. Would you go as far as to accept that maybe you and your family might lose their jobs as a price worth paying?

Good afternoon!

It's important to take things in perspective.

The growth rates could be better but given that this is a result of uncertainty they are holding up very well as a result. Now the Government need to provide the certainty required. I've said the growth rates are lower because of Brexit related uncertainty.

As for the methodology if you're looking for it you can find it in the Treasury documents. Even if this is a baseline projection it's a good one considering where we are with Brexit. This means there is a lot of potential when the uncertainty clears.

As for employment - it is at record levels in the UK. With continued growth projected I don't consider lots of job losses but a slowdown in net job creation. I'm not worried at all about losing my job and if I do there will be something else available. I think slower growth rates for a few years are worth it for the additional long term benefits of taking back control.

If I were genuinely worried I'd be selling off my house and preparing to move elsewhere. Since I have no such plans you can draw whatever conclusion you like.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Blowfish

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It's amusing to see a chancellor put forward a budget when he doesn't know whether he has to find £20 billion or £40 billion extra over the next three years.

I'd imagine that's because it will just be dumped straight into the overall government debt. In that sense, it's not actually going to make a huge difference to the UK economy as the debt is already approx £1.5 trillion.

Vronsky

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This is not surprising. Kuenssberg is a Tory. In 2015, she broke BBC impartiality guidelines when interviewing Jeremy Corbyn. I like the BBC a lot but even the best run news corporation will err from time to time.

That said, her journalism is usually of a much higher standard than this.

I don't know, Kuenssberg has shown to have a very poor understanding of Irish politics.

Yes, commenting on the workings of the Dail is not her day job but she came acts as totally uninformed when she tried to link the hard position of the Irish government to the fact that it is a minority govt.

Leroy42

solodeogloria wrote: »

I think slower growth rates for a few years are worth it for the additional long term benefits of taking back control.
Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Great. Care to detail what those benefits are. Because UK are going to pay at least a 0.5% growth rate loss each year (which is cumulative of course), the £4bn set aside already for Brexit preparation costs.

That drop off in growth rate, whilst it may not effect you personally, is going to impact on the UK ability to fund the NHS, schools etc. It is going to mean some people you would get jobs now won't. or won't get pay rises.

ancapailldorcha

Vronsky wrote: »

I don't know, Kuenssberg has shown to have a very poor understanding of Irish politics.

Yes, commenting on the workings of the Dail is not her day job but she came acts as totally uninformed when she tried to link the hard position of the Irish government to the fact that it is a minority govt.

Virtually everyone here would have a fairly poor knowledge of Irish politics in my experience.

LeinsterDub

solodeogloria wrote: »

As for employment - it is at record levels in the UK. With continued growth projected I don't consider lots of job losses but a slowdown in net job creation. I'm not worried at all about losing my job and if I do there will be something else available. I think slower growth rates for a few years are worth it for the additional long term benefits of taking back control.

Since you're willing to suffer significant hardship for Brexit up to and including having to move out of the UK as you've been made unemployed can you state what laws your most looking forward to the government repealing and what specifically you hope the British will do with their new found control?

Schorpio

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

A Scottish perspective on the above:

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2017/11/22/the-subsidy-junkies/#comments

Reading through the Daily Mail comments linked in the above article, my favorite bit about boycotting Irish goods -

'don't think about it......DO IT'

Err - pretty sure that's the attitude that got you into this mess. But hey, nevermind.

Vronsky

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Virtually everyone here would have a fairly poor knowledge of Irish politics in my experience.

That's no excuse for the BBC political editor though.

With the misinformed stuff she'd been coming out with she's not helping the British public becoming more informed on the world around them.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

I've said the growth rates are lower because of Brexit related uncertainty.

Yes, I think there is still uncertainty that the UK is really going to go for a hard Brexit.

When this uncertainty is cleared up, projections will get much, much worse.

Schorpio

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Virtually everyone here would have a fairly poor knowledge of Irish politics in my experience.

As someone who lived in the UK for years (up until about 2 months ago - move not Brexit related!) I wholeheartedly concur with this.

When the DUP propped up the Tories, most in my office were stopping by my desk to ask me about who the DUP were, etc.

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Ordinary people vote in a party of elites. The party of elites deletes their charter of rights. Quelle surprise.

They haven't though. The UK's charter of human rights is the Human Rights Act passed in 1998 and is based on the ECHR articles. This is completely separate from the eu charter, which in many respects overlaps the ECHR one.

The EU charter specifies that the ECJ controls this, so to include it would have basically meant that the ECJ still had a say in UK politics, which is one of the Tories' main issues.

Professor Moriarty

Blowfish wrote: »

I'd imagine that's because it will just be dumped straight into the overall government debt. In that sense, it's not actually going to make a huge difference to the UK economy as the debt is already approx £1.5 trillion.

Good point. What's £20 billion either way when you owe £1.5 trillion? Nothing to see here.

Professor Moriarty

Aegir wrote: »

They haven't though. The UK's charter of human rights is the Human Rights Act passed in 1998 and is based on the ECHR articles. This is completely separate from the eu charter, which in many respects overlaps the ECHR one.

The EU charter specifies that the ECJ controls this, so to include it would have basically meant that the ECJ still had a say in UK politics, which is one of the Tories' main issues.

Except that it is Tory policy to also scrap the Human Rights Act. It's deletion has been shelved until after Brexit.

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Except that it is Tory policy to also scrap the Human Rights Act. It's deletion has been shelved until after Brexit.

they're not scrapping it, they have proposed that it is replaced by a Bill of Rights.

To call it a deletion is Daily Mail levels of sensationalism

Capt'n Midnight

demfad wrote: »

Apparently this is the first time in modern UK history that growth forecast has been under 2% every year over the forecast horizon.

solodeogloria wrote: »

No projection of the elusive recession that was predicted by Osborne and Co. To be honest these figures show that the economy is going to fare pretty well despite Brexit uncertainty for the next 5 years.

Just in case there is any confusion about this -

A period of weak productivity and weak wages this long hasn't happened since the 1860s.




Any "Brexit Bonus" from weak sterling hasn't resulted in productivity gains.

A company trying to meet an expanding order book can try one of two methods: hire a few more people, or make its existing workforce more productive by investing in new, more efficient technology. As long as its cheaper and less risky to hire cheap labour, the business may hold off investment.
...
"The UK's productivity problem lies in the vast majority of ordinary firms, in sectors such as retail, light manufacturing, tourism, hospitality and social care,"

If you fall too far behind or you no longer have access to cheap labour you are heading to crunch time.

the real problem isn't the obvious industries, such as engineering or pharmaceuticals, where growth relies on big investment and high skills.

The problem with these industries is that it may when it comes to re-investment it might not cost too much more to invest elsewhere.

Professor Moriarty

Aegir wrote: »

they're not scrapping it, they have proposed that it is replaced by a Bill of Rights.

If it's being replaced then the HRA is being scrapped. Nobody knows what the Bill of Rights will contain after Brexit but it will differ from the HRA.

zetalambda

Dublin the big loser in the battle for the Brexit bankers...

Frankfurt has so far secured over 3000 jobs, Paris has secured almost 2000 (including the EBA) and Dublin has so far secured a paltry 150 jobs due to Brexit.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-brexit-bankers/

Professor Moriarty

zetalambda wrote: »

Dublin the big loser in the battle for the Brexit bankers...

Frankfurt has so far secured over 3000 jobs, Paris has secured almost 2000 (including the EBA) and Dublin has so far secured a paltry 150 jobs due to Brexit.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-brexit-bankers/

The biggest loser is London surely?

carrickbally

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The article she links to is a good read.

https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2017/1117/920981-long-read-brexit/

The NI border issue is an unsolvable mess.

Tony Connolly is a brilliant commentator.

One of the best in RTE.

Ireland need to stand their ground on the border/brexit issue.

The UK does not like it.

We can see where the gutter London media reaction are coming from with the consequent shut your gob tirade.

Professor Moriarty

You said this:

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Ordinary people vote in a party of elites. The party of elites deletes their charter of rights. Quelle surprise.

Which is wrong, because the "Elites" have deleted nothing

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If it's being replaced then the HRA is being scrapped. Nobody knows what the Bill of Rights will contain after Brexit but it will differ from the HRA.

yes, it is being replaced, not deleted. The British Bill of rights would set out the minimum standard for Human rights in the UK, based on ECHR articles. No one knows the details yet, because no legislation has been drafted.

No one, despite your daily mailesque sensationalism, is deleting anything.

zetalambda

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The biggest loser is London surely?

Is it? I thought it was a reality TV show.

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

No projection of the elusive recession that was predicted by Osborne and Co. To be honest these figures show that the economy is going to fare pretty well despite Brexit uncertainty for the next 5 years.

These figures have been determined by applying forecasting model(s) to past real-life economic data, including post-referendum data indicative of the real-life economic uncertainty caused by an consultative vote and the ensuing management of voter expectations by the government.

I seem to recall many a Leave supporter accusing Brexit detractors from crystal-ball gazing whenever consequences of Brexit are being discussed.

Well, that one swings both ways of course: current indications are never guarantees of future performance and, lest people forget, the same OBR overshot UK assets by half-a-trillion for a few years.

If the UK manages these figures Brexit notwithstanding, indeed it will have done well for itself. But for what it's worth, I think they're still optimistic.

solodeogloria wrote: »

It also has no bearing on what will happen when final trade terms are resolved or the benefit of seeking more progressive trading terms with other countries. I think slower growth for a few years will be worth it for the control that will be regained.

I hope you don't mind expanding on that last bit a little more. What 'control' is worth a socio-economic regression?

Professor Moriarty

Aegir wrote: »

You said this:



Which is wrong, because the "Elites" have deleted nothing



yes, it is being replaced, not deleted. The British Bill of rights would set out the minimum standard for Human rights in the UK, based on ECHR articles. No one knows the details yet, because no legislation has been drafted.

No one, despite your daily mailesque sensationalism, is deleting anything.

Hmmm. So an act that is being replaced with another act hasn't been deleted? Following that logic, slavery might still be in with a shout.

So what purpose and meaning will the replaced but undeleted HRA have once the Tories bring in their putative Bill of Rights?

blanch152

zetalambda wrote: »

Dublin the big loser in the battle for the Brexit bankers...

Frankfurt has so far secured over 3000 jobs, Paris has secured almost 2000 (including the EBA) and Dublin has so far secured a paltry 150 jobs due to Brexit.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-brexit-bankers/

We've only got 3% of the jobs, which is less than I hoped, but we are still batting above our EU weight of 1%.

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Hmmm. So an act that is being replaced with another act hasn't been deleted? Following that logic, slavery might still be in with a shout.

So what purpose and meaning will the replaced but undeleted HRA have once the Tories bring in their putative Bill of Rights?

you didn't mention an act, you said this in relation to the eu charter on fundemental rights not being copy and pasted in to UK law:

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Ordinary people vote in a party of elites. The party of elites deletes their charter of rights. Quelle surprise.

which is, quite clearly, wrong.

ancapailldorcha

Aegir wrote: »

yes, it is being replaced, not deleted. The British Bill of rights would set out the minimum standard for Human rights in the UK, based on ECHR articles. No one knows the details yet, because no legislation has been drafted.

No one, despite your daily mailesque sensationalism, is deleting anything.

The best scenario is that it'll be watered down. The Human Rights Act was passed by the first Blair government in 1998 so it's hardly decrepit. There seems to be some disdain among some Conservatives for human rights which would explain why they're so keen on scrapping the 1998 Act.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I gave my 'opinion' of what the EU would say, based on what has happened so far.

Why would a sea border make the Scottish request for a referendum any stronger?

It won't because the answer will be that the Irish situation is unique, which the rest of the EU have already stated again and again and which Westminister also recognise.

I have read your post again:

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you could for once leave the 'dreaming republican' rants out of it, and listen to what is being said.
The EU will not consider it, May and the Scots and the DUP can ask, but they will be told NO because it is the GFA that makes the Irish situation require a unique solution.

"The EU will not consider it" is a very definitive statement, it isn't qualified as just being your opinion, which renders it as useful as anyone else's opinion.

I would once again point out that there is no empirical evidence to suggest that if the Scots want to stay in the CU and SM once the Northern Ireland option is available, while also remaining part of the UK, then nobody anywhere has said the EU will not consider it.

Professor Moriarty

Aegir wrote: »

you didn't mention an act, you said this in relation to the eu charter on fundemental rights not being copy and pasted in to UK law:



which is, quite clearly, wrong.

Don't really know where you're going on this now.

Let me be crystal clear. The elitist Tory party's Bill of Rights will not be better for Joe Soap than the ECHR.

breatheme

blanch152 wrote: »

zetalambda wrote: »

Dublin the big loser in the battle for the Brexit bankers...

Frankfurt has so far secured over 3000 jobs, Paris has secured almost 2000 (including the EBA) and Dublin has so far secured a paltry 150 jobs due to Brexit.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-brexit-bankers/

We've only got 3% of the jobs, which is less than I hoped, but we are still batting above our EU weight of 1%.

And sadly, Dublin would need a lot of infrastructure to cope. It doesn't even have a metro, and hell, you can't pay cabs with a card... (without going in too deep) it's a bit behind other European capitals, and it's going to show as it lags a bit behind other more developed cities. However, you're right, Ireland is batting above its weight.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I have read your post again:




"The EU will not consider it" is a very definitive statement, it isn't qualified as just being your opinion, which renders it as useful as anyone else's opinion.

I would once again point out that there is no empirical evidence to suggest that if the Scots want to stay in the CU and SM once the Northern Ireland option is available, while also remaining part of the UK, then nobody anywhere has said the EU will not consider it.

My opinion is that the EU won't.

And that is from somebody who has no problem with them asking for it.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Perhaps because the Scots know the reason why a different approach is needed in the Irish situation - namely the GFA. That is key to it and is why the EU is interested in supporting the Irish position.

That wouldn't fly if the Scots asked for a border and they know it - hence why it has no traction as a solution for the Scots. They will just let Brexit itself sell the idea of independence.

I don't think a vote on the matter in Scotland or NI would result in a preference for remaining in the EU if England and Wales leave. Personally I hope the Scots stay in the UK. They would be stuff competition for us, especially in financial services.

blanch152

breatheme wrote: »

And sadly, Dublin would need a lot of infrastructure to cope. It doesn't even have a metro, and hell, you can't pay cabs with a card... (without going in too deep) it's a bit behind other European capitals, and it's going to show as it lags a bit behind other more developed cities. However, you're right, Ireland is batting above its weight.

We are limited by our infrastructure and the exodus from London will be such that we couldn't cope. Getting more than our fair share should be the aim.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The best scenario is that it'll be watered down. The Human Rights Act was passed by the first Blair government in 1998 so it's hardly decrepit. There seems to be some disdain among some Conservatives for human rights which would explain why they're so keen on scrapping the 1998 Act.

it was Cameron's brain child that he came up with before the tories got in to power. what his objectives were though, other than to give supremacy to UK courts is pretty much unknown. It was the Blair/Brown governments that implemented a lot of the snooping charters and the extension of the detention without trial laws (which prompted the resignation of a certain David Davis), so I'm not sure if what they did was any sort of benchmark.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Don't really know where you're going on this now.

Let me be crystal clear. The elitist Tory party's Bill of Rights will not be better for Joe Soap than the ECHR.

but they can't, by definition, be worse.

if you are having trouble keeping up, then let me remind you (again) what you said. It was:

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Ordinary people vote in a party of elites. The party of elites deletes their charter of rights. Quelle surprise.

you want to know where I am going? simple. The above post is completely wrong.

good for a few thanks, but alas, wrong.

zetalambda

breatheme wrote: »

And sadly, Dublin would need a lot of infrastructure to cope. It doesn't even have a metro, and hell, you can't pay cabs with a card... (without going in too deep) it's a bit behind other European capitals, and it's going to show as it lags a bit behind other more developed cities. However, you're right, Ireland is batting above its weight.

Yeah, the infrastructure and public transport in Dublin is mediocre at best. You have shithole eastern European countries with better public transport and far cheaper to use while in the UK you have airports serving less than a million passengers a year with direct rail links!

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

I don't think a vote on the matter in Scotland or NI would result in a preference for remaining in the EU if England and Wales leave. Personally I hope the Scots stay in the UK. They would be stuff competition for us, especially in financial services.

What makes you think northern Ireland wouldn't vote to remain in the EU? I would imagine more are convinced that leaving is suicide for them rather than less.
The connection to the UK fror unionists is an abstract thing, it doesn't exist in the physical world.
They only have to get over that hump. It wouldn't diminish their identity in any real way.

Professor Moriarty

Aegir wrote: »

it was Cameron's brain child that he came up with before the tories got in to power. what his objectives were though, other than to give supremacy to UK courts is pretty much unknown. It was the Blair/Brown governments that implemented a lot of the snooping charters and the extension of the detention without trial laws (which prompted the resignation of a certain David Davis), so I'm not sure if what they did was any sort of benchmark.



but they can't, by definition, be worse.

if you are having trouble keeping up, then let me remind you (again) what you said. It was:



you want to know where I am going? simple. The above post is completely wrong.

good for a few thanks, but alas, wrong.

My post wasn't wrong. But I'm not trawling thorough the thread to prove a meaningless point.

Let's be definitive here. How do you know that the Bill of Rights won't be worse? Do you know what the Tory policy is?

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

My post wasn't wrong. But I'm not trawling thorough the thread to prove a meaningless point.

no need to trawl through the thread, i have quoted your post several times to demonstrate that it is wrong. Please just accept that.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Let's be definitive here. How do you know that the Bill of Rights won't be worse? Do you know what the Tory policy is?

the bill of rights can't be worse than the ECHR articles, because the UK is a member of the council of europe and as such, agrees to be bound by the European Convention on Human Rights.

This, however, is a meaningless point because, at the moment, no legislation has been proposed, drafted or presented to parliament.

Professor Moriarty

Aegir wrote: »

no need to trawl through the thread, i have quoted your post several times to demonstrate that it is wrong. Please just accept that.



the bill of rights can't be worse than the ECHR articles, because the UK is a member of the council of europe and as such, agrees to be bound by the European Convention on Human Rights.

This, however, is a meaningless point because, at the moment, no legislation has been proposed, drafted or presented to parliament.

Right. I'll leave it at that.

An Ciarraioch

Aegir wrote: »

no need to trawl through the thread, i have quoted your post several times to demonstrate that it is wrong. Please just accept that.



the bill of rights can't be worse than the ECHR articles, because the UK is a member of the council of europe and as such, agrees to be bound by the European Convention on Human Rights.

This, however, is a meaningless point because, at the moment, no legislation has been proposed, drafted or presented to parliament.

Then why not just vote to enshrine the ECHR?

ancapailldorcha

Low quality posts deleted.