OK, in or out?

[cee-dee]

How about an RT poll?

No reasons, no argument, no debate just a straightforward IN or OUT.

Me? OUT.

[upthecreekyetagain]

What has the European Court of Human Rights got to do with whether or not we stay in the EU?

Nothing to do with the EU and as such anyone resident in country that is a signatory to the convention has access to it.

[astrologica]

It's not a lie Creeky....that is the amount it costs us to be a member of that failed corrupt organisation . That is the gross amount...and it is GROSS. But then...they give us some back, and they tell us how to spend it. I live in one of the poorest towns in the UK. The EU trumpeted their generous grant of £30.000...and then told us it had to be spent on 'street furniture'. Every person who sees this street furniture is appalled..at the ridiculous design, and more so at the crazy waste of thousands of pounds which could have done so much more good. It is OUR money that is sent there in such large amounts, and our money that they condescendingly cast into into our little begging bowls. There is a whole industry and thousands of people working in the 'grant application' sector. The waste is unimaginable.

As for immigration...we are not doing well at the moment while we are in the EU...when we have our sovereignty back we will be calling the shots and will be better placed to reduce it. But the will has to be there, and I am not sure it is at this moment. Hopefully that will change in the future, when the government wake up to the fact that the British people have had enough. 

[evoman3957]

I'm sure you're losing the plot........in post 497 you said:

The problem with that argument though is that leaving the EU will make immigration control MORE difficult not less so!

Then in post 500 you said most of the immigrants were non EU citizens anyway, so what did that have to do with the EU.

Then to me you say " What has the European Court of Human Rights" got to do with whether or not we stay in the EU

Well it's got everything to do with it, if it prevents us getting rid of non EU migrants as well as the EU migrants. So staying NOT leaving will make it MORE difficult to control migration.

[artful_dodgings]

I was just reading through his posts and thinking the same thing. Well spotted, Evoman.

[joe_bloggs*]

---

@evoman3957 wrote:

I'm sure you're losing the plot........in post 497 you said:

The problem with that argument though is that leaving the EU will make immigration control MORE difficult not less so!

Then in post 500 you said most of the immigrants were non EU citizens anyway, so what did that have to do with the EU.

Then to me you say " What has the European Court of Human Rights" got to do with whether or not we stay in the EU

Well it's got everything to do with it, if it prevents us getting rid of non EU migrants as well as the EU migrants. So staying NOT leaving will make it MORE difficult to control migration.

---

But even if we leave the EU,we are still signed up to the ECHR,so Creeky was correct in saying " " What has the European Court of Human Rights" got to do with whether or not we stay in the EU

[evoman3957]

Joe, I know he's your little buddy; but the defence gets a little more feeble each time.  As far as I understand, the ECOHR was formed as an integral part of the EU structure; by the EU and it's member states.  America, Russia, China, India, etc. etc. have ( as far as I know ) no recourse to plead internal cases to the ECOHR........and the ECOHR has no jurisdiction over those countries, or others outside of the signatory's to that court. Cases in the supreme court, of this country, can be overturned by the ECOHR; but it cannot ( for instance ) overturn verdicts handed down in the supreme court of the USA.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@astrologica wrote:

It's not a lie Creeky....that is the amount it costs us to be a member of that failed corrupt organisation . That is the gross amount...and it is GROSS. But then...they give us some back, and they tell us how to spend it. I live in one of the poorest towns in the UK. The EU trumpeted their generous grant of £30.000...and then told us it had to be spent on 'street furniture'. Every person who sees this street furniture is appalled..at the ridiculous design, and more so at the crazy waste of thousands of pounds which could have done so much more good. It is OUR money that is sent there in such large amounts, and our money that they condescendingly cast into into our little begging bowls. There is a whole industry and thousands of people working in the 'grant application' sector. The waste is unimaginable.

As for immigration...we are not doing well at the moment while we are in the EU...when we have our sovereignty back we will be calling the shots and will be better placed to reduce it. But the will has to be there, and I am not sure it is at this moment. Hopefully that will change in the future, when the government wake up to the fact that the British people have had enough. 

---

It IS a LIE

Forget what we may or may not get back from the EU.

We do NOT send the EU £350 million pound a week, (nor its equivalent) - simple as that.

You, (and you're not alone), have obviously been taken in by the lie and that's one of the reasons I object to the Brexit campaign being run by Boris.  It is simply deceitful and is a disgrace for any politician, but especially one who has ambitions to lead the country, to behave in that manner.

Why can he not be truthful, after all the real,figure of £250 million is just as attention grabbing.

[evoman3957]

I stand corrected about Russia, who signed up to it on 28th Feb. 1996 ( what a joke that is )..........but the crucial phrase in the following is " Contracting States ".........those who signed up to it. So if we leave the EU, we can withdraw from that contract; I think remaining in the EU would be prerequisite to signing up to membership of the ECOHR. As I've said before, we can actually pass our own laws and that includes laws on human rights; keeping all the good and getting rid of the bad parts, that produce abuses. People seem to have forgotten that we can make our OWN laws, you know, we don't have to have our bottoms wiped for us forever.

Not to be confused with the European Court of Justice, the highest court of the European Union.

European Court of Human Rights Established Country Location Authorized byDecisions are appealed to Number of positions Website President Currently Since

Signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights

1959 (initially) 1998 (permanent)

47 member states of the Council of Europe

Strasbourg, France

European Convention on Human Rights

Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights

47 judges. One from each of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe

http://echr.coe.int

Guido Raimondi

2010 (judge), 2015 (President)

Building of the European Court of Human Rights

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR; French: Cour européenne des droits de l’homme) is a supra-national or international court established by the European Convention on Human Rights. It hears applications alleging that a contracting state has breached one or more of the human rights provisions concerning civil and political rights set out in the Convention and its protocols. An application can be lodged by an individual, a group of individuals or one or more of the other contracting states, and, besides judgments, the Court can also issue advisory opinions. The Convention was adopted within the context of the Council of Europe, and all of its 47 member states are contracting parties to the Convention. The Court is based in Strasbourg, France.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@evoman3957 wrote:

Joe, I know he's your little buddy; but the defence gets a little more feeble each time.  As far as I understand, the ECOHR was formed as an integral part of the EU structure; by the EU and it's member states.  America, Russia, China, India, etc. etc. have ( as far as I know ) no recourse to plead internal cases to the ECOHR........and the ECOHR has no jurisdiction over those countries, or others outside of the signatory's to that court. Cases in the supreme court, of this country, can be overturned by the ECOHR; but it cannot ( for instance ) overturn verdicts handed down in the supreme court of the USA.

---

Wrong!

The ECHR was convened in 1959 - the UK was one of the founding signatories to the European Convention of Human Rights that established the court - 14 years BEFORE we joined the Common Market.

[joe_bloggs*]

Even Michael Gove for the leave campaign says the government has no plans to leave the ECHR,so its a moot point really !

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@evoman3957 wrote:

I'm sure you're losing the plot........in post 497 you said:

The problem with that argument though is that leaving the EU will make immigration control MORE difficult not less so!

Then in post 500 you said most of the immigrants were non EU citizens anyway, so what did that have to do with the EU.

Then to me you say " What has the European Court of Human Rights" got to do with whether or not we stay in the EU

Well it's got everything to do with it, if it prevents us getting rid of non EU migrants as well as the EU migrants. So staying NOT leaving will make it MORE difficult to control migration.

---

I believe, and have given my reasons for believing, that leaving the EU will make immigration control more difficult.

I actually said that membership or not of the EU is irrelevant with regards to non-EU immigrants - it is irrelevant.

Whether we leave the EU or not we will still be signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights - so tell me what has membership of the EU got to do with that?

[cee-dee]

I think these TV "debates" are a waste of time. All that happens is that rude people are interrupting another who's trying to respond but can't do so when being bombarded by further questions.

By the end of them all that seems to be uppermost is "who came out best" when in actual fact nothing relevant to the core subject came out clearly.

[evoman3957]

I did have a bed to go to.......but here we are again.......another day in paradise.

Whether or not the ECOHR was set up before we joined the EU and whether or not we were the ( or one of the ) founding members of that creation, it has morphed ( just like the EU ) into something akin to the EU's mouthpiece.  It now adds to the problems, the EU has, to control immigration, by hearing every lame excuse of a claim; as to why somebody can't be sent back to their country of origin and there IS, no doubt, an excuse......otherwise they wouldn't have left in the first place.  If leaving the EU, would not effect our being part of the ECOHR; it would at least allow us the freedom to try to reform it, or get it back on track ( or withdraw from all or part of it )......so it doesn't make controlling immigration ten times more difficult than it is already.  One thing's for sure, the EU has a tight death grip on all it's members and nobody can do anything; without the agreement of all 28 member states...........and anybody who thinks our lifestyle and needs have anything in common with the likes of Romania, Hungary, Latvia,Lithuania,Slovakia,Slovenia etc. etc. needs their brains tested........so there's 6 countries for a start, that are highly unlikely to vote for, or agree with, anything we might want to do.

and guess who makes EU law.........the EU.......and guess what that requires......yep, ratification by all 28 member states. So I really can't see why Romanians would ratify an immigration policy, non beneficial to the UK ( schengen agreement or not ), when they are leaving their own country in droves to come here ( as well as France, Germany, etc. etc. ). They're also unlikely to vote to curb any immigration by non EU countries, like Africa, Afghanistan, etc. etc. because they're probably hoping some will go to their country to replace all the indigenous population that left.......to head west. After all, life in Romania would still be better than life in Africa wouldn't it........but we know it doesn't work like that; does it !!.  Why settle for Romania, when you can keep going straight to Eldorado.

http://www.europeanlawmonitor.org/eu-legislative-procedures/who-is-involved-in-making-european-laws....

[evoman3957]

One thing you can at least ignore, is the stock market / money market; having any baring on anything.  It's a play ground for " Hedge Fund" managers and other " Bums " like them, who thrive and drool over volatility ( the more the better ) because while your savings / pensions may be getting decimated.......they're raking in £ billions and controlling the market in the process, to suit their own purposes.........some things never change.

[upthecreekyetagain]

Aren't you arguing against yourself?

'The EU can't be forced to do anything we want it to do because all members have to agree and that is unlikely' - the gist of your argument.

IF that were the case then the opposite would also apply - no legislation by the EU could be imposed on its members unless we, the U.K., agreed.

That however, as we know to our cost, is NOT the case - there are only specific areas where member states have a veto - for instance on whether a new potential member may join the Union.  Something which is often ignored when the subject of Turkey joining the EU is discussed.  In the EU the UK could veto their membership - outside we would have no voice in the matter.

Your dismissal of the ECHR as a mouthpiece for the EU is specious - in any case you will find little support for our exit from its jurisdiction amongst those who are campaigning for our exit from the EU - our signature to the convention is a totally different subject.  When the ECHR places a block on our deportation processes, (whether justifiably or not), that has nothing to do with the EU.

[evoman3957]

How can I be arguing with myself, because I will be voting to leave; for the reasons you've just mentioned. Just because we have the right not to agree with things other countries in the EU want, doesn't redress the balance of them not allowing us the things we want; by voting against them. It just means NOTHING gets done, apart from lots of talking, hotel rooms, meetings and meals; at millions of pounds a week. If that's not an argument for coming out, what is for God's sake !!  How's the saying go....." if you want a job done properly, to your satisfaction......do it yourself "...........UNIMPEDED !!

[kh-vince]

Hi everyone,

I would like to remind you that hostile comments are against our Board Usage Policy and Community Values.

Please feel free to share your own opinions, but avoid such comments.

Thanks!

[upthecreekyetagain]

If the EU does nothing then that leaves just the financial cost of being a member as the major factor, something the major protagonist for Brexit is blatantly lying about - one of the reasons I'm leaning towards a remain vote.

Of course the premise that the EU does nothing makes it difficult to explain the claims that so much of UK law is determined by Brussels.

[astrologica]

Some of these debates do descend into drivel, but I find that the out campaigners do seem to be a little more calm and measured with their responses. Question Time last Thursday was a prime example, with Nigel Farage constantly being interrupted by Eddie Izzard, who didn't add anything to the debate, except to hold out his hands and practically invite the world in. The debate last week with Boris Johnson was another example . Boris Johnson, Gisela Stuart and Andrea Leadsom were cool and calm, while the other three harpies, Amber Rudd , Angela Eagle and the dreadful Sturgeon woman constantly tried to bring Boris's campaign down to a personal level, which didn't faze him one bit. The chairs of these debates could do better, but I did think that David Dimbleby did a better job on Thursday, actually joining in to clarify questions to get a more detailed answer from panellists. With less than two weeks to go it will probably descend even further into chaos......interesting times!

[fallen-archie]

The debate is sooooo divisive, we see similar behaviour to that in the Sottish independence referendum and there are groups on both sides who take passion to the extreme. As I have said before this is about the next generation more than those of us in our twilight. We can offer an opinion and advice if sought but ultimately let the younger people decide how they want to see the world develop it is they who must shoulder responsibility for the direction they wish to go. 

Time for us to give way.