tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861279106331108648.post4386514966516979394..comments2023-09-24T01:25:13.638-07:00Comments on Witterings from Witney: Cameron and the ECHRWitteringsfromWitneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16026875251366365154noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861279106331108648.post-35008367229205184532012-01-28T05:24:21.046-08:002012-01-28T05:24:21.046-08:00c: And the fact it is indeed homegrown means that ...c: And the fact it is indeed homegrown means that is where we must start!<br /><br />TT Thanks for that link, appreciated.WitteringsfromWitneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16026875251366365154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861279106331108648.post-32490271419019301612012-01-26T12:51:39.488-08:002012-01-26T12:51:39.488-08:00European Legal Structures<a href="http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=echr%20%3D%20treaty%20binding&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CD4QFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oup.com%2Fuk%2Forc%2Fbin%2F9780199289349%2Fdavis_chap02.pdf&ei=F7shT4_TJYPo8QP6x83PBw&usg=AFQjCNG6vx03xNJDkpXX8pRh1rYVMmSWtQ&cad=rja" rel="nofollow">European Legal Structures</a>TomTomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861279106331108648.post-17496955832652854072012-01-26T12:13:56.603-08:002012-01-26T12:13:56.603-08:00The reason ECHR judgements and EU law take suprema...The reason ECHR judgements and EU law take supremacy is that we have legislation in place which gives them supremacy.<br /><br />Cameron, or anyone else in the same mould, is not about to change that. Subscribing to the ECHR is a condition of EU membership.<br /><br />Things turn up such as prisoners' votes which cause waves even as far as the Tory High Command. The Cameron/Blair/Major figure then grumbles and makes the odd speech protesting most vigorously in the reliable hope that making noises will be mistaken for taking action or a serious intention to take action, basically a form of soothing cooing, then everyone forgets about it and it's business as usual.<br /><br />Of course, neither the EU nor the ECHR have the slightest intention of changing. I suggest a lot of the problems that seem to come from these bodies are in large part, home grown anyway.cosmicnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861279106331108648.post-30229718519107378952012-01-26T10:35:48.371-08:002012-01-26T10:35:48.371-08:00I am pleased to see that comments have now begun s...I am pleased to see that comments have now begun serious debate, rather than point-scoring!<br /><br />My own view is that PC is correct in his theory that Cameron is hedging his bets in order to cover his 'national arse'.<br /><br />c is quite correct when he states that Cameron is not a fool - at least where his own continuance in power is concerned. That is totally different from being the complete idiot where policy is concerned.......!<br /><br /><br />What really p's me off is that we pay for Cameron and his like to cement their position in our political world when their efforts and attention should be directed elsewhere!WitteringsfromWitneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16026875251366365154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861279106331108648.post-62491013075324224082012-01-26T06:35:53.313-08:002012-01-26T06:35:53.313-08:00I agree with PeterCharles.
Cameron isn't a fo...I agree with PeterCharles.<br /><br />Cameron isn't a fool. He realises perfectly well what the nature of the ECHR is and what the consequences of doing anything about it would be. <br /><br />He also realises that the EU and ECHR are perceived as problems with a significant portion of his supporters. The answer in both cases is a bout of empty 'talking tough' purely for home consumption. This, of course, relies on the audience having not the slightest idea of how either of these things work and short memories.cosmicnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861279106331108648.post-36002190087868791122012-01-26T03:09:13.220-08:002012-01-26T03:09:13.220-08:00I think we all know that everything Cameron says i...I think we all know that everything Cameron says is pure bombast, sounds good but is effectively meaningless. The important question is why is he doing it.<br /><br />It may be diversionary tactics to take the focus of the appalling economic situation, or it may be posturing to cut down on back bench disquiet. Personally I think he is gearing up for, or at least hedging his bets in case of, a fracture of the coalition and a consequent election on the basis that Labour could not get a coalition majority.PeterCharlesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861279106331108648.post-80761018815021315812012-01-26T01:11:35.040-08:002012-01-26T01:11:35.040-08:00WOAR makes a good point, but WfW has his defence t...WOAR makes a good point, but WfW has his defence that Denning made a commentary valid for any external court outside England...even the Extradition Act with the USA.<br /><br />The ECHR is set up by Treaty but it was Churchill's 1946 Speech that heralded the Council of Europe and it is a treaty provision that the UK will implement Court Rulings....only Belarus is not involved which is why I think Cameron is whistling in the wind.<br /><br />I do not believe there will be any changes of any type unless there is regime change in Britain leading to a rupture; in short every election should be seen as preservation of the status quo.TomTomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861279106331108648.post-12161085832568873372012-01-25T23:51:37.170-08:002012-01-25T23:51:37.170-08:00Woar & IH: I am well aware that the ECJ and th...Woar & IH: I am well aware that the ECJ and the ECHR are two different bodies, however the post was done to illustrate exactly the point that IH made, that there is an increasing overlap which with the EU joining the ECHR in its own right will just further complicate matters. I am also perfectly aware that whether the EU has joined or not, were we to leave the EU, it would necessitate termination of the ECHR as a separate act.<br /><br />Therefore the post was not irrelevant and I had hoped it was not necessary to spell out everything in detail.WitteringsfromWitneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16026875251366365154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861279106331108648.post-5553437712804207152012-01-25T22:58:55.222-08:002012-01-25T22:58:55.222-08:00Agree. I'm not defending the ECtHR. It has cl...Agree. I'm not defending the ECtHR. It has clearly gone wildly beyond the original remit of trying to stop the state treating the family as a hatchery, and at the same time it has failed to prevent exactly that. <br /><br />Against that it has produced some rulings with which are important and uphold the individual, but it is showing its age terribly because when it was written there were all sorts of other assumptions, such as that the newly independent nations would be economically successful and their citizens would want to stay there. <br /><br />It pays insufficient attention to the rights and customs of indigenous people, failing to guard against recent oppressive measures while overturning long-established common law views which have given stability to the country since the English Civil War.Woman on a Rafthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897415591130901416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861279106331108648.post-84289367611858975082012-01-25T15:56:52.570-08:002012-01-25T15:56:52.570-08:00Good comment, WOAR, I've tried to make the poi...Good comment, WOAR, I've tried to make the point before that ECHR is part of the Council of Europe, not the EU, which has its own court (ECJ) in Luxemburg.<br /><br />On the other hand it worries me that ECHR judges are just as much political appointees as are ECJ ones, and that the growing powers of the EU (eg on asylum matters) are tending to overlap Council of Europe matters.<br /><br />Judicial activism on the part of ECHR seems to fit EU mass immigration policy too. Not to mention the interests of lawyers like Cherie Blair.Ian Hillshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12619977137431223237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861279106331108648.post-85668224533265602822012-01-25T15:10:06.821-08:002012-01-25T15:10:06.821-08:00Sorry, but this is all irrelevant. Lord Denning wa...Sorry, but this is all irrelevant. Lord Denning was talking about the ECJ, the constitutional court of the EC (now EU) the one which rules on treaty interpretation, now the Lisbon Treaty. That is why he's mostly concerned about commercial matters. <br /><br />The court which is at issue - an entirely different court, not part of the EU - is the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) which was set up after WWII in an effort to prevent another situation where a state merely changed laws to suit itself and then argued that it was all legal, no matter how awful those laws were. <br /><br />Until the Lisbon Treaty, the rulings of the ECtHR could, theoretically, be regarded as advisory but not binding, but in practice a government losing at the ECtHR was unlikely to ignore that although they whinged a bit. <br /><br />Following the Lisbon Treaty, the rulings of the ECtHR were made binding as this was a condition imposed by membership of the EU.<br /><br />If we left the EU tomorrow, we would still have to think about whether to pay any attention to the ECtHR. <br /><br />However, if we left the EU tomorrow, we would still retain membership of the ECtHR.Woman on a Rafthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897415591130901416noreply@blogger.com