TTIP: This is what the US really wants, thye don't care anout the EU or the UK

moon2012 said:
The greatest threat posed by TTIP to us- the citizens- is that giant corporations will be able to sue governments, everybody's governments , if the policies of those governments conflict with those of the corporations. That is Capitalism at its most insane to date, folks, and we'd be fools to allow it.
Click to expand...

Marx predicted that.

moon2012 said:
A CONSTITUTION is required for the UK in order to defend its citizens from bad government.

Until it gets one Brits have to depend upon the European courts for protection from the tyranny of elected Brit assholes.
Click to expand...

The UK has a constitution, it's just in a different form.

I now believe Brits should exit the EU.

This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands,--
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.
 
the benefit of a written Constitution is there is the text as originalism. Scalia bought it back into fashion.
It means one cannot say "the framers meant this" ( original intent), when the text does NOT say anything like that.
Or it keeps SCOTUS from just making stuff up and calling it "Constitutional principle" .

When this does happen -again the text is there to refer to as indisputable principle for correction
++

As to the PATRIOT Act - it's an over-reaction, but then again there hasn't been a 9-11 since 9-11.
I'd prefer a lot less trolling for data ( PRISM, etc) -but corporations do the same thing.

Only if we apply the 4th Amendment to online data can we get back to some semblance of privacy/intrusions.

the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

 
Milagro said:
You do like to make sweeping statements, care to be more specific? I would suggest that the Patriot Act is far worse than anything implemented over here.
Click to expand...

It's the legislation of fascists- and repressive UK legislation is its equal.
 
Mircea said:
The UK has a constitution, it's just in a different form.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. Brits are fobbed off with a couple of pages of thirteenth century wishful thinking on the part of a handful of anti-monarchist barons which isn't worth the parchment it appears on.

The war criminal- Tony Blair- pissed upon it from a great height with his ' anti-terrorism ' legislation. Any Brit believing that the Magna Carta offered/ still offers them protection from UK despots is kidding themselves with a patriotic hat on.

The UK needs a CONSTITUTION
 
moon2012 said:
No, it doesn't. Brits are fobbed off with a couple of pages of thirteenth century wishful thinking on the part of a handful of anti-monarchist barons which isn't worth the parchment it appears on.

The war criminal- Tony Blair- pissed upon it from a great height with his ' anti-terrorism ' legislation. Any Brit believing that the Magna Carta offered/ still offers them protection from UK despots is kidding themselves with a patriotic hat on.

The UK needs a CONSTITUTION
Click to expand...

The Convention on Human Rights - itself largely drafted by British lawyers, in the aftermath of the Second World War is part of our law specifically the Human Rights Act. The Convention was adopted by the Council of Europe in 1950 – a body set up after the Second World War to promote democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Europe - it has nothing to do with the European Union.
 
Last edited:
Milagro said:
The Convention on Human Rights - itself largely drafted by British lawyers, in the aftermath of the Second World War is part of our law specifically the HUman Rights Act. The Convention was adopted by the Council of Europe in 1950 – a body set up after the Second World War to promote democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Europe - it has nothing to do with the European Union.
Click to expand...

You're not quite correct. The flaw is that the UK cannot abandon the European Convention on Human Rights while it is a member of the European Union. Thus it must abandon the EU in order to abandon the European Convention on Human Rights- and abandoning the ECHR is what your shabby Tory party has in ...er....mind.

Why would anybody want to abandon a human rights convention ? Because obeying human rights law ' ties its hands'. That's a quote. It might have come straight from the fascist handbook of neoZionism.

Anybody wanting to abandon overseen human rights law in order to ' free its hands ' is looking to tie the hands of somebody else- and you'd better believe it.

Where's that Chilcott report ?
 
Last edited:
moon2012 said:
You're not quite correct. The flaw is that the UK cannot abandon the European Convention on Human Rights while it is a member of the European Union. Thus it must abandon the EU in order to abandon the European Convention on Human Rights- and abandoning the ECHR is what your shabby Tory party has in ...er....mind.

Why would anybody want to abandon a human rights convention ? Because obeying human rights law ' ties its hands'. That's a quote. It might have come straight from the fascist handbook of neoZionism.

Anybody wanting to abandon overseen human rights law in order to ' free its hands ' is looking to tie the hands of somebody else- and you'd better believe it.

Where's that Chilcott report ?
Click to expand...


from:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/p...rom-the-human-rights-act-to-a-bill-of-rights/


From the Human Rights Act to a Bill of Rights?: key issues for the 2010 Parliament

Proposals for a British Bill of Rights have come from across the political spectrum. The various plans would have very different consequences

The Human Rights Act (HRA) was introduced in 1998 to “bring rights home”. Essentially, it allows UK nationals to rely on rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights before the domestic courts.

The legislation has not been universally popular. Some have branded it a “criminals’ charter”, following suggestions that it had been abused by various litigants. In 2006 Tony Blair complained that a judgment about a group of Afghans who had hijacked a plane was an “abuse of common sense”. The judgment was later upheld on appeal.

Such cases have fed concern that the courts are becoming more “activist” and involved in dealing with “small p” political questions that would previously have been settled by politicians and administrators. Some political figures have criticised the way in which the courts have dealt with an increase in public law (judicial review) and human rights cases. There sometimes appears to be a tension between the principles of the supremacy of Parliament and the rule of law, exacerbated by extensive commentary on the Act. This has resulted in friction in policy areas such as asylum, immigration and counter-terrorism.

The Conservatives have further argued that the current legislation has created a culture of “risk aversion” among public authorities. In 2006 a Government-sponsored review of the operation of the Act stated that it had been bedevilled by misconceptions and had sometimes been “misapplied”. The Government also acknowledged that a series of damaging myths about the Act had taken root in the popular imagination.

........................

This is the plan, if brexit - to scrap the HRA and replace it with a British Bill of Rights. It's been in the wind a while - arising from the same quarter as brexit aggitation. It's a sort of faux patriotism - that would have us retreat from the world, and adopt facist measures at home; sold to people as a counter measure to immigration and terrorism. For me, I think it would be playing into the hands of those who want us to question our values - who's cultures would otherwise have to evolve to meet our standards, better standards.
 
moon2012 said:
You're not quite correct. The flaw is that the UK cannot abandon the European Convention on Human Rights while it is a member of the European Union. Thus it must abandon the EU in order to abandon the European Convention on Human Rights- and abandoning the ECHR is what your shabby Tory party has in ...er....mind.

Why would anybody want to abandon a human rights convention ? Because obeying human rights law ' ties its hands'. That's a quote. It might have come straight from the fascist handbook of neoZionism.

Anybody wanting to abandon overseen human rights law in order to ' free its hands ' is looking to tie the hands of somebody else- and you'd better believe it.

Where's that Chilcott report ?
Click to expand...

Theresa May would beg to differ on that point, but what does she know after all she is only a Tory woman and the Home Secretary? She obviously should have consulted you first, the man with the plan!!

As for Chilcott, I think it is an effing disgrace that it has been delayed for so long, you can blame those slippery bastards Gus O'Donnell, Jeremy Heywood and Tony Blair.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...yed-criticisms-tony-blair-undermined-evidence
 
Last edited:
Mircea said:
Marx predicted that.



The UK has a constitution, it's just in a different form.

I now believe Brits should exit the EU.

This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands,--
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.
Click to expand...

Typical of the buggers to suppose England is an island. Geography was never their strong point!
 
Milagro said:
Theresa May would beg to differ on that point, but what does she know after all she is only a Tory woman and the Home Secretary? She obviously should have consulted you first, the man with the plan!!
Click to expand...

She can't ' beg to differ '. It's fact. As a hypocritical Tory mouthpiece she knows that full well.


As for Chilcott, I think it is an effing disgrace that it has been delayed for so long, you can blame those slippery bastards Gus O'Donnell, Jeremy Heywood and Tony Blair.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...yed-criticisms-tony-blair-undermined-evidence
Click to expand...

Aye to that.
 
moon2012 said:
She can't ' beg to differ '. It's fact. As a hypocritical Tory mouthpiece she knows that full well.




Aye to that.
Click to expand...

I love the way that just won't back down even when proved to be totally incorrect. The ECHR predates the EU by many years and is totally independent of it. You should bone up on the subject first and determine the difference between the Council of Europe and the EU.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Council_of_Europe

You remind me of the Black Knight in Monty Python and The Holy Grail!!

 
leaningright said:
I hope the UK does leave the EU. I'm all about nations maintaining their unique identities culturally and financially.
Click to expand...

All that the tory party means by identities is bullshit 'traditions' made up in the Nineteenth Century. Otherwise they want to make us entirely American.
 
iolo said:
All that the tory party means by identities is bullshit 'traditions' made up in the Nineteenth Century. Otherwise they want to make us entirely American.
Click to expand...

God you are the second Welsh Windbag after Kinnochio, do you want to stay in or leave the EU?
 
I'm afraid I don't see Milagro's posts, but lest there should be any doubt, like all decent British people I am totally against the TTIP.
 
Milagro said:
I love the way that just won't back down even when proved to be totally incorrect. The ECHR predates the EU by many years and is totally independent of it. You should bone up on the subject first and determine the difference between the Council of Europe and the EU.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Council_of_Europe
Click to expand...

You're wrong. Compliance with the European Court of Human Rights legislation is compulsory for all EU member states. If Brits want to dump human rights they have to exit the EU. Fact. Chew on it.
 
moon2012 said:
You're wrong. Compliance with European Human Rights legislation is compulsory for all EU member states. If Brits want to dump human rights they have to exit the EU. Fact. Chew on it.
Click to expand...

Oh man, you truly do live in a world of your own, as the Americans say "you don't know shit from Shinola" I have already told you that we want to dump the Human Rights Act and have a British Bill of Rights instead, but you stupid iriot, you no ruddy risen!!

1. European Convention of Human Rights ≠ European Union

The very first thing you need to know about the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is that it has nothing to do with the European Union.
The ECHR is not a EU treaty and membership of the EU does not formally require us to be signatories.
The EU has no responsibility or oversight of the ECHR, which is separately upheld by domestic courts and the European Court of Human Rights.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/six-things-you-should-know-4370967
Click to expand...


 
Last edited:
most amazing thing about the tpp is that almost everyone is against it yet the political class is still ramming thru everyones throats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top