TTIP: This is what the US really wants, thye don't care anout the EU or the UK
- Thread starter cancel2 2022
- Start date
cancel2 2022
Canceled
moon
Satire for Sanity
Is adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights a condition of European Union membership?
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06577/SN06577.pdf
That's the handout which seeks to promote the view- via its 'expert ' that it is possible to withdraw from the ECHR and remain in the EU. Clearly, opinion is divided- and we shall see.
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06577/SN06577.pdf
That's the handout which seeks to promote the view- via its 'expert ' that it is possible to withdraw from the ECHR and remain in the EU. Clearly, opinion is divided- and we shall see.
Last edited:
The internet is an echo chamber of hysterical bullshit and lies. It's no wonder the politicians ignore ill-informed, screeching ne'er do wells - and go about their business. I've lost track of how many times, this vocal minority have predicted the end of civilization if A, B, C happens, and in the event - it's fine, not great - but fine. TTIP is far from finalized - it could take until 2020 to get it done and dusted. All this hullabaloo is based on a leak of draft documents in 2013 - in which, just due to the nature of the process, strong positions were described in the knowledge they would be watered down. The idea of it being undemocratic is equally overblown:
The 28 governments will then have to approve or reject the negotiated agreement in the EU Council of Ministers, at which point the European Parliament will also be asked for its endorsement. The EU Parliament is empowered to approve or reject the agreement. Individual countries have different rules on approving and ratifying the document. For example, Article 53 of the French Constitution states, "trade treaties can only be ratified by a law" passed by the French Parliament. In the United States, both houses of the Congress would have to pass the agreement.
The 28 governments will then have to approve or reject the negotiated agreement in the EU Council of Ministers, at which point the European Parliament will also be asked for its endorsement. The EU Parliament is empowered to approve or reject the agreement. Individual countries have different rules on approving and ratifying the document. For example, Article 53 of the French Constitution states, "trade treaties can only be ratified by a law" passed by the French Parliament. In the United States, both houses of the Congress would have to pass the agreement.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Opinion has fuck all to do with it, there is nothing in any of the treaties that even mentions the ECHR. You were wrong so concede gracefully, you are obviously young and naive but you'll grow up and learn more in time hopefully.
Last edited:
Both missing the point. The Human Rights Act was incorporated into UK law in 1998 - so even if the UK dropped the HRA, it would still be signed up to the European Convention. The UK would have to leave the EU first, then drop the HRA in UK law, in order to institute a Bill of Rights. What May said doesn't make any sense - unless she is suggesting we drop the UK HRA, and again become subject to Strasbourg - in which case she's more pro-european than anyone imagined.
Legion Troll
A fine upstanding poster
Nice. Do you put on that racist accent when you abuse your Thai wife?
Legion Troll
A fine upstanding poster
i just abuse her normally
Do you cradle her because she's married to a racist who mocks Asian accents?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
i just abuse her normally
That cunt is not even supposed to be in my threads, the mods was supposed to put him on forced ignore.
moon
Satire for Sanity
I don't see that I've ' missed the point ' at all. The ECHR is fundamental to EU law even though discrete from the EU. It would appear to be bizarre in the extreme for the UK to attempt to rid itself of its ECHR responsibilities while attempting to retain membership of an organisation which relies upon it. I don't believe that EU membership rules allow for such a scenario - and neither should they.
As I said , legal opinion is divided - but my own belief is that the UK would have to leave the EU if it refused to accept the principles of the ECHR. Good fucking riddance.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Nobody can say the the Welsh have a chip on their shoulder, certainly in the Welsh Windbag's case it's the whole effing log!!
Legion Troll
A fine upstanding poster
IT'S ME THEY'RE CHEERING. I HEARD YOU DID SOMETHING WITH A DEAD PIG, NAUGHTY CAMMERS.
Among economists, there is little question that a so-called Brexit would be costly.
The latest analysis was released Wednesday morning by the influential Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
It estimated the United Kingdom’s economy would be 3 percent smaller in 2020 if Britain leaves the E.U., damaging consumer confidence, discouraging business investment and unleashing a new era of uncertainty in the financial center of Europe.
The numbers translate into an average reduction of 2,200 pounds ($3,206) per household in Britain — the equivalent of a month’s pay.
The long-term consequences could be even more dire, the group said. Under its most optimistic scenario, the hit to the U.K. economy would total 2.7 percent of its gross domestic product by 2030. But the worst-case estimate is a blow of more than 7.5 percent, or 5,000 pounds per household.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/27/leaving-the-european-union-could-cost-every-british-family-a-months-pay-new-report-says/