the EU

[TheGayTent]

says the man in need of a bigger one.

I said what I said. What I didn't say was what you're saying I said.

And I ment what I meant, which no amount of fantasy by you changes.

yep you did - cos it would need to only be full of raving right wing nutters to only ever vote in thoise raving right wing nutters that you love so much.

You do know that the real raving right wing nutters laugh at people like you, don't you? You're not one of them, you're merely one of their oiks.

[eFestivals]

You said there was problems but made out they where limited when in fact the problems are clearly greater than your limited analysis.

I mentioned the biggest problems, yes.

I know there's other issues, but those issues are not employment rights or human rights or consumer rights - these are very definitely some of the best things which have come from the EU & wider Europe (the human rights things aren't EU stuff).

I have no doubt though anything you said about Dave Moron... He isn't doing this for anything more than political selfishness...

Precisely - and he's attempted to define the debate to those sorts of things, and nothing he said was about addressing the structural issues, which is where the problems lie.

You do not have a single market if there's different rules in different parts of that market - which is what Brave New Dave's definition of a single market is from what he said yesterday. It is not about fair competition between companies, but unfair competition.

[Gre]

I'm confused... why does leaving the EU mean we lose workers rights, human rights etc? Why couldn't we have the good bits without the bad bits?

(Other than 'politicians are c**ts'. That's a given.)

[kaosmark2]

I'm confused... why does leaving the EU mean we lose workers rights, human rights etc? Why couldn't we have the good bits without the bad bits?

(Other than 'politicians are c**ts'. That's a given.)

[eFestivals]

I'm confused... why does leaving the EU mean we lose workers rights, human rights etc? Why couldn't we have the good bits without the bad bits?

(Other than 'politicians are c**ts'. That's a given.)

the powers that the tories want back from the EU are powers that will be to their personal advantage, little that could be rightfully though to be to the advantage to the country - stuff within the social chapter, the human rights stuff, consumer rights.

That pans out as even more likelihood of horse in burgers, less legal protection from the police state, and working longer hours for the same money.

Lots of people have issues with various parts of the EU, but I've yet to hear Joe Public say that we need to get out of the EU or we need to renegotiate the terms because we want stuff like less safe food, less protection from actions of the state against us, or to work longer for the same money (better known as a pay cut).

The tories do not plan to address any of the real issues that people in Britain have with the EU, except perhaps immigration, but all of the polling on immigration exposes that the public's view's on immigration don't add up.

People say there's massive problems with it, but they're not able to identify where those problems are. If asked if there's problems caused by immigration, lots of people say yes. When they're asked if those problems exist in their local area, most of the people who said that 'yes' to the first question answer 'no' to the second.

Which gets to mean that there's not actually big problems with immigration, merely a false perception that there's big problems with immigration. It's just like the belief in the public that they're highly likely to be a victim of crime, when the reality shows that's not true.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

It's always "umaaaaan riteeeees" and then you ask which aspect of the HRA do they disagree with, and guess what? No answer.

[LondonTom]

It's always "umaaaaan riteeeees" and then you ask which aspect of the HRA do they disagree with, and guess what? No answer.

[TalkShow Bob]

The HRA has nothing to do with the EU.

[kaosmark2]

The EU enforce the European Bill of Rights which has greater protections than the ones proposed in a UK Bill of Rights by Theresa May.

I trust an undemocratic EU parliament to protect my basic human rights more than I trust Theresa May.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

The HRA has nothing to do with the EU.

[abdoujaparov]

The HRA is the legal backing of the E. convention on H.R, which the E.U backs up.

[TalkShow Bob]

Incorrect.The HRA transfers the European Convention on HR into UK law. The ECHR is governed by the Council of Europe, which has nothing to do with the EU. Sign up to the ECHR is a prerequisite of EU membership, but the ECHR is otherwise completely independent of the EU

[TalkShow Bob]

The EU enforce the European Bill of Rights which has greater protections than the ones proposed in a UK Bill of Rights by Theresa May. I trust an undemocratic EU parliament to protect my basic human rights more than I trust Theresa May.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

This. The Europian Court of Human-rights has as much to do with the EU as Europe car, UEFA and euro millions.

Edited January 28, 2013 by thesecretingredientiscrime

[TalkShow Bob]

we are not talking about the European court of human rights.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

Yes we are. The Human Rights Act is our implementation of the Europian convention on human rights. Enforced by the Europian court of human rights. Nothing to do with the EU.

[TalkShow Bob]

Which is council of Europe as earlier pointed out.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

Yes. Initially by me. I don't understand your pint. The Council of Europe also has nothing to do with the EU.

Edited January 28, 2013 by thesecretingredientiscrime

[TalkShow Bob]

No, you said the European court of human rights. We were discussing Council Of Europe. The point is that the HRA/E. Convention is a necessity for membership of EU. One of the common criticisms levelled at E.U is the HRA/E. Convention, which as we've established derives from E. Convention which is backed by Council Of Europe. However, if the UK was not a member of E.U, the H.R.A would not HAVE to be in the way it was, it could be adapted.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

That's not the point though is it? The bottom line is that human rights law is dictated by our membership of the E.U, and while its highly likely things would stay the same (ironically enough) should we leave, we would have the opportunity to change if we wished.

This leads back to the original point of the e.u being deemed as root of all evil with regards to human rights matters.

[TalkShow Bob]

That's not the point though is it? The bottom line is that human rights law is dictated by our membership of the E.U, and while its highly likely things would stay the same (ironically enough) should we leave, we would have the opportunity to change if we wished. This leads back to the original point of the e.u being deemed as root of all evil with regards to human rights matters.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

I think the point is the average man on the street doesn't realise the difference between the EU and ECHR. I'm also not convinced our abidence by the treaty has that much to do with out membership of the EU, would be politically very very hard to back out of it due to its part in the WW2 peace process but that's a whole other discussion?

[TalkShow Bob]

Well exactly. The lack of seperation in the common man's mind adds to the point even further. As said, its a pre requisite for members. But the other point about its role in ww leads on to a much wider discussion, I'd agree.