The European court of human rights - Time to leave ?

[joninliverton]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23245254

Today the European court of human rights unanimously upheld 3 convicted mass murderers appeal that whole life tariffs breach an individual's human rights. One of the convicted persons murdered 5 family members, the others are just as bad. The reaction from UK Prime Minister David Cameron is that he is appalled with the decision which means that after 25 years behind bars, the guilty can have their cases reviewed.

In 1965, the UK banned the death sentence in favour of judges committing the guilty to a life behind bars.

The UK Gov are already considering a free vote on whether this island should remain within the European community - The uk public have never had a vote because the govts fear that the public would vote to get out of Europe.

Today's announcement is just another catalyst that will ignite further European despondency by the British elecorate.

Robb - I await your reply

 

[bobbity]

When an individual commits such a heinous and vicious crime, I feel that they surrender their individual rights. They have robbed more than one human being of their lives, their livelihoods, and they cause a mass amount of pain and suffering to other people. They are also guilty of the crime of depriving another person of their human rights, and as such should have their own revoked, and should, imho, rightfully rot in prison for the rest of their foreseeable future. Whether the UK decides to break away from Europe will definitely be a monumental decision, and I'm interested to see if they actually put this to a vote.
Jon, how do you think your fellow countrymen would feel about this if this actually comes to fruition? Do you think the UK would actually vote to pull out of Europe? And is that a feasible decision on the side of the UK government? After all, as part of the EU trade agreement, goods from all over Europe are virtually free and vice versa. Do you think the people see this as a smart economical move? Or is it purely a moral decision?
Also, at the moment, Europe is trying to broker a free trade agreement with the states. Do you think this could have any impact on the decision of the US government not to engage in the agreement if the UK is not on board anymore? Very interesting developments on the horizon, methinks.

 

[tampa24]

Such a weighty decision as to leave Europe would have some very real economic consequences for both sides. It's definitely not something the British public should rush into without contemplation of all the major risks and downsides, as well as the rewards. However Britain is a democracy. If it's put to a referendum and the decision is to leave, the sun will still rise in the morning.

 

[rrhill]

In France and Holland there were referenda about the new EU constitution. Both countries people's said no... and you can guess already what happened... politicians changed the name into "the Lisbon treaty"; and no new referendum was held.

The most powerful lobby in a capitalistic country are businesses. Leaving the EU would cause so much damage to the British economy, it will not happen.

Great-Britain signed up to the "the Lisbon treaty"... If the highest constitutional court in Europe concludes that people - convicted to life in prison - deserve a review... so be it. They do not demand to release dangerous people into society.

 

[Ambivalent]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23245254

Today the European court of human rights unanimously upheld 3 convicted mass murderers appeal that whole life tariffs breach an individual's human rights. One of the convicted persons murdered 5 family members, the others are just as bad. The reaction from UK Prime Minister David Cameron is that he is appalled with the decision which means that after 25 years behind bars, the guilty can have their cases reviewed.

In 1965, the UK banned the death sentence in favour of judges committing the guilty to a life behind bars.

The UK Gov are already considering a free vote on whether this island should remain within the European community - The uk public have never had a vote because the govts fear that the public would vote to get out of Europe.

Today's announcement is just another catalyst that will ignite further European despondency by the British elecorate.

Robb - I await your reply

******************************************

Hey, Jon:

By and large, I think economic cooperation and freer trade between industrialized democracies makes good sense, generally. And especially so, in the European context. That being said:

1.) I don't think a common currency necessarily makes sense - as is being shown more and more clearly in the current European economic crisis. Smaller, poorer countries can't get "out from under" by allowing the market to regulate the value of their currencies, meaning that they have little opportunity to recover - and larger, wealthier countries (like Germany) must then see their exports fall, and must bail out the less fortunate countries in the partnership, so that the whole group can survive. (I think Mrs. Thatcher's initial reading of this is looking more and more prescient, as time goes by.)

2.) I definitely don't think a surrender of legal or political sovereignty makes sense, at all. Because, from country to country within the E.U., community standards may and will differ significantly, from nation to nation. And, while the basic values of European nations are broadly shared (I think) - at the margins, what may seem unquestionably right to the educated electorate in The Kingdom of the Netherlands, may not seem quite appropriate to voters in the U.K.

Thus, if I were a voter in the U.K., while I wouldn't necessarily support UKIP, I would support the continued use of the pound sterling, and resist transfer of legal or political powers to super-national bodies.

I think that the E.U. works best as a relatively decentralized economic and trading partnership, not as a form of political polygamy.

~ "A" XOXOXOXO

 

[joninliverton]

In France and Holland there were referenda about the new EU constitution. Both countries people's said no... and you can guess already what happened... politicians changed the name into "the Lisbon treaty"; and no new referendum was held.

The most powerful lobby in a capitalistic country are businesses. Leaving the EU would cause so much damage to the British economy, it will not happen.

Great-Britain signed up to the "the Lisbon treaty"... If the highest constitutional court in Europe concludes that people - convicted to life in prison - deserve a review... so be it. They do not demand to release dangerous people into society.

First of all LOL to the maps - they're quite funny and maybe not far from the truth on what the majority of the british people think. This said, the Scottish people get their independence vote soon but I get the feeling it will be rejected and this will hopefully shut Alex Salmond's mouth up once and for all.

You are quite correct about businesses and the CBI will not want Britain out of Europe trade wise. I work for a large British Telecoms company and it's CEO has already stated that Europe is good for Britain.

But we have not signed up to the European constitution, we have not surrendered our British pound in favour of the Euro (thank God) and we must not let these pen pushers of Europe decide or change the laws of our land.

It's because of the European court of human rights that we had problems getting rid of that arab terrorist back to Libya and lots of other crazy assed muslims (not all) that are only here to cause trouble and harm to innocent people.

 

[joninliverton]

******************************************

Hey, Jon:

By and large, I think economic cooperation and freer trade between industrialized democracies makes good sense, generally. And especially so, in the European context. That being said:

1.) I don't think a common currency necessarily makes sense - as is being shown more and more clearly in the current European economic crisis. Smaller, poorer countries can't get "out from under" by allowing the market to regulate the value of their currencies, meaning that they have little opportunity to recover - and larger, wealthier countries (like Germany) must then see their exports fall, and must bail out the less fortunate countries in the partnership, so that the whole group can survive. (I think Mrs. Thatcher's initial reading of this is looking more and more prescient, as time goes by.)

2.) I definitely don't think a surrender of legal or political sovereignty makes sense, at all. Because, from country to country within the E.U., community standards may and will differ significantly, from nation to nation. And, while the basic values of European nations are broadly shared (I think) - at the margins, what may seem unquestionably right to the educated electorate in The Kingdom of the Netherlands, may not seem quite appropriate to voters in the U.K.

Thus, if I were a voter in the U.K., while I wouldn't necessarily support UKIP, I would support the continued use of the pound sterling, and resist transfer of legal or political powers to super-national bodies.

I think that the E.U. works best as a relatively decentralized economic and trading partnership, not as a form of political polygamy.

~ "A" XOXOXOXO

The UKIP is becoming a good alternative to the other dead in the water parties we've had for years. Labour are terrified of upsetting the Europeans and the Conservatives make a small whimper then back down. The UKIP, whilst a lot less right wing than the BNP, have a good chance in gaining a lot of seats in the next general election.

And it is issues such as this, our Sovereignty and currency that will once again unite our island.

Incidentally the last time there were atrocities, the uk people cried out for the death penalty to be reinstated but the government will never make this a public vote because it would be a close call.

 

[joninliverton]

During times like this i play this song. I now think of Ambi's avatar and what he would do in these times.

 

[rrhill]

But we have not signed up to the European constitution (...)we must not let these pen pushers of Europe decide or change the laws of our land

In fact Britain - Gordon Brown - did sign up to the "Lisbon treaty" and that is the constitution; they just changed the name to prevent referenda. Europeans citizens were left out; not allowed to say no again. The EU is not democratic; and never has been.

Then again, I would not blow up the EU or the Euro... That would be economic suicide! Most Europeans try to live with it Jon.

 

[joninliverton]

Most Europeans try to live with it Jon.

Robert, you should have realised by now that the 60 million Brits are not like most Europeans. The difference between Europe and Britain (and no offence to your brave soldiers) is that we were not conquered by Nazi Germany. Some may call Britains attitude as stiff upper lip, but it is this stiff upper lip that has secured our independency, our sovereignty and our currency, whilst all the other European states have cowed down to guess who, the Germans once again. The Euro was a bad deal and Britain is glad it is not a part of it. We have our own austerity measures whilst Greece, Spain, Italy are heavily indebted to the major Euro players, to whom they will have to show "mercy" to for years to come.

 

[angelone]

Coming from the Fourth World, it is amusing to read the differenting opinions of the members of the First World as to currency and government. I find it so complicated not only in the politics but all the interactions between different peoples and governments. I come from a small group of Islands called the Mariannas and we're under the United States. My people, the Chamorro (Tao), never had a centralized government. Even the individual island lacked any form of unified government, we were just a accumulation of villages with either a charismatic chief/chiefs or a group of ruling elders which included women - big women. We have a joke that says we Chamorro (Tao) can never lead Chamorro (Tao) in any venture, it will have to take an outsider to lead the Chamorro (Tao) in battle or any venture. My suggestion to the Europeans is to let the Americans lead you out of your situation. They saved you twice in the last century.

 

[joninliverton]

They saved you twice in the last century.

I beg to differ..

 

[bobbity]

I beg to differ..

I wouldn't go as far as to say that America saved Europe from the Germans, twice as it were, but I do think it's a pretty irrefutable fact tat America's ability to industrialise and mass produce guns, tanks, and airplanes definitely gave the allied powers the edge they desperately needed to win both ww1 and ww2. You have to give us at least that much credit, even though you'd rather not , but let's be honest, Europe didn't win those wars alone. As for America leading Europe out of its financial troubles, we can't even get a grip on our own near collapse, we have no business fixing anyone's economy. Even if we could help, I honestly don't they'd welcome us fiddling in their affairs. It's well documented that help from 'Ol Sam comes with a pretty high price.

 

[rrhill]

The Spanish Civil War was the precursor to World War II. Fascist Francisco Franco was aided by Hitler and Mussolini during the Spanish Civil War. At this time GM, Ford, DuPont, and Standard Oil were working with Franco and supplying the fascist powers of Europe. At this same time many Americans were protesting the goings on in Europe as well as the involvement of American companies in helping the fascist powers.

A number of prominent and wealthy American businessmen helped to support fascist regimes in Europe from the 1920s through the 1940s. These people helped to support Francisco Franco during the Spanish Civil War of 1936, as well as Benito Mussolini, and Adolph Hitler.
Some of the primary and more famous Americans and companies that were involved with the fascist regimes of Europe are: William Randolph Hearst, Joseph Kennedy (JFK's father), Charles Lindbergh, John Rockefeller, Andrew Mellon (head of Alcoa, banker, and Secretary of Treasury), DuPont, General Motors, Standard Oil (now Exxon), Ford, ITT, Allen Dulles (later head of the CIA), Prescott Bush, National City Bank, and General Electric.

 

[joninliverton]

I wouldn't go as far as to say that America saved Europe from the Germans, twice as it were, but I do think it's a pretty irrefutable fact tat America's ability to industrialise and mass produce guns, tanks, and airplanes definitely gave the allied powers the edge they desperately needed to win both ww1 and ww2. You have to give us at least that much credit, even though you'd rather not , but let's be honest, Europe didn't win those wars alone. As for America leading Europe out of its financial troubles, we can't even get a grip on our own near collapse, we have no business fixing anyone's economy. Even if we could help, I honestly don't they'd welcome us fiddling in their affairs. It's well documented that help from 'Ol Sam comes with a pretty high price.

Bobbity I didn't say Europe did win the wars alone. I just responded to Angels last comment of his post. "They saved you twice in the last century."

Good research Robert, but I guess that some British and other non fascist companies can be added to that too.

Of course what this is got to do with the court of human rights I do not know

 

[rrhill]

Human rights in the US...

[h=1]California prisons have been sterilizing women for years[/h] July 8, 2013
The Center for Investigative Reporting revealed that, between 2006 and 2010, 148 female prisoners were illegally sterilized by force.
At least 148 women received tubal ligations in violation of prison rules during those five years – and there are perhaps 100 more dating back to the late 1990s, according to state documents and interviews.
From 1997 to 2010, the state paid doctors $147,460 to perform the procedure, according to a database of contracted medical services for state prisoners.
The women were signed up for the surgery while they were pregnant and housed at either the California Institution for Women in Corona or Valley State Prison for Women in Chowchilla, which is now a men’s prison.
read more: http://feministing.com/2013/07/08/california-prisons-have-been-sterilizing-women-for-years/

 

[shyhedgehog]

Human rights documentation are a waste of time if they are implemented rigidly and without thought. I think after the past few controversies in the UK that the many of us would wish to abandon EU dictation on this. Obviously the government would have to draft new UK human rights guidance. It cannot turn into a slippery slope. I don't think that would happen here but it's possible.

The EU has been amazing for strengthening international relations but the economic crisis, concerns regarding potential mass immigration (unjustified in my opinion) and strange judgements has made some people lose faith in the system. Life sentences for multiple murderers with psychopathic personalities for which there is no effective treatment and the costly deportation of a man who has incited hatred and murder becoming a flashpoint? It seems so strange

 

[rrhill]

Japan urges Britain to keep 'major role' in EU

Sun Jul 21
Japan has added its voice to international calls for Britain to maintain a leading role in the European Union, saying that membership is a key advantage for companies looking to access Europe's single market.

British Prime Minister David Cameron's promise to renegotiate Britain's role in the EU and hold a referendum on EU membership by 2017 has already been greeted with concern by the United States among others.

A senior official in Barack Obama's administration said in January that the United States needed London to retain a "strong voice" within the EU, and last week British Foreign Secretary William Hague said that withdrawal from the EU would deter investors, undermine trade and damage Britain's global status.

Japan submitted its statement to a review ordered by Cameron into the balance of power between London and Brussels. The submission highlighted that more than 1,300 companies have invested in Britain, creating 130,000 jobs.

"The advantage of the UK as a gateway to the European market has attracted Japanese investment. The Government of Japan expects the UK to maintain this favorable role," a statement on Japan's British embassy website said.

"The (Japanese) government is committed to making its relationship with the EU stronger than ever before. In this context, it expects that the UK will maintain a strong voice and continue to play a major role in the EU."
source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013...130721?feedType=RSS&virtualBrandChannel=11563