UKIP - The Future

[fluffnik]

BliarOut said:

EU climb down.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/e...

Bloody good job, I love my olive oil and balsamic

See! The EU responds to the democratic will of its people.

[s2art]

fluffnik said:

The Black Flash said:

fluffnik said:

I therefore conclude that UKIP's respect for human rights is at best conditional.

I've not said I'd leave, nor am I speaking on behalf of UKIP. I was pointing out a logical flaw in your position.

There is no logical flaw; the following statements are not contradictory.

• It is possible to respect human rights without membership of the ECHR
• It is possible to defend human rights more vigorously than the ECHR whilst remaining a member
• There is no purpose served by leaving the ECHR if you do not want to abrogate rights they would defend

The Black Flash said:

All you can conclude is the UKIP's definition of "human rights" differs from the ECHR's, which will be a good or bad thing depending on your opinion.

I therefore conclude that UKIP has less respect for human rights than the ECHR.

Logical error again. I do conclude that you are amongst the hard of thinking.
The correct conclusion is, as posted, they differ. OR that they do not differ but UKIP (and many others) have observed that the judges at ECHR are often inexperienced and incompetent, leading to judgments that dont actually conform the the ECHR's own ideals.

Overall I believe that UKIP would pay more respect to human rights, via the British justice system, than the ECHR does.

[odyssey2200]

Maybe a new UKIPCHR would be even better than the ECHR and less open to abuse by undesirables at Tax payer's expense?

[fluffnik]

s2art said:

fluffnik said:

I therefore conclude that UKIP has less respect for human rights than the ECHR.

Logical error again. I do conclude that you are amongst the hard of thinking.
The correct conclusion is, as posted, they differ. OR that they do not differ but UKIP (and many others) have observed that the judges at ECHR are often inexperienced and incompetent, leading to judgments that dont actually conform the the ECHR's own ideals.

I am not struck by the universal competence of our judiciary either...

You are correct that I could have concluded that UKIP's respect for human rights was different rather than worse.

s2art said:

Overall I believe that UKIP would pay more respect to human rights, via the British justice system, than the ECHR does.

The fact that they seem not to be happy with the larger superset offered by also remaining in the ECHR does not give me confidence that they would.

[s2art]

fluffnik said:

s2art said:

fluffnik said:

I therefore conclude that UKIP has less respect for human rights than the ECHR.

Logical error again. I do conclude that you are amongst the hard of thinking.
The correct conclusion is, as posted, they differ. OR that they do not differ but UKIP (and many others) have observed that the judges at ECHR are often inexperienced and incompetent, leading to judgments that dont actually conform the the ECHR's own ideals.

I am not struck by the universal competence of our judiciary either...

You are correct that I could have concluded that UKIP's respect for human rights was different rather than worse.

s2art said:

Overall I believe that UKIP would pay more respect to human rights, via the British justice system, than the ECHR does.

The fact that they seem not to be happy with the larger superset offered by also remaining in the ECHR does not give me confidence that they would.

The judges at our Supreme Court are a pretty competent and experienced bunch. See; http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/about/biographies-o...

Unlike the ECHR where there could be judges with almost no experience outside academia.

[fluffnik]

odyssey2200 said:

Maybe a new UKIPCHR would be even better than the ECHR and less open to abuse by undesirables at Tax payer's expense?

By failing to defend the rights of the unpleasant?

[fluffnik]

s2art said:

The judges at our Supreme Court are a pretty competent and experienced bunch. See; http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/about/biographies-o...

I notice that a least one has served on the ECHR...

[MX7]

fluffnik said:

I notice that a least one has served on the ECHR...

And?

[rudecherub]

fluffnik said:

rudecherub said:

fluffnik said:

I therefore conclude that UKIP's respect for human rights is at best conditional.

I'm sure the dictatorship of fluffnik would be benign...

On the other hand I much prefer my rights to be protected by a sovereign Parliament that is elected democratically making the laws, interpreted by a legal system rooted in Common Law, by time served Judges.

Than have my rights abused by a foreign Court.

As a Scot resident in Scotland that is in part why I seek to end the UK.

However I regard membership of the ECHR as a valuable safeguard of liberal democracy against mob rule.

Ah the mob rule. Who is the baying mob of which you speak, the frightful bunch who shouted down Nigel Farage in Endiburgh?

Mobs like these Socialist Nationalists are ugly, but that's not what you mean. What you mean is the majority of voters might come to a decision which you don't like - the fools who are these undermensch to question the ideas and notions of their betters!

Why the "Mob" - those adults who possess the right to vote and the will to exorcise it & in Scotland - by gad, will almost certainly vote to stay part of the UK.

Who then will shout and moan - from where would come the mob?

Once this happens will the SNP - it's raison d'etre shot down de-mob?

I'm reminded again of Goering's defence of National Socialism at Nuremberg.

The horror of the holocaust in particular and the Second World War in general means the thinking behind National Socialism is too often forgotten, especially by self styled ubermensch who think they know better than the Plebs.

"Eighty-Fourth Day, Monday, 3/18/1946, Part 16", in Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the
International Military Tribunal. Volume IX. Proceedings: 3/8/1946-3/23/1946. Nuremberg: IMT, 1947"

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON said:

You established the Leadership Principle, which you have described as a system under which authority existed only at the top, and is passed downwards and is imposed on the people below; is that correct?

GOERING said:

: In order to avoid any misunderstanding, I should like once more to explain the idea briefly, as I understand it. In German parliamentary procedure in the past responsibility rested with the highest officials, who were responsible for carrying out the anonymous wishes of the majorities, and it was they who exercised the authority. In the Leadership Principle we sought to reverse the direction, that is,.the authority existed at the top and passed downwards, while the responsibility began at the bottom and passed upwards.

So the ECHR is the Leadership Principle in action where the authority exists at the top dictating to the majority what should happen.

And the saddest thing is you say this Leadership Principle is defending human rights?

Orwell would surely recognise Doublethink.

[fluffnik]

MX7 said:

fluffnik said:

I notice that a least one has served on the ECHR...

And?

It rather gives lie to "UK Judges are gr8, ECHR Judges are pants".

[Tallbutbuxomly]

fluffnik said:

MX7 said:

fluffnik said:

I notice that a least one has served on the ECHR...

And?

It rather gives lie to "UK Judges are gr8, ECHR Judges are pants".

You appear to miss the point that UK judges are legally trained and EU judges are not as I understand it.

[Zod]

Tallbutbuxomly said:

fluffnik said:

MX7 said:

fluffnik said:

I notice that a least one has served on the ECHR...

And?

It rather gives lie to "UK Judges are gr8, ECHR Judges are pants".

You appear to miss the point that UK judges are legally trained and EU judges are not as I understand it.

No. UK judges are experienced lawyers. Judges in some other EU states can go straight to the Bench from law school. Our system is infinitely better, but their judges do at least have some formal legal training.

[fluffnik]

rudecherub said:

fluffnik said:

However I regard membership of the ECHR as a valuable safeguard of liberal democracy against mob rule.

Ah the mob rule. Who is the baying mob of which you speak, the frightful bunch who shouted down Nigel Farage in Endiburgh?

The important thing about "democracy" that makes it the least worst form of government so far is its defence of liberty and the rights of the individual.

It matters not one jot how large a majority vote for "Kill the $SCAPEGOATMINORITY", killing them is mob rule.

[rudecherub]

fluffnik said:

rudecherub said:

fluffnik said:

However I regard membership of the ECHR as a valuable safeguard of liberal democracy against mob rule.

Ah the mob rule. Who is the baying mob of which you speak, the frightful bunch who shouted down Nigel Farage in Endiburgh?

The important thing about "democracy" that makes it the least worst form of government so far is its defence of liberty and the rights of the individual.

It matters not one jot how large a majority vote for "Kill the $SCAPEGOATMINORITY", killing them is mob rule.

"Mob Rule" is your magic totemic pejorative you wave around when the Democratic Majority disagree with you.

[odyssey2200]

fluffnik said:

odyssey2200 said:

Maybe a new UKIPCHR would be even better than the ECHR and less open to abuse by undesirables at Tax payer's expense?

By failing to defend the rights of the unpleasant?

Now, did I say that?


Once a legal decision has been made and a proper appeal heard there should not be unlimited delaying opportunities by people who blatantly take the piss.

[fluffnik]

Zod said:

Tallbutbuxomly said:

fluffnik said:

It rather gives lie to "UK Judges are gr8, ECHR Judges are pants".

You appear to miss the point that UK judges are legally trained and EU judges are not as I understand it.

No. UK judges are experienced lawyers. Judges in some other EU states can go straight to the Bench from law school. Our system is infinitely better, but their judges do at least have some formal legal training.

There are various systems each with merits and demerits.

I rate Common Law systems, such as the Scottish and English ones, highly but the Civil Law variants common in much of Europe are not without merit.

[fluffnik]

rudecherub said:

fluffnik said:

It matters not one jot how large a majority vote for "Kill the $SCAPEGOATMINORITY", killing them is mob rule.

"Mob Rule" is your magic totemic pejorative you wave around when the Democratic Majority disagree with you.

No, it's the pejorative I use when majorities trample on the rights of minorities...

[odyssey2200]

fluffnik said:

rudecherub said:

fluffnik said:

It matters not one jot how large a majority vote for "Kill the $SCAPEGOATMINORITY", killing them is mob rule.

"Mob Rule" is your magic totemic pejorative you wave around when the Democratic Majority disagree with you.

No, it's the pejorative I use when majorities trample on the rights of minorities...

When did that last happen?

apart from when Nigel came to Scotland?

Perhaps Scotland should keep the ECHR, you need it.

[10 Pence Short]

fluffnik said:

There are various systems each with merits and demerits.

I rate Common Law systems, such as the Scottish and English ones, highly but the Civil Law variants common in much of Europe are not without merit.

Your post doesn't seem to relate to Zod's.

[Tallbutbuxomly]

Zod said:

Tallbutbuxomly said:

fluffnik said:

MX7 said:

fluffnik said:

I notice that a least one has served on the ECHR...

And?

It rather gives lie to "UK Judges are gr8, ECHR Judges are pants".

You appear to miss the point that UK judges are legally trained and EU judges are not as I understand it.

No. UK judges are experienced lawyers. Judges in some other EU states can go straight to the Bench from law school. Our system is infinitely better, but their judges do at least have some formal legal training.

Well there you go thats me told!! Learnt something new. yay!