was interesting to see how mutti merkel and others responded to May's overvalued idea that the UK holds all the cards and can dictate the terms of negotiation. I know Tory politicians suffer from narcissistic delusions, but this was pushing it. First the EU politicians say they won't play her game. Now the markets do too. guess she made that little speech to prevent it(date article 50 is triggered) from dominating the tory conference (when will Tories stop using country/economy as a play thing to deal with internal disputes?) More to the point, the markets don't give a **** about her little games, and there is much benefit for the EU in not striking a deal that helps the UK(not least winning back a lot of business that offshored to the UK)
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
the brexiter tories are going after Hammonds at the moment for not cheering brexit. It's interesting to note that the Treasury stick to their pre-referendum forecast of higher borrowings. Let's just wait a few more weeks when the OBR release their forecast of tax revenue. Unlike the footsie 100, tax revenue is projected to go down instead of up from now to 2020 despite the inflation due to devaluation of the Pound. When inflation hits home, petrol and gaz go up, personal tax allowance will have to go up, pension will have to go up, borrowing up and spending down. I think whoever the PM at that time (late 2018, early 2019) will have little choice than trying to be nice to foreign investors. Perhaps sufficient numbers of brexiters will realize then this country needs EU immigrants and access to the Single Market more than ever. Taking back control will then be understood for just what it really is, a face saving fig leaf.
Last edited:
But I think the intention is to stop the filing of spurious claims, on an industrial scale, by legal firms staffed by vermin.
The armed forces will still be subjected to the Geneva Convention and U.K. Laws. Nobody is suddenly going to issue soldiers with a rack and sending them out on a Wild West type of shoot up.
OG is simply exaggerating and being silly.
I wish I could, agree, but am afraid I cant. This is anecdotal: but my experience is that war crimes are underreported, generally and in terms of the MOD. I may be wrong. Unfortunately I know of too many reports of phosphorus grenades being tossed into civilian homes in Iraq, and similar incidents. The problem is that war desensitises everyone, boundaries become blurred. We live in world in which direct evidence of MI5 agents collaborating with CIA torture of innocent civilians goes unpunished. I don't think less scrutiny a good thing.
I think the Geneva Convention and UK law concerning murder and torture are sufficient mechanism to punish those who engage in this type of activity. The EU Human Rights Act, as always, has been hijacked and perverted by filthy lawyers driven by nothing more than the stench of money. Most of these spurious claims concern unlawful detention for relatively short periods of time. This is causing unnecessary distress for our brave service men and women.
Additionally, the prospect of a Human Rights lawyer sitting on the shoulder of each and every service person is a distraction they can do without. The job is dangerous enough without having to hesitate to consider if there is some angle a lawyer can make a claim against you.
The ECHU does not provide any further scrutiny, it's intentions were good at the time of inception, but like the EU itself its been abused and transformed into something which is no longer useful. Its time to put it out of its miserable existence.
For goodness sake give up with this stupid attitude.
This is nothing to do with a hatred of all things British just all things fascist.
We as a nation must not fall into a callous attitude with regard to the rest of humanity just to pander to the rather large idiot fringe of the population.
My father fought against the very ideas you more find attractive, why do you hate the idea we should act honourably on the battlefield?
Add vs be responsible for our actions?
You must hate everything the better part of this nation has ever stood for.
Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk
Read a little history of what the British army has done to civilians before making stupid remarks like that tillson , it is you that is being dangerously deluded.
Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk
We have sufficient safeguards in place now with the Geneva Convention and service personnel are subject to UK law whilst on service overseas. The HR act has become a vehicle for cash chasers.
Your comment regarding service personnel embarking on a sudden orgy of torture and murder just because of a change in legislation is deeply offensive. It implies that the armed forces consist of this type of person, restrained only by EU law.
No he isn't. Having watched briefly released videos from Iraq and Afhanistan before they were suppressed, I've witnessed the depths our forces can descend to, including their officers.
I'm speaking of fully and tightly hooded prisoners knelt down and being randomly kicked and punched about head and body. And a teenager driven by soldiers at gunpoint into a river, despite his pleas that he couldn't swim. They watched him being swept away to drown and then walked away laughing.
Someone I know very well served against Malayan terrorists when there were some appalling crimes committed by our troops against civilians. But unusually he won't speak about that period of his army service and doesn't like it to be mentioned that he served there, clearly hiding something he prefers to forget.
And the terrible way our forces acted against both the Mau Mau terrrorists and innocent civilans in Kenya, raping, castrating and beating them is well known and was confirmed by an uncle who farmed there, leading to many millions in compensation since.
And then there's Ireland and our disgusting recent history there.
War and the power it gives always brutalises and desentitises, and every legal safeguard to prevent abuse of that power by forces should be kept in place, strengthened as necessary, and acted upon against offenders as a warning to others.
.
Last edited:
This is all in contravention of The Geneva Convention and our own laws in this country. The removal of EU law does not suddenly unleash a hoard of barbarians upon citizens of other countries.
It is very difficult to pick out exactly what is going off in a war situation without having the full context. It is also very difficult to validate videos and photographs, remember Piers Morgan?
Tillson, Michael Fallon's idea is to derogate from Article 2 of the ECHR, on the right to life, and Article 5 on the right to liberty. What's left if you remove those two?
Stop being ingenious tillson, are you trying to say there are not cases of abuse carried out by service personnel? And do you really think that repealing this act does our international reputation any favours?
You would have to have the mentality of a child of ten to believe that.
They already think we are mad choosing to leave the EU now they will think we are evil as well.
Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
but in future dates, Afghans for example wouldn't be able to sue in UK Courts for crimes committed by UK military and contractors in their country, outside the UK. Fallon would seek to derogate from the UNHR conventions too.
What I believe is that when evidence of wrong doing by service personnel is proven, they are dealt with accordingly. I also believe that with or without the ECHR, levels of abuse would be roughly the same. However the ECHR provides an opportunity for spurious claims to be made purely for financial gain. This is placing people doing a difficult job in additional danger.
What does the ECHR provide in cases of torture and murder that The Geneva Convention and UK law does not already provide?
Alastair Campbell,pointed out that staying in the single market was part of the tory manifesto prior to the referendum...it looks like that promise has also gone the way of all the other broken promises.
This is Camerons referendum pledge.....
We are clear about what we want from Europe. We say: yes to the Single Market. Yes to turbocharging free trade. Yes to working together where we are stronger together than alone. Yes to a family of nation states, all part of a European Union – but whose interests, crucially, are guaranteed whether inside the Euro or out. No to ‘ever closer union.’ No to a constant flow of power to Brussels. No to unnecessary interference.
KudosDave
This is Camerons referendum pledge.....
We are clear about what we want from Europe. We say: yes to the Single Market. Yes to turbocharging free trade. Yes to working together where we are stronger together than alone. Yes to a family of nation states, all part of a European Union – but whose interests, crucially, are guaranteed whether inside the Euro or out. No to ‘ever closer union.’ No to a constant flow of power to Brussels. No to unnecessary interference.
KudosDave
Looks like the first major obstacle to hard Brexit is Northern Ireland...a hard Brexit will require a border between NI and the South,that would be a shame to cause disruption and rake up old wounds after the success of the good Friday agreement.
Remember the homing pigs that had tax advantages every timr they returned across the border,looks like they may be employed again.
I wonder if Cameron had any idea that his simple referendum would have such far reaching damage.
KudosDave
Remember the homing pigs that had tax advantages every timr they returned across the border,looks like they may be employed again.
I wonder if Cameron had any idea that his simple referendum would have such far reaching damage.
KudosDave
A mechanism not provided by anyone else of course, and that's why the government wants to close it down.
They want to make it virtually impossible to bring a case before the courts.
And whitewash wrong doing.
As they have in the past
Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk
Well that is where we disagree. There is a cost to the ECHR and that cost has to be paid in both cash, settling spurious claims (I'll come back to this) and potentially lives of service personnel. The latter is unacceptable given what the ECHR provides over and above the two existing authorities (Geneva Convention and UK Law).
The settling of spurious claims. No doubt the MoD has paid out on spurious claims. They look at the cost of defending each one versus the cost of settling. On a simple accountancy basis, its nearly always cheaper to settle and prohibitively expensive to defend. They could blow the entire MoD budget on lawyers if they went down that route. Scum bags are fully tuned into this and don't they just exploit it to the full?
That is what this is all about, shutting down abuse. Blame the abusers of the system, not the government.
I'm sure that the government support the ECHR in principle. After all, the UK wrote most of it. However, times have changed and people are now willing to abuse the system. Like all things, abuse it and lose it. Simple.