4 ms·

They were in the EU when this allegedly started, so it obviously isn't a magic cure for whatever the authors of the paper pretend it to be. So why is your immed

They were in the EU when this allegedly started, so it obviously isn't a magic cure for whatever the authors of the paper pretend it to be. So why is your immediate reaction to utter the feeling that Brexit is somehow going to make it worse?

hhas01 7y ago
Because Brexit solves nothing. It’s just spoiled ignorant children throwing a temper tantrum because the world doesn’t treat them as Special enough. How do you think they’ll react when they don’t get all the sunshine and roses the populist grifters told them they would? Meanwhile, purely on our future economic front, years of insulting and burning our #1 global trading partner and blowing off the deal we already had is not a good start. It’s a buyers’ market now, and Britain’s on sale.
- JeromeLon 7y ago
  > How do you think they’ll react when they don’t get all the sunshine and roses the populist grifters told them they would? Easy one. They will say that it's because of EU being a bad looser and revengeful to them.
  - UncleSlacky 7y ago
    And that they're being sabotaged by "remoaners" who just don't believe in Britain hard enough.
- coolplants 7y ago
  Brexit solves them not being a sovereign nation. Sovereignty from foreign rule is over what wars are fought, no rational actor would give it away without an existential threat.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    It doesn't though, we're still under obligations in international law and we're still under the ECHR. > Leaving the EU does not affect our rights under the ECHR, as this comes from the Council of Europe, not the EU. https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-human-rights-work/what-does-brexit-mean-equality-and-human-rights-uk https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-human-rights-work...
    - coolplants 7y ago
      International law isn’t enforceable and doesn’t supersede sovereignty like the EU does. Plenty of countries violate international law (most of them) with nearly no repercussions.
      - DanBC 7y ago
        See the comments of Lady Hale at [327-328]: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2017-0131-judgment.pdf https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2017-0131-judgme... > International law and standards > 327. In the High Court and the Court of Appeal NIHRC relied on a number of international treaties and judgments, decisions and general statements of treaty bodies. Horner J dealt with these in a section of his judgment entitled “International Law and Obligations”between paras 59 and 71. Again, I find myself in agreement with the judge in his observations and I do not repeat them. The Court of Appeal did not deal with these arguments. > 328. Although the traditional and orthodox view is that courts do not apply unincorporated international treaties (JH Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v Department of Trade and Industry [1990] 2 AC 418, per Lord Oliver at 499 and R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union[2018] AC 61), as Lord Hughes stated in R (SG) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions(Child Poverty Action Group intervening)[2015] 1 WLR 1449, para 137, such treaties may be relevant in a number of ways. NIHRC relies on the third of these, namely, where the court is applying ECHR via the HRA. As Lord Hughes observed, the ECtHR has accepted that, in appropriate cases, the Convention “should be interpreted ... in the light of generally accepted international law in the same field”. Similar propositions are to be found in Convention jurisprudence, most notably, Demir v Turkey(2008) 48 EHRR 1272, para 69; Neulinger v Switzerland (2010) 54 EHRR31,para 131 EU doesn't supersede sovereignty. Your points haven't addressed ECHR.
  - mantap 7y ago
    That's a bit like saying that Britain wasn't sovereign during the time of the British empire. Britain, France and Germany ruled the EU, the UK designed many aspects of it.
    - coolplants 7y ago
      Britain did not rule the EU, nor did it have sovereignty over the EU. The EU is a separate political entity from the UK, and had sovereignty over the government of the UK.

hhas01 7y ago

Because Brexit solves nothing. It’s just spoiled ignorant children throwing a temper tantrum because the world doesn’t treat them as Special enough. How do you think they’ll react when they don’t get all the sunshine and roses the populist grifters told them they would? Meanwhile, purely on our future economic front, years of insulting and burning our #1 global trading partner and blowing off the deal we already had is not a good start. It’s a buyers’ market now, and Britain’s on sale.

JeromeLon 7y ago
> How do you think they’ll react when they don’t get all the sunshine and roses the populist grifters told them they would? Easy one. They will say that it's because of EU being a bad looser and revengeful to them.
- UncleSlacky 7y ago
  And that they're being sabotaged by "remoaners" who just don't believe in Britain hard enough.
coolplants 7y ago
Brexit solves them not being a sovereign nation. Sovereignty from foreign rule is over what wars are fought, no rational actor would give it away without an existential threat.
- DanBC 7y ago
  It doesn't though, we're still under obligations in international law and we're still under the ECHR. > Leaving the EU does not affect our rights under the ECHR, as this comes from the Council of Europe, not the EU. https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-human-rights-work/what-does-brexit-mean-equality-and-human-rights-uk https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-human-rights-work...
  - coolplants 7y ago
    International law isn’t enforceable and doesn’t supersede sovereignty like the EU does. Plenty of countries violate international law (most of them) with nearly no repercussions.
    - DanBC 7y ago
      See the comments of Lady Hale at [327-328]: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2017-0131-judgment.pdf https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2017-0131-judgme... > International law and standards > 327. In the High Court and the Court of Appeal NIHRC relied on a number of international treaties and judgments, decisions and general statements of treaty bodies. Horner J dealt with these in a section of his judgment entitled “International Law and Obligations”between paras 59 and 71. Again, I find myself in agreement with the judge in his observations and I do not repeat them. The Court of Appeal did not deal with these arguments. > 328. Although the traditional and orthodox view is that courts do not apply unincorporated international treaties (JH Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v Department of Trade and Industry [1990] 2 AC 418, per Lord Oliver at 499 and R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union[2018] AC 61), as Lord Hughes stated in R (SG) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions(Child Poverty Action Group intervening)[2015] 1 WLR 1449, para 137, such treaties may be relevant in a number of ways. NIHRC relies on the third of these, namely, where the court is applying ECHR via the HRA. As Lord Hughes observed, the ECtHR has accepted that, in appropriate cases, the Convention “should be interpreted ... in the light of generally accepted international law in the same field”. Similar propositions are to be found in Convention jurisprudence, most notably, Demir v Turkey(2008) 48 EHRR 1272, para 69; Neulinger v Switzerland (2010) 54 EHRR31,para 131 EU doesn't supersede sovereignty. Your points haven't addressed ECHR.
- mantap 7y ago
  That's a bit like saying that Britain wasn't sovereign during the time of the British empire. Britain, France and Germany ruled the EU, the UK designed many aspects of it.
  - coolplants 7y ago
    Britain did not rule the EU, nor did it have sovereignty over the EU. The EU is a separate political entity from the UK, and had sovereignty over the government of the UK.