EurActiv Logo
EU news & policy debates
- across languages -
Click here for EU news »
EurActiv.com Network

BROWSE ALL SECTIONS

Interior Minister urges Britain to leave human rights convention

Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Published 11 March 2013

Britain should consider leaving the European Convention on Human Rights because it interferes with the government's ability to fight crime and control immigration, Home Secretary Theresa May said on Saturday (9 March).

May's Conservative Party has long criticised the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which enforces the convention, as an encroachment on British sovereignty.

But supporters of the convention say it is an important safeguard of human rights in Britain, which does not have a written constitution enshrining fundamental rights.

In a speech to a pro-Conservative political conference, May said that ahead of the next general election in 2015 her party should commit to tackling the issue.

"By 2015 we'll need a plan for dealing with the European Court of Human Rights. And yes, I want to be clear that all options - including leaving the convention altogether - should be on the table," May said.

This view had been floated in newspapers a week ago but it was the first time May had spoken out in person so explicitly. She has been accused of spearheading a Conservative "lurch to the right" following a humiliating defeat in a parliamentary by-election on March 1, when the party was beaten into third by the anti-Europe UKIP.

The ECHR is not an institution of the European Union, but it has become wrapped into a wider debate about Britain's ties with the EU. Prime Minister David Cameron, the Conservative leader, has pledged that if his party wins the 2015 election, a referendum will be held by 2017 on whether to stay in or leave.

By coincidence, May was speaking on a day when radical Muslim cleric Abu Qatada, whose case is the example most often cited by British critics of the ECHR, was sent back to jail for breaching his bail terms.

The government wants to deport the cleric to Jordan, where he is wanted on terrorism charges, but the ECHR ruled in January last year that he could not lawfully be deported because a trial in Jordan could be tainted by evidence obtained under torture.

'Moving the goalposts'

The ECHR overruled Britain's top court on the issue, causing a furore in Britain. Many critics say decisions like the Qatada judgment protect the human rights of those who show little regard for the human rights of others.

"When Strasbourg constantly moves the goalposts and prevents the deportation of dangerous men like Abu Qatada ... we have to ask ourselves, to what end are we signatories to the convention?" May said in her speech on Saturday.

"Are we really limiting human rights abuses in other countries? I'm sceptical. But are we restricting our ability to act in the national interest? Are we conceding that our own Supreme Court is not supreme? I believe we are."

Scrapping the European Convention on Human Rights would be a controversial step and may not be easy.

The Conservatives had pledged in their campaign manifesto for the 2010 general election that they would replace the Human Rights Act, the legislation that enshrines the European convention in British law, with a new British bill of rights.

The government, a coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, set up a commission of experts in March 2011 to investigate how to create a bill of rights. The commission reported in December 2012 that its members had failed to reach agreement on what should be done.

The British press writes that Theresa May is likely to be the next Tory leader if David Cameron loses the next general election.

EurActiv.com with Reuters

COMMENTS

  • Britain should leave Europe entirely.

    By :
    david tarbuck
    - Posted on :
    11/03/2013
  • I am sure that I am not the only one to think that this would be a retrograde and negative step. Britain was at he origins of the ECHR and to leave it is the wrong signal. In addition, belonging to the ECHR via the Council of Europe, is a sine qua non to being a member of the EU. Leaving the Convention is another step in that direction.

    The way forward is to negotiate a change in the Convention if it interferes with essential security interests. I have no brief for Quatada, but even he has human rights.

    By :
    Richard Lewis
    - Posted on :
    11/03/2013
  • An thinking we still have to put up with this for 4 more years...

    By :
    Luís
    - Posted on :
    11/03/2013
  • I don't give a stuff about "wrong signals" if we leave; Britain has a better grasp of human rights than the ECHR, which seems to think criminals have equal or more rights than the rest of us. Qatada, prisoner votes, spring to mind.

    By :
    Edward99
    - Posted on :
    11/03/2013
  • Abu Qatada is under a worldwide embargo by the United Nations Security Council Committee 1267 for his alleged affiliation with al-Qaeda. In September 1993 he fled with his wife and five children to the UK, using a forged UAE passport. Imprisoned in Britain as a threat to national security since he was first detained under anti-terrorism laws in 2002.
    He has called for the murder of any Algerian who converts from Islam – including their wives and children. He used one of his Finsbury Mosque sermons to propose the killing of all Jews, and followed this up by suggesting that his admirers should not only kill Americans, but British people as well.
    This revolting individual and his family are costing us an absolute fortune. Legal Aid costs are already north of £500,000 and it is suggested that costs are over £3million in legal aid, prison, surveillance costs and benefits.
    He is a danger to Britain and all who reside in these islands and it should be obvious that our Human Rights come before his, so let's have him on a plane to Jordan and worry about the insanity of the ECHR afterwards.

    @ Richard Lewis
    “The way forward is to negotiate a change in the Convention if it interferes with essential security interests. I have no brief for Quatada, but even he has human rights.”

    Very liberal Richard and while many reasonable people might even agree with you, we all know that we will be dead and buried before your very sensible suggestion comes into force.

    @ Edward99
    Absolutely agree. How have we arrived over the past forty years, at such an infuriatingly impossible position. Time for an exit!

    By :
    George Mc
    - Posted on :
    11/03/2013
  • @ Luís
    I assume you are referring to our possible referendum. Like many Brits I hope that we will be able to bring that timescale forward a bit thereby removing your irritation.

    However please don't think that it is only the Brits that are the 'awkward squad'. Have a look at these links:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/11/us-germany-eurosceptics-idUSBRE92A07F20130311

    http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/new-eurosceptic-movement-to-challenge-merkel-29111923.html

    The above links would suggest the Euro and EU have a lot more grief to come without the UK being involved.

    By :
    George Mc
    - Posted on :
    11/03/2013
  • I have nothing against the Human right law. But I have a massive problem with it's abuse. And there are abuse's by the bucket load. The Human rights law was never intended to be used in the way it is today. It should more aptly be called the Criminal and terrorist rights charter. It seems that they are the only ones to benefit from the law.
    The sooner we tell the idiots in Strasbourg where to go the sooner we will be able to protect our own people with our own laws.

    By :
    Philip royle
    - Posted on :
    11/03/2013
  • I have nothing against the Human right law. But I have a massive problem with it's abuse. And there are abuse's by the bucket load. The Human rights law was never intended to be used in the way it is today. It should more aptly be called the Criminal and terrorist rights charter. It seems that they are the only ones to benefit from the law.
    The sooner we tell the idiots in Strasbourg where to go the sooner we will be able to protect our own people with our own laws.

    By :
    Philip royle
    - Posted on :
    11/03/2013
  • Subjects - that is what the Brits are - subjects of Mrs Windsor- sort of one step above slaves. Taking one example, subjects only have a lease (freehold) on land " free - hold" i.e. the "holding" is free of rent - (normally) paid to Mrs Windsor - & in fairness given her increasing spawn (aka parasites) - she probably needs the money.

    Come on subjects - keep paying and be glad what your betters give you - 'uman rights? that's for your betters to have - not for you lot.

    & for the doorknobs: 1970s demonstrations for better safety on building sites - demonstrators jailed - for years - this is what the UK establishment understands by 'uman rights - their right to stick the unwashed (you lot) in jail - when they feel like it - perfectly understandable as is May's modelling herself on mad-cow-Thatcher (this is meant in the literal sense - Thatcher repealed legislation which directly led to mad-cow disease).

    By :
    Mike Parr
    - Posted on :
    11/03/2013
  • Yes Mike very good. But what about the abuse's. As I said I have nothing against it it's good and was no doubt intended for the protection of the public. But some where along the line it's been corrupted and now stands as a towering septa for gross injustices. As I have said a charter for the protection of murders, rapist criminals and terrorist. Not to mention a gravy train for lawyers.

    By :
    Philip royle
    - Posted on :
    11/03/2013
  • Mike - I don't feel one step above slaves more than any other citizen of any country. Please name for me one country where the power of the state does not at one time or another overide the perceived freedom of an individual. It's all a matter of personal beliefs. You seem to feel permanently agrieved by the monarchy, "tory vermin", the city etc. but you are free to say so, which you could not in 50% of nations. We are not in the 70's, any more than we are in the 30's, when human rights in Europe really were under threat.

    By :
    Edward99
    - Posted on :
    12/03/2013
  • The British wrote the ECHR. I agree that times were different in 1951 but it is still the law. Agreed that it would not be easy to change the Convention but then many legal changes (capital punishment, discrimination against homosexuals...) are difficult. I don't buy the argument that it costs a great deal of money to keep Quatada in prison - it costs the same to keep murderers and paedophiles in prison as well.

    The frustration with this case is well understood. Quatada is an odious character. But you don't ignore legal norms because they are inconvenient. By the way, I thought that the British government had come to some understanding with the Jordanians over Quatada? Where did that one go?

    By :
    Richard Lewis
    - Posted on :
    12/03/2013
  • Hi Richard
    Thank you for reading and replying to my post. I agree that the EHR was largely written by British lawyers in the wake of WWII. But things change. The protection it offered then was not intended for the uses it is now put to. Just because some thing is the law does not mean it cannot be changed. Government change and repeal laws all the time. So why is the EHR law so special? It's just a law. For me and I would suggest for many other British people it's past it's time. It's abused in a way it was never intended to.
    The man you refer to is a classic case. It's not about money or keeping him in prison or anything like that. It's the insult to the British people. This man would dance and rejoice ion the blood of innocent British lives. He preaches this, he want's this. And yet we or I should say the judges and the interference of foreign judges sat in Strasbourg protect him from prosecution in Jordan. Who have given assurances that he will receive a 'torture free' trial. It's only their 'opinion' that is keeping this man in the UK protecting him from lawful prosecution. And opinion is not the law.

    But this man is one of many, many abuses. We now have lawyers and judges who 'specialise' in the EHR laws for Gods sake. Maybe these few people who make a living out of it are the only ones protecting it? As I have said I have no problem with the EHR so long as it's a fair and even handed and not abused. But unfortunately it is abused, thats the problem.

    By :
    Philip royle
    - Posted on :
    12/03/2013
  • It seems, whether for justice or work law, fighting against human right protection is a usual pattern of british politics. Which other (democratic) european country has such a strong attachment to the ruling of some over all the others?
    The very symbol of this country is an old woman covered with jewlry spending her lifetime trying to demonstrate she is by nature so much more worth than anyone else (accent, clothing, house...). With such an ambassador for british culture, there is nothing surprising in ending up with this country favoring abuses of human rights, as financial criminality, illegal foreign wars or poisoned-food buisness (not to mention in the past puritanism, colonialism or apartheid...).

    By :
    uk-skeptic
    - Posted on :
    13/03/2013
  • Dear 'UK Skeptc' Not sure what your getting at here? The problem in the UK at the moment is the uncontrolled adherence by British courts to the Human rights Law. I think what the British public want is a fairer system where the Human rights of the British public are at least given some thought before the terrorist, murders, rapist and other assorted criminals are let lose to walk freely on the streets on the UK to carry on their crime.
    Is that so hard to understand? It's not the law it's the abuses that's the problem. And I think we all know by now you don't like the Queen lol.

    By :
    Philip royle
    - Posted on :
    13/03/2013
  • UK sceptic - in all of Europe every president of France has more power over citizens than any king, queen, prime minister or president in the rest of Europe, to the extent that many believe it is excessive in a modern democracy. As to the old woman you refer to, she has no power to overide parliament and her position is wholly symbolic. Had the British people not wanted a monarchy it would be long gone, as in 1649. The restoration of 1660 is still with us, but you would probably claim to know otherwise.

    By :
    Charles_M
    - Posted on :
    13/03/2013
  • @ Richard Lewis

    All of the laws that you mention that were passed by the Westminster Parliament. Which brings us back to the point that our Parliament should be sovereign in order that we make laws to suit our own needs and requirements.

    You say that you don't believe that it cost any more money to keep Quatada in prison than any other murderer or Paedophile. You may well be right Richard but please do your research and I think you will find that he spend a huge amount of time out of Prison and under surveillance. In fact he has only just gone back to jail for breaking his bail conditions. As I posted earlier he has cost us north of £3 million which is a tad more than your average Paedophile. You may think that is insignificant but I think you will find that the majority of us disagree

    Yes we did have an agreement with Jordan but I seem to remember that the court closed that one down which is why we are back in court again. This one could run for years yet!

    This problem with the Court of Human Rights has recently got worse as they now seem to be looking at things which were previously thought to be outside their remit.

    By :
    George Mc
    - Posted on :
    14/03/2013
  • Charles_M: Unlike anywhere else in Europe, the president of France is elected by tens of millions of ballot papers with his own name on it (french presidential elections aren't party elections) representing more than 50% of the voters (2 rounds, no first-past-the-post) every 5 years. The Queen of England's legitimacy as a head of state for over 60 years has only been based on her family tree.

    Thanks for letting me know that politically the british monarch no longer enjoys constitutional powers in Britain, as in the past (I suspected the Queen would have difficulty today fighting as a crusader like her forebears), but what I was precisely talking about is that still having today such a symbol as head of State is telling of the values british people generally feel attached to as far as human rights, justice and fairness are concerned (actually even more so if the Queen only has a fake job in fact and spends most of her time merely posing for magazines on her throne and with her crown...).

    I'm sure if the french president was living in Versailles, possessing most of Paris, parading around with jewlry and Rolls Royces, claiming his ancesters made him deserve for life his place in the aristocracy or as a head of the Church, France would tend to make other political choices, were he to actually enjoy no constitutional powers at all.

    Philip: I'm affraid English Colonialism or workhouses / poorhouses, French Terror or Algerian war, German concentration camps, American slavery or indian extermination, Spanich Iquisition, Israeli settlment policy, South-African Apartheid-regime, Staline's purges or ethnic cleaning (as generally, torture, massacres or even genocides) have always been defended as legimimate with the same agrument of « security » reasons you've been using and exactly the same rethoric as all along your previous post actually. You'd probably read the same prose in favour of death penalty in America or of Guantanamo / Abu-Graib prisons, as from Milosevic lawers's pleads in The Hague or pro-Poutine parties in Chechnia / pro-Bejing parties in Tibet.

    I mean really you have no other arguments than the few serial killers / rapists, mass terrorists or spies to propose Britain should abandon human right protection laws? What's so exiting for you in such a guideline? Of course for the few capital cases of stategic importance for national security the secret services anyway do whatever is necessary, that's not at all what the Chart for Human Rights is about.

    By :
    uk-skeptic
    - Posted on :
    15/03/2013
  • Dear uk-skeptic. Before going any further with this, could I please ask which EU country you come from? I am English as I have previously stated. Knowing where you come from would help me formulate a reply to your post.

    By :
    Philip royle
    - Posted on :
    15/03/2013
  • UK sceptic - elected or not, Hollande has too much power and currently has a 30% approval rating (and falling), as low as it gets. He also lives in the Elysee Palace, which looks quite comfortable to me, although perhaps not enough room for his dimunitive status, oops, I meant stature. Democracy and human rights have been around a good bit longer here (UK) than in most of Europe, including I expect your country of origin. We don't need the ECHR to tellus how to behave.

    By :
    Charles_M
    - Posted on :
    15/03/2013
  • dear philip royle, my grand parents come from Alsace, the french alps, austria and transylvania, I grew up in Paris, studied in Spain, I'm married to an (irish) londoner but I live and work in Berlin for several years. I learned to speak hungarian, french, german, english and spanish pretty naturally in my life and could easily get 6 or 7 different european nationalities if I wanted but I won't give you mine for the moment (if you don't mind) as I'm not yet sure you aren't a kind of ethnic cleaner of some sort (as you seem to be defending today human rights laws should be abolished just because it could be helpful in case of urgency). I'm sure you haven't been around in Kenya during the mau-mau massacres but what sort of person could defend in Europe such a withdawal? Have the pentagon's Hawks and their war on terror against the axe of Evil infiltrated that much into british politics?

    Let's say I'm from Luxembourg if you like, but I really wonder why you'd need my nationality to answer on such a simple and universal subject as human rights.

    By :
    uk-skeptic
    - Posted on :
    15/03/2013
  • Charles_M: I think you underestimate a little bit the practices of your country concerning human rights, whether in Abu-grahib today, in foreign policy with South Africa before, in colonial systems and massacres only 50 years ago, or slavery in the Carabeans and Dikensian Manchester in the 19th century, not to mention universal suffrage only appeared in Britain in the 1920's (one had to pay before). The Dutch, the Swiss, the Belgians, the French, every scandinavians as most of west Germany and even the Austrians can claim as much of a rich heritage from the Enlightment and liberal traditions in their history of law as Britain. Since this movment of idea about human rights immerged as a european trend in politics sine the 18th century, some european countries may have had different receptions of it than others (depending on time periods and contexts) but it's in no way a british monopoly. And what about the Italians and the greeks? Should they also not bother about human rights since their experience of democracy is so ancient?

    I don't think you realise my comparason with Versailles refered to the material privileges the Queen happens to generally enjoy even compared to the richest of all french presidents (or other less powerful head of states in Europe) as well as the general idea she must have of herself as the Queen of England and head of Church. French presidents went to school, past exams made a whole carrier as party leaders, won and lost tens of different elections for their salary all decades before becoming presidents and it doesn't even reach a infinite fraction of the Queen of England retribution, materially or socially! But she just got born for it, who cares wheher she only was buisy drinking tea before being crowned.

    Democratically speaking, my country of origin is certainly not fighting illegal wars, letting the cia dictate its law in treatments of national citizens, nobody in the poliical scene happens to srangely sucide everytime they disagree with the pentagone. My country of origin doesn't host the worse financial mafia of the planet in its capital city as a tax heaven, doesn't have a tory party nor an aristocracy, half of the world's CCTVs, the worse newspapers, and 1st past the post (letting less than 30% of the voters govern the country). But my country isn't the only one, a lot of other european countries also don't have anything comparable in their general political culture, thank god!

    By :
    uk-skeptic
    - Posted on :
    15/03/2013
  • Dear UK-skeptic, Thank you for such a full and detailed answer. I only expected a nationality lol.
    Your obvious dislike of the British Royal family has me a tad confused. If you were British I would understand it but as your not is leaves me bemused. Whilst not being a Royalist myself given the choice between a politically appointed politician, with power, and their partners, wives, husbands significant others etc. Or a figure head with no power such as the Queen I would take the Queen every time. I mean could you imagine President Blair and his bloody wife. May be you have to be British to understand how obscene that would be.
    I think you have to understand that the majority of the British public love her and thats that. After all their no on their own in Europe. There are quite a few Royal's knocking about.
    As for the HR law I really don't think you understand. At the risk of repeating my self, it's not the law thats the problem, it's the abuse of it thats the problem.
    I don't think there is a country in Europe, possibly the world that up holds Human Rights like the Uk does. We protect people who plot against us. People that would happily plant a bomb on a crowed bus and blow men, women and children to bits and rejoice in the blood that they spill.
    Yes we give them homes, money to live, money to pay for their legal fees and as always the judges find in their favour. All in the UK. Are we supposed to take comfort in that? Proud that we protect the very people that would plot to kill us?

    Thats what is happening now and thats why the UK is growing tired of being the criminal dust bin of the world. Is that so hard to understand? No one is saying rip the Human rights up and replace it with a lynch mob! But there has to be some fairness. I would ask you where are the human rights of murder victims or rape victims or terrorist bomb victims who have suffered at the hands of people who the Human right law protected? And prevented them from being removed from the UK to face justice in their own countries. Or just being removed without penalty just for the safety of the British public.
    What about people that may have been killed by people and the offenders run to the UK and get sanctuary and will never face justice? No human right has to be for every one criminal and innocent alike.

    I would say look at the human rights record of Italy, Spain, France Bulgaria, Romania Hungry. After doing that you might cut the British public some slack.

    By :
    Philip royle
    - Posted on :
    15/03/2013
  • Dear Philip Royle, I wonder what kind of person would need my nationality to answer on such a simple and universal subject as human rights. Who asks the nationality of people before answering them (while defending at the same time the idea that human rights should be abolished, just because it could be helpful in case of urgency)? Actually given my 4 grand-parents nationalities (if you are that much into genetics), the country where I grew up, my spouse's nationality, my country of residence for several years, I could easily get French, German, Austrian, Hungarian, English, Swiss and even Irish and Romanian nationalities if I wanted. I won't tell you now which one I have because I'm not sure what kind of use you'd make of such information (especially given your endeavour for legalising torture, ethnic cleansing and the rest, just because it could be useful in certain cases). Were you around in Kenya during the Maw-Maw massacres, to be an englishman defending today such theses? Or have the Pentagon' Hawks simply infiltrated so much into british politics that anything is now justified in the name of war against terror and the axis of Evil?

    By :
    uk-skeptic
    - Posted on :
    16/03/2013
  • Sorry to repeat myself but I thought my previous post disappeared because of some key words like ethnic cleaning or someting.

    If you prefer a "figure head with no power" you can do just as all the european countries but France, without necessarily having a monarch, with god's appointment, and especially all the fuss about THEIR marriages, divorces, adultery, birth, death (under bridges), nude photos in the press and gossips about their dress... Isn't it "obsene" to see Prince Harry (potentially one of your next head of State) saying in the world's medias he had fun in Afganistan because bombarding villages from his plane was like playing the playstation?

    I couldn't bother less what people in Britain choose to be represented by, but I only said if they still have such values as the monarchy as the symbol of their country and head of State (with or without power), there is nothing surprising in them end up being the only ones advocating the abolition of human rights.

    Monarchies in Europe (Benelux, Scandivavia and Spain) have less influence in their counrty than in Britain especially from a cutural point of view. Maybe that's why no one there is talking like you about rebuilding torture instruments for killers, in case they cheated on well fair or something. If you want to reintroduce torture because of the london underground attacks (or the few IRA bombings) you equaly would have been in favour of torture remaining when it was abolished (and there already were all sorts of riots or nasty crimes like Jack the Ripper's).

    When you say Britain has become the dust bin of world criminality you seem to ignore British people themselves can be rue criminals like anyone. And I guess with such reasonning one isn't so far from legitimising ethnic cleansing for... security reasons. Are you also in favour of the concentration camps (the nazis took the british 1920's ones in South Africa as a model for theirs) just, of course, for the few criminal cases potentially helpful for british security? Maybe it should also be considered to reinverse the charge in court and ask accused people to prove their innocence instead of the contrary (since Habeas Corpus). Should Magna Carta also be abolished for whatever "plot" case, one may think it's important enough to do so?

    By :
    uk-skeptic
    - Posted on :
    16/03/2013
  • Dear Uk sceptic - now you are ranting, and can't tell the difference between truth, urban myths, apocryphal stories and lies. You are beginning to sound prejudiced yourself, I suggest you calm down.

    By :
    Charles_M
    - Posted on :
    16/03/2013
  • Charles_M: I thought answering to the unapologetic certainty with which you said you had so much of an advance in Britain compared to anyone else apparently (in terms of civilisation and human treatments), by "I think you are underestimating a little bit the recent practices of your country", was quite polite for such assesments.

    Philip: I guess the balkanic states also have records in advanced political philosophy and humanism in their culture (through milleniums of belonging to the greek-roman-byzantine and/or ottoman history when most of the north of the Alp was in the darkness of barbarian ages). For the rest of the countries you've quoted (france, spain and Italy) I've already listed a couple of periods in history one could accuse them concerning human rights, but I could go on (Spanish Inquisition or conquistadores, franco, mussolini, Petain, french persecutions of protestants, absolutism, Revolutionary Terror, napoleonic wars, colonial imperialism, slave trade, algerian war...) as I also could with North-American racial history or Indian reserves, German militarist prussia, austrian nazism, hungarian antisemitism or anti-gypsy movements, swedish sterilisation of "unswedish" people, belgian diamond industry in Congo...) and equaly for Britain (as I already did but could add Cromwell, the absolutist Tudors as well as elisabethan puritains if necessary).

    But they also had their period of liberal glory I'm not saying: Locke and the glorious Revolution/parlementarism in Britain (when they cut their King's head) or Fabians, beveridge's plan...), as did the other europeans with the french revolutions, the Prussian invention of social security, Dutch or swiss democracy, austrian arts and all what the Venician, genese, florentin or lombard republics did for humanism in the Renaissance magnanimity of princes, trade and emancipation of individuals).

    So far the competition could go on and on but no one can claim to be immaculate.

    By :
    uk-skeptic
    - Posted on :
    16/03/2013
  • Charles you should ask the Irish what they think of the british inherent knowledge of human rights, even today in Belfast.

    By :
    uk-skeptic
    - Posted on :
    16/03/2013
  • Dear UK-skeptic I have tried to reason and answer all your points, I admit there must be a few I have missed. I apologise for that. I have raised a number of points and you have failed to engage with me by answering most of them. You obviously have an agenda of hate or just pure dislike towards the British, or should I say the English.
    I could quite easily follow your lead and rant about the Human rights record of other EU member countries. But I think I would be wasting my time. Since you have nothing more to add to this item except reciting what you have read in a couple of old history books to fuel your pre conceived hate towards my country. Not wishing to lower myself to your level, will bid you good evening and good bye, which is a shame because I thought you may have had something intelligent to contribute., but a troll rarely does.

    By :
    Philip royle
    - Posted on :
    16/03/2013
  • Wow the UK really must be in a very bad way if they are telling us they need to get rid of the law because it's not being respected.

    Tabloid readers posting on here want to:

    1. Panic
    2. Get rid of human rights
    3. Get rid of social protection
    4. Throw out the foreigners

    There are 65 million people in the UK. The system works correctly most of the time, but that's too boring. Journalists are always going to dig up a handfull of shocking cases of abuse of the law or abuse of social security in order to sell papers.

    But what would make ordinary people who fought for generations for social and legal protections from which they have benefitted wish to give them up, cutting off their noses to spite their faces?

    I can't see any merit in going back to no human rights and no social protection, just to avoid a tiny handfull of exceptional cases of abuse. What's the attraction in that?

    By :
    Andrew F
    - Posted on :
    16/03/2013
  • Philip royle
    "it's not the law thats the problem, it's the abuse of it thats the problem."

    This is absolutly against any principle of rule of law what so ever.

    "I don't think there is a country in Europe, possibly the world that up holds Human Rights like the Uk does"

    I already tried to explain that the UK is not particularly exceptional among western countries. If that's hatred of your country I haven't much to add.

    Good night

    By :
    uk-skeptic
    - Posted on :
    16/03/2013
  • Andrew F Would you be so good as to show me where you have read that the UK would have no Human rights legislation. As far as I have read and understand, the UK wishes to write it's own Human rights laws, having due regards to the Human rights of the indigenous British population. If that offends you then I respectfully suggest you don't travel to the UK. But I suspect that your post is nothing more than an anti British sentiment that prevails in the EU.

    By :
    Philip royle
    - Posted on :
    16/03/2013
  • @ Andrew F

    I am not quite sure of your though process here Andrew.

    I see plenty of posts from people who see things from a different perspective – panic, no.

    I don't see anyone wanting to get rid of the ECHR just for the sake of it. What I do see is people unhappy with the way if is working. If you talk with many other countries in the EU you will find that others are unhappy with the Court. It would be easy enough to adapt the ECHR rights to suit our own requirements, as defined by our own elected parliament.

    Throwing out foreigners is a very emotive statement beloved by sandal wearing Liberals. That however is not what is being suggested. All we are saying is that people who are in the country illegally or who have overstayed their visa should be removed. We are also suggesting that if you are not a British subject and you commit an offence which is serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence then you should be removed from the country at the end of your sentence. Non of this old tosh about entitlement to a family life. Not difficult really.

    You say “I can't see any merit in going back to no human rights and no social protection, just to avoid a tiny handful of exceptional cases of abuse. What's the attraction in that? “

    Andrew, it is a primary duty of the state to protect its citizens and I know that the odd abuse might be seen as unfortunate. I would however like know what you would say if it was you or some of your family that were on the receiving end of said abuse?

    By :
    George Mc
    - Posted on :
    16/03/2013
  • @Philip Royle: I'd have difficulty as an Englishman being anti-British, but I have my own critical approach to any subject. Plenty of people criticise their own countries, this has nothing to do with hatred.

    There is no such thing as human rights of one's own I’m afraid. Human rights are universal (implying quite simply, freedom of speech/press and religion, freedom of association, rights to vote, not to be arbitrarily kept in detention or tortured...). That is quite easy to grasp and none of these rights should ever suffer any variation or nuance whatever cultural difference might exist from one country to another (that's probably why the American, French and other revolutions have issued exactly the same rights in their declarations).

    So all you want is Britain to withdraw from all international law and the organisations every democracy in the world takes part in (on such a subject as human rights) to then re-implement exactly the same laws just on a national level. What kind of message is this meant to deliver? Does Britain really need such publicity today, for basically no changes in the end? The law ultimately will be applied in the same way, only everyone will know that the UK abolished international legislation for such essential and symbolic laws as human rights and basic liberties? What nonsense!

    @George Mc: So far I haven’t heard anyone significantly complaining that the ECHR was that much of a "problem" in their daily life…. Except maybe those who want to exploit or benefit from people’s suffering, or fantasise about doing so.

    If the UK had to withdraw from every convention, treaty or organisation constraining the British production of law in Parliament, it would probably have to leave NATO, the IMF, the UN, the WTO and many other international bodies that every democracy in the world, with little fuss, seems to be a member of.

    Hopefully in a decent democracy, it isn't the victims (or their grieving families) who establish the rules of punishment for the aggressor, otherwise we would probably have returned to the dark ages and reintroduced Quartering and the Rack by now. I don't see how the state would better manage its duty of protecting citizens through sentencing people to torture (again).

    By :
    Andrew F
    - Posted on :
    17/03/2013
  • Andrew F. A man plants a bomb in an Afghan market It kills forty people mostly women and children. He is identified but flees the country. After a year he is found living in the Uk as an illegal immigrant under an assumed name. He has taken a British partner with whom he has split but has a three month old child.
    The relatives of the murdered people in Afghanistan eagerly await his return to face justice and a fair trial under the laws of his country and his peers.
    But he isn't sent to face justice. We, no you, and the ECHR protects him from facing justice. Why? because he has a right to a family life.....in the UK. So this murder grown old and is kept safe and well protected from justice in the UK because of your Human Rights Law. Two questions, quite simple really. What about he Human rights of the people who were murdered and the right of the survivors to expect Justice. And what part of this whole story am I supposed to be proud about?

    By :
    Philip royle
    - Posted on :
    17/03/2013
  • @ Andrew F

    “(that's probably why the American, French and other revolutions have issued exactly the same rights in their declarations). “

    Not sure what all that is about.
    Facts: The French regardless of their revolution are signed up to the same treaty as we are and the other 46 European countries
    The USA has their own constitution and are not members of the European Convention of Human rights (the clue is in the name). One of the obvious differences between them and Europe is they still use the death penalty. They have also only ratified parts of the Geneva Convention on the basis that they will not be bound by people that they did not elect. (A lesson for the UK there).

    “If the UK had to withdraw from every convention, treaty or organisation constraining the British production of law in Parliament, it would probably have to leave NATO, the IMF, the UN, the WTO and many other international bodies that every democracy in the world, with little fuss, seems to be a member of. “

    Andrew that is just Waffle and abject nonsense and has no bearing on what we are talking about.

    “Hopefully in a decent democracy, it isn't the victims (or their grieving families) who establish the rules of punishment for the aggressor, otherwise we would probably have returned to the dark ages and reintroduced Quartering and the Rack by now. I don't see how the state would better manage its duty of protecting citizens through sentencing people to torture (again).

    More Waffle, who said anything about reintroduced Quartering and the Rack. This is all in your own fertile imagination

    If we stay with the article we are not talking about Hanging or Torturing people. As a state who helped set up the European Convention on Human Rights I am sure we are more than happy to support it. I would suggest it is more a case of interpretation than anything else.
    All that is being suggested is that it would be right and proper for us remove Abu Quadraticfrom our country and if we have to return the ECHR to our parliament for it to be further clarified then so be it. I am certain that we would be no less thought of internationally as indeed is the USA in the example above.

    “There is no such thing as human rights of one's own I’m afraid. “
    Really!
    Human rights are legal obligations owed by states and public authorities to everyone. That includes you and me.

    The problem that I have with the ECHR is it is a ‘living instrument’. This means that it can develop over time to keep pace with social change. That also means it is open to interpretation which can cause all sorts of bother when decisions are made by a panel of judges taken from the 47 countries where some of them have only just come out of the medieval age.

    By :
    George Mc
    - Posted on :
    17/03/2013
  • George Mc. Well said!

    By :
    Philip royle
    - Posted on :
    17/03/2013
  • T'IS ONLY WHEN YOU SEE SOMEONE AT 3AM CALLING ON YOUR DOOR AND TAKE YOU AWAY THAT YOU APPRECIATE WHY WE NEED LEGAL SAFEGUARDS AGAINST THE ARBITRARY EXERCISE OF POWER. Was it not Bonhofer who made the comment relating to no one left to stop them taking you off? Did you not see thew play "A man for all seasons" where Norfolk utters the memorable phrase "these matters do not happen in England" . He had not understood what Henry was really up to. No written constitution? Think again and stop being ridiculously naive!

    By :
    Roberto
    - Posted on :
    26/03/2013
  • I'll tell you why the the government want us to leave the EU, so they can can our human rights away from us. There is a underlying issue here, they want more EU people to come to the UK. The want to annoy people by allowing more people to come in. The want people to complain and say people from other countries come over here and take our jobs. People would want to vote leave the EU. This is what the government wants, if you do vote to leave the EU say goodbye to the human rights. How I see it the EU are the only people protecting the little rights we have left.

    ALL I AM SAYING PEOPLE ITS A TRICK, THEY WANT TO ANNOY YOU AND FOR YOU TO COMPLAIN AND FOR YOU TO LEAVE THE EU. IT WILL BE THE BIGGEST MISTAKE EVER LEAVING THE EU, WE WOULD BE LIKE THE USA GETTING BANGED UP FOR LIFE FOR MINOR OFFICE. A YOUNG MAN GOT THREATENED 35-LIFE FOR SHARING PUBLISHED PAPERS AND THEN HUNG HIMSELF. ANOTHER PERSON RELEASED AN ADDRESS AND GOT BANGED UP FOR LIFE, 2 YOUNG LADS OVER HERE GOT 3 YEARS FOR DOING A DDOS ON A PAYPAL. DO YOU WANT TO LIVE IN A PLACE THATS LIKE THE USA, I KNOW A DONT.

    By :
    Daniel
    - Posted on :
    27/03/2013
  • Daniel, with respect I think you are doing the British people an injustice. Do you really think that we would stand by and watch out Parliament become a dictatorship. No my friend the only dictatorship in Europe is the EU. And we want out. And please don't insult us be comparing us with the USA. The USA may speak English but there the similarity ends.

    By :
    philip royle
    - Posted on :
    27/03/2013
  • "please don't insult us be comparing us with the USA. The USA may speak English but there the similarity ends":

    What about Fox News owing the british media as sky tv, the sun, the times...
    What about the Trident program making british chiefs of staff dependent on the pentagone for such a key issue of strategy and sovereignty as deterent dissuasion?
    Why is the UK voting every resolution in the UN as the US and fighting as well all the americans wars even when their help wasn't enough?
    Why are the british arm dealers controled by american technology and interests?
    Why is the city of London looking like the headquaters of Wall Street in Europe and a playground for american pension founds and ideologues, in the heart of a european capital city (actualy in its most desindustrialised and financialised country)?
    How come the Brits are for 40 years covered with private debt and diving in credit crunch as America, unlike any european country does as much?
    How come has this country been since the 80's the one in Europe having the most made its public services or infrastructure look like the american standards in the matter (as one could add obesity, junk food or CCTVs)?

    Are these measurable facts also insults for the UK?

    By :
    uk-skeptic
    - Posted on :
    15/04/2013
  • I agre with uk sceptic.

    Patriotism is the last refuge of the rogue. My cuntry right or wrong etc. all ggod slogans for inept dictators and they and their fellow travelling idealogues would all share the view that we should pull out of any safeguards to prevent citizens being braoinwashed.

    Outside of basic safeguards who would guarantee our freedom to exist as sentient rational and political beings? Was Mrs Thatcher not right to shun all demagogues?

    Any one in opposition or even holding contrary views would not be safe from such institutionalized enforced compliance to a national muzzle.

    Better in the Convention with its defects than out with its absolute North Korea type arbitrariness.

    By :
    Roberto
    - Posted on :
    15/04/2013
  • uk sceptic - better to have the bad stuff from the USA than the bad from the EU, or even the not so bad. Who wants to be like the French, the Spanish, etc. no thanks.

    By :
    Eddie_99
    - Posted on :
    15/04/2013
  • Eddie-99: To answer your question just have a look at easyjet - ryanair connexions as well as where most of english people abroard own a house or live. As my post mentions it, I was just refering to the "only" language similarity supposed by Philip Royle between the UK and the US.

    Most of european countries are all overwehlming in every Top 20 lists of best quality of life in the world, safe environment, highest life expectency, educated healthy and socialy balanced population, turn-out in polls, strong industries and exports, saving mentality, depoluted cities, healthy food and they attract more capital, investments or exporters than anywhere in the world.

    For all that the UK standards have gone a lot more down towards the american standards the last 40 years, wether for violence, inequalites, credit crunch, desindustialisation, quality of the media, infrastructure, health, culture, obesity and so on. You can always claim it's best.

    What you don't understand is that the western european coutries haven't waited the EU to stand as a (or a variation of) genuinly-european political model(s) of development (they don't have to choose between the "EU" and the usa, as you apparently fail to conceive).

    The British still 30 years ago may have still managed to preserve a sort of european (let appart the EU) genuine system but someone who died recently decided to sell it to Washington and every body followed her down this road (or were forced to). If you think that was the good choice, well rejoice because you are now collecting the results of such society changes and the british start now looking pretty much like one would have tought, a country making these choices would look like...

    Wait not so long you'll also have the televangelist partys (for which you already go to war), half your population in poverty (believing one day their dream to become a billionaire will come true), weapons to sell at the supermarket, elected judges and sheriffs, and you'll have to sell your organs to pay back the dentist, if not your plastic surgery... But you will have made that choice "nobody" forced you to.

    By :
    uk-skeptic
    - Posted on :
    15/04/2013
  • Euro Sceptic. You obviously don't live in the EU. Well not the parts of the EU I live in and frequently visit.

    By :
    Philip royle
    - Posted on :
    15/04/2013
  • Back into genetic quests Mr Royle? Shall we also all declare our GPS localisation before expressing ourselves? Why aren't you answering facts instead of wollowing in spectulation at every second debate, on wherever I might or not "obviously" come from? no better?

    By :
    uk-skeptic
    - Posted on :
    15/04/2013
  • I have gone past caring where you, Otto and the other one come from. It's quite apparent that you are not from any country in Europe. There is only one thing I would be interested in knowing. Why you dislike the UK and British people. What is it to you if they stay in the EU or leave. Will it affect you? Judging by your post it's obvious that the EU does not need us so why do all the complaining and attacking?
    I think it's just a case of nothing else to do and flaming.

    By :
    Philip royle
    - Posted on :
    15/04/2013
  • No man is an island; nationalists are very bad news to all of us. Their rhetoric inflames spirits and it can all end in tears. Why follow the likes of Benito, Adolf or Moseley whose credo in country had to be emulated by others and persists in being divisive or worse. Nationalism was responsible for the collapse of Austria-Hungary and wenton in our lifetime to shatter the Balkans in fratricidal mayhem. If you think the UK is immune from terrorism and criminals just stay an island in your mind. We enjoy our rights in the wider Europe and leyss be thankful for that. Islands are good for holidays or for peaceful retreat, until others come with diffewrent ideas.

    By :
    Roberto
    - Posted on :
    15/04/2013
  • And what is it to you Roberto if the UK sinks or swims? Why do you come on an English EU forum and complain about the UK. If we leave will it affect you?

    By :
    Philip royle
    - Posted on :
    15/04/2013
  • What would be interesting to note, Mr Royle, is that it is the UK which has apparently a problem with the EU not the other way round. This country which nobody has begged to join (rather the contrary) has since its membership kept on being the one “complaining and attacking” (as you say) its own club, fussing around at every meeting with only rebates and opt-outs to propose, speculating every now and again in all the press about the imminent crash euro, blocking every institutional improvements calling them dictatorial and lobbying for American interests in Brussels.

    Even though they may have had legitimately some similar thoughts, the continental politicians and press haven’t yet appeared as aggressive and vile towards the UK, as the British usual ranting against their neighbours (and main trade partners, by the way). As you say, we probably despise you too much for that and we hardy pay attention to your miserable faces, which are anyway negligible concerns for our business (unlike for yours).

    But you shouldn’t be so surprised that with such behaviour more and more of your neighbours equally show you their gratitude for your obvious good intentions and start speaking to you the same language, as it seems the only one you are capable of understanding.

    Were the UK to be inside, outside, on the fringes of the EU or else, the Europeans would always have good reasons to criticise the UK working against them, unless they change drastically their historic tradition of European policy.

    By :
    uk-skeptic
    - Posted on :
    15/04/2013
  • Not even going to bother reading your bile. Again why is the UK such an issue to you? whether we stay or go what's it to you?

    By :
    Philip royle
    - Posted on :
    15/04/2013
  • Yes eurosceptic is right we ought to have nothing much to do with these foreign whingers. Mrs Thatcher was well able to stand up to them and we know that foreigners lurk under our beds to disturb our well settled way of life. But let's be magnanimous and allow them to express their opinions occasionally even when they do not match our own correct views. I suppose again prejudice is nobody's monopoly being based on ignorance, misunderstanding and hearsay - it will always thrivein nationalist circles. What if we all decide to leave these shortes and return to land our ancestors? I have already enquired about a single ticket to Saxen Anhalt...But I expect others to leave first. Please will the last person to leave switch off the lights..

    By :
    Roberto
    - Posted on :
    15/04/2013
  • UK skeptic, if you stay up to date with facts - maybe you don't - you will see that Ms Merkel has had Cameron and family round at her place. On her agenda is trying to keep the UK in the EU, as she knows full well how disastrous it would be for the UK to leave and take at least 15% of the EU GDP with it. Nor would she want to be stranded with partners such as Hollande's basket case socialism in France, Spain teetering on bankruptcy, Italy with its millionth government, plus all the bailed out and still hopeless countries - Greece, Portugal, etc etc.
    I for one would be happy for the UK to wave goodbye to the EU, but your most powerful and influential leader would not.

    By :
    Eddie_99
    - Posted on :
    15/04/2013
  • Roberto, what on earth are you talking about? Why are you bothered who turns the light out why don't you just concern your self with your own country out, that would be Europa. Where your safe and protected from the nasty UK and it's whinging population.

    By :
    Philip royle
    - Posted on :
    15/04/2013
  • Quite right Eddie. I think the EU is more frightened about the UK's departure from the EU that the UK's population is of saying good bye to the EU. Lets face it there are few enough countries that put more money in to the EU than there are of the ones that do nothing except take it out!

    By :
    Philip royle
    - Posted on :
    15/04/2013
  • If Europe unites Britain will be sucked in too; whether we are inside or outside EU structures is pretty irrelevent. I can see only two possibilities for the UK to keep its full sovereignty in this context

    1. Cuban style isolation from the outside world.
    2. Stop Europe uniting. (A traditional British foreign policy aim by the way until the Americans started meddling in European affairs).

    Since these two options are unviable I would suggest all hands to the pump, getting as far up Brussels' arse as possible and bloody well staying there.

    By :
    Andrew F
    - Posted on :
    16/04/2013
  • Eddie-99, I'm afraid politics is not a soap opera; the future of Europe isn't decided according to which "family" Frau Merkel invites at her place. Once again it's not the USA here, nor the middle ages: it's not out of scrutening Merkel's agenda and checking the list of her guests (at whatever gala she's been giving) that you'll start understanding any stake at hand within the political debate and negotiation bargaining at hand in Europe.

    The simple fact you only have this to explain why Britain is so important to Europe (and apparently implored to remain such a close friend of us in the EU) is telling of the lack of arguments existing for such distribution of roles in Europe at the moment, regarding the UK’s current situation. Actually it tells more of your insecurity in fact on whether Britain is "well" looked at (from Berlin as from Washington, the UK seems only able conceiving esteem or alliance through a relationship between a slave and a master). But maybe that’s because their performances hasn’t much more to offer than the most hit countries of the current financial crisis (with Britain loosing AAA, triple dip recession, 30% devaluation of the pound, the UK doubling its public debt and unemployment in only 5 years…).

    It really seems in your view the UK stands next to Merkel like Scandinavia, Benelux or Austria! Are there still newspapers of some sort left in the UK because, in terms of GDP per capita, (as you mention it) but also for exports, public finance, competitive workforce, saving mentality, these countries unlike you are all between 20% and 30% above the the EU’s GDP average, while the UK is only after France and Italy (less than 10%) and just before Spain (around average). That may give you a clearer idea of where the UK stands, as far as GDP figures in Europe are concerned, and how an exit of the UK would change them (for the EU27). Even the Eurozone, with such countries as Spain, Portugal, Greece, Slovakia, Slovenia and Estonia has a higher GDP per capita than Britain. Although for trade balance, an EU without the UK’s weak export performances, low industrial production and dependency on importations would surely boost the EU’s surplus figures in terms of commercial balance and expending economy.

    You Brits really don’t understand anything to economics, work ethics and society cohesion than blaming it on the poor, offering everything to wall street hoping for some crumbs of it, persecute the foreigners, gamble in the casino and speculate on the dress Cameron’s wife was wearing (on the front porch of the Chancellor’s house she’s been kindly invited to). No surprise you end up with such improbable reasoning. Wake up, the world has changed since Victoria’s fancy nights-out on the Continent!

    You can repeat again and again everybody dreams about Britain, that it is the ultimate land of opportunities and respect of human rights, that everybody is fighting in Europe to keep you aside, you are apparently the ones having a problem with us. It’s you who’s arguing to make a “new settlement” in a club no one asked you to become a member of, in the first place. If therefore you only have rebates, opt-outs and cuts to offer ( as well as, la di da, your own membership), you really don’t understand Merkel is using you as a miserable pawn for her strategy, and nobody is currently looking for any solution the UK may feel inspired by, as this country looks quite obviously to any European today in tatters!

    By :
    uk-skeptic
    - Posted on :
    16/04/2013
  • Philip Royle, Regarding their attachment to deregulating finance, tendencies to back American interests in Europe (sometimes hostile), generally leading a fight for a merchandised, materialist and "entertainment" society (when it isn't for the abrogation of human rights), the UK's influence in Europe should always be welcome with at least circumspection, you might understand (whether before, while or after their membership to the EU). Efta before membership, opt-outs meanwhile, who-knows-what afterwards, that’s all the more suspicious enough for any Europeans to express some doubts about whatever imput Britain may be capable of in the EU (or out of it).

    Let me tell you that one of your main party (actually also in government currently in London) is seating alongside with the Czech, Polish and Hungarian Neo-Nazis in the European Parliament issuing laws in my country too. That simple fact is already enough for me to have a say on euractiv.com on the opportunity or not to have Britain in the EU, my country is also part of . Live with it.

    By :
    uk-skeptic
    - Posted on :
    16/04/2013
  • UK-sceptic - your anti UK attitude is in your genes, not in your reasoning or intelligence. I can't waste any more time debating with you, I'd rather talk it through with someone who doesn't invent facts and half truths.

    By :
    Eddie_99
    - Posted on :
    16/04/2013
  • Eddie-99: if your facts and truths are lying in Merkel's invitations at her house, I won't be indeed very helpful to you

    By :
    uk-skeptic
    - Posted on :
    16/04/2013
  • Well said Eddie. trying to get sense out of UK.Skeptic is a waste of time.

    By :
    Philip royle
    - Posted on :
    16/04/2013
  • You say that cause you never have anything better to say Mr Royle.

    By :
    uk-skeptic
    - Posted on :
    16/04/2013
  • Why do "flat earthers" always have to trade insults with all and sundry and each other? Galileo has been said to say "eppur si muove".
    We are living in Europe such as it is now. Whether we seek after lost empires or look to the new millennium if we carry on discussions like this we will be more like "disgusted Tunbridge Wells" than Socrates would have liked us to be.

    Perhaps we ought to come to some open air place of refreshment to meet, and enjoy hearing and saying our points of view in mutually relaxed and friendly circumstances. That's the beauty of living in Europe - anywhere, and not in N. Korea, that splendid paragon of the logic of Nationalism.

    By :
    Roberto
    - Posted on :
    16/04/2013
  • Roberto, I think there are many facts that Socrates would have liked the british people to be more informed with than it currently appears to be. Maybe some more contradicting reactions and challenging perspectives would do some good to the European debate in the UK, as on many other subjects.

    No doubt in North-Korea nobody ever dares expressing any form of contradiction of the slightest degree and everything you can read seems, like you say, as if everybody was rejoicing in peace and harmony relaxing friendlily when exchanging opinions. Frankly, I feel more secure in a little more conflictual debate (as long as it doesn’t become personal, which I shouldn't think has so far happened). Nothing ever came out of the sterile easy cheesy phony world of mutual relaxation and political correctness; you seem to call for (unlike Socrates).

    Reality isn't always beautiful but you won’t make it much better through trying to escape it. If you confront it, question it, attack it, maybe you find something better on the way (with a bit of luck). Though if you refuse confrontation because you are afraid and you prefer instead playing as everybody would live dancing together with animals, you won’t make reality any better, for sure.

    By :
    uk-skeptic
    - Posted on :
    16/04/2013
  • I'll drink to that. Far be it that we should follow St Francis of Assisi with his love for brother Animal! That would be going too far...But we need to pursue our liberty as you say to engage with each other in constructive dialogue.

    By :
    Roberto
    - Posted on :
    16/04/2013
  • cheers to constructive dialogue and may the light come out of conflict.

    By :
    uk-skeptic
    - Posted on :
    16/04/2013
  • Eddy-99 You sound very absolute on your attitudes to those despicable foreigners the other side of the Anglo French straights of Calais...Experience from the lives of great men suggests that it's very useful sometimes to pick up the best ideas from wherever they come. Mussolini was great at running the train timetable; Hitler extremely orderly in arranging for armaments manufacture; Stalin was great at political manipulation; Scargill and Thatcher were paragons of peace loving confrontation. We do need to operate a system that safeguards the rights of the majority to leave off minorities and by and large the Conventions have much to commend themselves to us as citizens.
    What else did these Romans ever do for us?

    By :
    Roberto
    - Posted on :
    18/04/2013
  • Hi Roberto, being half Belgian, and having spent much time living and travelling all over the world, including much time in Europe, and speaking 3 languages, I don't feel under qualified to join this discussion. I mostly like Europe and Europeans, its just that I don't see the need to consult a friend every time I need to make a decision. In the same vein I don't agree with Brussels being the seat of power for each and every European country. If the issue is forced, by federalism or some other system, I will always choose to leave the EU rather than stay.

    By :
    Eddie_99
    - Posted on :
    18/04/2013
  • Unfortunately it may appear that many of the Engels believe that Brussel is the abhorrent seat of power (and the Capital of Europe - and that Europe is over there!) not even realizing that the Strassburg Judges - of Human rights - (Le Conseil de l'Europe) do not work or live there and as far as it goes, pace the Nice Treaty, are separate organizations.

    Much confusion is engendred by the complex nature of the European Institutions and the relationships with Central Governments and among regions (that cannot be news in the political make up of the Royaume des Belges). Indeed the "Federation of the Belgians", that last vestige of the Holy Roman Empire (and Luxemburg), has the dubious honour of hosting the majority of EU intitutional baggage.

    Please do not believe that we have that much of a different view on this grossly overstated attitude towards "Brussel" which is prevalent in British media. We should take more of an interest in such matters in order to see more clearly what is and what is not myth.

    My fundamental standpoint is that as citizens we should assent to have real safeguards against the "state" and beware of those, who like brere rabbit in Uncle Remus's story, seek others to alarm us of that "there briar bush". Belgium as Europe's capital; no thanks - we have 27 already!

    By :
    Roberto
    - Posted on :
    18/04/2013
Theresa May
Background: 

A potential British exit from the European Union came to the top of the political agenda after Prime Minister David Cameron said that Britain must use the upheaval created by the eurozone crisis to forge a new relationship with the European Union.

Britain has negotiated a number of opt-outs from key EU policy areas since its accession in 1973. The country is not part of the eurozone and has not signed the free-border Schengen Treaty and does not want to abide by a number of EU police and judicial cooperation rules.

On 23 January Cameron promised to offer Britons a simple ‘in/out’ referendum choice on whether to stay in the European Union if he wins the next election, scheduled for 2015.

More on this topic

More in this section

Advertising

Videos

Video General News

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Video General Promoted 3

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Advertising

Advertising