EU Membership Key Demands

[Mawnanian]

The Human Rights Act was passed by Blair and his then shiny happy new Labour To££@^s in 1998 became law in 2000 to comply with EU Human Rights stuff that became legally binding in 2009 with the Lisbon Treaty.So quite difficult to overturn this poorly interpreted law whist in the EU.

Nothing to do with the EU.
The European Court of Human Rights was established in 1959 and all 47 European countries are currently signed up to it (including Russia!!). Originally EU law wasn't covered by it which was a nonsense as all EU countries were individually signed up to the ECHR. In 2009/2010 this was rectified and EU law is now subservient to the ECHR. If we left the EU it would make not one jot of difference.
What the Blair government did with the Human Rights Act was to write the ECHR law directly into British law, meaning that human rights can be dealt with without referring to an outside court. Now that could be repealed, oh, but doesn't it do exactly what is being suggested.

This post suggests we wouldn't need to create it for the UK anyway and that it's already written.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

I don't see what you're getting at there but I think the answer is yes. We're signed up to ECHR whether or not we're part of the EU, in fact thanks to the Blair government we're more closely tied to it than any other EU country as we're the only country that has enshrined it in domestic law.

[-Ralph-]

My insurance doesn't cover me for breakdown anywhere, never mind in Europe.

Doesn't cover me for accident either, it only covers the third party, so I already pay extra to upgrade to fully comprehensive.

The EU directive is there to cover the other person you may crash into, its not there to help you, it's there to ensure people crossing borders do so with the basic level of cover.

Exiting the EU doesn't mean that UK insurance companies will stop offering the current level of cover (to other drivers), it only means they won't be legally obliged to.

I have an annual travel insurance policy, and I've never used my EHIC card.

The argument for any EU law or directive that covers UK services is void, because exiting doesn't mean everyone will stop complying with it, and if it does and that becomes a problem, the UK government can just replace it word for word with a UK law.

This is like deja vu on the Scottish referendum, so much fear of change and misunderstanding of the consequences.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

[-Ralph-]

My insurance doesn't cover me for breakdown anywhere, never mind in Europe.

Doesn't cover me for accident either, it only covers the third party, so I already pay extra to upgrade to fully comprehensive.

The EU directive is there to cover the other person you may crash into, its not there to help you, it's there to ensure people crossing borders do so with the basic level of cover.

Exiting the EU doesn't mean that UK insurance companies will stop offering the current level of cover (to other drivers), it only means they won't be legally obliged to.

I have an annual travel insurance policy, and I've never used my EHIC card.

The argument for any EU law or directive that covers UK services is void, because exiting doesn't mean everyone will stop complying with it, and if it does and that becomes a problem, the UK government can just replace it word for word with a UK law.

This is like deja vu on the Scottish referendum, so much fear of change and misunderstanding of the consequences.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Do you really think that insurance companies will not increase their charges if they can exclude European cover from their policies and offer it as an extra? Come on Ralph, you know better than that.
And of course the UK government will rush to reinstate all the European directives in UK law.

Why do the likes of Bennetts and Carole Nash offer breakdown cover and European fully comprehensive cover as an inclusive part of their policies now? When they don't have to? It's called a market differentiator. Just like legal or helmet and leathers cover. Insurance companies will and do offer extra's, it's one of the most competitive and lowest margin industries we have.

I think the government will reinstate the EU directives that they think have been beneficial. Things like Working Time directive, anything related to Health and Safety in the workplace. There would be outcry if they didn't as would be be seen as a backwards step. Do you really think we are going to drop the driving license categories and go back to a 33bhp restriction for new riders? Of course not, nothing would change, except we'd have more control over what laws we implemented in future, and those would be implemented by an elected government. (Though hopefully we'd drop the stupid stuff like what shape a banana has to be).

[-Ralph-]

Why would we (as a country) want to scrap the ECHR?

If anyone says because they interfere then please go a bit further and say where they physically interfere and how that interference is bad.

Why would exiting Europe mean we have to scrap it?

Just create the UKHR in it's image.

Exactly what Scotland would have done with independence, they wouldn't suddenly have become a lawless country, they'd have taken all the UK laws and republished them with a new name on the front cover, but if they wanted to not republish or change a few, they'd have had that choice.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

[-Ralph-]

The Human Rights Act was passed by Blair and his then shiny happy new Labour To££@^s in 1998 became law in 2000 to comply with EU Human Rights stuff that became legally binding in 2009 with the Lisbon Treaty.So quite difficult to overturn this poorly interpreted law whist in the EU.

Nothing to do with the EU.
The European Court of Human Rights was established in 1959 and all 47 European countries are currently signed up to it (including Russia!!). Originally EU law wasn't covered by it which was a nonsense as all EU countries were individually signed up to the ECHR. In 2009/2010 this was rectified and EU law is now subservient to the ECHR. If we left the EU it would make not one jot of difference.
What the Blair government did with the Human Rights Act was to write the ECHR law directly into British law, meaning that human rights can be dealt with without referring to an outside court. Now that could be repealed, oh, but doesn't it do exactly what is being suggested.

This post suggests we wouldn't need to create it for the UK anyway and that it's already written.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

[Mawnanian]

I'm impressed with your faith in insurance companies and the U.K. Government.
In principle I don't care whether or not we are in the EU. I see that if we were to leave it would be likely to make my life more difficult so I'd rather stay in. The assumption that it would make a difference to human rights law if we left the EU is simply wrong so anyone basing their vote on that assumption should think again though I suspect that most people who bring it up are dyed in the wool anti EU anyway.

[-Ralph-]

I'm impressed with your faith in insurance companies and the U.K. Government.
In principle I don't care whether or not we are in the EU. I see that if we were to leave it would be likely to make my life more difficult so I'd rather stay in. The assumption that it would make a difference to human rights law if we left the EU is simply wrong so anyone basing their vote on that assumption should think again though I suspect that most people who bring it up are dyed in the wool anti EU anyway.

It's not faith in insurance companies, it's market forces. Insurance companies are in competition with each other, they are not friends, they are not going to club together over a beer one night and say, hey lads, lets all drop this European Cover and keep all our prices the same OK? If one drops it they'll only do that because it makes their policy cheaper and hence more attractive to some than the other companies.

It's not faith in the government either, it's political forces. Can you imagine the outcry if the working time directive for example was dropped? Health and Safety? The government wouldn't want the bad press that would come with reducing regulation on that, in what is supposed to be one of the most advanced western countries in the world.

[Crossrutted]

If they start giving the UK what they demand, other EU countries will start demanding stuff then the whole EU will fall apart. Germany can't allow that to happen.
quote]

From where I've been sitting, many countries have "demanded stuff" and got it!

Some other countries just pay lip service to the rules but take what they want.

We have played the game badly, we need to become more streetwise, we have the economic clout, so should use it. (thumbs)

Stay in and make "Johnny Foreigner" pay!!

[misterlaffer]

I have yet to see a list of valid reasons to stay in the EU. In the media I seen plenty of reasons to come out of the EU, but have never actually seen one single firm reason to stay in. Bosses of M&S and the like all start discussing in business terms and how worse off we will be, but they can never actually quantify this in real terms to the man on the street.

WILL IT HELP THE NHS TO STAY IN - NO !
WILL IT HELP THE JOBS SITUATION TO STAY IN - NO!
WILL IT HELP THE IMMIGRATION PROBLEM TO STAY IN - NO!

My point is the man in the street can easily see the down-side of being part of the EU, but cannot see the plus points in real terms that really affect them. Who the f*ck cares if M&S will benefit, most people can't afford their stuff anyway! Do we get BMW and Audi's any cheaper - NO, the UK Governments 20% VAT is not set by the EU.

We are repeatedly told it's a benefit, but no-one really knows why, can anyone that doesn't own a business explain why in real terms ? Do we really have to listen to their scare tactics?

If you listen to these people it sounds like we could in no way survive as a nation without input from Brussels. Utter, Utter rubbish.

[Tim Cullis]

I wonder whether those in charge of the 1973 UK entry into the EEC had any inkling of the direction this body would take, expanding from 9 with UK, Ireland and Denmark, to now 28 with Albania, Montenegro, Macedonia, Serbia and Turkey waiting in the wings and three more lined up after that.

I wish Cameron well in his negotiations. The French and Germans want the referendum in 2016 so as not to interfere with the French presidential and German federal elections in 2017. So if I was Cameron I would be holding that over them. Even so I really doubt whether Cameron can bring enough guaranteed changes to the table in time (our referendum has to be before December 2017).

There's going to be a lot of arguing whether we will be better off financially in or out of Europe, but I think the real issue for many people is sovereignty. Also the unaccountability of Brussels/Strasbourg (why do they need two parliament buildings?), the perceived gravy train, and their inability to get their accounts signed off.

An awful lot would have to change before I would consider voting to remain in the EU.