Liverpool FC Forum

by **maypaxvobiscum** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 7:36 am

be warned, boring topic

Human Rights Act 1998
- this, correct me if im wrong, was Labour Party's idea during the elections? as the constitution of UK is largely unwritten, the HRA gives the people a form of recognizing their rights. an example would be the case of Ghaidan v Mendoza which resulted in the definition of the word "spouse" being altered to allow homosexuality. one issue i have with the HRA is that it screws up judical precedent. the judiciary are supposed to, as far as it is possible to do so, interpret the law in such that its compatible with the european law. so if a case were to be brought up in a lower court, they can always stray away from the precedent set about by the House of Lords (now abolished) cant they? but the main issue here is my second point which is, would i be wrong to say that it was just a political motive to lure more votes for Labour by Tony Blair?

European Union
- according to some websites ive read, they are rather critical of UK being part of it as it has caused more pain then pleasure. an example would be how UK are quickly losing their sovereignty and that household expenditures has increased since. what are your thoughts guys? would you prefer a Conservative government?

by **Bammo** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 12:23 pm

I'm gooing to try and give short answers so nobody gets too bored :laugh:

First point: It probably was a political move to lure more votes but that's the type of parliamentary system we have now. Votes are won more on media reports than actual policy. Let's face it, how many people base their votes on what they read in the tabloids more than what they (don't) read in the manifestos?

Because our constitution is unwritten it is always good to clarify things in statute so that there is equal justice for all. Again, negative aspects get publicised. A criminal using the HRA to escape punishment makes the front pages but the many people benefiting from it go unmentioned.

2nd point: We live in a global economy and isolationist policy (typically proposed by the BNP, UKIP etc.) could be a big mistake in the long run. EU trade agreements can be beneficial although it is important that we have strong representation by our MEPs. That doesn't necessarily mean they need to be of a different party, just that they will stand firm on what is right for the UK.

There's typically opposition to the EU from papers like the Daily Mail because it is seen as the UK losing control over its policy. The other objection they tend to highlight is the amount of money going to and from the EU. As the UK is one of the most prosperous nations (despite the recession :laugh:

) it is natural that we will not benefit greatly from the EU. Why do it then? Because if we can aid the lesser countries and increase their productivity and economies we can then be in a better position to trade at more efficient levels. Helping them can, in the long run, help us further.

As for a Tory Government? Dear God no! There seems to be a theory among voters that because Labour is so bad the Tories must therefore be the saviours. I doubt that very much. To be honest, all 3 main parties have drifted so close together there is little difference in their approaches. What this country needs is a Labour Government that represents the workforce and a Tory Government that represents the affluent classes. Then they reach a compromise to benefit the majority. Currently we have 3 parties all vying for middle class votes and damning everyone else.

by **Dundalk** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 12:29 pm

Well FWIW I think Kuyt will have an excellent season and will prove to...........wait a min, wrong thread......I'm way out of my depth here

*Leaves thread..quietly* :lookaround

by **roberto green** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 12:38 pm

Dundalk wrote:Well FWIW I think Kuyt will have an excellent season and will prove to...........wait a min, wrong thread......I'm way out of my depth here

*Leaves thread..quietly*

yeah Kuyt should have a good season........

hold the door for me....

tip toe

:shifty

by **maypaxvobiscum** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:27 pm

Bammo wrote:I'm gooing to try and give short answers so nobody gets too bored

First point: It probably was a political move to lure more votes but that's the type of parliamentary system we have now. Votes are won more on media reports than actual policy. Let's face it, how many people base their votes on what they read in the tabloids more than what they (don't) read in the manifestos?

Because our constitution is unwritten it is always good to clarify things in statute so that there is equal justice for all. Again, negative aspects get publicised. A criminal using the HRA to escape punishment makes the front pages but the many people benefiting from it go unmentioned.

2nd point: We live in a global economy and isolationist policy (typically proposed by the BNP, UKIP etc.) could be a big mistake in the long run. EU trade agreements can be beneficial although it is important that we have strong representation by our MEPs. That doesn't necessarily mean they need to be of a different party, just that they will stand firm on what is right for the UK.

There's typically opposition to the EU from papers like the Daily Mail because it is seen as the UK losing control over its policy. The other objection they tend to highlight is the amount of money going to and from the EU. As the UK is one of the most prosperous nations (despite the recession ) it is natural that we will not benefit greatly from the EU. Why do it then? Because if we can aid the lesser countries and increase their productivity and economies we can then be in a better position to trade at more efficient levels. Helping them can, in the long run, help us further.

As for a Tory Government? Dear God no! There seems to be a theory among voters that because Labour is so bad the Tories must therefore be the saviours. I doubt that very much. To be honest, all 3 main parties have drifted so close together there is little difference in their approaches. What this country needs is a Labour Government that represents the workforce and a Tory Government that represents the affluent classes. Then they reach a compromise to benefit the majority. Currently we have 3 parties all vying for middle class votes and damning everyone else.

thanks for the response. yes you do have a point with regards to the media for they have a penchant for bad news. one case study we did was the one with regards to the Afghani guy who hijacked his way to UK and attained refugee status despite committing a series of crimes along the way. this is the one where Tony Blair went against convention and criticized the judiciary.

i read with regards to the economy and its said that UK makes more profit when trading with the USA compared to trade with the entire of Europe. and Japan apparently have loads of trade with the UK too.

i honesty dont know much about parties in UK but isnt BNP the one which is rather racist?

by **Bammo** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 7:27 pm

Yeah the BNP tend to have somewhat questionable policies.

They gain votes though by playing up the evil EU taking over Britain card, implying voting for them is patriotic. Again it's people voting for tag lines and one-liners rather than reasoned policies.

Liverpool FC Forum

Law - Of the uk and eu

Who is online