Politics, politics, politics

[r-u-s-x01]

What about losing one's right to not incriminate oneself, something that just about every democracy in the world considers sacrosanct and a means to protect the public against torture by the state?

Trying to find a bit more on this via Google and only found

The concept of right to silence is not specifically mentioned in the European Convention on Human Rights but the European Court of Human Rights has held that

the right to remain silent under police questioning and the privilege against self-incrimination are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6.[15]

 

[scaramanga]

You'll have to make that a bit simpler for me to understand mate. So if I get nicked, I can't just say "no comment" to everything? I'm not following.

Trying to find a bit more on this via Google and only found

The concept of right to silence is not specifically mentioned in the European Convention on Human Rights but the European Court of Human Rights has held that

the right to remain silent under police questioning and the privilege against self-incrimination are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6.[15]

There was a case of speeding when the driver refused to incriminate himself and the police had no other evidence.

They tried to coerce a confession with the whole "We'll massively increase the penalty if you don't admit it" flimflam.

I'm paraphrasing as it's a long time since I read the judgement, but the finding went along the lines of "Speeding is just about the most dangerous thing there is to society, so we think it's OK to remove the freedom to not self-incriminate"

 

[r-u-s-x01]

There was a case of speeding when the driver refused to incriminate himself and the police had no other evidence.

They tried to coerce a confession with the whole "We'll massively increase the penalty if you don't admit it" hogwash.

I'm paraphrasing as it's a long time since I read the judgement, but the finding went along the lines of "Speeding is just about the most dangerous thing there is to society, so we think it's OK to remove the freedom to not self-incriminate"

OK so you were in support of the EU rights in this case, wasn't sure.

Another example
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saunders_v_United_Kingdom

There was a case of speeding when the driver refused to incriminate himself and the police had no other evidence.

They tried to coerce a confession with the whole "We'll massively increase the penalty if you don't admit it" hogwash.

I'm paraphrasing as it's a long time since I read the judgement, but the finding went along the lines of "Speeding is just about the most dangerous thing there is to society, so we think it's OK to remove the freedom to not self-incriminate"

 

[scaramanga]

OK so you were in support of the EU rights in this case, wasn't sure.

Another example
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saunders_v_United_Kingdom

They're clearly not EU rights if the EU waives them whenever it fancies it.

I don't believe we need the EU to give us rights and we certainly don't need their mission creep as in employment and environmental law.

 

[r-u-s-x01]

They're clearly not EU rights if the EU waives them whenever it fancies it.

I don't believe we need the EU to give us rights and we certainly don't need their mission creep as in employment and environmental law.

A little confused, example shows a case where the UK went against the right not to incriminate themselves and EU law enforced it.

 

[r-u-s-x01]

OK found this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6251936.stm

But this is agreeing uk law? So leaving the EU would make no difference in this case? Seems an odd example of being a member of the EU takes away your right to silence.

 

[monkeybarry]

We could do that anyway.

The only "real world" thing I can think of that the EU prevented our nation from doing was being in total control of immigration, due to the free movement of people from the EU. I couldn't care less about voting on curved bananas or whatever boiled the p1ss of the average retired general.

I get immigration as an issue, I really do. But I'm personally not arsed about it. However, I am bothered about economic upheaval and the potential of being worse off.

The problem being, I can't think of a UK for 15 years that I'd trust to get this right.

I voted remain not out of a love for the EU (although I am going to miss the opportunity freedom of movement offered me) but because all the issues being talked of don't start with the EU, they start with poor quality politics in the UK and that needed greatly improving before having this referendum.
But then it's the British way to blame everyone for our own shortcomings

 

[scaramanga]

A little confused, example shows a case where the UK went against the right not to incriminate themselves and EU law enforced it.

OK found this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6251936.stm

But this is agreeing uk law? So leaving the EU would make no difference in this case? Seems an odd example of being a member of the EU takes away your right to silence.

We can change the UK law, we can't change EU rules.

It's fairly simple to lobby a local MP to go and make a difference - I have done on a couple of occasions as a representative of my company. To do the same with the EU is so close to impossible as to make it indistinguishable.

 

[r-u-s-x01]

We can change the UK law, we can't change EU rules.

It's fairly simple to lobby a local MP to go and make a difference - I have done on a couple of occasions as a representative of my company. To do the same with the EU is so close to impossible as to make it indistinguishable.

OK, forgive me if I misunderstood but you stated

'What about losing one's right to not incriminate oneself, something that just about every democracy in the world considers sacrosanct and a means to protect the public against torture by the state?'


How has the EU done this if it upheld a UK law. Does the fact that it was a UK law mean that we don't hold that right sacrosanct?

I have also provided a case where echr protected this right when the UK went against it. So the EU holds this right higher than we do?

In this specific case if UK law protected these rights (we can get them changed by lobbying) then I can't see a situation where EU would overturn them.


Seems to be you are arguing to leave in order to make our own laws while arguing that the EU should have overturned a UK law

 

[scaramanga]

OK, forgive me if I misunderstood but you stated

'What about losing one's right to not incriminate oneself, something that just about every democracy in the world considers sacrosanct and a means to protect the public against torture by the state?'


How has the EU done this if it upheld a UK law. Does the fact that it was a UK law mean that we don't hold that right sacrosanct?

I have also provided a case where echr protected this right when the UK went against it. So the EU holds this right higher than we do?

In this specific case if UK law protected these rights (we can get them changed by lobbying) then I can't see a situation where EU would overturn them.

The EU overturned its own laws, why wouldn't it do the same for ours?

There's a huge difference between a law you don't like but have direct influence over and one that is beyond the reach of even our government, let alone individuals.

 

[r-u-s-x01]

The EU overturned its own laws, why wouldn't it do the same for ours?

There's a huge difference between a law you don't like but have direct influence over and one that is beyond the reach of even our government, let alone individuals.

So we have not lost the right to not incriminate ourselves as we don't hold it sacrosanct, sorry to labour the point but the statement was rather powerful.

'What about losing one's right to not incriminate oneself, something that just about every democracy in the world considers sacrosanct and a means to protect the public against torture by the state?'

I have only done a little reading as your mention is the first I have see of this. But it was uk courts that used the reason that dangers of speeding were more important, echr judgement says

'Judges, acknowledged that both men had faced compulsion to provide information, but threw out their claim that the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate oneself are "absolute rights".

Their judgement noted that people "who choose to keep and drive cars" have implicitly "accepted certain responsibilities" under UK law.

This includes an obligation to name the driver of a vehicle after a road traffic offence has been committed.'

So we have full control over this law as it is enforcing UK law

 

[r-u-s-x01]

As an aside is it not a good thing that our government are held to a number of rights that we have agreed to, ones that are not easily changed by writing to your MP?

Are we looking to leave echr? Last I saw we are not planning on doing this.

Bananas and stuff is ECJ and if we want to remain in the single market would probably have to keep these rules as do the likes of Norway

 

[milo]

I'd be interested in how people would rank the following in order of importance:

Sovereignty
Immigration
Economy

 

[Baleforce]

I'd be interested in how people would rank the following in order of importance:

Sovereignty
Immigration
Economy

The economy is by far the most important thing, and the governments primary responsibility, it's the foundation on which everything else is done.

Immigration is really important to the UK, we have major domestic skill shortages to compensate for.

Sovereignty, couldn't give a toss, i'm no more influential in one system than the other in reality.

 

[the dza]

I'd be interested in how people would rank the following in order of importance:

Sovereignty
Immigration
Economy

1. Economy - we need jobs and money
2. Sovereignty - but lets have an elected upper chamber and do away with the monarchy too. We don't want any unelected people deciding our laws do we?
3. Immigration - the least important of the 3 to me.

 

[r-u-s-x]

I'd be interested in how people would rank the following in order of importance:

Sovereignty
Immigration
Economy

In general or in the context of BREXIT?

 

[StephenH]

Economy




















immigration






Sovereignty (make britain great again?)

 

[Gutter Boy]

I'd be interested in how people would rank the following in order of importance:

Sovereignty
Immigration
Economy

Sovereignty is absolutely the essential one. Healthy society needs to be two things - liberal and democratic. You can't have these without sovereignty, it's what gives you the power to choose.

Economy is functional. The choices having a sovereign government gives you allows you to pick different managerial solutions.

Immigration is a tool of the economy - again a sovereign government can put options to the electorate every 5 years on this.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Sovereignty (make britain great again?)

Sovereignty is making sure local elected officials hold the power, rather than a distant self-anointed priesthood. So the decision-makers are accountable.

 

[Gutter Boy]

2. Sovereignty - but lets have an elected upper chamber and do away with the monarchy too. We don't want any unelected people deciding our laws do we?

A bit tangential, but...

You can't have a directly elected second chamber. It just causes deadlock. Look at how Obama was thwarted in all his noble reforms (healthcare, gun control). My preferred solution would either be similar to the Irish upper house (representatives elected from within the professions e.g. 10 doctors, 10 teachers, 10 lawyers etc.) or something like the Nordic Council (Commons becoming the English Parliament and Lords becoming a 4-nation UK chamber with a slightly different focus).

With the monarch, the queen has no power other than to be able to dissolve parliament and call a new election. I can't support hereditary privilege, but I've never heard a better solution to keeping that one power away from politicians.