If you were elected PM today, what would you do?

[Virgin Mary]

What would Canada do? Fight us with the army owned by the Queen which just happens to be situated in their country. Oh no.

[Concentric2]

What would Canada do? Fight us with the army owned by the Queen which just happens to be situated in their country. Oh no.

The Queen is their head of state, yes, but she doesn't control their armed forces.

[Virgin Mary]

The Queen is their head of state, yes, but she doesn't control their armed forces.

lolol, my dear, the Queen is the armed forces!

[Frodo13.]

lolol, my dear, the Queen is the armed forces!

Its more of a symbolic thing if Im being honast.

[Virgin Mary]

Its more of a symbolic thing if Im being honast.

http://delivery.viewimages.com/xv/57...5A1E4F32AD3138
POWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[FlyingJesus]

And I would think my A Level Law course would be quite informed too. European COURT of Justice. ECJ is basiclly an appeal court, and there decision for one case will effect the decisions of all similar cases in EU. I dont know if you do law, but this is called the ratio decideni.

And the ECHR. Im presumming you mean the European Convention of Human Rights? Yeah, they made the law for European Human Rights. But without that, we wouldnt have things such as freedom of speech etc. And it is because of the ECHR Britain passed a Human Rights Act in the first place.

I don't like to resort to calling names or anything, but you sir are an idiot. Yes the ECJ is a court, well done, but the laws it upholds are EU laws, which are created outside of the UK and legally overrule UK law. As for no freedom of speech without the ECHR.. just no. The HRA was passed due to ECHR law yes, because it had to in order to comply with Europe. Common sense my boy, do you use it?

In [i think] 1950, Britain was the first country to sign the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and since 1966, the British people have been able to pursue complaints in the European Court of Human Rights.

Because of the large amount of breaching of the ECHR in UK, goverment wanted the ECHR to be incoporated into the British Legal System. So, in 1998, the Labour Party drafted a bill incorporating the ECHR and passed it through parliament. Because of this bill, Britain now deals with most breaches of the ECHR.

So in responce to you, Yes, we do have our own rights bill. But we only have this because the ECHR was causing massive problems for our goverment, as cases can only be put againt public authority in the European Courts of Human Rights.

What's this got to do with the fact that Europe has the power to overrule any of our laws with their own? And you mention that we only have it because we had problems with ECHR - that surely just suggests that we have been forced to change our laws in compliance.

The Queen is their head of state, yes, but she doesn't control their armed forces.

Technically the head of state can reclaim such bodies as the military, so she could if she wanted.


Edited by Yoshimitsui (Super Moderator): Please don't be rude to other members.

[Frodo13.]

I don't like to resort to calling names or anything, but you sir are an idiot. Yes the ECJ is a court, well done, but the laws it upholds are EU laws, which are created outside of the UK and legally overrule UK law. As for no freedom of speech without the ECHR.. just no. The HRA was passed due to ECHR law yes, because it had to in order to comply with Europe. Common sense my boy, do you use it?

Yes, I know ECJs precendents bind our and the rest of EU lower courts, but what Im trying to say is that the ECJ wouldn't just create a law, for example, it couldn't just decide to ban alcohol in Europe. I do however know that the decisions it makes in the ECJ binds all lower courts in the UK

What's this got to do with the fact that Europe has the power to overrule any of our laws with their own? And you mention that we only have it because we had problems with ECHR - that surely just suggests that we have been forced to change our laws in compliance.

I made that post in responce to Undertaker, who said we would have a Human Rights Act despite the ECHR. Imo, I dont think we would.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yes, I know ECJs precendents bind our and the rest of EU lower courts, but what Im trying to say is that the ECJ wouldn't just create a law, for example, it couldn't just decide to ban alcohol in Europe. I do however know that the decisions it makes in the ECJ binds all lower courts in the UK




I made that post in responce to Undertaker, who said we would have a Human Rights Act despite the ECHR. Imo, I dont think we would.

So without a Human Rights Act, we'd be killing people for no reason? Utter rubbish.

We are civilised.

[Rasq]

i would kill habbo owners and give myself 99999999999999 creds and mod powersS!!!!!!11

[iluv2spam]

*text removed*

Edit by mattmeister (Forum Moderator) - Please do not post racist remarks.