The United Kingdom and the EU: European Law

The next stop on the debate is the claim that by leaving the EU we would be free to govern ourselves and would no longer be shackled by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) or any of the laws the EU come up with.

LEAVE

One of the more popular areas of conversation I have had relates to the 'fact' that leaving the EU will set British citizens free from EU laws and will guarantee our sovereignty and national identity. Leaving will enable us to break free from the shackles with which the EU binds us.

The European Union has no military might and none of the member states are occupied by force, or consent - it is not federal (even though that Naughty Ted Heath had that in mind when he duplicitously took the UK in to it!) and has no overarching government either - just a talking shop!

There are both the European Commission and the European Council, but the UK plays a major part in the debate and deliberations of both. So what is the root of this desire to break free from the chains of unwanted legislation?

Could it be Boris Johnson's bent banana and square strawberries (not a metaphor for his naughty bits) and the claim that peanuts must have "contains nuts' labels (mind you, might be useful on the door of the House of Commons) have helped people to think that we are wasting millions on silly legislation?

Perhaps it's the fact that (as me dear old Dad used to say) the EU makes the UK comply with laws whilst the rest (with Dad it was always Italy) just ignore them, subsidise their companies and act in a generally dodgy manner.

Generally this 'freedom'  is about sovereignty and parliamentary powers - we are not the masters of our own nation - which is the reason Henry VIII booted Rome out and created the CofE - so why should there be any doubt that this is a right move? Why should we let Johnny Foreigner meddle with us and our laws? After all, the European commission creates all sorts of directives, demands and laws; all of which we have to implement. If we were free then we would be the masters of our own destiny - Rule Britannia and all that stuff.

The same goes for all that civil rights tosh - the stuff that stops us acting as we see fit rather than toe the line because a load of liberal, tree-hugging types say so (a quote from a conversation with a 'Better Out' person). If we want to send a terrorist to the US then we should be able to - anything else is against our security and sovereignty.

Yes indeed - we are better off out because then, "We will be free to act however we want with no one to tell us what to do!" (another quote).

STAY
The first response has to be to quote that last statement:
"We will be free to act however we want with no one to tell us what to do!"

I hate to say it but it sounds like something a child might say when baulking against parental influence - but then again, if we could have divorced ourselves from our parent, wouldn't that have made our life great? We could have done whatever we wanted with no interference or comment - sounds like hell rather than heaven to me!!!

But  let's not get personal - let's look at facts:
first and foremost with regard to EU directives and laws, these have to be to be approved by the council, and voted on in the EU parliament and Britain plays a major part in this - it has a voice that is heard and (generally) respected . If we were to leave and yet still seek to do trade with the EU (our biggest market) then we would need to comply with EU laws and regulations. But being outside we would merely receive them rather than shape or influence them - so what we have is no less a submitting to EU legal things, merely a removing of any power to influence them.

With regards to human rights - we were one of the founders of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and even were we to leave the EU, we would still be bound by its ruling. As to being freer, who in their right mind would want to see anything that protects their human rights limited? Surely a no-brainer of a question!

Bottom line is that to leave does not take away the warrant of law or the decision handed down by European Courts of Justice or Human Rights, it merely takes away any potential for our nation shaping them. Seems to me to be a negative rather than anything positive in this area of consideration.

Vote whatever you like
BUT
You'll still be subject to decisions made here!

Discrimination and Blasphemy - strange bedfellows

Just noticed some comments from someone I rather enjoy reading and from them realised that there is a blog entry missing. Not only that but it's not even saved as an edit so I can't repost it (now ehere and how did it go I wonder?) Still, here's a bit of late night food for thought (and a bit of a regurg' of former, now lost, post.

I was rather interested in the case of the four Brit's who recently (4th Sept I think) went to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) with claims of discrimination against them causing them to lose their jobs.

The four were:
Nadia Eweida - British Airways and the banning of her wearing of a cross
Shirley Chaplin - acted against by an NHS trust for the same reason
Gary McFarlane - sacked by Relate because he had problems giving sex therapy advice to homosexual couples, and
Lilian Ladele - a Registrar who faced disciplinary action over her refusal to conduct same-sex civil partnerships.

What we have here is a mixed bag and the reality is that there is an obvious inconsistency in the way that people react to situations. I heard of a person who said they couldn't work in a shop's meat department because they were vegetarians and so, they were moved. Transpose this into Ms Ladele's situation and immediately the responses change and attitudes harden and this demonstrates that some are more equal than others!

The real issue is the situation when rights clash. That moment when one person's equality renders someone less equal and the reality is that my right to believe as I do has to remain a right and that which I understand to be right (or wrong) in terms of lifestyle is something I should be allowed to have as a basic right. The problem comes when that right I have acts against another's right and this is where the facile, "Let's agree to differ," crashes and burns. This is what makes the case before the ECHR so interesting and potentially important (and law-changing too!).

But (always a 'but' isn't there) what gives me more than just a little concern is those who are seeing in the ECHR cases an opportunity to make that which should be protection (let use the word 'defensive') more proactive (and here the word 'offensive' springs to mind in more contexts than one) and this leads us to a situation where abuse of that hitherto 'defence' makes it something it wasn't and shouldn't be (an example being Rimsha Masih's 'blasphemy case - this law being used to silence critics and be used as a weapon against those who think or believe differently, which is exactly where we're going with the ECHR cases).

I think it was Keith Porteus who spoke about the cases saying that if they (the Christians) won their case there would be a hierarchy established where the Christians would find themselves at the apex with the others (homosexuals) somewhere below. The problem is that blasphemy laws, like those which seek to prevent persecution and discrimination are excellent until there is a (often thinly) veiled self-interest and then we're in that place where rights clash - and all see their particular lifestyle (with or without belief) as the overarching rights.

Would that we could live in a tolerant society where we could hold our views and practice our beliefs without turning everything into a fight for supremacy. I work to dialogue and engage with people, even though we differ, and try to understand their side of the equation and put mine - the problem is that being in a faith group here puts us on the same unsafe ground as being in a different faith group in Pakistan - both are sad and both are wrong.