Daily Telegraph: UK ‘should withdraw from European Court of Human Rights’


呢班保守黨人,特別啲疑歐派,瘋狂程度己經去到黐孖筋嘅地步。我覺得唔係總部喺法國嘅歐洲人權法庭嘅問題,歐洲人權法庭都係用Case Law,唔少非歐盟國家,包括香港法官都會將ECHR判例擺入去。

講嚟講去,就係為咗滿足有啲保守黨頑固硬膠果挺落後,不知所謂人權觀,例如囚犯一定無得投票,或者為英國國民分等級之類等,不惜唔尊重歐洲一向體制。只不過呢班硬膠無睇到係,除非喺EU Accession of ECHR之前搞掂個「公投鎖」,否則ECHR英國保留乜條文,唔簽乜條文都好,最後成個歐盟都會係行一式一樣嘅ECHR條文。


14 則迴響

Filed under 英國與歐洲

14 responses to “乜話,退出ECHR,呢啲乜膠建議嚟㗎

  1. 一向唔支持保守黨。攪經濟攪唔掂就走去學BNP,一貫作風。

  2. Tony

    退出埋歐盟呀笨! (到時本BC護照可能無左歐盟字樣…你話會似乜呢?)

  3. James


  4. Smith

    我估倫敦政府不會退出歐盟。因為30 years rule,National Archives Office in Kew garden有晒當年申請入EEC的files可供參考。
    其實依家係England好似回到工黨係1979倒台咁。1. 大力cut 政府budget;2. 大力cut immigration (Margaret Thacther一上台叫Home Office立即推出THE WHITE PAPER, British Nationality Law: an Outline of Proposed.); 3. England回到grammer Schools年代;4. 不加入Euro zone等等……當然,New Labour內部係有問題,但亦唔見Tory有乜新ideas。

    我個人認為現在Tory只係「抄汵飯」。希望David Cameron抄埋Poll Tax咁就……哈哈

  5. Dick Ma


  6. 不留名

    如果英國退出ECHR, 咁香港持有BNO, 想爭取居英權的人就好大鑊。

  7. Ricky

    EU BN(O)我申請?

  8. one


  9. Felix Cheung

    英國應該唔會退出EU, 咁樣對佢冇乜JETSO! 不過conversative party做出黎d野真係睇到我好火滾!

    d膠越黎越多, 同法國軍事合作(等係國會俾人插), cut budget, 連education都cut, 唔知對住佢笑好定喊好! Li一切行為好individualistic, 英國一句係行collectivism, 佢咁樣落去, David Cameron唔洗旨意做得耐!! 宜家, 仲衰過Gordon Brown年代!!

  10. Rickx

    退出ECHR但係又繼續留係EU? EU肯唔肯俾佢咁做丫,連尊重基本人權都無,我就唔信EU其他成員國會首肯,俾佢留係EU。TORY不嬲都無好嘢做出嚟,咪睇吓佢地呢鋪玩得幾耐咯。打死都唔信英國會退出ECHR 或者EU。

  11. martinoei 黃世澤


    問題係要用ECHR嚟對付BNA 1981,本來己經難度高(因為Opt out一大堆反歧視條款),依家更高,要睇EU Accession之後點炮製。


  12. Bankers' Arms


    尤其係NHS果D改革, GP搾budget睇餸食飯, 唔會好長

  13. Pierre Cheung

    MPs have voted overwhelmingly in favour of a motion rejecting a court ruling that prisoners should be allowed to vote. Skip related content
    The vote was ayes 234, noes 22.

    Dominic Raab, who sponsored the motion, said that it is not pandering to public opinion for MPs to assert their right to make law.

    Today’s vote is not binding on the government.

    The debate was granted by the backbench business committee after widespread disquiet that a European Court of Human Rights ruling will force the British government to give prisoners the vote.

    Justice secretary Ken Clarke has said the government cannot ignore a ruling from the court without exposing the taxpayer to millions of pounds worth of compensation claims from prisoners.

    Under his proposals prisoners serving up to four years in prison will be able to vote in general elections by proxy or by post in their normal constituency of residence.

    Former shadow home secretary David Davis has said the Commons must assert its right to make a decision on whether or nor prisoners can vote.

    At the start of an afternoon of debate on the issue in the Commons, Davis and former home secretary Jack Straw set out their case.

    Davis told MPs it is important not to confuse the rights of free people with those who have had their liberty taken from them for serious crimes.

    He said prisoners have sacrificed not just their liberty but other fundamental rights such as freedom of association.

    “If you break the law, you cannot make the law," he said.

    Davis said the court was “ill-informed" as the UK does not have a blanket ban on prisoners.

    In fact those on remand or convicted of crimes “below the threshold of seriousness" still have the vote.

    “Despite what the justice secretary said the other day, it will be violent criminals, sex offenders and drug dealers who get the vote if we take the compromises that have been aired so far.

    “The government talked about a four year rule, less than four years. Well that would be 28,000 and there are many thousands of very serious crimes, sex crimes and crimes against children incorporated into that. Even one year, there will be thousands of people, many of whom will have committed serious crimes."

    Bernard Jenkin (Con, Harwich and North Essex) said there is “no demand from prisoners for this right" and the issue is “completely irrelevant" to the challenges facing the prison system.

    Davis added that giving the vote to prisoners “would not stop one crime in this country".

    Jack Straw said that there has been a ban in place since at least 1870, and both Tory and Labour government have examined the issue in 1968, 1983 and 1999.

    On all those occasions there was “overwhelming cross-party support" for a bar on prisoners having the franchise.

    He said in 32 years as an MP he has dealt with hundreds of complaints from prisoners but one has ever complained that they cannot vote.

    Straw said the “key problem" is the European convention on human rights was not incorporated into law in the UK, so the court was less likely to give the UK a “margin of appreciation".

    Former home secretary Alan Johnson said one reason tne court gave for the ruling was that Parliament had failed to debate and vote on the issue.

    Straw said that “by no stretch of the imagination" is this about fundamental human rights – it is a matter of penal policy.

    He said the court is trying to set itself up as a “supreme court" for Europe, but unlike such courts in the US or Germany, there is no democratic over-ride of its decisions.

    “We are expected to to do the opposite of what we believe," he said.

  14. martinoei 黃世澤


    1. 唔守ECHR判決係要罰錢,除非英國決定走數。

    2. 如果依家仲係2008年前,英國仲有位走,因為犯ECHR,唔犯ICCPR嘛,問題係同樣以England & Wales法律做基礎嘅香港,張舉能法官一舉指出連ICCPR都犯埋,咁就好頭痕,單案例對英國唔Binding,但帶返本土俾啲QC當彈藥,件事係好頭赤,退出ECHR都未必完全解決問題。我識一個英格蘭律師講係,英國想甩身甩得太遲。



WordPress.com Logo

你正使用 WordPress.com 帳號留言。 登出 / 變更 )

Twitter picture

你正使用 Twitter 帳號留言。 登出 / 變更 )


你正使用 Facebook 帳號留言。 登出 / 變更 )

Google+ photo

你正使用 Google+ 帳號留言。 登出 / 變更 )

連結到 %s